hidden leader values

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

hidden leader values

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] >> Gary Grigsby's War Between the States >> hidden leader values

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

hidden leader values - 5/1/2015 2:26:51 PM

sushidog

Posts: 65
Joined: 2/20/2008
Status: offline

I've been playing using semi-historical leader ratings whenever I can. It breaths a little new life into the game and moves it away from set openings or set uses for certain leaders (always use ldr x for training, always use ldr y for TC in the west, etc.). Makes the game slightly less historical, but increases the tension a little as you don't know who you're going to get.

Recently a pbem opponent upped the tension even more by starting a new game using semi-historical leaders and hidden leader stats. I thought I'd hate it, but I'm loving it. Each leader only has a few stats visible at the beginning. Some stats seem to be revealed as they use them.

Playing as the Union, I feel a bit like Lincoln, desperately trying to find leaders who will actually attack!

Try it out, you think you won't like it, but it's surprisingly fun. Hit me up for a pbem game if you don't mind playing a middling player.

Grant

Post #: 1

RE: hidden leader values - 5/5/2015 2:11:58 PM

ryan1488

Posts: 160
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline

Just started a game with you. It is fun but I do feel it is slightly in the souths favor.

I find playing as the north pps being very precious and i think sending unknown leaders to their doom might be too much of a drain on your points.

But we shall see.

(in reply to sushidog)

Post #: 2

RE: hidden leader values - 5/5/2015 9:51:09 PM

JD Walter

Posts: 235
Joined: 6/20/2003
From: Out of the Silent Planet
Status: offline

rs99, I had much the same experience as you. I tried the optional leader randomization & unknown ratings settings with an opponent. We concluded it favored the South, if only by dint of the Union having so many more leaders to go through in their pool.

With the way reaction works in GGWBtS, and the need for the Union to "stack up" on the front in order to have enough MP's to cross a river or enter rough terrain (because unknown commanders can't have their MP bonuses calculated, so you're basically just crossing your fingers that a commander will make it into an enemy region to fight), we both agreed that this was a powerful advantage for whoever could sit in place and just let the enemy come to his area. Since this is usually the South, the Confederate player could frequently outnumber the Union in many battles; the Union could command as many leaders as he had with red arrows "over the top", but there was no guarantee they were going to have the MP's to make it. A rule that any leader with initiative can move at least one area would have helped greatly in this case.

As it was, the South could put its armies on RR areas in the back and let reaction movement take care of the rest. It was not uncommon to see combats 20:1 in favor of the defender, with half the attackers leaders sitting back in the region they started in and never making it to the fight.

However, this was under 1.02, before the changes in 1.03 & 1.04; I have not played a CG since then, and do not know if those patches may change the calculus here.

I would recommend, if you do choose to play an opponent with these options, doing so at historical levels with no extra bonuses for either side. Also, count on each turn taking longer; you will constantly be re-shuffling your leaders as their ratings are revealed, especially when you finally uncover a "0" Army modifier.

Even so, all that said, these are excellent options for solitaire play. Once you are familiar enough with the game and really want a challenge above the supply/transport bonuses (or pluses to leadership), playing with unknown leaders, especially sith CSC's, is great fun!

< Message edited by Def Zep -- 5/5/2015 10:55:23 PM >

(in reply to ryan1488)

Post #: 3

RE: hidden leader values - 5/7/2015 12:27:55 PM

sushidog

Posts: 65
Joined: 2/20/2008
Status: offline

I'm not sure this is correct. But maybe I don't understand the way movement works.

As I understand it, the number of movement points a unit has is equal to the MP of the unit plus the skill of the leader. So if you have a leader with Inf 3 with a couple inf units attached (inf is MP1) then the total MP of the leader and attached units is 4.

When using hidden ratings, the skill rating for inf/art/cav are not hidden, so you can always see who has the MP to make a move into difficult terrain.

The attack rating may be hidden. How does that affect movement?

(in reply to JD Walter)

Post #: 4

RE: hidden leader values - 5/9/2015 3:00:21 PM

JD Walter

Posts: 235
Joined: 6/20/2003
From: Out of the Silent Planet
Status: offline

Sushi, you are correct and I am wrong. The problems I encountered with Union movement are due to the additional MP's required by season, terrain (esp. rivers) and the presence of enemy units. I rebooted GG's WBtS for the first time in years and tested the optional rules out; I had mis-remembered the game and incorrectly attributed things to the wrong cause.

Unfortunately, my now somewhat aged brain can't remember exactly what caused me and my opponent to conclude the randomization rules favored the Confederates overall. I recall we did discuss it at some length and finally decided the South was better off than the Union using the rules, but I can't remember why. Sigh. Paging Dr. Ponce Deleon!

(in reply to sushidog)

Post #: 5

RE: hidden leader values - 5/12/2015 11:44:30 AM

sushidog

Posts: 65
Joined: 2/20/2008
Status: offline

I think the feeling the south is thought to be favoured with semi-random hidden ratings is because as the North there is so much pressure to attack and with those attack ratings hidden, it takes a little longer to figure out who are viable offensive leaders. Using historical leaders, you know right off the few good ones at the start of the war.

I'm still not sure why the south is thought to be favoured with non-hidden semi-random. Looking at how the randomness plays out, you'd think you'd end up with some better leaders in the early war (given it's a swing of + or - 2 to the attack and defense ratings). You might luck into an historical attack 2 who becomes an attack 4. Of course, you're going to get some duds as well.

I'm still not convinced it favours the south that much, but rather changes the game a bit. At present I'm playing two PBEM games with semi-random hidden ratings and the north has punched into Tennessee early in both. I'm the north in one and the south in the other, so it can't just be my inept play as the south!

(in reply to JD Walter)

Post #: 6

RE: hidden leader values - 5/12/2015 2:47:24 PM

JD Walter

Posts: 235
Joined: 6/20/2003
From: Out of the Silent Planet
Status: offline

Sushi, I'm remembering a little bit about the logic my opponent & I had for our conclusions about Leader Randomization. I don't recall the entire argument, but basically it was this:

The most important leaders for the Union, are those with infantry ratings of 3 & 4. This is because it usually takes 4mp's to move into an enemy occupied region and fight. (So you need +3 to the infantry's movement factor.)

There is a very limited number of Union leaders that have this high an infantry bonus. Naturally, most that do are also highly rated on attack & defense, i.e., 3 or 4 on those skills as well.

If using Semi-Random ratings(18.1.1), there is (overall) a 33% chance he will be better, a 33% chance he will be worse, and a 33% chance he will stay the same. So Semi-Random is a wash.

But Full Random (18.1.2) is different. Here, one has a 72.5% chance the leader will be rated a 1 or a 2. The leader only has a 27.5% chance of being rated 3 or 4.

This means that, if a leader is rated in the basic (un-randomized) game a 3, there is almost a 3/4ths chance he will be downgraded, a 1/4th chance that he will stay the same, and a minor (2.5%) chance he will increase. If he's rated a 4, unless he's exempted by 18.1.4, he's almost certain to lose it (97.5%).

For the Union, many of whose 3's start off-board with less than 11 command and must be upgraded over time in combat, this is deleterious. A large portion of their 3 infantry specialization leaders will end up as mediocre 1's or 2's on attack & defense.

Over the course of a full campaign, the effect is pronounced. By 1864, an average Union Army has worse command when randomized, than when playing historical.

Ergo, my opponent and I concluded (each one of us playing both sides) the rule overall favors the South.

Anyways, that's just my 200,000 Greek drachma's on the subject. I'd certainly be interested in hearing from more experienced players on the subject!

< Message edited by Def Zep -- 5/12/2015 3:50:00 PM >

(in reply to sushidog)

Post #: 7

RE: hidden leader values - 5/16/2015 7:36:25 AM

ryan1488

Posts: 160
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline

I have very limited experience with random leaders but we are in agreement pretty much. although I do admit I have been getting some great luck with my leaders in our pbem games!

zep if you want in on some pbem the pool of players is very low im sure we'd love to have you

(in reply to JD Walter)

Post #: 8