Matrix Games Forums

It may be too late in the game's life cycle to suggest this but now I've played quite a few MP games into 1864+ I'm beginning to feel like everything in the game costs too little in MPP and by quite a lot. For the first three years of the war, MPP are vitally important as both sides try to pump out divisions and corps up to the hard cap which is usually reached in the middle of 1863. After that, MPP's are a total non-factor for the Union who just build random ships of the line since there's nothing else to do with them and to an extent the CSA as well as they can bank through the end of '63 to afford costs in '64/'65. The discounted costs for rebuilding units and reinforcing ensures that both sides will stay at or near the hard cap for the almost the entirety of the game and losses are almost irrelevant, both players are just trying to wipe out units so they have to return to the build queue.

I feel like if MPP costs were increased by 25-50% and the reinforcement discount reduced slightly. (with maybe a couple of divisions put in the build queue for late '61 to avoid having too many holes) we'd get a game much more reminiscent of the Civil war with fighting becoming more concentrated and both sides having to think more strategically about replenishing units rather than just refilling anything that's damaged at the start of the turn.

I may be in the minority here when it comes to units because if a unit is destroyed after combat that is it it is lost for the duration of the game no going back into the build que. No buying it back at a reduced cost and reforming, but then again in my mod you can build Regiments etc.

I agree with a lot that the OP posted. I just finished a game as the CSA and by 1864 I ran out of units to buy that I wanted, and I started researching areas I really didn't need.

Interesting ideas, I'll see what I can do

- BNC

I was surprised to hear that some CSA players are running out of units to buy. That's not been my experience. As a Union player I'm on total offense by the end of 62, both land and sea, with losses on both sides chewing through all available MPPs. For me that's more fun, but I know in ACW that's not the best way to win.

I think the problem in ACW is not unit costs, it's Union strategy. In ACW the North has little incentive to go on the offense in 61 or 62. The South earns 500 FS per turn for Richmond, but meh, that's not enough to encourage an early assault. The game rewards the Union for laying back, researching all upgrades, building all available corps while holding Southern forces at bay. The best Union strategy appears to be building up until early 63 while maintaining a blockade, and picking off enough CSA ports to keep the Europeans out of the war. Yeah, McClellan would have been a crack player.

In the actual war, Lincoln was under enormous pressure to generate immediate results. ACW should do more to punish the Union player for sitting back and building units.

LoneRunner wrote: Mon Sep 12, 2022 5:03 am I think the problem in ACW is not unit costs, it's Union strategy. In ACW the North has little incentive to go on the offense in 61 or 62. The South earns 500 FS per turn for Richmond, but meh, that's not enough to encourage an early assault. The game rewards the Union for laying back, researching all upgrades, building all available corps while holding Southern forces at bay. The best Union strategy appears to be building up until early 63 while maintaining a blockade, and picking off enough CSA ports to keep the Europeans out of the war. Yeah, McClellan would have been a crack player.

Yep I agree, but it is not like this is conscious Union choice. In the first stages, Union income is only barely greater, and they have terrible generals (if we exclude cancer Garibaldi). If you go with weak blockade, it is actually not only 'first stages', but like well into 1863. How does Union even attack with worse troops and without big eco advantage, against equal opponent? No thanks... blockade it is, then, and attack only later with income disparity. And at this stage everyone is maxed out on units, yes.

ACW has default 60% Reformation Cost and 50% Reformation Delay for rebuilding units. Players can experiment with the editor to increase these values and see if it improves the game experience. I sensed a similar unit cost issue over the years with my Advanced Third Reich mod and ended up increasing these values to 80% and 70% respectively. I did not want to change the unit costs themselves, but found these other adjustments worked well. There are several options to consider.

Just wanted to add this to demonstrate the point. This was a fairly one sided PBEM game with an opponent I would describe as competent. There was a CSA collapse in the summer of '63 where I got a very good K/D rate but even so, buying out every possible unit by the end of the third year of the war whilst maintaining full reinforcements and research should not be possible IMO.

I have yet to have an issue with running out of units to buy. It's more not having enough mpp's to buy what I lose. At best you can afford 1-2 new units after providing reinforcements to existing units and keeping up your research. The game boils down to the simple math of killing your enemy's forces faster than they can replace them. Whomever wins this race wins the game. Since maneuver in the East is pretty nonexistent, its all about attrition till your opponent can't hold the line anymore. Out west is the only place you can maneuver and get a real feel for ACW. East coast around DC-Richmond is more reminiscent of WW1.

Of course you can go into the advance settings and select "soft buy" rules that allows you to build beyond the limits.