Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Civil War II >> RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance - 12/1/2013 3:55:57 PM   
Ace1_slith

 

Posts: 340
Joined: 9/24/2013
Status: offline 		I agree with you. To put large locked militia garrisons in US rear area would be nice.

I do not think that restricting militias movement is possible, although out of home penalty can be increased, to lower their movement out of home to 10%.
In any way, giving locked garrisons would be nice. But, I do not think it will be done for next patch, maybe after that if we lobby hard enough.

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 61
RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance - 12/1/2013 4:21:31 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ace1

In AACW1, in PBEM there were house rules where players agreed to put McClellan in charge out East, and Grant out west. Once, the CSA is toned down, I see no reason why it cannot be done as well.


That's a good rule; some players may not like having hands tied, but that was the political reality.

I think Michael is pursuing the right strategy against me in the game, which is 100% Virginia/Forget everything else. The problem is that's kind of boring. And if it works, which I think it does, it begs the question why bother with the rest of the Civil War?

By keeping Grant out West, it forces you to win the war out West, which is alot more interesting in the end

PS: A corresponding rule may be to require Lee to stay out East, only fair

_____________________________


(in reply to Ace1_slith)
Post #: 62
RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance - 12/1/2013 4:27:24 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
Is anyone appointing McClellan to command the largest army now?


I will Fun above all.


Especially as he does get activated by event.

_____________________________

If the Earth was flat, cats would of knocked everything off of it long ago.

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 63
RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance - 12/1/2013 4:39:44 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone™
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian


quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
Is anyone appointing McClellan to command the largest army now?


I will Fun above all.


Especially as he does get activated by event.


I only have to wait 11 months now It's january 1862 and according to Wikipedia McClellan was sacked on november. If the game does not sack it, I will.

Meanwhile this guy should provide me (and Marquo) some big laughs. So no problem on my end. The clown can run the Circus for all I care

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 64
RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance - 12/1/2013 5:33:19 PM   
KamilS

 

Posts: 1827
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline 		Judging from contests between similarly skilled opponents and direction of changes I suspect, that after 1.02 USA will be overpowered.


I am merely referring to game balance - too many conclusions are being drawn from games that ended up in '61 or '62 due to difference in skill or experience. This is long struggle and I think, that even now in later years USA is strong enough to achieve success if played well.

< Message edited by Kamil -- 12/1/2013 6:36:46 PM >

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 65
RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance - 12/1/2013 6:48:10 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian


quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
Is anyone appointing McClellan to command the largest army now?


I will Fun above all.


Especially as he does get activated by event.


I only have to wait 11 months now It's january 1862 and according to Wikipedia McClellan was sacked on november. If the game does not sack it, I will.

Meanwhile this guy should provide me (and Marquo) some big laughs. So no problem on my end. The clown can run the Circus for all I care


What will happen first is that the political cost to remove him will drop. Then later, he may be removed by event. (He runs for President.)

_____________________________

If the Earth was flat, cats would of knocked everything off of it long ago.

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 66
RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance - 12/1/2013 8:19:05 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline 		I have played two games now as CSA against Marquo and in both I overan the Union forces in the East without much ado. The removal of the bug (extra CSA conscripts) may not still be enough to prevent this kind of thing as I have an excess of CSA recruits anyhow. I have no shortage of WS as I overan so many Union factories. Money is the only bottleneck.

Restricting Grant the the west may well play in to an aggressive CSA strategy in the East. Leadership is such a key factor in this game. I really love this game. I hope a nice balance can be found. It deserves it.

_____________________________


(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 67
RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance - 12/1/2013 8:26:27 PM   
Ace1_slith

 

Posts: 340
Joined: 9/24/2013
Status: offline 		WS cost for units is also being increased as well.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 68
RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance - 12/2/2013 5:10:17 PM   
Lecivius


Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline 		First off, thank you Pocus for coming here. I appreciate your time.

I don't want to see the South get neutered. Just some bugs cleaned off the windshield And perhaps a minor tweek to the North. Nothing major. Always better to go in small steps, IMO.

There are several ideas floating around here. Mine would be
(1) Scale up the income level to the North, year by year. This could even be tied to the difficulty slider.
(2) Add another trainer to the North’s generals. The idea that the North loses one is, IMHO, critical. But that is my opinion. Adding another still allows the general build up. And then McClellan can still get retired.

And only one, or the other. Not both. Small steps. Or another of the suggestions mentioned here, as long as it remains minor.

And I hope I did not impugn your honor, Ace1. Not my intention at all, and if I did I apologize. I tried to focus on that one issue, once everyone else did. With regards to blockades, there is something broken. I can duplicate it now to a limited extent. In my example Mobile is the bug. I can make the same thing happen in Charleston. There are a few other threads from other players reporting the same issue. I can also watch as the ‘lock’ icon will come & go turn by turn, where Charleston is locked, then open, then locked again, with no change in forces. I have no idea on if that is visual only. I will have to pay attention to the percentage number next time I play. Wandering generals is hard to duplicate, as one has to have a save when the orders are given, then a save when they pop up. And as a bug, it’s VERY minor. Only happens 2-3 times an entire game.

Anyways, I am glad there is a patch coming out soon. That indicates designer issues in making this a better game. And that, after all, is all we can hope for as game consumers.

(in reply to Ace1_slith)
Post #: 69
RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance - 12/2/2013 5:52:48 PM   
Ace1_slith

 

Posts: 340
Joined: 9/24/2013
Status: offline 		Everything's fine

Blockade icon not showing up is a bug. It happens when you exit the game completely, and reload it. The distant blockade icon from the forts blockading the port does not show up on reload, but the region is actually blockaded during turn hosting. So it is a graphics issue.

And, by the way trade ports are currently not bringing in enough $. They should bring the same amount of $ as their level. So, there will be money/turn increase for both sides in 1.02.

< Message edited by Ace1 -- 12/2/2013 6:54:53 PM >

(in reply to Lecivius)
Post #: 70
RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance - 12/3/2013 4:26:57 AM   
JR5555

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 12/19/2005
Status: offline

Ace1,

Do you know if the patch is going to fix existing games regarding the conscripts issue?

Thanks!

(in reply to Ace1_slith)
Post #: 71
RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance - 12/3/2013 6:30:11 AM   
Ace1_slith

 

Posts: 340
Joined: 9/24/2013
Status: offline 		I do not know what the patch will exactly include. In every turn now each plantation gives you +3-5 CC. After the patch it will not give you any more (I presume, but I am not sure, it is a discussed proposal, I have yet not seen if the designers have implemented it). If let's say 10 turns has already passed, from that point onwards CC production will be decreased, but it will not take away those conscripts that have been already produced.
If you wish to start a new game, I propose that you mod the way I described it in this thread.

(in reply to JR5555)
Post #: 72
RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance - 12/3/2013 9:31:35 PM   
Toro12

 

Posts: 162
Joined: 4/6/2000
From: Covington, KY, USA
Status: offline 		Lecivius, I haven't seen the odd blockade issue, but I'll test it tonight myself. I do know that some water zones change requirements as time moves on, and I originally thought this was WAD. Now I'm wondering???

(in reply to Lecivius)
Post #: 73
RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance - 12/5/2013 5:22:41 AM   
von Beanie


Posts: 295
Joined: 6/3/2002
From: Oak Hills, S. California
Status: offline 		I played ACW1 a lot, and I've played ACW2 against the AI a few times.

Then, I started my first PBEM game of ACW2 a couple of weeks ago. It is now 1862 and I'm facing a southern opponent that is much stronger than me ON EVERY FRONT east of New Mexico (KY included). I wouldn't mind if the CSA is stronger on one front, but this situation is completely unrealistic. I welcome any reasonable situation that tones down the completely unrealistic southern strength early in the war. I never saw anything like the current situation in ACW1, so I would welcome a reasonable solution. I won't need a larger Union army than I can already build if the CSA can't grow as massive as quickly as it does now. The Union is tasked with conquering southern territory starting in 1862--something that appears impossible as the game stands now.


(in reply to Toro12)
Post #: 74
RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance - 12/5/2013 1:15:50 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ace1

I do not know what the patch will exactly include. In every turn now each plantation gives you +3-5 CC. After the patch it will not give you any more (I presume, but I am not sure, it is a discussed proposal, I have yet not seen if the designers have implemented it). If let's say 10 turns has already passed, from that point onwards CC production will be decreased, but it will not take away those conscripts that have been already produced.
If you wish to start a new game, I propose that you mod the way I described it in this thread.


Time will tell, but I wonder if that is an overcorrection. In my game vs. Michael, I agree South has too many recruits; plantations are producing 32 per turn. But without plantation, "Base" production will boil down to the Barracks in Richmond (3), plus 11 CSA state capitals (1 each), for a base total of 14 or so. That's not alot. (At least the CSA state capitals are generally not easy to get to, with the exception of Nashville, and Talahassee via sea)

You ran a simulation to show total production, but I bet you didn't move the 3 Union Recruiting Officers into a city (Banks, Burnside, McClernand), which is a standard move for Union player; that adds something like 15 extra recruits a turn.

_____________________________


(in reply to Ace1_slith)
Post #: 75
RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance - 12/5/2013 1:49:45 PM   
Ace1_slith

 

Posts: 340
Joined: 9/24/2013
Status: offline 		I proposed plantation conscripts to be set to 0. After looking at the proposal, the developers have set it to 1. They have increased farmland and barracks conscripts production, so it is completely different than in my test.
So, CSA conscripts have been reduced little less than in my test, and Union conscripts have been boosted a little (no change in my test).
So, after the new patch, we will see what the new balance is.

< Message edited by Ace1 -- 12/5/2013 2:53:08 PM >

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 76
RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance - 12/5/2013 3:42:25 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ace1

I proposed plantation conscripts to be set to 0. After looking at the proposal, the developers have set it to 1. They have increased farmland and barracks conscripts production, so it is completely different than in my test.
So, CSA conscripts have been reduced little less than in my test, and Union conscripts have been boosted a little (no change in my test).
So, after the new patch, we will see what the new balance is.


Interesting....I haven't counted the number of farmlands around the map. IIRC, there's one in Texas, and Bowling Green has one. The rest must be up north somewhere, not sure how many.

_____________________________


(in reply to Ace1_slith)
Post #: 77
RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance - 12/5/2013 5:55:10 PM   
Toro12

 

Posts: 162
Joined: 4/6/2000
From: Covington, KY, USA
Status: offline 		They're scattered around the South. One, I believe, is in Memphis? Another in Vicksburg? (Trying to recall from work...).

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 78
RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance - 12/5/2013 8:22:58 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline 		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?

_____________________________


(in reply to Toro12)
Post #: 79
RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance - 12/5/2013 9:47:35 PM   
Toro12

 

Posts: 162
Joined: 4/6/2000
From: Covington, KY, USA
Status: offline 		Sounds like, by reducing the plantation input. And, from what Ace has said, adjustment of the code ourselves is possible should we want to increase/decrease that specific Southern input.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 80
RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance - 12/5/2013 11:33:33 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
quote:

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


_____________________________


(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 81
RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance - 12/6/2013 7:52:36 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline 		Is there any way to list these structures or is the only means of discovering their locations a survey of the map?

_____________________________


(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 82
RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance - 12/6/2013 9:10:59 AM   
Ace1_slith

 

Posts: 340
Joined: 9/24/2013
Status: offline 		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

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 83
RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance - 12/6/2013 1:48:18 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline 		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

_____________________________


(in reply to Ace1_slith)
Post #: 84
RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance - 12/6/2013 2:30:37 PM   
Ace1_slith

 

Posts: 340
Joined: 9/24/2013
Status: offline 		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.

< Message edited by Ace1 -- 12/6/2013 3:32:29 PM >

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 85
RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance - 12/6/2013 3:33:43 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
quote:

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.

_____________________________


(in reply to Ace1_slith)
Post #: 86
RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance - 12/6/2013 4:01:46 PM   
Ol Choctaw

 

Posts: 75
Joined: 9/12/2011
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 87
RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance - 12/6/2013 4:21:12 PM   
Emx77


Posts: 419
Joined: 3/29/2004
From: Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Status: offline
quote:

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.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3431256

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 88
RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance - 12/6/2013 5:29:11 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
quote:

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.

_____________________________


(in reply to Ol Choctaw)
Post #: 89
RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance - 12/9/2013 8:47:47 PM   
Werewolf13

 

Posts: 511
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball


quote:

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.


_____________________________

Freedom is not free! Nor should it be. For men being men will neither fight for nor value that which is free.

Michael Andress

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Civil War II >> RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.828