Mike Scholl
Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003 From: Kansas City, MO Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jchastain OK, so with all that said... let's talk balance. And there are my ideas – not those of the devs or anyone else. This is intended as a discussion and not as an explanation. It seems to me that the basic framework of this game begins with the fact that the USA has the economic and manpower advantages. The counterbalance is that the CSA starts with slightly higher quality forces. With the CSA holding the initial quality advantage, you do not want them incented to go on an initial offensive as that would be horribly ahistorical. So, there is a fairly substantial defensive bonus that helps keep them in check at the outset. That same defensive bonus will also make it harder for the USA to steamroll through the south later as they build their capabilities. This seems a quite practical solution to the problem..., and so far in my limited play seems to be working that way While a defensive bonus makes sense historically and works well as a game mechanism in combination with the economic/quality balancing, the downside is that it tends to discourage offensiveness in general. If overwhelming force is required to win, then no one will attack until they can assemble overwhelming force – and that makes the game bog down. From what I've seen in play, the "drag" seems to be in assembling a force that can successfully "siege" a location when it get's there. Ft's Henry and Donaldson didn't hold out for months historically, but they will in the game if you don't have the right tools to attack them when you get there. So, for the reasons discussed above in the framework of this game, the amount of action is directly related to the economic disparity between the nations. As economic disparity increases, the initial quality level must compensate, and the defensive bonus must rise to a corresponding level, and its increase will directly reduce offensive operations. So, I have seen two primary historical criticisms of this game on these boards (other than the ironclad discussion which will be addressed and won't impact gameplay) – that there isn’t enough action and that the economic disparity isn’t great enough. In my mind, it is difficult to address both of those criticisms in the context of the framework of the game as the fix to either probably makes the other worse. Perhaps the fact that both are being criticized suggests we didn’t do too badly within the game’s framework. The point I'm running into problems with so far in my play is that the Union's Naval superiority doesn't seem to be coming through in play. After maintaining and improving the land forces, and commiting cash to keeping the Europeans from nullifying any economic "edge" I might have, there is nothing left to build up the Union Navy. Yet the South seems to be able to afford to build ships to come attack me with. This result is way out of line with history, where by 1862 the North was siezing large portions of the Southern coasts and even New Orleans with their Fleet. It might be possible to adjust the cost of everything so as to allow a greater diversity of income without changing the overall balance – though I would question the value of making significant changes with the specific idea of not affecting gameplay. And to do as some suggest and alter the economy to where the USA can afford anything they want would really dilute the game in my mind. Is money really what drives 19th century diplomacy? Of course not. But diplomacy isn’t and shouldn’t be the central tenant of a Civil War game so designers have to somehow embed it within the existing strategic framework. Making it use money embeds it into the strategic fabric fairly successfully and I am sure someone creative could imagine a rationale for what that money is supposed to represent. But the real question is, what would be a better option without introducing a lot of needless additional complexity? How about arming the Union Navy from the start with it's real guns? The reason the South siezed numbers of large cannon at Norfolk (which they used to arm their river Forts) was because these were the guns the Navy was equipped with. Give the Union Fleets "Rifled Dahlgren's" to start with. They were ships of the United State's Navy, they didn't have "improvised armament". Then the South wouldn't be tempted to try and build "Ships" they couldn't arm, and perhaps they would concentrate as they did historically on building a few "Ironclads" that they could find guns for. Finally, those relying on our AAR might have a distorted view of the economic disparity. In the real war, the USA made several advanced that I have failed to make. They took New Orleans while I did not (and that likely would have been a better target than Tallahassee in hind sight). I tried to move against Nashville and failed. Had I secured it I would have not only taken that income from him (and added it to my own) but I also would have cut his remaining Tennessee income in half. Had I focused more on the Navy and blockaded his cities, it would also have helped more than anything I have done. Gil and I have played PBEM before. We’ve both won before. But in the ongoing game, he is clearly beating me. Had I done better, the economic picture within our game would look more lopsided. But a game where the player can do everything requires no strategy. I personally like having to make these decisions – even though I sometimes make the wrong ones. The one thing that I've noticed that seems to be overlooked in discussions of economic disparity is the "boost" the Rebs get from Europe. Even investing large amounts of money doesn't seem to discourage this flow. Any other ideas on how to bandage this wound would be appreciated. One thing I am interested in is opinions on the required build times of units. As it stands, building new units require fairly significant lead times which delays the North’s ability to convert its economic muscle into actual benefit on the battle field. I suppose theoretically by increasing the build time, one could reduce the impact of economic advantage but I think that would actually take the game in the wrong direction. Were I to make an argument, it would be for reducing the build time for units to allow them to be deployed more quickly, not more slowly. The troop mix (as was also discussed in another thread) is too infantry centric. But allowing units and armies to be built quickly gives more benefit to the side with the economic advantage. Again, we have competing goals in terms of game balance and historical accuracy. Agree that "balance and accuracy" are the goals..., still trying to play enough to find out how well they have been achieved. But I think the "naval adjustment" I mentioned above needs to be in the game. It might also add some "flavor" to the game if "Ironclads" were single powerful ships instead of coming in 10-ship squadrons. Personally, I believe discussions about game accuracy are great. I don’t think anyone is opposed to better historical accuracy. But I don’t think it is enough to criticize the accuracy without making suggestions for how to improve it. And in so doing, it is important to consider the impacts to the game systems and overall balance. I’m not a dev – just a player like everyone else here. And I can’t promise the devs will consider anything we discuss or suggest. But I’m willing to have these discussions if anyone else wants to talk through them. I think the designers and testers made the right choice not to stick with 100% historical accuracy in the economics of the game (though since it's probably the first thing "modders" would change anyway, it might not have been a great loss to let every player see just once before he switched to playing a "mod".). The question I'm looking at right now is "Did they go too far in seeking game balance?". Does it have the "feel" of the South being a "struggling, scrappy, underdog"---or is it a "Clash of the Titans"? So far, I'm thinking "too far", but I need to play for at least another week before commiting to that thesis.
|