Game Balance & Historical Accuracy

Game Balance & Historical Accuracy (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865

Message

jchastain -> Game Balance & Historical Accuracy (12/4/2006 6:49:10 AM)
It would probably be best to allow people to have a little more experience with the game before starting this conversation, but since it has come up in a couple of threads, I was thinking we might as well get into it. First, as everyone should know, I am not a dev or a researcher. I'm just a volunteer tester. So the dev team can correct anything that I get wrong. This is all just my own perspective. Second, there was not extensive balance testing in the beta. We tried to make the game reasonably competitive. People would comment when things seemed wildly out of balance. There were a few PBEM games. Most people tried playing both sides. But the effort was focused on getting it reasonably close and not on getting it absolutely perfect. Finally, the reason for the above approach is that we all realized that the beta testers represented a small fraction of the overall potential game population. We couldn't catch everything in a game with this many potential strategic options. And we didn't have all the answers. The devs knew there would be lots of opinions once the game released, and plenty of really good ideas, so the plan has always been to tweak the stats a bit after release based on the full range of opinions and not just those of a handful of testers. The game designers began with historic stats. The testers did encourage them to modify some of those numbers the beta. I know there has been some criticism of that on these boards - that's fine, these conversations are healthy so long as we can have them in a mature and civil manner. We did have some testers who were more purists in terms of historical accuracy and they did shoot down several suggestions. The devs also tended to prefer historical accuracy in most instances. So for those wanting more accuracy, I think you'll find allies in the dev team so long as you can make suggestions to improve historical accuracy that don't "break" gameplay. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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.

histgamer -> RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy (12/4/2006 7:22:23 AM)
I would say the causality numbers need to be tweaked a bit so that you don’t see 15,000 for one side and 3,000 for another. When I get the game I plan to play all detailed battles i hear this is less of an issue there but still 2-1 casualties almost never happened and if you altered that I don’t think it would affect game play much at all. If its doable in a patch I would definitely say make losses more realistic. That said I LOVE the idea of march attrition and diseases great job with that developers. (Believe it or not most civil war games don’t deal with this) It seams CSA numbers are slightly inflated but its not to bad to make the game unbearable for me. Oh on the Naval aspect the CSA SHOULD NOT start with an ironclad. I think people tried to balance the navy a bit too much. Frankly I don’t think there should have been a balance at all really as the CSA historically started with 0 navy. The idea that the CSA could even hope to do more than keep a few ports open is a unrealistic idea and for the civil war I think they start far to strong. That said i would like to see raiders added as that may give the CSA a naval element where they can raid like partisans or raiders do on land, though just destroy resources of the union. That would make the CSA player have a naval component to manage (other than blockade runners) while the Union would have to invest in a navy to try to hunt down these privateers. As for diplomacy I see why money was included which isn’t entirely a bad idea but I think it should be made so battle results also will affect diplomacy, could you make it so that National Will somehow is tied into diplomacy? That would be pretty cool. (While of course not entirely getting rid of the money)

Gil R. -> RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy (12/4/2006 7:31:52 AM)
As Eric has written elsewhere, that CSA ironclad is there by mistake, and will probably be purged in a patch. And in the meantime, info on how to modify the start file to do away with it is provided elsewhere. This renders the CSA ironclad a minor issue...

jchastain -> RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy (12/4/2006 7:40:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: flanyboy I would say the causality numbers need to be tweaked a bit so that you don’t see 15,000 for one side and 3,000 for another. When I get the game I plan to play all detailed battles i hear this is less of an issue there but still 2-1 casualties almost never happened and if you altered that I don’t think it would affect game play much at all. If its doable in a patch I would definitely say make losses more realistic. That said I LOVE the idea of march attrition and diseases great job with that developers. (Believe it or not most civil war games don’t deal with this) In your opinion, are the numbers off or is the problem that they are not displayed separately? I think I am hearing that the biggest problem isn't the numbers themselves but rather that they are lumped together while people would prefer to see battle casualities independent of march attrition losses. Is the problem the numbers themselves or the grouping? (And I suppose ungrouping would give people better visibility into the numbers and then we might see additional discussion once people understand what is what). Also - should there be march attrition while retreating? From a strategy game standpoint, I think it make sense though from a historical Civil War standpoint it seems to be less clear. Should the side retreating suffer (A) No Movement Attrition during the retreat, (B) Normal Movement Attrition during the retreat, or (C) Higher than normal Movement Attrition during the retreat. quote: It seams CSA numbers are slightly inflated but its not to bad to make the game unbearable for me. I agree though others seem to feel differently. I would be fine with a change, though as I said, I think it is important to understand the impact of any change to the game as a whole. quote: Oh on the Naval aspect the CSA SHOULD NOT start with an ironclad. I think people tried to balance the navy a bit too much. Frankly I don’t think there should have been a balance at all really as the CSA historically started with 0 navy. The idea that the CSA could even hope to do more than keep a few ports open is a unrealistic idea and for the civil war I think they start far to strong. Eric already said it will be removed in the next patch and he is the guy who makes these decisions, so this one is put to bed in my mind. It is coming out and I don't think anyone will have an issue with that. quote: That said i would like to see raiders added as that may give the CSA a naval element where they can raid like partisans or raiders do on land, though just destroy resources of the union. That would make the CSA player have a naval component to manage (other than blockade runners) while the Union would have to invest in a navy to try to hunt down these privateers. Interesting thought. By creating a mechanism for the CSA to destroy the resource of the USA, it would allow the USA economy to be expanded without changing the net impact to the game. Also, this would force more action into the Naval aspect of the game. The real question is whether the devs would believe that a net-neutral economic change that incented more naval action was worth the effort. My gut thinks that might be more than they want to take on in a pach but it is an interesting concept. quote: As for diplomacy I see why money was included which isn’t entirely a bad idea but I think it should be made so battle results also will affect diplomacy, could you make it so that National Will somehow is tied into diplomacy? That would be pretty cool. (While of course not entirely getting rid of the money) That is also an interesting idea with a lot of historical merit. My only question is would such a system make people too timid? If winning begets winning in such a major way, would people be less inclined to fight battles where they were unsure of the outcome and would we therefore see less action? What if only decisive battles impacted diplomacy? Or alternately if battles had a chance to impact diplomacy based on their size - so 10% chance for small battles, 25% change for battles, and 50% chance for decisive battles? That might get the historical flavor you are looking for without making people overly conservative.

histgamer -> RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy (12/4/2006 8:05:49 AM)
True though if you look at it people didnt fight battles during the civil war for political issues, not international issues but still political. Also with regard to the battle losses, even with march attrition the USA wouldnt lose 5 times the CSA losses even with march attrition.

Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy (12/4/2006 11:43:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jchastain 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. Thanks for your thoughtful comments. But I think there's something else to be considered. If you get the economic disparity historically right, and the defensive bonus historically right, and yet the game doesn't seem to work right, that suggests to me that the effects of the economic disparity aren't being modelled right. Specifically, I get the impression that money and other resources can buy too much military advantage in the game -- more than they should be able to. In reality, you can't throw money at research and get rapid inventions. Money helps, but not as much as you might think. Probably the same applies to diplomacy. It's obvious that the USA had the economic advantage in the war. The Northern troops had good clothes and shoes and food and weapons, and the Southern troops were often reduced to scavenging enemy supplies. But that economic advantage didn't seem to buy an overwhelming military advantage. In the end, it was sheer weight of numbers that was more important.

Twotribes -> RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy (12/4/2006 11:52:38 AM)
Money doesnt directly buy research. You have to pay with other resources as well and unless you modify the game the Union doesnt have a HUGE edge in research at start. Especially if playing against the computer. Those Europeans love throwing TONS of research points to the South. You have to buy mansions ( or plantations) to increase city size then buy research buildings, and if your doing that in any big way your neglecting something else. I do think the Governor influence is a bit over done even if random. As I recall you get like 15 extra for some research if a Governor supports it. Thats a 15 percent increase since it only takes 100 points per research level. Each building only provides 3 points ( or 3 percent) And Universities take 1 Year to build. ( they increase all research in a city)

elmo3 -> RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy (12/4/2006 12:39:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jchastain It would probably be best to allow people to have a little more experience with the game before starting this conversation, ... Bingo. Not trying to stifle the discussion but take it with a large dose of salt at this point. The game hasn't even been out a week. I doubt anyone other than the betas have played a full campaign yet, and certainly not in a PBEM game. IMO you need a couple of games under your belt including games against seasoned opponents before you really understand how all the game mechanics work together. I'm sure the old adage that "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts" applies to FoF. Major changes to game mechanics at this point without extensive testing will be a frustrating experience for all involved. I have been a tester for years with other game designers and I say with confidence that balance is an illusion. No two people play the game equally well and even the same person will not play every game equally well. You can never balance the game for everyone so I would urge you not to try. The goal should be for players who know the game very well to generate reasonable historical outcomes most of the time. That brings us back to my first point, that until you have a larger pool of people who know the mechanics really well, and how they all interact, then please have the salt shaker handy.

Jim D Burns -> RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy (12/4/2006 12:59:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jchastain OK, so with all that said... let's talk balance. Well after spending some time with this game I’ve come to the conclusion that this is really just a strategy game with a Civil War theme overlaying it and not much of an historical wargame at all. So many things are off from an historical point of view that it really can’t be called a wargame in my view anymore, thus I’ve decided not to make strong historical arguments for major changes in the forums as I would if I thought there was any hope of getting it done right. AGEOD’s new Civil War title will probably be much better suited to those of us who prefer that the game gets the history aspect right first and then develops game models to make playing out that history a challenging prospect in a game. As I pointed out in another thread a week or so ago, to “get it right” the Union should be out-producing the Confederates by a factor of at least 9 in both resource production and finances. That of course would break the game engine and I see no easy way to make any simple changes that would get it close to correct without breaking the game. Another thing to look at is the fact that the Union had something like 44 divisions in the field by early 1862 and the South had about 29 or so. The divisions all varied greatly in troop strength, but the fact is both sides raised far more divisions in the first six months or so than the game will probably allow them to build over the entire game. Of course giving both sides the production and resources they would need to be able to expand their armies this quickly can’t work in the current framework of the game without giving both sides too much production. I guess if the upkeep costs were tweaked really high then increased production won’t be as much of an issue since a players income will decrease drastically as he builds up his strength. But getting that balance “just right” would be a period of time probably equal to the development time spent producing the game originally. Alas I’ll just have to keep my fingers crossed that AGEOD gets their title right to suit the historians among us. So to sum it all up I’d say go ahead and pursue game balance over accuracy if there is a choice to make as the task to get things historically accurate would be a Herculean one. Jim P.S. It is a fun strategy game, I just don’t think it can really be called a Civil War simulation as too many things in the game are just not accurate.

Adam Parker -> RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy (12/4/2006 1:18:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: elmo3 That brings us back to my first point, that until you have a larger pool of people who know the mechanics really well, and how they all interact, then please have the salt shaker handy. Let me know how you're going with the rules and drop me a line for some PBEM - I'll be happy to learn whilst playing with you. What's your gut feel? Do you think there's a deep and meaningful game in here? I'm a little turned off by the city management side but I can't see another way to simulate the all important economics and supply limitations of the era/theatre any better. I'm watching the Ken Burns DVD series right now for some clues [:)] I really need to hit the rules and print out that AAR you suggested.

Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy (12/4/2006 1:27:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Twotribes Money doesnt directly buy research. You have to pay with other resources as well and unless you modify the game the Union doesnt have a HUGE edge in research at start. You're talking about the game as it is. As I understand it, in the game as it is the USA's great economic advantage (in history) has been reduced because it unbalanced the game. My point is that, if you give the USA its historical economic advantage and that unbalances the game, then you cannot be modelling correctly the effects of the economy on the war. You must be giving money too much of a military effect. I don't know in what way, specifically, but overall I think this must be true.

ravinhood -> RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy (12/4/2006 2:07:52 PM)
I would say all games are pretty much ahistorical. If they were historically accurate then the south would never win. Games have to be made with gameplay and fairness in mind a bit higher than historical accuracy in my book. Why would I want to play a game of history I have no chance of winning? As long as they have historical "flavor" I am happy. Like leader names and vp's where the most likely vp's should be. I'd rather play the "whatif" than the "acually happened". As long as it doesn't get too far out of bounds like laws rocket launchers during the civil war period or elephants or in "real time or continous time" and such I don't have an issue with historical accuracy. I don't mind the balance being a bit in favor of the actual winner either. That's historically fair. Just not so much favor that once again I have no chance of winning. Sounds like they did a good job properly balancing it for a "game" and not a history lesson. :)

jchastain -> RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy (12/4/2006 2:51:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey quote: ORIGINAL: jchastain 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. Thanks for your thoughtful comments. But I think there's something else to be considered. If you get the economic disparity historically right, and the defensive bonus historically right, and yet the game doesn't seem to work right, that suggests to me that the effects of the economic disparity aren't being modelled right. Specifically, I get the impression that money and other resources can buy too much military advantage in the game -- more than they should be able to. In reality, you can't throw money at research and get rapid inventions. Money helps, but not as much as you might think. Probably the same applies to diplomacy. It's obvious that the USA had the economic advantage in the war. The Northern troops had good clothes and shoes and food and weapons, and the Southern troops were often reduced to scavenging enemy supplies. But that economic advantage didn't seem to buy an overwhelming military advantage. In the end, it was sheer weight of numbers that was more important. While there is merit to your comments, I would say that any game system sacrifices some degree of accuracy in order to achieve a degree of simplicity. Were any game to be entirely accurate, it would have to model everything. As you begin excluding complexities, it necessarily alters the dynamics. If money and resources cannot buy significant advantages, then why play the economic game at all? Should you decide that there was no short term actions that national leader could take to alter the technology and research landscapes, should that element of the game be removed entirely? Or since the USA had an advantage in materials, do you think buying weapons for each brigade isn't enough and the player should have to buy them boots and clothes as well? That might have some aspects of realism, but it sounds like a lot of micromanagement that would not be much fun to me. At the end of the day, in my opinion, a game has to be fun. I think this game captures much of the flavor of the Civil War and more importantly, it is fun. But again, criticism absent suggestions get us no where. I would respectfully suggest that you make suggestions for how to make the game better. Those we can discuss. If you just believe the game isn't accurate enough for you and you can't think of how to make it better, then all I can say is fine then you should play something else.

jchastain -> RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy (12/4/2006 2:55:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Twotribes I do think the Governor influence is a bit over done even if random. As I recall you get like 15 extra for some research if a Governor supports it. Thats a 15 percent increase since it only takes 100 points per research level. Each building only provides 3 points ( or 3 percent) And Universities take 1 Year to build. ( they increase all research in a city) Actually, I believe a governor's support only provides +5 to research. If you are lucky enough to have 3 governors supporting research you might reach +15, but I would say that would be quite rare. We played around with the level of support from governors during the testing. I believe +5 is the right balance, though I'm up for talking about it if you think otherwise. But check your number first and let's make sure we're talking apples to apples.

jchastain -> RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy (12/4/2006 2:59:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns So to sum it all up I’d say go ahead and pursue game balance over accuracy if there is a choice to make as the task to get things historically accurate would be a Herculean one. Jim P.S. It is a fun strategy game, I just don’t think it can really be called a Civil War simulation as too many things in the game are just not accurate. Thanks Jim. As you said, a game cannot be all things to all people. I agree that this game aims for fun over absolute accuracy and I think it hits that nail on the head. For many of us, that's what we're looking for. Others are looking for something a little different. There's nothing wrong with that either. Good luck in finding the game that suits your needs.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy (12/4/2006 3:57:23 PM)
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.

elmo3 -> RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy (12/4/2006 3:59:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Adam Parker Let me know how you're going with the rules and drop me a line for some PBEM - I'll be happy to learn whilst playing with you. What's your gut feel? Do you think there's a deep and meaningful game in here? I'm a little turned off by the city management side but I can't see another way to simulate the all important economics and supply limitations of the era/theatre any better. I'm watching the Ken Burns DVD series right now for some clues [:)] I really need to hit the rules and print out that AAR you suggested. Will send you an email tonight regarding PBEM. I probably only have time for a couple of turns a week so if that works for you let's have at it. I do think there is a not too deep yet fun game here. Not too deep is a good thing for me. The days of playing Campaign for North Afrika solitare are long gone although it's still in my game closet. So far the level of economic abstraction feels about right. I never quite wrapped my head around the economics in CoG so what feels like a more straight forward approach here has been easy to grasp. Not sure about supply yet. Logistics are paramount in any war but I have no desire to track shipments of hardtack. In my younger days I was firmly in the hardcore simulation camp. Balance, the ever elusive holy grail, was always secondary. Now that I have mellowed, i.e. aged, I'm looking for games that are fun and that don't require an MBA to understand. For me, a good balance between ease of play and simulation is more important than play balance. My gut feel is that FoF fits that bill nicely. I only see it getting better as time goes on.

Graycompany -> RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy (12/4/2006 4:39:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns Well after spending some time with this game I’ve come to the conclusion that this is really just a strategy game with a Civil War theme overlaying it and not much of an historical wargame at all. So many things are off from an historical point of view that it really can’t be called a wargame in my view anymore, thus I’ve decided not to make strong historical arguments for major changes in the forums as I would if I thought there was any hope of getting it done right. I tend to agree with Jim. I still need to spend a lot more time before I could give detailed information and suggestions as the Starter of the thread asked. That being said, my initial thought is that the games is quite fun, but nothing close to historical. One of the posters here suggested that game balance is what he likes rather than play a game where he knows the South is going to lose. To each there own, I am more of a mind to think that the South's chance to Win the war was a very limited window. A long war would favor the North, the best chance for the South was to reduce the will of the North to continue to fight. This could be accomplished, but again the chance was small. If the South had won at Gettysburg, had England or France then put some weight behind the South things may have turned out different. Mr. Lincoln(who I have read alot on) would be a very difficult person to just give up. In context of a game or simulation, I do agree with the poster about the South having a chance, but not by handicapping the North of her historical edge on Men and Resources. I think that this is what alternative Scenerios are for, which could be in the game. If a player were to end up in July of 1863 where the South did, this is what a player of a simulation should strive for, and the outcome of where the player positions himself for. All historical simulations, Boardgames or Computer often have Victory condtions that you may lose the war or the Battle, but do better then your historical counterpart, and win the game. So I agree with Jim, while fun and I would buy it regardless (and have) I continue to look for one that has historical accurracy as the basis rather then balance

Twotribes -> RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy (12/4/2006 4:49:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jchastain quote: ORIGINAL: Twotribes I do think the Governor influence is a bit over done even if random. As I recall you get like 15 extra for some research if a Governor supports it. Thats a 15 percent increase since it only takes 100 points per research level. Each building only provides 3 points ( or 3 percent) And Universities take 1 Year to build. ( they increase all research in a city) Actually, I believe a governor's support only provides +5 to research. If you are lucky enough to have 3 governors supporting research you might reach +15, but I would say that would be quite rare. We played around with the level of support from governors during the testing. I believe +5 is the right balance, though I'm up for talking about it if you think otherwise. But check your number first and let's make sure we're talking apples to apples. Your probably right, I cant check,I deleted that one and am playing another. Just what I remember seeing.

tc237 -> RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy (12/4/2006 4:51:32 PM)
Thank you JChastain, for starting this thread. quote: ORIGINAL: jchastain ... a game cannot be all things to all people. I agree that this game aims for fun over absolute accuracy and I think it hits that nail on the head. For many of us, that's what we're looking for. Others are looking for something a little different. There's nothing wrong with that either. Good luck in finding the game that suits your needs. If the dev team would have just stuck with this from the release date, we would not have spent the last few days crying over historical accuracy. I really like the game, I know it isn't 100% historiaclly accurate, but it is fun and accomplishes what the dev team wanted.A grand strategy Civil War game that challenges the player and gives them tons of options for conducting the war. What has been frustrating me is all the replys to questions about historical accuracy by trying to explain, make excuses, or convince people that it is perfect. Just say it is not a simulation, it's just a fun game. I think we can except that. One suggestion I would make: It seems the data .txt files are very easy to change, if we can get a basic SDK/modders guide on how some of the files work, the ACW "grogs" can make the perfectly accurate game they want. And all will be right in the universe.

Joram -> RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy (12/4/2006 5:10:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns Well after spending some time with this game I’ve come to the conclusion that this is really just a strategy game with a Civil War theme overlaying it and not much of an historical wargame at all. So many things are off from an historical point of view that it really can’t be called a wargame in my view anymore, thus I’ve decided not to make strong historical arguments for major changes in the forums as I would if I thought there was any hope of getting it done right. AGEOD’s new Civil War title will probably be much better suited to those of us who prefer that the game gets the history aspect right first and then develops game models to make playing out that history a challenging prospect in a game. ... Hilarious. I used to be a rabid WWIIOL fan and said almost the exact same thing (except for the AGEOD piece of course). In that game that sacrificed nearly all historical accuracy to make play balance. I've come to accept that and could accept it here if I ever decide to buy it. Regardless, I will present the same solution here as I did way back when I played WWIIOL. You don't have to sacrifice historical accuracy as long as you have sufficient victory conditions. Yes, maybe the South is supposed to lose but as long as the southern player can do better than his historical counterpart, then that player has won! It's pretty simple really. However, I do realize this kind of balancing appeals to more of the grognards and less to the people without any qualms around historical accuracy. I too am looking forward to the AGEOD version but I wouldn't hold your breath as they will most certainly have to sacrifice some accuracy for playsake too. It's the only way to get a broader audience as us "purists" are a dying breed.

elmo3 -> RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy (12/4/2006 5:29:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joram ... You don't have to sacrifice historical accuracy as long as you have sufficient victory conditions. Yes, maybe the South is supposed to lose but as long as the southern player can do better than his historical counterpart, then that player has won! It's pretty simple really... From the rules: "A nation wins the game when it has a total of 24 victory points, or it has 32 more Victory points than the other nation." Can we assume from the victory conditions above that in April of 1865 the USA got the winning number of points, and that neither side reached those numbers earlier in the war? An interesting exercise would be to take the victory points that each side can earn and apply them to history to see if that is indeed what happened. I'll leave that exercise to someone more ambitious than I! [:D]

Graycompany -> RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy (12/4/2006 5:34:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tc237 Thank you JChastain, for starting this thread. One suggestion I would make: It seems the data .txt files are very easy to change, if we can get a basic SDK/modders guide on how some of the files work, the ACW "grogs" can make the perfectly accurate game they want. And all will be right in the universe. well, for universe to be right, I still think Pauley Shore would have to be stopped from making any more movies[8\|]

Joram -> RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy (12/4/2006 6:08:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: elmo3 quote: ORIGINAL: Joram ... You don't have to sacrifice historical accuracy as long as you have sufficient victory conditions. Yes, maybe the South is supposed to lose but as long as the southern player can do better than his historical counterpart, then that player has won! It's pretty simple really... From the rules: "A nation wins the game when it has a total of 24 victory points, or it has 32 more Victory points than the other nation." Can we assume from the victory conditions above that in April of 1865 the USA got the winning number of points, and that neither side reached those numbers earlier in the war? An interesting exercise would be to take the victory points that each side can earn and apply them to history to see if that is indeed what happened. I'll leave that exercise to someone more ambitious than I! [:D] Actually, that's an excellent idea! But easy for me to say as I don't have the game yet. :)

jimwinsor -> RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy (12/4/2006 6:49:08 PM)
A couple points to add: 1) Talking with Eric (and I think he mentioned this publically elsewhere too) there is a "features patch" for FoF on the drawing board, which will invariably move the game in the direction of greater depth and realism. As I understand, one of the big customer complaints against CoG was that it was too much, all at once,for the casual gamer. So this initial game (for casual gamers) + later features patch (for grognards) was kinda decided as the way to go from the start. It's an attempt at making the game have as broad an appeal as humanly possible. So, for those you realism favorers (btw I am one of you) take heart; and yes, pls do keep commenting on the issue AND making concrete change suggestions for the features patch. 2) The game is extremely mod friendly. I was able to cobble up the July 1861 scenario in a few days after becoming a playtester, just by poking around the various .txt files in Excel. I got the oob data from various historical sources, and put it together from there. It was not that difficult IMO. It's pretty amazing the number of things that can be tinkered with in this game to your liking, once you get the hang of it. A "historical mod" is quite do-able.

Gil R. -> RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy (12/4/2006 7:05:47 PM)
A few things to respond to... (Actually, there are lots, but I'll limit myself.) As has been noted multiple times, we on the development team are completely open to any suggestions that will make the game more historically accurate. At the time of release we knew that it was imperfect in certain respects, but that the input of all of you would enable us to make tweaks and significant changes in future patches. Our goal was to get out a fun, playable game that was completely stable. (And other than those two critical bugs that were not discovered in playtesting, we appear to have done that.) At WCS we believe in a historicity-fun matrix, i.e. an imaginary graph that shows that if one makes a game too historical it becomes less fun, and if it's too fun it almost certainly is less accurate. We've tried to strike a good balance, but will welcome suggestions on improvements. Also, as one of you rightly pointed out, our files are easily modded, so anyone who wants to change the purchase prices of units or weapons, the effectiviness of particular guns, the ratings of generals, the military or economic strength of one or both sides at the beginning of the game, etc. etc. etc. can do so. In fact, we encourage toying around with this -- perhaps you'll hit on something that works well and can be shared with the rest of us. Finally, I'd note that all of the complaints about ahistoricity are focused on the strategic game. Remember, an enormous area of this game (just see how many manual pages are devoted to it!) is the detailed battle simulation, where historicity has been a vital objective in terms of unit capabilities, formations, weapons' ranges, terrain, weather effects, etc.

Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy (12/4/2006 7:17:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jchastain While there is merit to your comments, I would say that any game system sacrifices some degree of accuracy in order to achieve a degree of simplicity. Were any game to be entirely accurate, it would have to model everything. As you begin excluding complexities, it necessarily alters the dynamics. But you don't need to add complexity and detail in order to be reasonably historical. For me, the art of wargame design is to represent a historical situation reasonably well in a simple way. Adding detail doesn't make the situation easier to represent; it probably makes it more difficult. quote: ORIGINAL: jchastain If money and resources cannot buy significant advantages, then why play the economic game at all? All I'm saying that that money and resources should be able to buy in the game military advantages of the size that they were able to buy in reality, no more and no less. If you think that makes the economic side of the game not worth playing, well then, it could be left out of the game. I don't mind. quote: ORIGINAL: jchastain Or since the USA had an advantage in materials, do you think buying weapons for each brigade isn't enough and the player should have to buy them boots and clothes as well? That might have some aspects of realism, but it sounds like a lot of micromanagement that would not be much fun to me. No, no, no! The game is already too complicated. I'm not asking for further levels of detail. I'm just saying that I'd like the levels of detail it has to be somewhat aligned with reality. quote: ORIGINAL: jchastain But again, criticism absent suggestions get us no where. I would respectfully suggest that you make suggestions for how to make the game better. We're talking about fundamental design here. I don't think I can redesign the game from scratch, nor do I think Western Civ would be much interested if I tried it. quote: ORIGINAL: jchastain If you just believe the game isn't accurate enough for you and you can't think of how to make it better, then all I can say is fine then you should play something else. I may end up doing that. But as there isn't any other Civil War game around at the moment, I'll at least spend a while giving it a try. Work permitting... I bought the game as a game of the American Civil War, 1861-1865. If that's not really what it represents, I'm disappointed. Whisky is not the same as "whisky flavour".

Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy (12/4/2006 7:26:40 PM)
Thanks for your comments. quote: ORIGINAL: Gil R. At WCS we believe in a historicity-fun matrix, i.e. an imaginary graph that shows that if one makes a game too historical it becomes less fun, and if it's too fun it almost certainly is less accurate. Oh horror. I don't agree with that at all! You seem to be equating "historical" with "more detail". I'd like less detail in the game, not more (within reason), but whatever details it has should be reasonably aligned with historical parameters, because it's supposed to be a game of a historical event. Isn't it? It's hard to put over the right emotional tone in print. Please note I'm not shouting at you. Just respectfully disagreeing. quote: ORIGINAL: Gil R. Finally, I'd note that all of the complaints about ahistoricity are focused on the strategic game. Remember, an enormous area of this game (just see how many manual pages are devoted to it!) is the detailed battle simulation, where historicity has been a vital objective in terms of unit capabilities, formations, weapons' ranges, terrain, weather effects, etc. But there doesn't seem a lot of point to me in getting the tactical side right if the strategical side is wrong. Except, I suppose, for people whose main interest is in tactics. My interest is in strategy.

mlees -> RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy (12/4/2006 7:32:51 PM)
One of the issues as stated by the OP was that there appears to be a lack of "action" by the players. quote: 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. I guess most players are more conservative, building up a superiority in power before attacking. In real life, in many cases, political considerations forced the politicians to demand offensive action before the Generals felt they were ready. Is it possible to cobble up a routine that penalizes a player who does not fight? A governer loyalty hit, loss of victory points, British/French/Other diplomatic hits? Each player has an "Aggressiveness" point pool. Small fights, entering an empty enemy province, and seiges generate a few "aggression" points. Engaging in a battle with/against X number of enemy brigades, Naval fights (which were more "headline" grabbing...) earn you a few more. These "agression" points go into a pool. The pool will decay over time. (The pools in the very first turn of a game will have 0 points, so the first turn needs to be immune from penalties...) A pool of zero (modified by year? By 1865, the Union needs to be Aggressive with a capital "A"...) causes some penalties to be suffered. A player initiates fights by moving into a province containing an enemy force/fort, and engaging it. (The player must be able to be considered conducting an offensive in friendly territory, when repulsing an enemy invasion/incursion.) As it is, the computer generates the turns course of action through initiative rolls, I think. Therefore, you might be able to figure out what roll was used to determine who started a fight in a given area, and earns credit for that. Thoughts? quote: That said i would like to see raiders added as that may give the CSA a naval element where they can raid like partisans or raiders do on land, though just destroy resources of the union. That would make the CSA player have a naval component to manage (other than blockade runners) while the Union would have to invest in a navy to try to hunt down these privateers. One addtional scource of income (similar to the CSA's ability to get blockade runner goods) would be these raiders. There is a given pool of trade (the Commerce pool) out there somewhere, up for grabs. By default, it goes to the Union. The CSA gets some with (successful) raiders. The Union doesn't seem to be able to do much about the blockade runners, but Commerce raiders should be closer to regular ships, where they can be seen on the map, and ships vectored to intercept them. The CSA sets them to operate in various coastal waters (bonus to rewards for operating off the north eastern USA, less so off the coast of Texas). Raiders can fight as regular ships (and if they win, they gain a bonus to diplomacy rolls, a percentage of plunder from the Commerce pool, victory points). If the Raiders end up in an empty coastal province, they earn some plunder only. What's in the pool? Money? Horses? I guess we can use the blockade runners reward system to determine how much is in the pool... The difference between blockade runners and commerce raiders: Blockade runners are gaining trade from a seperate pool for the CSA, and are near uninterceptable. Built for speed, not combat. Commerce raiders are trying to hurt the Union's trade, and earn prestige (and diplomatic recognition) for the CSA. Better able to stand up to Union warships than the blockade runners, but they are still not as strong as a full fledged warship. (Max out the potential weapon upgrades to be less than the regualr warships can do.) Thoughts?

Graycompany -> RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy (12/4/2006 7:43:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mlees One of the issues as stated by the OP was that there appears to be a lack of "action" by the players. I guess most players are more conservative, building up a superiority in power before attacking. In real life, in many cases, political considerations forced the politicians to demand offensive action before the Generals felt they were ready. Is it possible to cobble up a routine that penalizes a player who does not fight? A governer loyalty hit, loss of victory points, British/French/Other diplomatic hits? Each player has an "Aggressiveness" point pool. Small fights, entering an empty enemy province, and seiges generate a few "aggression" points, engaging in a battle with/against X number of enemy brigades, Naval fights (which were more "headline" grabbing...) earn you a few more. These "agression" points go into a pool. The pool will decay over time. (The pools in the very first turn of a game will have 0 points, so the first turn needs to be immune from penalties...) A pool of zero (modified by year? By 1865, the Union needs to be Aggressive with a capital A...) causes some penalties to be suffered. A player initiates fights by moving into a province containing an enemy force/fort, and engaging it. (The player must be able to be considered conducting an offensive in friendly territory, when repulsing an enemy invasion/incursion.) As it is, the computer generates the turns course of action through initiative rolls, I think. Therefore, you might be able to figure out what roll was used to determine who started a fight in a given area, and earns credit for that. Thoughts? I think this would be helpful, although perhaps Victory Point Loses for not fighting/pursing the war might be an option. Seems to me that Lincoln was often prodding his Generals to move forward and press the War. Some players will see the folly in pressing when not ready, something that the Union Goverment wanted, and perhaps using VP (negative) for not pressing would force the North to fight, which would have the affect of making both sides fight when not ready, something that happned to both sides during the war. Well done Mlees!.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.171875