Historical accuracy vs. game balance

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

The current version (1.01), at the start of the game will give the North 33 recruits and if you add the 15 from the recruiter leaders a total of ~51 recruits per turn.
The South ~59

So what will the new patch be changing these numbers too?

Ace said that Plantations AND Farmlands will produce 1 Recruit. Right now, Plantations produce 3, and Farmlands zero. He said Barracks will be bumped a bit.

So......

North:
23 State Capitals (23 Total Recruits) Note: Including Jeff City in North totals
3 Barracks (9 Total)(St. Louis, NY, Boston)
8 Farmlands (8 Total; one of these is Bowling Green, so that is contested)

So, North will have now 23+17= 40, plus another 15 for recruiters, = 55 + another 3-6 depending on how many extra Barracks give. So, between 58 and 61 is my guess.

South:
11 State Capitals (11)
8 Plantations (8)
1 Barracks (3) (Richmond)

Total: 22, + whatever the bump for Barracks is (so, probably 23-24 a turn)

So, the change is significant with regard to recruits

[Michael T]

Is there any way to list these structures or is the only means of discovering their locations a survey of the map?

[Ace1_slith]

You can stop guessing now about new conscript and money balances. Public beta patch is out on AGEod forum. So, everybode can see it for them self. Enjoy[:D]

[Q-Ball]

Here is what the changes are:

1. Plantations produce 1 recruit instead of 3. This is a net loss to South of 16 recruits/turn.
2. Farmlands and Cattle Ranches produce 1 Recruit, and 3 Money per turn. This is a net gain to North of 8 recruits/turn, and net gain to South of 1/recruit turn. North gets $24, South $3.
3. Trade Ports now work; both sides get more $$$$. North has 3 trade ports to South 2.
4. Plantations do create MONEY now; $3 per turn. That's $24 more for South
5. Barracks production is now 5 instead of 3. Union gains 6 recruits/turn for that change, for it's 3 barracks.
6. There is a new Barracks for the South in Memphis. This is a mixed blessing; it will help early, but Memphis is not the safest spot, and is unlikely to hold into 1863.

Not sure how all the math lines up, and when there are multiple structures there is more likely to be extras, but first turn I ran had:

North City Income; 48 Conscripts, $281
South City Income: 35 Conscripts, $79

The cash feels a bit low for the South, though there are no blockade runners out yet, and that usually brings in $15 - $20 or so.

Still looking around, but that's first take

[Ace1_slith]

On the first turn all South states have not yet seceded. And since South's initial NM is higher, their structures do tend to produce a little more because of that.

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: Ace1

On the first turn all South states have not yet seceded. And since South's initial NM is higher, their structures do tend to produce a little more because of that.

Forgot that......number does jump up to $127 for the South by June, not including blockade runners, by adding in those states that Seceed.

Union production will likely drop a bit too initially, due to various events, etc.

[Ol Choctaw]

You will find that the Runners bring in WS but very little money.

Also if you look at where the troops for the south are produced, half come from only three cities,

Tennessee produces 8 conscripts between Memphis and Nashville. Not exactly safe.

Also including Richmond in the blockaded cities has a huge impact. At start it had produced the majority of all the WS available to the southern player in the game as well as money.

[Emx77]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Is there any way to list these structures or is the only means of discovering their locations a survey of the map?

You can use my strategic map.

tm.asp?m=3431256

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: Ol Choctaw

You will find that the Runners bring in WS but very little money.

Also if you look at where the troops for the south are produced, half come from only three cities,

Tennessee produces 8 conscripts between Memphis and Nashville. Not exactly safe.

Also including Richmond in the blockaded cities has a huge impact. At start it had produced the majority of all the WS available to the southern player in the game as well as money.

Among other reasons, these are why I think these changes are an over correction. Time will tell, but my gut tells me it's going to be a little rough for the South now. But let's play it out.

There are some things that will help the South: A couple extra leaders in 1861 that are good ones, plus some extra brigades given by event.

[Werewolf13]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

ORIGINAL: Ol Choctaw

You will find that the Runners bring in WS but very little money.

Also if you look at where the troops for the south are produced, half come from only three cities,

Tennessee produces 8 conscripts between Memphis and Nashville. Not exactly safe.

Also including Richmond in the blockaded cities has a huge impact. At start it had produced the majority of all the WS available to the southern player in the game as well as money.

Among other reasons, these are why I think these changes are an over correction. Time will tell, but my gut tells me it's going to be a little rough for the South now. But let's play it out.

There are some things that will help the South: A couple extra leaders in 1861 that are good ones, plus some extra brigades given by event.

emphasis mine:

Which is as it should be. The reality is that the south never stood a chance of achieving a military victory over the north. Couldn't happen. The logistics just weren't there for the south. As long as the north was willing to put troops in the field the south was doomed.

The south may have been able to achieve a political victory but that'd be a whole different game.

This patch is a big step forward IMO.

[Ace1_slith]

Playing PBEM as Union, and Richmond may fall in Sep, 61. So, there could be an overcorrection. More games should be played out to tell accurately. But, it feels better than the last patch. I think, blockade of Richmond by Ft Monroe hurts South more than anything else. Remember, it is the place with only Ironworks in the South. I do not think its production was effected by the blockade[:)].

[veji1]

ORIGINAL: Werewolf1326
emphasis mine:

Which is as it should be. The reality is that the south never stood a chance of achieving a military victory over the north. Couldn't happen. The logistics just weren't there for the south. As long as the north was willing to put troops in the field the south was doomed.

The south may have been able to achieve a political victory but that'd be a whole different game.

This patch is a big step forward IMO.

Hmm, this is a complicated issue, because what is a military victory in such a conflict. Could the South have defeated all northern armies and occupied the north to force an unconditional surrender ? No way. But could the south have defeated the Union enough to convince it of a white peace ? Yes, until late 62 I think this was still possible. Very unlikely, but possible, but I suppose this is what you mean bu political victory.

As often in wargames the goal should be to do better than history : As the south either by some stroke of genius and luck get the Union to sue for a white peace early (ie defeat your human opponent in a way that makes him give up quite early in the game) or, and this is the goal for 95% of the games, outlast the actual war while inflicting as many casualties as possible on the Union.

[dukewacoan]

This is probably not the best place to fully vet it but Lincoln's 1864 election was not assured prior to Atlanta.

There are very good studies and recent books about the CSA consolidation of commands allowing to to actually outnumber McClellan during 7 Days. And there was really not overwhelming US strength at most major battles. Seems the more historical balance, assuming resources and manpower approximate historical level is thru leadership issues. This is where the imbalance was offset. General Union inaction and long lags between campaigns for planning and buildup also add months to the clock

[Sorta]

I hope the Union isn't strengthened. Just finished PBEM and CSA surrendered in Oct 62 after losing Richmond and its main armies. Its third CW2 PBEM all of which have been Union wins. Anyway early days, starting new PBEM with new patch today.

[Lecivius]

ORIGINAL: Sorta

I hope the Union isn't strengthened. Just finished PBEM and CSA surrendered in Oct 62 after losing Richmond and its main armies. Its third CW2 PBEM all of which have been Union wins. Anyway early days, starting new PBEM with new patch today.

How in Gawds name did someone loose Richmond in Oct. '62? Under previous, or new patch? Without going into this or that being OP, most of the generals pretty much will not go offensive in such a short period of time, let alone take a heavily fortified position.

[TulliusDetritus]

Humm, let's hope 1.02 is not lacking theology and geometry, because that would be an affront to er... theology and geometry!

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: Ace1

Playing PBEM as Union, and Richmond may fall in Sep, 61. So, there could be an overcorrection. More games should be played out to tell accurately. But, it feels better than the last patch. I think, blockade of Richmond by Ft Monroe hurts South more than anything else. Remember, it is the place with only Ironworks in the South. I do not think its production was effected by the blockade[:)].

In my PBEM vs. Gunnulf, Richmond is not blockaded and is likely producing normally. What's the difference here, is it that Gunnulf built a fort/redoubt in Norfolk? (which is a Good move IMO anyway)

From a design standpoint, Blockading should not impact industry. Only trade ports and harbors. Maybe Naval Shipyards.

w

[Ace1_slith]

There is a graphic glitch when you load the game. It does not show blockade sprite for regions blockaded by forts. After the turn is played out, the icon is there, and Richmond is blockaded. In your game, is the Richmond still not blockaded after you've run the turn?

[Michael T]

I am convinced that the balance correction in 1.02 has gone too far. The North is now overpowered.

[Jim D Burns]

Just upgraded to the new patch and am not too far into the game yet (August), but like what I am seeing. Before jumping to conclusions about the Union being too strong, players should try playing with the activation slider all the way to the right. I’ve been using it and I can tell you Union command issues become glaringly obvious with this setting. Making deep attacks into territory not adjacent to good supply lines is very risky should your army go inactive and become stuck behind enemy lines. Try it out it’s a whole new game.

Jim