Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch

[General Quarters]

In population, industrial capacity, railroads, and even the high moral ground, the Union clearly overbalanced the South, and the game should, and in many ways does, reflect that imbalance. How then can the game be playable? Because the South did indeed have a real chance of winning -- primarily because of the difference in political will. The North could lose and still survive; the South could not. The South lost huge chucks of territory and still had plenty of fight in it; the North could not have suffered a comparable loss without moving to negotiate. Peace sentiment rose in the North whenever the two sides were stalemated.

This factor is present in the domestic politics on both sides. The opposition to Jefferson Davis was primarily based on personal dislike, individual ambition, disagreements over personnel and strategy, and states' jealously of even a Confederate central government. It was not a peace movement. The opposition to Lincoln (outside his own party) was primarily a peace movement.

One way to balance is game is not only to be microhistorical (e.g., the correct ratios of northern to southern horses and the like) when possible; but also to be macrohistorical and reflect this larger political reality. One can argue with the mechanism of VPs after Nov 64, but the basic concept is right on target. There was a time-limit on Northern but not on Southern will to fight.

Several other things could be done:

(1) It would reflect political reality for the North to suffer greater losses in National Will for its defeats than the South for its.

(2) From the beginning, there was Northern demand for battle. There was a reason McDowell took his army to Bull Run -- political opinion required it. For every Union general, the clock was always running. The North could be penalized whenever a certain amount of time passes with no battle.

(3) The Northern public expected territory to be conquered. The North might be peanlized if it does not conquer 1 province by a certain point into the war, 2 provinces by a subsequent point, etc.

(4) There was a political cost, reflected in the game, when a general was demoted. The South started with capable generals and therefore rarely, if at all, suffered this penalty. The game reflects that fact. Lincoln paid a political cost in demoting McClellan (who was popular enough that he became the almost automatic Democratic presidential nominee) and even a guy like Rosecrans. In addition, with guys like Banks, Butler, and McClernand, the cost was so great he was not willing to pay it.

Two changes might more adequately reflect this problem in Union command: one is increasing the cost of demoting a general. The cost was greater than offending a single governor. The whole Democratic party immediately embraced McClellan as its next presidential nominee. Prominent Republicans wanted to replace Lincoln with Fremont, who had resigned rather than serve under someone junior. The cost should probably be a reduction in National Will -- at least for the most important figures.

The other is to start these political generals with several stars, so that you either have to suffer their poor command or suffer a serious political cost.

(5) I don't know what the chances were of England and France recognizing the confederacy, but knowledgeable people at the time regarded them as quite real. It was thought that the South had to prove that it was viable and this could be done in either of two ways: by surviving long enough or by winning a major victory on Northern soil. The first might be reflected in the game by adding a clock running so that, if the North does not have certain achievements at certain times, the odds of recognition go up significantly. One would have to define "major victory" and "Northern soil," but odds of recognition could markedly increase in the case of such a victory.

If the Nothern advantage in men and material were offset by these very real political factors, the game would reflect both Northern strength and Northern vulnerability, and should thereby be quite playable. Basically, the South should be able to win a few significant victories while not being able to stop the overall Union advance, with the possibility of that those victories are just enough to survive long enough, to fuel the Northern peace movement, and perhaps to trigger foreign intervention.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: General Quarters
If the Nothern advantage in men and material were offset by these very real political factors, the game would reflect both Northern strength and Northern vulnerability, and should thereby be quite playable. Basically, the South should be able to win a few significant victories while not being able to stop the overall Union advance, with the possibility of that those victories are just enough to survive long enough, to fuel the Northern peace movement, and perhaps to trigger foreign intervention.

You raise some interesting points, but I think you are "overestimating" the effects of "political difficulties" for Lincoln..., and underestimating the role of "logistical" difficulties. And you ascribe all of the political opposition to a "peace movement" when in fact much of it was more of the "you are not prosecuting the war strongly enough" variety. The "radical" wing of the Republican Party and the Abolitionists were very active in making Lincoln's job harder.

Logistically, the Union faces a much more difficult task than the Confederacy. They have to sieze and occupy and defend a huge amount of territory. The South just has to "survive"..., by 1864 more than half of it's territory was occupied and yet the war continued. Given the tasks each side faces, the North needs a considerable superiority in resources just to be "even" with the South in ability.

[General Quarters]

Mike, yes, I think I should have added the logistical, anti-guerilla, military governance burden for the North, which the game reflects to some extent in the "unrest," but the unrest does not really require that large numbers of troops guard supply lines, maintain civil order, etc.

I have wondered whether there should be another kind of unit for the North to build -- occupation units or military government units, maybe provost marshals -- which would cost money just like regular units, and the Union would have to have one in each rebel province or it would stay in unrest.

Alternatively, there could be something like a provost marshal brigade improvement and a brigade with this improvement would have to occupy each province to avoid unrest. This drain would allow the North to have the large number of forces it had historically and still leave somewhat balanced armies to do the fighting.

I am not sure whether the current supply rules put the the Union army should be out of supply if its supply lines go through provinces with unrest. It would not be realistic if Union armies received ready supply at the end of a train of provinces with unrest.

[Paper Tiger]

And to counterbalance all this, remove the CSA fleets, properly arm the USA fleets, decrease the cost of fleets and ships to allow the north to produce the blockade forces that are just simply unaffordable under the current rules, limit the number of brigades which can trace supply to a province to the forage value of the province. (no huge NVA surrounded in Richmond and yet still in full supply.) Allow the North to gain the victory points for creating a solid line of provinces which cut the CSA in half at any point. Hit the National Will for every State Capital captured, rather than for mansions and plantations burned. Hit European relations for every state capital or city.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

Mike, yes, I think I should have added the logistical, anti-guerilla, military governance burden for the North, which the game reflects to some extent in the "unrest," but the unrest does not really require that large numbers of troops guard supply lines, maintain civil order, etc. Actually I was thinking more in terms of the "garrisons" that need to be detached to hold whatever is conquered. If you don't, there is always the chance that the South might pull an "end-run" and recapture an area..., and if you do, your army keeps getting weaker and weaker, forcing you to build more new units.

I have wondered whether there should be another kind of unit for the North to build -- occupation units or military government units, maybe provost marshals -- which would cost money just like regular units, and the Union would have to have one in each rebel province or it would stay in unrest. Nice "touch", but probably unnecessary. Just a minimum number of "brigades" serving as "garrisons" would achieve the same thing.

Alternatively, there could be something like a provost marshal brigade improvement and a brigade with this improvement would have to occupy each province to avoid unrest. This drain would allow the North to have the large number of forces it had historically and still leave somewhat balanced armies to do the fighting.

I am not sure whether the current supply rules put the the Union army should be out of supply if its supply lines go through provinces with unrest. It would not be realistic if Union armies received ready supply at the end of a train of provinces with unrest. The biggest problem with "unrest" now is that there is very little a player can do "proactively" to quell it except sit and wait. This makes it extremely frustraiting as it always seems to "randomly spread" right across your supply lines.

[Ironclad]

On the diplomacy front to help balance things out and to give the Union a positive incentive (beyond frustrating the CSA), how about awarding a bonus for the diplomacy levels reached. This could be in terms of extra money, labour and weapons. After all the Union did do a lot of business with European countries - selling grain to Britain and buying arms there and on the continent plus there was the immigration boosting the work force and military age male population.

It could work as follows, the USA receiving:

With Britain: at diplomacy level 2 (10 money), level 3 (15 weapons), level 4 and above (20 weapons). Likewise with France: level 2 (10 money), level 3 (15 weapons), level 4 and above (20 weapons). With other European countries: level 2 (10 labour), level 3 (15 labour), level 4 and above (20 labour).

If that sounds too complicated go for a simpler system - just award 10 labour for each level 2, 15 money for each level 3 and 20 weapons for each level 4 and above - applying to each of the 3 countries.

If it is felt that this may prove too generous to the USA in the later war years some additional conditions could be added eg minimum level of US contribution, sliding scale, or starting at a higher diplomacy level. There would probably have to be an adjustment to deal with the Emancipation outcome.

Edited: values lowered

[rook749]

I’m now up to seven complete games and the Union and two as the CSA. I wanted to make several comments on the AI.

* As the CSA in both my games Kentucky joined my side. I think this is due to a pathing issue with the AI. It seems the Union was running troops along the railroad through Kentucky. Both times when they joined the CSA some troops from the Union were redeploying and did not make it out of Kentucky at the end of the turn.

* The Union keeps running single brigades from the west through Virginia to join the troops in the Maryland/Washington. The troops are getting cut to pieces and surrendering more often then they are making it.

* The Union AI keeps building forts & garrisoning them to the maximum, now they should build some forts to preserve there lines of retreat but when playing as the CSA it seems they game is more like the trench warfare of WWI then the civil war.

Rook

[General Quarters]

ORIGINAL: rook749
* The Union AI keeps building forts & garrisoning them to the maximum, now they should build some forts to preserve there lines of retreat but when playing as the CSA it seems they game is more like the trench warfare of WWI then the civil war.

Rook

Yes, it makes sense for the Union AI to build forts, since that represents troops to protect supply lines and keep the natives in line. But, finishing my first game as the Union, I find that every battle is a siege, and that isn't right. I would rather give the other side a greater home turf advantage and not have to bring up the siege wagons for every fight.

[regularbird]

That is because there are to many #@$! forts in the standard scenario. It would be nice to have a 1x max fort per territory, or if you could just fortify cities and do away with the forts.

I really think that units beaten during a seaborne invasion need to be able to retreat to there ships. The AI attacks gets clobbered then surrenders, container and all. And then it does it again.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: General Quarters
Yes, it makes sense for the Union AI to build forts, since that represents troops to protect supply lines and keep the natives in line. But, finishing my first game as the Union, I find that every battle is a siege, and that isn't right. I would rather give the other side a greater home turf advantage and not have to bring up the siege wagons for every fight.

Sieges and Forts seem to be the mechanism the designers have chosen to keep the "pace" of the game under control. Historically speaking there are too many of them, and many take too long. Ft. Henry fell in a day..., Ft Donaldson in less than a week. Others, like Vicksburg and Charleston did drag on for months. So it has some validity as well.

But you are right that it makes the game feel more like the Age of Vaubon and Marlborough than the ACW. Most battles seem to be fought to "relieve" a siege. And the lack of the ability to besiege multiple sites if you have multiple forces is annoying and ahistorical. Wish I had a better solution to offer...

[jimwinsor]

Well, there is always the Faster Sieges option.

[Hard Sarge]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: General Quarters
Yes, it makes sense for the Union AI to build forts, since that represents troops to protect supply lines and keep the natives in line. But, finishing my first game as the Union, I find that every battle is a siege, and that isn't right. I would rather give the other side a greater home turf advantage and not have to bring up the siege wagons for every fight.

Sieges and Forts seem to be the mechanism the designers have chosen to keep the "pace" of the game under control. Historically speaking there are too many of them, and many take too long. Ft. Henry fell in a day..., Ft Donaldson in less than a week. Others, like Vicksburg and Charleston did drag on for months. So it has some validity as well.

But you are right that it makes the game feel more like the Age of Vaubon and Marlborough than the ACW. Most battles seem to be fought to "relieve" a siege. And the lack of the ability to besiege multiple sites if you have multiple forces is annoying and ahistorical. Wish I had a better solution to offer...

Why ? I have taken all 3 Forts in Fredericksburg in one turn ?

as long as they are different containers, they can seige different targets (what you may be getting, is trying to use a container with in aother container to make the 2nd seige)

so, a Army with 2 Corps attached, can only seige one target, but 3 Corps by themselfs, can seige 3 targets

(is that what you are seeing ?, it works for me)

[regularbird]

Historically speaking what did the USA seige in or around F-burg?  I know petersburg was besieged but what else in Virginia?  I once again loved the way Hunter did it in his game, the CSA player had the option to spend resources on fortifying cities or supplying armies, I would really love to restrict forts to one per province (without cities) and provinces with cities the city can be fortified.

[rook749]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

Why ? I have taken all 3 Forts in Fredericksburg in one turn ?

as long as they are different containers, they can seige different targets (what you may be getting, is trying to use a container with in aother container to make the 2nd seige)

so, a Army with 2 Corps attached, can only seige one target, but 3 Corps by themselfs, can seige 3 targets

(is that what you are seeing ?, it works for me)

Granted, I've got no issue taking out two or three forts in one turn but it is a real challange for the AI.

Rook

[regularbird]

Hunters civil war game "from sumpter to appomattox" is the best system for an ACW game to date.  The problems were the AI sucked big ones and it had no detailed battle option.  If there was some way to cross some of his ideas with some of Eric's I would spend $200 on the game.

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: regularbird

Hunters civil war game "from sumpter to appomattox" is the best system for an ACW game to date.

Actually, I think FOF is the best system for an ACW game to date. The Hunter game was great, and I played the heck out of it, but it had it's own flaws. Interestingly, on the point being discussed here, European intervention was far more frequent there than here. I played many games where Britain sent in ground troops.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: regularbird
Hunters civil war game "from sumpter to appomattox" is the best system for an ACW game to date. The problems were the AI sucked big ones and it had no detailed battle option. If there was some way to cross some of his ideas with some of Eric's I would spend $200 on the game.

I agree that the basic design was good. The problem was the implementation. Even after years of patches there were still serious bugs in it, and various details needed adjusting. Cavalry was almost useless. Artillery was completely useless except in sieges. Fortified cities were too important.

It could have been a good game if completely debugged and tweaked a bit.

[Mike Scholl]

"Why ? I have taken all 3 Forts in Fredericksburg in one turn ? As long as they are different containers, they can seige different targets (what you may be getting, is trying to use a container with in aother container to make the 2nd seige). So, a Army with 2 Corps attached, can only seige one target, but 3 Corps by themselfs, can seige 3 targets

(is that what you are seeing ?, it works for me)


I have tried this SARGE. But when I do I am only offered ONE (the same one) target to siege no matter how many "command containers" I have in the province. Until the "first" one falls, the game isn't offering me a choice to lay siege to the second or third one..., and until ALL the forts have been taken no city appears in the choice list.

So what am I doing wrong? Any ideas?

[Hard Sarge]

now that is strange

if there are more then one fort, all of the forts should show in the list

you need to clean out the forts before the City shows up, so that part is right

I mean, if you have 1 Div in the province and there are ten Forts, when you click to begin siege, it should bring up a list of all ten forts

(let me go look)

[Hard Sarge]

Hi Mike
this is what I see when I enter a province with 3 forts in it