Balance in the 1861 Scenario

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

What really bugs me in both SC-WAW and SC-US-Civil is "Spying and Intelligence" tech. It's a game breaker when exploited. In SC-US-Civil, tech in general a game break. The South cannot afford anything. North can max Infantry weapons (even add 2-chit to get the last level) + Spying and Intel. It's impossible for South to afford, but they must do same thing. then North can have double line of Units to upgrade, while South cannot afford.

Virginia turns into a parking lot of Union infantry. The South has no Army of Virginia which should 100,000 well trained dudes stack with Lee + other leaders.

[battlevonwar]

Ultimately all these arguments vary from the point. If The South can be Steamrolled in 1862 which I have not successfully seen countered by anyone in any AAR then who would want to play the game. Prove a counterplay or alter the scenario to make it balanced or people won't play it.(cause it's boring)

So it requires 2 guys of even skill to go head to head. I have a challenge up with my Union beat them. Nobody has taken it cause I think we all know the answer(nobody can) ... and I figured that out in 3 games! 2 Hotseats.(people suggest a lot of things but they will have to be shown to work to prove the point, I proved my point nobody has proven theirs so my point stands, the Union is a Juggernaut and the South is a Pretty Little Flower in a White Dress)

[Bobo2025]

I think the Garibaldi event is a big problem for balance. The main weakness early war for the Union was a lack of quality leadership which Garibaldi alleviates. Not only does the Union get a top-tier leader they get free units - that god knows they do not need. There is functionally no downside to this as the European outrage is rather easily tapped down with the blockade. I love the "what if..." aspect to a degree but moving forward I am house ruling out selecting it.

I think forts should spawn at 5 but should be reinforceable to 10. This would reflect additional garrisoning that you could do and might make it at least slightly challenging to take higher-value locations like NOLA.

I think the CSA should start not with Cavalry Equipment or Tactics at 1 but Scouting at 1. The CSA cavalry was mostly used for and most valuable as reconnaissance. In general the fighting value of cavalry at scale in the ACW was pretty poor in my memory. Still, having scouting would allow the CSA some intelligence and mobility edge early on which does reflect the feel of that early phase of the war.

[PvtBenjamin]

What really bugs me in both SC-WAW and SC-US-Civil is "Spying and Intelligence" tech. It's a game breaker when exploited. In SC-US-Civil, tech in general a game break. The South cannot afford anything. North can max Infantry weapons (even add 2-chit to get the last level) + Spying and Intel. It's impossible for South to afford, but they must do same thing. then North can have double line of Units to upgrade, while South cannot afford.

Virginia turns into a parking lot of Union infantry. The South has no Army of Virginia which should 100,000 well trained dudes stack with Lee + other leaders.

Exactly. The max on most researches should be 1 and the total max has to be much less than 4000. The North gets 500+ more MPP per turn with double chits and 4000 total max there is no way the South can keep up and will lose quickly in MP games. The south should also start with more chits invested at the beginning of the game like 1 for fort modernization and others.

A friend of mine's wife saw Elvis in concert in the early 60's she said multiple women literally passed out, amazing entertainer.

[PvtBenjamin]

I think the Garibaldi event is a big problem for balance. The main weakness early war for the Union was a lack of quality leadership which Garibaldi alleviates. Not only does the Union get a top-tier leader they get free units - that god knows they do not need. There is functionally no downside to this as the European outrage is rather easily tapped down with the blockade. I love the "what if..." aspect to a degree but moving forward I am house ruling out selecting it.

I think forts should spawn at 5 but should be reinforceable to 10. This would reflect additional garrisoning that you could do and might make it at least slightly challenging to take higher-value locations like NOLA.

I think the CSA should start not with Cavalry Equipment or Tactics at 1 but Scouting at 1. The CSA cavalry was mostly used for and most valuable as reconnaissance. In general the fighting value of cavalry at scale in the ACW was pretty poor in my memory. Still, having scouting would allow the CSA some intelligence and mobility edge early on which does reflect the feel of that early phase of the war.

All good ideas. The Italian dude starts as strong as ole Stonewall, makes no sense. Like the idea on forts & research.

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

I'm an uninformed Yank who grew with TV American History. Who's this dude Garibaldi? Sounds like a Chessmaster, Grand Prix Driver or Classical Music guy. Just googled, don't see he was on US soil for the war between the states. My private opinion: European intervention was a pipedream (aka poker bluff). England already went two rounds with the Yanks. French were burned out & went soft after Napoleon. Spain was broken & had enough colony problems. What am I saying? The European Intervention might not be real (just my thought).

Moving forward, what's the solution for the Grand Campaign Multi-player? For the A.I., maybe intermediate mode is fun. I'm a MP person. I guess there could be a new edited separate scenario whipped up to get some balance. Personally, I want to see "Army Counters" upto 100,000 troops that can overrun Brigades. Army Counters can also have reaction settings such as "retreat" when enemy Army approaches to avoid major conflict. Some "Cat & Mouse" in Virginia. Also, like to get rid of all the hard coding of "4-hexes", "10-hexes", etc. Union was East of Fredericksburg early in war, doesn't changed anything (why? I don't think it changes Europe's mind, because they were busy).

Anyhow, something positive will evolve in the game as smarter people than me will fix things. I'll wait.

Meanwhile, it's Advanced Squad Leader for me. Love all the maps and endless scenarios. Only problem is my old eyes need magnifying glasses to read the card counters.

[battlevonwar]

Yes Garibaldi with the Extra Tech you get is a Level 9 by Summer of '62

Grant a Level 8...

This very OP for the Union.

[eightroomofelixir]

I think the Garibaldi event is a big problem for balance. The main weakness early war for the Union was a lack of quality leadership which Garibaldi alleviates. Not only does the Union get a top-tier leader they get free units - that god knows they do not need. There is functionally no downside to this as the European outrage is rather easily tapped down with the blockade. I love the "what if..." aspect to a degree but moving forward I am house ruling out selecting it.

Agree with the Garibaldi one. One of the early major issues the Union needs to face is the lack of good generals, while this choice solved it once and for all.

Additionally, IIRC the biggest force Garibaldi ever commanded is about 25000± men, which indeed translates him to a Crops-level commander, but not an Army-level commander similar to the "Commander" units in the game. I'd say the Garibaldi event should only bring Union the two Brigades and nothing more.

[metabagel]

For me, the combination of taking St. Louis and saying "YES" to the Garibaldi decision was that Kentucky seceded from the Union. Kentucky didn't like the Emancipation Proclamation.

The Garibaldi decision actually seems to keep the European countries out of the conflict, because they agree with the Emancipation Proclamation.

[battlevonwar]

I do not think that people thought out the Garibaldi Event plus the fact that if you get France going, the Union can backstep France easy. There is an event that Knocked her Out of coming to war I found in hotseat(I didn't check the scripts on this) so I don't think think France ever joins if the Union takes precautions. If she has a good chance of joining over Garibaldi, that could be a game changer. People may not take it. That or Kentucky Spawns in on the side of the cSA with 3 Divisions, 2 Brigades an HQ and 1 corp? Maybe 1 Cavalry + Gunboat or 2... Then Ohio/India are directly threatened as well as West/Virgnia/St.Louis and no Union wants this... It's a free for all for the CSA to go on the offensive with or without a Napoleon coming in 1862

For me, the combination of taking St. Louis and saying "YES" to the Garibaldi decision was that Kentucky seceded from the Union. Kentucky didn't like the Emancipation Proclamation.

The Garibaldi decision actually seems to keep the European countries out of the conflict, because they agree with the Emancipation Proclamation.

[PvtBenjamin]

This game was supposed to be the American Civil War and somehow deviated into Italian Generals, European involvement, Native American Involvement with a map that includes Mexico, Central America & Caribbean for modders. The PBEM was supposed to be balanced and its not close(anyone playing?), I'm not sure the game knows what it wants to be.

[BiteNibbleChomp]

Garibaldi will be weakened in the upcoming patch

- BNC

[OldCrowBalthazor]

This game was supposed to be the American Civil War and somehow deviated into Italian Generals, European involvement, Native American Involvement with a map that includes Mexico, Central America & Caribbean for modders. The PBEM was supposed to be balanced and its not close(anyone playing?), I'm not sure the game knows what it wants to be.

I'm playing PBEM CSA. My opponent is of equal skill. He didn't pick Garibaldi and I kept my cotton stockpiles so my income in early 62 is quite high so far.
Its on YT both opponents. Since our turns are scheduled out for FoW reasons mine go up 1 day, his the next, mine the following etc...it will be awhile to see where we are doing currently as I post this.

No spoilers except to say there are strategies the CSA can employ to hurt the Union badly early on. I seen it done in Blue and Grey Beta.
I agree for MP its going to be real hard as things stand for the Confederates but its possible to get the Union into the area of 60ish FS while the CSA is in the 90ish FS range by late 1862 to early 1863.

The problem is that we have two games here. SP and MP. In my opinion, too many changes to MP will make SP a lark in the park. (It is for me anyways even on Veteran in tests)
I have suggested, as have others, that maybe the solution is to have a MP only Blue and Grey Campaign that's tweaked.
Don't really know what has to be tweaked exactly. I guess I like things difficult.

Do agree Gariboldi is OP. I see BNC is on top of that, and other things.

[battlevonwar]

Quite nice to know I do not think that he was meant to be without a consequence. The manual stated you have a 'high chance of influencing France is sort of secretive way' but that doesn't happen to a point of bringing France actually in.

Garibaldi will be weakened in the upcoming patch

- BNC

[battlevonwar]

I am eager to see what is going to happen here. Really eager! I really uses Garibaldi personally to grind down the Confederate Objective Regions. My opponent did also ... I would find it very difficult to see the Confederates to hold onto the Central Regions, I mean that is some "ripe" territory to really pin down. Seems it's inevitable that the Union will make some headway here and easily capture some very high 'value' FS.

This game was supposed to be the American Civil War and somehow deviated into Italian Generals, European involvement, Native American Involvement with a map that includes Mexico, Central America & Caribbean for modders. The PBEM was supposed to be balanced and its not close(anyone playing?), I'm not sure the game knows what it wants to be.

I'm playing PBEM CSA. My opponent is of equal skill. He didn't pick Garibaldi and I kept my cotton stockpiles so my income in early 62 is quite high so far.
Its on YT both opponents. Since our turns are scheduled out for FoW reasons mine go up 1 day, his the next, mine the following etc...it will be awhile to see where we are doing currently as I post this.

No spoilers except to say there are strategies the CSA can employ to hurt the Union badly early on. I seen it done in Blue and Grey Beta.
I agree for MP its going to be real hard as things stand for the Confederates but its possible to get the Union into the area of 60ish FS while the CSA is in the 90ish FS range by late 1862 to early 1863.

The problem is that we have two games here. SP and MP. In my opinion, too many changes to MP will make SP a lark in the park. (It is for me anyways even on Veteran in tests)
I have suggested, as have others, that maybe the solution is to have a MP only Blue and Grey Campaign that's tweaked.
Don't really know what has to be tweaked exactly. I guess I like things difficult.

Do agree Gariboldi is OP. I see BNC is on top of that, and other things.

[PvtBenjamin]

This game was supposed to be the American Civil War and somehow deviated into Italian Generals, European involvement, Native American Involvement with a map that includes Mexico, Central America & Caribbean for modders. The PBEM was supposed to be balanced and its not close(anyone playing?), I'm not sure the game knows what it wants to be.

I'm playing PBEM CSA. My opponent is of equal skill. He didn't pick Garibaldi and I kept my cotton stockpiles so my income in early 62 is quite high so far.
Its on YT both opponents. Since our turns are scheduled out for FoW reasons mine go up 1 day, his the next, mine the following etc...it will be awhile to see where we are doing currently as I post this.

No spoilers except to say there are strategies the CSA can employ to hurt the Union badly early on. I seen it done in Blue and Grey Beta.
I agree for MP its going to be real hard as things stand for the Confederates but its possible to get the Union into the area of 60ish FS while the CSA is in the 90ish FS range by late 1862 to early 1863.

The problem is that we have two games here. SP and MP. In my opinion, too many changes to MP will make SP a lark in the park. (It is for me anyways even on Veteran in tests)
I have suggested, as have others, that maybe the solution is to have a MP only Blue and Grey Campaign that's tweaked.
Don't really know what has to be tweaked exactly. I guess I like things difficult.

Do agree Gariboldi is OP. I see BNC is on top of that, and other things.

Thank you for the response. I've played SC Europe PBEM for probably five years and I can assure everyone there is no one more dedicated to making a quality product than this team. I know you guys will figure it out, its just a little frustrating to start out. The game of course has to have historical relevance but I think most people want to a PBEM where the South can win. I only play Allies in the Europe game and you take a beating for 3-4 years but have the possibility of turning the tables and winning. I can't imagine playing a game where you just take a beating the whole game but can hold out certain areas to win. Maybe a separate PBEM game that's balanced? Thanks again.

[Edorf]

Better make a balanced MP scenario than to mess up the AI. I don’t care about the MP part but I hope Fury will further develop the singleplayer part of the game.

[PvtBenjamin]

Better make a balanced MP scenario than to mess up the AI. I don’t care about the MP part but I hope Fury will further develop the singleplayer part of the game.

It seems to be the consensus to keep the AI game historical. Should be easy to also offer the historical version on MP. Not sure how much work it is but I think many people will also want a MP that is ALT history and balanced. Personally I think a much smaller map more towards (not completely) Sickle Cut in the Europe game, that may be too complex. At least even up the MPPs, HQS, research, FS etc in the current version.

[bullet911]

So after a few MP games which I'm still playing, not sure on the dates but there late 62 mid 63 and so far holding all boarders and a small bridge head in Kentucky, holding a good line 2-3 hexes away from Washington and about to start a strong push in the far west to Santa Fe. (don't forget about a possible California column) MPP is around 1200 per turn

general thoughts from the confederates side

Double chit infantry weapons ASAP and again once you have lvl1 then Corps (do 1 chit per turn)
Buy as many brigades as you can until force pool is finished then divisions and what ever strategy your going with.
Block fort Monroe and as soon as you have siege artillery and divisions take it down.
1 match I did invest 2 chits in fort modernisation, while it did help somewhat felt it could put to better use in other research early on
Don't advance far into Missouri at the start because once the state guard fall all the units supply lines will be cut... depending on DE event (this probably wants looking into)
Once all fronts are stable, them supply convoy ports (Probably all ports ) MUST be garrisoned ASAP with units on them or next to it where possible landings will take place, use Brigades and then Divisions when there available if you can spare them on the more important ones.
Don't upgrade every unit with scouting as it isn't necessary, cavalry will help you with that and the confederates start with an advantage in tech.
Only attack when the opportunity presents its self until you have the reserves behind the line to counter attack, the union have to push somewhere and done right will grind them down taking the casualties.
If you loose the ports and can't take them back its a long slippery slope.

hope this helps people playing as the confederates rather than them just falling back once the match gets going.

[LoneRunner]

So after a few games which I'm still playing, not sure on the dates but there late 62 mid 63 and so far holding all boarders and a small bridge head in Kentucky, holding a good line 2-3 hexes away from Washington and about to start a strong push in the far west to Santa Fe. MPP is around 1200 per turn

general thoughts from the confederates side

Double chit infantry weapons ASAP and again once you have lvl1 then Corps (do 1 chit per turn)
Buy as many brigades as you can until force pool is finished then divisions and what ever strategy your going with.
Block fort Monroe and as soon as you have siege artillery and divisions take it down.
Don't advance into Missouri at the start because once the state guard fall all the units supply lines will be cut... depending on DE event (this probably wants looking into)
Once all fronts are stable, them supply convoy ports (Probably all ports ) MUST be garrisoned ASAP with units on them or next to it where possible landings will take place, use Brigades and then Divisions when there available if you can spare them on the more important ones.
Don't upgrade every unit with scouting as it isn't necessary, cavalry will help you with that and the confederates start with an advantage in tech.
Only attack when the opportunity presents its self until you have the reserves behind the line to counter attack, the union have to push somewhere and done right will grind them down taking the casualties.
If you loose the ports and can't take them back its a long slippery slope.

hope this helps people playing as the confederates rather than them just falling back once the match gets going.

Great advice. Thanks Bullet.