Balance 2 META Thread

[battlevonwar]

Again I am in a game, I didn't quite bring my A game, I have been one step behind my opponent as the CSA but 1 step ahead I don't think I could really even push a clever Union opponent long. I have never lost a Union game on any level. Even if I don't bring my A game as the Union I can almost pretty much throw in 20-30 more Units into the MeatGrinder and come out smelling like a Rose. Historically there were ramifications to killing off Union Boys and trust me the North was considering peace at the likelyhood of losing their boys at such a level. Including sacking Lincoln.

As it stands:

By Fall of '62 the CSA income is about 800-850 cause she can't hold her ports(Union should have 1100-1300 by this point depending and that will eclipse over 2000-2200 in '64)..

This is somewhat historically accurate but not fun. I have done it to opponents and had it done to me.

You give me your Best CSA Player with 100 PBEM Games in Betatesting and I'd bet $100 on beating him right now and I've played 7 PBEM games and several hotseats to test things out. That's how confidant I am... Being an intermediate level player. That's how confidant I am in winning the game.

He might dream up some gamey swing around the Union Flanks in Maryland(doesn't work if you react) or some gamey amphibious landing, that won't work either. Though I will just take his ports in 1 year(all of them but 1) and camp his forces till I ought weight them and steamroll them.

(you need to outline different victory conditions for the CSA and make the Ports a little bit of a Challenge most of them held out past the first year of the war)

[battlevonwar]

3 years ago I read 1500-2000 pages of The American Civil War and this was not a Trench Warfare clear cut onesided affair. At the time there were moments when The Union was in Despair. The Will to fight in the North was strong but that was starting to wane with loss after loss that is not represented in game. Until Antietam - Gettysburg Grants Push through Tennessee things were bleak. Cause these were tiny gains in an otherwise long and tedious protracted war.

The South was likely always going to lose with their lack of Grand Strategy and Lack of Unity but in a game of this scale you can't really rely on slowing down the North and taking a Victory or inflicting too many casualties and using this to push the Will to Fight off... Or holding enough Real Estate to force Lincoln voted out.(not that, that was going to happen ever without complete error after error)

People wrongly assume that the Civil War was about The Union throwing 2 Xs the bodies(that would of created riots and unrest in the North) into the fray and relying on that as a victory. The North could not afford to do something as foolish as this and rely on a Victory and some may say that Sherman's run through Georgia is what gave Lincoln the Election.

Lee's Victories really can't be replicated either in game as costly in lives as they were which give no long term gain anyway if they can be achieved. I would suggest some alterations :::


1. South using various random Ports to get imports ...

2. Lee/Jackson are rated Higher for a portion of the game to free up CSA resources to make decisions in '62 and '63 on where they may choose to defend or attack...

3. Put a cap on Union Fighting Spirit, so if she is reckless with her men she loses the will to fight or morale. . .

4. Objective cities be moved around a bit...

Any combination of the above and then make for different victory conditions... This would add realism and more interest in an otherwise stale gameplay. I wouldn't suggest allowing for the CSA due a gamey maneuver that doesn't fit history.

The above in a way does if it can be implemented. . .

I would like others to chime in other their viewpoint?

(P.S. Limit Marines usage till later...put garrisons in Northern and CSA Cities on some tiny level and place more emphasis on a CSA Minor victory giving one side something to fight for, like performing better than historically)

[battlevonwar]

Left his ports almost alone awhile Raided them poor well which left him a surplus of MPPs as the CSA. I only caught up with the Trades in men in the last 6 months of the war before that he had a lot higher kill ratio. I didn't really need to take his ports till 1863(left Galveston open, Mobile, Jacksonville, Charleston and Savannah open most of the game and only raided about 1500 MPPs until 1862-1863) yet weight up numbers ... I thought I should include this as two equally skilled players in this particular game shows that I always knew that with 2000+ MPPs by 1863 I can just manhandle him through any frontline I want.

At a point I was up 2 losses to his 1 and in history that would of gotten me some pretty despicable words from my leadership. The Union was pushed to 'achieve' and not at the cost of every arm and leg. My Fighting Spirit has been pretty despicable but it simply doesn't matter... His Corps will never eclipse mine. . . I have more of 'everything' and in this game I am building Big Ships, Ironclads for the fun and giggles.

(As bad as I played I really should be behind but I don't think that even playing this bad a Union Player can lose, ask the opponent)

The leadership gap isn't not for very long for me. . . I started to Plow Virginia from 1863 to 1864 1 step at a time and he killed 20-30 units but I just rebought them and he couldn't do a thing about it. I call this my bleed 'em strategy as you can see I have more money than I know what to do with and and Fighting Spirit doesn't matter nor does really taking CSA Ports(that just makes winning faster)

[eightroomofelixir]

IIRC historically one thing that kept the Eastern Theater relatively stable (or in a state of back-and-forth without a major breakthrough until Grant's maneuver towards Petersburg) was that both sides rarely annihilated or completely routed their opponents.
Most of the time, with/despite heavy casualties, the Union and the Confederates could retreat with the bulk of fighting forces and potentially fight again with them; the Armies may lack morale, but not coherence. Even after the Union routing in the First Bull Run/Manassas, many deserted soldiers later re-joined the Army in D.C. Similarly, winning significant battles hardly grants a breakthrough - your opponent was still on the field.

If the rhythm of the IRL Eastern Theater was "confrontation-maneuvering-battle-retreat-repeat", then the in-game Eastern Theater is "confrontation-battle-annihilation-reinforce-repeat".
Many have pointed out the lack of maneuvering spaces in the East and I don't have more to add. On the other hand, under the current mechanics, units are very easy to be destroyed without entrenchments; retreating is hardly an option because it will cost you entrenchment levels and make you hurt more. Even for an attacking players, since the game favors stay-and-attack more than move-and-attack, they would also sit a while before the attack.
As a result, the players are incentivized and encouraged to sit in a line for months. This turns the Eastern Theater into semi-trench warfare with high annihilation rates, and a decisive breakthrough will follow once a line is broken.

It is not easy to figure out how to tweak the current engine to provide a more genuine feeling of the ACW; while I wonder if making all the units much harder to kill would change the game pace for the better. And it would grant the Confederate player some safety nets for holding towards 1865, as the Union could not easily punch into North Carolina just by sheer force every time.
(This change might also need to be accompanied by reducing the overall number of units to avoid a complete congestion of unkillable units - in any case, it's not easy to suggest a standalone change that would still work at this stage.)

[battlevonwar]

I catch your drift as far as game mechanics, the 40% adjacency bonus? I think it's that high is quite hard to resist. The only way around it is to pack in 3 or 4 deep and steamroll... If your opponent can do this you can always push right through Virginia North Carolina... And early in the game...depending!

In the Civil War Generals hesitated... Many did want to pursue and destroy(Lincoln was not happy with the fact Meade did not pursue the retreated Rebels and destroy them on more than one occasion not just there and by later on in the war entrenchment was being used a lot more than in the early days at least by certain Generals) perhaps it was impossible but I doubt this. I think after Gettysburg in particular Meade could of wiped the Confederates from the field and pursued as they retreated. I think it was a lot harder for the Confederates to do the same vs the Union as the numbers were always so in favor of the Union. Grant fought a series of battles like this which were high casualty but effective ultimately again and again...

Entrenchment might be nicer to have a tech of it's own later in the game. When things did get stale at least entrenchment bonuses in places where it could be used I don't think it was as effective the West with the wide open terrain. . .

IIRC historically one thing that kept the Eastern Theater relatively stable (or in a state of back-and-forth without a major breakthrough until Grant's maneuver towards Petersburg) was that both sides rarely annihilated or completely routed their opponents.
Most of the time, with/despite heavy casualties, the Union and the Confederates could retreat with the bulk of fighting forces and potentially fight again with them; the Armies may lack morale, but not coherence. Even after the Union routing in the First Bull Run/Manassas, many deserted soldiers later re-joined the Army in D.C. Similarly, winning significant battles hardly grants a breakthrough - your opponent was still on the field.

If the rhythm of the IRL Eastern Theater was "confrontation-maneuvering-battle-retreat-repeat", then the in-game Eastern Theater is "confrontation-battle-annihilation-reinforce-repeat".
Many have pointed out the lack of maneuvering spaces in the East and I don't have more to add. On the other hand, under the current mechanics, units are very easy to be destroyed without entrenchments; retreating is hardly an option because it will cost you entrenchment levels and make you hurt more. Even for an attacking players, since the game favors stay-and-attack more than move-and-attack, they would also sit a while before the attack.
As a result, the players are incentivized and encouraged to sit in a line for months. This turns the Eastern Theater into semi-trench warfare with high annihilation rates, and a decisive breakthrough will follow once a line is broken.

It is not easy to figure out how to tweak the current engine to provide a more genuine feeling of the ACW; while I wonder if making all the units much harder to kill would change the game pace for the better. And it would grant the Confederate player some safety nets for holding towards 1865, as the Union could not easily punch into North Carolina just by sheer force every time.
(This change might also need to be accompanied by reducing the overall number of units to avoid a complete congestion of unkillable units - in any case, it's not easy to suggest a standalone change that would still work at this stage.)

[Soulcollector]

There may be no easy solutions for rebalancing the game (especially in MP). But here are some suggestions from my side:

If the Union takes a port, then the MPP from that port should be "rerouted". So if there is any other port open, then the CSA still gets half the MPP. Also fortifications should get more Hitpoints with better tech.

Similar to the boost of russian NM 1943 in WiE the CSA could get a FS boost every year (still not defeated/Fort Sumter anniversairy) of about 5000 points.

If the Union chooses Garibaldi then the Trent incident gives a boost to all european nations (15-20%) or at least there is a chance for a boost depending on if Garibaldi is Commander in chief or just a general.

A new event, where Lincoln will not be reelected. The chance for that could be depend on how many FS goals the CSA/Union hold. That would force the Union to be more offensive/risky.
If Lincoln is not reelected then the Union must take richmond till the end of the year or the war ends / victory for CSA.

[Platoonist]

There may be no easy solutions for rebalancing the game (especially in MP). But here are some suggestions from my side:

If the Union takes a port, then the MPP from that port should be "rerouted". So if there is any other port open, then the CSA still gets half the MPP. Also fortifications should get more Hitpoints with better tech.

Similar to the boost of russian NM 1943 in WiE the CSA could get a FS boost every year (still not defeated/Fort Sumter anniversairy) of about 5000 points.

If the Union chooses Garibaldi then the Trent incident gives a boost to all european nations (15-20%) or at least there is a chance for a boost depending on if Garibaldi is Commander in chief or just a general.

A new event, where Lincoln will not be reelected. The chance for that could be depend on how many FS goals the CSA/Union hold. That would force the Union to be more offensive/risky.
If Lincoln is not reelected then the Union must take richmond till the end of the year or the war ends / victory for CSA.

I like a lot of these ideas. However, the game's developers went into a lot of detail in the strategy guide as to why they didn't want the 1864 election to be a factor in the game.

1864.jpg (706.3 KiB) Viewed 820 times

[battlevonwar]

Platoonist,

this is understood! However I played Rambo and he won a CSA Minor Victory but only because I missed a Port, literally I didn't read the rules, of course it was a fun long game... I had lost 120+ Land Units to his 90 losses at this point, I bled myself on his forces to the point where I was throwing away units. There was no consequence at all for this(My fighting spirit seemed fine as did my morale/readiness). I do not think it's historically accurate that the North bleeds itself white for no real cost and that's precisely what it can do. When you're around 1864-1865 when peacetalks are happening, elections and you have tossed 200,000 or 400,000 more bodies on the fire I wonder should you be punished? Doesn't seem like these little Hexagon Boxed Units are real when you can toss em away? At least at a Corp and Divisional level? Maybe 1 in 3 Units that get evaporated by bad choices should come with a proper punishment?

~Despite my MUCH higher Union Losses his Fighting Spirit was tanking and had I taken 1 or 2 more objectives even without key ones he'd of fallen below 10% for certain. I think I had him near 15-18%

~My Fighting Spirit was still in the 30s, and I was getting a lot units killed out of supply. But Real Estate in the game matters not lives meanwhile in history I imagine the Union People would of got up in arms at the kind of kill ratio we were sporting even if some escape/paroled/captured/died of disease... still you can't toss 200k in the trash bin and get away with it, not in America. We should have a punishment for this attrition warfare for the Union to a point?

With 2000 MPPs per turn at late game level the Union just hits "rebuy" and magically these units reappear soon. . .

[Platoonist]

Platoonist,
~Despite my MUCH higher Union Losses his Fighting Spirit was tanking and had I taken 1 or 2 more objectives even without key ones he'd of fallen below 10% for certain. I think I had him near 15-18%

~My Fighting Spirit was still in the 30s, and I was getting a lot units killed out of supply. But Real Estate in the game matters not lives meanwhile in history I imagine the Union People would of got up in arms at the kind of kill ratio we were sporting even if some escape/paroled/captured/died of disease... still you can't toss 200k in the trash bin and get away with it, not in America. We should have a punishment for this attrition warfare for the Union to a point?

That might be part of the problem. If I understand the current Fighting Spirit rules correctly, in addition to seizing land objectives, you also derive FS bonuses from destroying enemy units and ships. But suffer zero penalties from heavy losses of your own. It seems like it shouldn't just be a one-way street.

[battlevonwar]

The situation works like this, units out of Supply that are destroyed have a FS Score on them. Boats it's pretty huge(you lose a few ships you really get hit hard) you also lose FS due to raiding from what I understand and other factors like events. I have lost 10 corps as the Union on frontal assaults and I really lose zero FS. Now they were in full supply so the system calculates though destroyed those men merely reformed with say like 25% casualties and a lot of lost officers just the men deserted or were routed. But to a point I think this should cost more. . .

Platoonist,
~Despite my MUCH higher Union Losses his Fighting Spirit was tanking and had I taken 1 or 2 more objectives even without key ones he'd of fallen below 10% for certain. I think I had him near 15-18%

~My Fighting Spirit was still in the 30s, and I was getting a lot units killed out of supply. But Real Estate in the game matters not lives meanwhile in history I imagine the Union People would of got up in arms at the kind of kill ratio we were sporting even if some escape/paroled/captured/died of disease... still you can't toss 200k in the trash bin and get away with it, not in America. We should have a punishment for this attrition warfare for the Union to a point?

That might be part of the problem. If I understand the current Fighting Spirit rules correctly, in addition to seizing land objectives, you also derive FS bonuses from destroying enemy units and ships. But suffer zero penalties from heavy losses of your own. It seems like it shouldn't just be a one-way street.

[BiteNibbleChomp]

That might be part of the problem. If I understand the current Fighting Spirit rules correctly, in addition to seizing land objectives, you also derive FS bonuses from destroying enemy units and ships. But suffer zero penalties from heavy losses of your own. It seems like it shouldn't just be a one-way street.

It's not a one-way street at all. Every point of damage that your units take, attack or defend, will reduce your FS by the corresponding MPP value. So if you attack with a corps (cost 450) and suffer 4 points of damage, that's 180 FS lost. Not a huge amount in isolation, but it adds up quickly - a bloody late game turn can top 3000 MPPs in losses, and that's just one turn!

Also, I have represented the Union's need to not take too many losses in the game already: the Union starts with 20k less FS than the CS, and the CS gets +500 from Richmond every turn. To counter that Richmond factor, the Union has to control about a state and a half just to break even. Trading casualties even 1:1 against the Confederacy without making meaningful progress geographically will wear down the Union's FS quite a bit quicker than it will the Confederacy's.

- BNC

[Platoonist]

It's not a one-way street at all. Every point of damage that your units take, attack or defend, will reduce your FS by the corresponding MPP value. So if you attack with a corps (cost 450) and suffer 4 points of damage, that's 180 FS lost. Not a huge amount in isolation, but it adds up quickly - a bloody late game turn can top 3000 MPPs in losses, and that's just one turn!

Also, I have represented the Union's need to not take too many losses in the game already: the Union starts with 20k less FS than the CS, and the CS gets +500 from Richmond every turn. To counter that Richmond factor, the Union has to control about a state and a half just to break even. Trading casualties even 1:1 against the Confederacy without making meaningful progress geographically will wear down the Union's FS quite a bit quicker than it will the Confederacy's.

That's good to know. So then, do very heavy losses make purchasing units more expensive? It seems long casualty rolls would depress voluntary recruiting, so a nation would have to rely more on drafts, cash bounties and incentives, or even outright impressment at some point. Of course, that's something the North could afford far more easily than the South.

[BillRunacre]

That's good to know. So then, do very heavy losses make purchasing units more expensive? It seems long casualty rolls would depress voluntary recruiting, so a nation would have to rely more on drafts, cash bounties and incentives, or even outright impressment at some point. Of course, that's something the North could afford far more easily than the South.

Only in the sense that heavy casualties = having to spend more MPPs on rebuilding your units.

[Bobo2025]

That might be part of the problem. If I understand the current Fighting Spirit rules correctly, in addition to seizing land objectives, you also derive FS bonuses from destroying enemy units and ships. But suffer zero penalties from heavy losses of your own. It seems like it shouldn't just be a one-way street.

It's not a one-way street at all. Every point of damage that your units take, attack or defend, will reduce your FS by the corresponding MPP value. So if you attack with a corps (cost 450) and suffer 4 points of damage, that's 180 FS lost. Not a huge amount in isolation, but it adds up quickly - a bloody late game turn can top 3000 MPPs in losses, and that's just one turn!

Also, I have represented the Union's need to not take too many losses in the game already: the Union starts with 20k less FS than the CS, and the CS gets +500 from Richmond every turn. To counter that Richmond factor, the Union has to control about a state and a half just to break even. Trading casualties even 1:1 against the Confederacy without making meaningful progress geographically will wear down the Union's FS quite a bit quicker than it will the Confederacy's.

- BNC

Even despite this as the Union I always go for any 1:1 loss ratios because the bleed on CSA MPP seems a lot more relevant than the lowering of my FS plus as the Union I have a lot more ways to pummel CSA FS (capturing cities) than the CSA does.