Historical accuracy vs. game balance

[Jim D Burns]

An interesting discussion has started in Ace’s AAR about historical force strengths vs. what we see in game. I didn’t want to hijack Ace’s AAR, so I thought I’d move the discussion out here.

Historically the Union had over half a million men under arms by January 1862. In game you’d be lucky to see those numbers by 1864, thus the Union is far too weak and open to attack.

http://www.phil.muni.cz/~vndrzl/amstudi ... _stats.htm

The first game in the series saw problems with the Union being too powerful too soon. They tried to fix things by balancing the two sides in game in AACW2.

The problem with the fix used to try and balance the sides in game is it leaves the Union far too weak to cover everything it has to try and defend and one really bad battle result can unhinge the Union and leave it open to unending invasion. In fact I doubt the Union can stop a determined southern invasion that tries to take Washington in the first year of the war. In my PBEM I’ve commented to my opponent that I feel like I’m the one playing the south and just trying to hold him back is proving problematic and we’re already into 1862.

A better fix would be to give the Union its historical strength advantages on map, but lock a large part of it in capitals and strategic cities. Then slowly release it over time so that by mid 1863 it was all in play. By removing all that strength from the map for the first two years the Union is left with a shell of its true historical strength and any kind of well lead coordinated southern pressure can easily crack that shell.

Jim

[veji1]

Indeed there is an issue here. Giving the union lots of militia early in the game (say 50/60 regs in summer 61 and 50/60 regs in december 61) could be helpful : they are very bad on the offensive as they lose cohesion very quickly, but on the defensive and in their home state particularly, with a bit of arty they become decent. If the Union player had in december 61 as extra militia regiments say : 14 for Pennsylvania, 10 for Maryland, 4 for Delaware, 10 for NJ, 20 for NY, 14 for Massachussets, 10 for Illinois, 10 for Ohio, 10 for Indiana, 4 in Kansas, and some 10/20 assorted more in other states, it really helps. Suddenly southern coups de main become a lot harder, the Union player can put 4*2regs militia brigade in Pittsburg, give it one arty or two and it becomes respectable and can face down a division when entrenched.

That type of help might be easy to do : ie only 2 events to organise.

Another possibility would be to emulate a form of "levée en masse" when the north is faced with invasion : If a stack of more than 10 elements enters a Union state, you get a big assorment of militia with a bit of inf, cav and arty that pops up not only in the state in question, but in other states of the same department, to emulate lots of citizens taking arms, garrison troops released to active duty etc.

[Ace1_slith]

Another possibility would be to emulate a form of "levée en masse" when the north is faced with invasion : If a stack of more than 10 elements enters a Union state, you get a big assorment of militia with a bit of inf, cav and arty that pops up not only in the state in question, but in other states of the same department, to emulate lots of citizens taking arms, garrison troops released to active duty etc.

That sounds interesting. I would only be careful not to create situation where US does not guard IL and OH at all because player knows he will get massive reinforcements if invaded. It can create a situation where South is forbidden from venturing North while US is free to venture South.
In any case, I would not apply it to border states.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Ace1
It can create a situation where South is forbidden from venturing North while US is free to venture South.

Well we either have an historical wargame that tries to recreate history, or we have a civil war themed strategy game that is only interested in balancing the sides and their capabilities within the game engine. You can’t have both, the game needs an identity and the design needs to then stick to that identity.

This is the same issue that comes up in games over and over again. Some players want to be able to do whatever the other player can do no matter what. Others want a simulation that recreates history with a tweak to the victory conditions that allows victory to both sides even if one side is destined to lose the war.

My personal take on it is history over balance every single time. I don’t care who wins or loses the game as long as historical realities are simulated within the game. I get enjoyment out of replaying history and trying to see if I can change it.

The idea that the south needs the ability to venture north in game is foreign to the realities of the historical conflict. The south made very few incursions north and was stopped every time it made one. The south was at a huge disadvantage during the war and was basically on defense throughout the war. The game needs to simulate this by making offensive moves north designed to conquer territory all but impossible due to the historical realities of being hugely outnumbered and outproduced throughout the war.

Jim

[TulliusDetritus]

This sounds too familiar for those of us who have been playing [PBEM] WitE games these last 2, 3 years [;)]

I don't think zero [Confederate] offensive possibilities is the answer. We would be forcing the South to merely defend. Who would play as the South? As I see it, the South has an army. They have to put it to good use. Bad / good play. And then random luck.

After all, didn't they get to Gettysbugh in 1863, ergo sort of outflanking the north capital?

And yes, I hated ahistorical Lvov Pocket, ahistorical German offensive pace, ahistorical German gains. But as long as the Red Army was on track, Berlin in its radar, no complaint. The problem is this was not evident [:D]

So if the South can steamroll the north (as Ace is doing) I still want Richmond on my radar. All things being equal ie players equally competent (or incompetent).

[veji1]

The south could attack the north, as in raid it. but it could not "invade it". Sure one can picture a perfect 62 campaigne where the south manages to beat the Union in a couple of battles in Maryland, occupy Baltimore and officially cut off Washington for a few weeks... but it could not have held that position, It would have had to retire one way or the other over the winter. This could have been enough to get a peace deal though, ie an NM victory in game, but logistics, numbers and partisans would have prevented the CSA from marching further...

So a quick CSA coup de main on Pittsburgh from WV or a CSA "invasion" in the east culminating in an NM victory in 62 should be possible, but A/ bloody hard and B/ the numbers game should make a durable invasion of the north untenable...

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

So if the South can steamroll the north (as Ace is doing) I still want Richmond on my radar. All things being equal ie players equally competent (or incompetent).

The problem with big fast gains on map by either side is the NM and FE routines in game. Big southern wins will swing NM to unrecoverable levels pretty quickly for the Union in game, so huge southern successes that see entire states lost will not be something you can come back from very often. And of course the more losses you suffer the further in the hole your NM goes and the higher your opponents goes and the more battles you will then lose.

I think NM shifts need to be far less frequent and tied directly to major capitals and historically important objectives. Huge disparities in NM levels is simply too crippling to the losing side in game to allow large battle losses to tank morale so quickly in game. Maybe a shift of 1 for very large battles (more than 30k on a side) would make sense, but losing 1 NM for a militia regiment that surrenders and other small engagements needs to be taken out of the game I think. That or make big battle loss changes temporary and give back the morale a few turns after the loss.

The FE system was designed around the first game and it relies a lot on the Union being able to swing NM and VP levels in its favor very early in game. That can’t happen anymore now that we have a balanced game, so most games will be seeing FE fire in late 1863 or early 1864 and some even sooner if you get really good event rolls. In my game the south is gaining 2 FE a turn now (it’s at 22) and it’s only early 1862. I have no hope of ever taking enough territory to shift it to my favor before it fires.

Jim

[loki100]

Different AGE games try to model the impact of NM swings in different ways.

On one hand, you have Revolution under Siege where the key to winning is to drive your opponent's NM down so they enter a death spiral - you need 2/3-1 plus a good leader to even think of attacking and can get bounced out of the strongest position. This is a good simulation for a civil war where the will of most people in every army to actually get killed was limited to a perception that they had a chance of winning.

On the other is the WiA where NM is pretty meaningless and shifts very very slowly. Rise of Prussia sits in between, NM can shift a lot, a couple of big wins and take some towns and you can get a distinct bonus for a while. But it has a balance system that means your NM tends to recover if its below a certain point (or drop if above another point), so a NM victory is unlikely.

To me, each is appropriate to the game/war in question. You see huge swings in RuS, you see the potential for a long drawn out war in Rise of Prussia and in Wars in America it all comes down to control of key strategic points. At the moment, ACW2 seems to have the RuS model.

Add that to what seem to be ahistorically numerically similar forces. I think from limited play and the AARs that the RoP approach might be better. So you can open a decisive lead in NM but its not game ending in itself. The problem of course is that in ACW2, NM impacts on a range of key issues, not just the capacity and will to fight on the battlefield.

[KamilS]

Simplyfying what was said here, main conclusion of conversation is:

Grant wasn't excellent commander and neither Bragg nor Hood were bad.

[vonRocko]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: Ace1
It can create a situation where South is forbidden from venturing North while US is free to venture South.

Well we either have an historical wargame that tries to recreate history, or we have a civil war themed strategy game that is only interested in balancing the sides and their capabilities within the game engine. You can’t have both, the game needs an identity and the design needs to then stick to that identity.

This is the same issue that comes up in games over and over again. Some players want to be able to do whatever the other player can do no matter what. Others want a simulation that recreates history with a tweak to the victory conditions that allows victory to both sides even if one side is destined to lose the war.

My personal take on it is history over balance every single time. I don’t care who wins or loses the game as long as historical realities are simulated within the game. I get enjoyment out of replaying history and trying to see if I can change it.

The idea that the south needs the ability to venture north in game is foreign to the realities of the historical conflict. The south made very few incursions north and was stopped every time it made one. The south was at a huge disadvantage during the war and was basically on defense throughout the war. The game needs to simulate this by making offensive moves north designed to conquer territory all but impossible due to the historical realities of being hugely outnumbered and outproduced throughout the war.

Jim

+1 Yes it seems Ageod sacrificed history for balance in this game.[:(]

[Michael T]

I think the Union needs more money. Then they can attract more recruits and build more units, ships, guns etc.

[Lecivius]

Something has to be done, or this game dies. More Money? Another trainer for the north? Heck, even changing the slidebar for the annual budget increases would help.

Playing the Union with the AI set to Idiot mode it took me until the end of 1864 to eek out a win against the South. Playing the South, with the same AI settings, I destroyed the Union by the end of '62. I probably increased my level of competence in the first game, but it's still insane the way it is now.

I don't expect much to change, however. I started a thread on some of the issues I had experienced. I was pretty much talked down too, even when showing screen shots. And the PM's I got were rather...hostile. As it is this game has been left on the back corner of my HD. I won't recommend it to anyone.

[Ace1_slith]

I don't expect much to change, however. I started a thread on some of the issues I had experienced. I was pretty much talked down too, even when showing screen shots. And the PM's I got were rather...hostile. As it is this game has been left on the back corner of my HD. I won't recommend it to anyone.

I am sorry you feel this way, I do not know about hte PMs you received, but I saw your thread on AGEOD forums and people (including me) were really trying to point out why you are not blocking Mobile.

[Ace1_slith]

I have run some tests, and here is the situation:
The US has clear advantage in money and ws. When it comes to conscripts, it needs a buff.
Here are recources numbers without buying anything for USA side:

[Ace1_slith]

And here for CSA side:

[JR5555]

You might want to run the test again after New Orleans is taken, then make judgement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Orleans_in_the_American_Civil_War

[Michael T]

You won't get New Orleans against a competent opponent though. And even if you do you won't hold it for long. The South are way too strong in 61/62.

[Ace1_slith]

In the above screen-shot, I forgot to put Banks and Burnside to cities. They would increase Union conscript numbers to 1700-1800, but I think Union still needs a little conscript production push.

I have pointed the problem to the devs, and they are evaluating it.

I can say that in the designing stage of the game, historical early war Union small-arms shortage was considered. The shortage existed up to October,'61. It effectively prevented the Union from raising a large Army early in 61. It was concluded that the best way to simulate it is to limit conscripts numbers for the US early in the war. There was supposed to be an event in late 61 that lifts those restrictions and increases Union conscripts production, but it seems from the look of things the event is either not working or not there. So the Union remains with the smaller than intended conscripts production even after 61. It is an oversight easily amended and I believe (of course I cannot be sure since I am not the developer) it will be fixed.

[veji1]

Thanks Ace1. The way I see it this sort of double modele could work :
- Until end of 61 the Union has a lower manpower output (like in game now) to emulate the harder time it had raising a proper army BUT gest via 2 events (one in August, one in November for example) a boatload of militia, ie 120 regiments or so, that help it protect its land from southern offensives and allow less wastage of its "quality" troops so that it can concentrate what it has in more operational armies.
- Starting in early 62 the manpower output gets bumped up significantly to emulate the Union getting on a good and organised war footing, McClellan's style. This should lead the South to see the pressure mounting up progressively in 62. South should still be able to win it in 62 (realistically 61 and 62 were the only years when the south had a remote chance of winning, ie being left alone) but it should be very hard. Once the spring of 63 kicks in, the manpower advantage of the union should be at or near historical : if not 2/1 at least 5/3 or so.

I think that could sort it out. One cannot deprive the 61/62 union of troops, but one can make sure that Union can get moving to quickly in 61.

[Michael T]

That is a pretty big oversight, forgetting to implement more conscripts for the North post 61 [8|]

I guess as long as it gets fixed soon. Doesn't help all the Union players getting rolled now though.