Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (Full Version)

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



Message

Gil R. -> Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/14/2006 11:03:22 PM)

As progress is made stamping out the lesser bugs that are still out there (since the two critical, crash-causing ones were fixed with the first patch), we are getting closer to releasing a second patch. (For Eric’s ongoing progress reports, see this thread in the Support sub-forum: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1324158.) As noted elsewhere, once we are done with known bugs we will begin to focus on adding new features and making changes to the User Interface based on the feedback that many of you have been providing. However, even though this second patch cannot be delayed for the inclusion of such non-essential additions and changes, since our top priority is to get bug fixes out to you ASAP, it will be quite easy to make changes related to game-balance that do not require additional programming. So, we would very much like to know your suggestions for such changes.

Now that the game has been out for more than two weeks many of you are getting a better sense for costs of units and buildings, the effectiveness of certain weapons, the impact of diplomacy, the economic situations of both sides, the effects of upgrades, etc. etc. etc. What areas need tweaking? Should certain weapons, units or buildings cost more or less? Are any attributes in need of change in terms of cost or impact? Do blockade-runners bring in too much or too little? And so on.

Many of you have been modifying some of the files that we wish to reexamine. If you’ve been playing with certain changes, how are those working, and do you recommend them?

Also, of particular importance is the issue of economic balance (or imbalance). Even before “Forge of Freedom” was released, there were a host of comments on this forum and other war-gaming sites criticizing the economic system for insufficiently penalizing the South or boosting the North. Now that people have actually played the game (or, for that matter, followed the ongoing PBEM game and seen how hard-pressed I’ve been to purchase units or weapons on par with the North), are there still concerns about this? If so, what concrete suggestions do you have?

We promise to carefully consider every suggestion made here, and I have no doubt that we will be able to implement a number of suggestions in the next patch (and perhaps more in the future).


P.S. Please do not let the discussion of starting naval units spill over into this thread. The “Naval Question” thread is doing a perfectly good job exploring the issues involved, and I assure you that we at WCS are monitoring it and will be making changes in light of some of the points and suggestions made there.



Alex Gilbert -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/14/2006 11:29:19 PM)

I hesitate to comment only because my experience thus far has been against the computer.  I am now in a PBEM game but it is too early for me to evaluate that.

My biggest balance concern is that camps seem too easy for the south to build.  Camps are essentially limited by the supply of horses, and horses are the one thing the south has in abundance. In a game on "Major" level, I had enough camps to get 20,000 reinforcements every 2 weeks by Feb 1863.  I think this is too much, especially for the south.  In my few games as the Union, it is much harder to build camps, resulting in the ahistrical pattern of the North having more trouble filling its brigades than the south does.  (This is offset somewhat by the much easier time the union has raising new brigades)

I think that adding a money cost  (10-20 or so) it would limit the south's ability to create camps and make a more realistic balance of force.  Again, this is just based on games against the computer, and I am interested to hear if others have this impression as well.

Alex



steveuk -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/14/2006 11:50:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alex Gilbert

I hesitate to comment only because my experience thus far has been against the computer.  I am now in a PBEM game but it is too early for me to evaluate that.

My biggest balance concern is that camps seem too easy for the south to build.  Camps are essentially limited by the supply of horses, and horses are the one thing the south has in abundance. In a game on "Major" level, I had enough camps to get 20,000 reinforcements every 2 weeks by Feb 1863.  I think this is too much, especially for the south.  In my few games as the Union, it is much harder to build camps, resulting in the ahistrical pattern of the North having more trouble filling its brigades than the south does.  (This is offset somewhat by the much easier time the union has raising new brigades)

I think that adding a money cost  (10-20 or so) it would limit the south's ability to create camps and make a more realistic balance of force.  Again, this is just based on games against the computer, and I am interested to hear if others have this impression as well.

Alex



I'm in late 63 now playing the CSA at Captain level with advanced rules. My original starting deficit of 129,000? reinforcements/replacements needed is now down to 67,000. End of turn replacements available from camps are around 7,000 but I could increase that much more if needed.
I think the problem is whether or not you are playing against a human opponent or the A.I.
I have not played this game against anyone else so will not comment on that aspect.
Against a Union led A.I. though, it does seem quite easy to survive without to much hassle. Are there any figures available of replacement turnover from that period?



andysomers -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/14/2006 11:56:49 PM)

I think I've played enough at this point to be able to say that one of my biggest problems is with casualty discrepancies in battle.  Even if you "barely" lose a battle, it seems as though there is an enormous difference between victor and loser casulaties in the battle. Several times in the ACW, the victor wound up with heavier casualties than the loser, I've not seen this happen once.

(that probably requires a big programming fix...)

AS



Gil R. -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/15/2006 12:02:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: andysomers

I think I've played enough at this point to be able to say that one of my biggest problems is with casualty discrepancies in battle. Even if you "barely" lose a battle, it seems as though there is an enormous difference between victor and loser casulaties in the battle. Several times in the ACW, the victor wound up with heavier casualties than the loser, I've not seen this happen once.

(that probably requires a big programming fix...)

AS


I know that I've seen the victor take more casualties. For example, in my PBEM game with jchastain a few turns ago my superior corps attacked his army in Bowling Green and did much more damage but nevertheless lost.

I do know that we'll be taking a look at tweaking casualties figures (as well as reports), but that would indeed require programming, so I can't promise anything for this next patch.



spruce -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/15/2006 12:09:50 AM)

I played one long game as CSA (nov. scenario - 2'nd lt) - this is what I find =

- emancipation is too easy for the Union - it totally destroys the game as it flips things upside down. F.e. I was at very good relations with the UK (+5/+6), France and rest of Europe was neglected. The emancipation should for starters be more difficult for the Union to do (Union did it early 1862, way too early) and shouldn't effect any relation that is above +3 imho.

- the South gets a good amount of camps - and as such reinforcments ... I think the camps should be tweaked very slightly to make them more costly (make them cost more - more horses perhaps) - but not too much. I don't agree this camp hoarding is a major edge for the South - the North has a more easier time at constructing new infantry as they have the edge in men and resources. After time the quality of Union infantry goes up, and the amount of US containers will be much higher compared to Southern amount of containers. If the South is willing to build many camps, and neglect on containers - they'll have a narrow army base - still the remaining divisions and corps and army containers will be very tough to crack for the Union (due to their high strength - many camps) - as it historically should be. Don't take the schwung out of the CSA by making their camps much more expensive ... a slight tweak is desirable still. And a big disease and major Union victory might knock out that slender CSA army.

- blockade runners are very good at avoiding damage - altough the chances for damage go up later war - the runners should be caught more frequently - some techs also imbalance the runners a bit - very very fast repairs on sea,

economy =

- as the CSA - I hadn't much problems at developing a stable base economy - I invested heavely in plantations, which in fact is a life saver for the CSA together with mints. I agree that plantations bring in bonuses - but the amount of bonus should be reflected in the bigger picture. My feeling was that the CSA can have a very nice money surplus (+100 gold a turn) from late 1864 on ... I don't think this is valid - as the CSA was struggling more and more to become self sustaining. In my game I prove the opposite - I became more and more self-sustaining - to such a degree I was doing as good (or even better) then the Union ... I think runners should get more chances at getting more nice "money" resources - simulating the fact that their major resource cotton was sitting in the dock and would rot if the runners weren't doing their jobs ... mints should yield less money ... or should take longer time to build ... this should be compensated for the South to have runners do better in getting gold ... in the early war ... and later in the war this income will swing up and down because runners will perform more badly.

- I put a question mark on the abundance of iron and horses for runner missions - could be included - but more gold is absolutely needed to reflect Southern opportunities at getting their precious cotton out - and goods in - which goods were worth a fortune ...

- I think handweapons should cost more "weapon" resource - it's very easy to build a stock of weapon resources, the historical CSA would have dreamed of,

- horses as resource are no problem for the South, the plantations and accosional horse farms are responsible for this - but an abundance of horses is not really a game breaker,

Conclusion = the winning strategy for the South is to build a self sustaining economy by getting lots of mints and invest heavely in plantations (long term vision) ... by building also loads of camps - a slender but strong army (=full containers) is build that can blast any Union incursion. I think this strategy is a bit too easy to achieve - the income should vary more and should depend more on the runners ... and the runners shouldn't be successfull all the time ! The income for the South should be more variable - and as such tone down the Southern development pace. I won the game in 1865 and I had my runners damaged 2 times - I lost both units - but the cost for a new runner is ridiculously low compared to the earnings it made for the CSA.



regularbird -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/15/2006 12:15:28 AM)

Gil, i agree about the camp problem.  I think the south should be capped around 5000 men per turn and the north should have a cap as well not sure how much.  If not a cap then place an upkeep cost to each camp say 2 mon, 2 lab, 2 hor and 2 iron each turn.



TheHellPatrol -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/15/2006 12:26:44 AM)

[:)]Very nice post Spruce, and informative. I will re-read it a couple more times before my next game as the CSA[;)].
@developers: keep up the good work, that's all i can say[:D].



Mike Scholl -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/15/2006 12:43:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alex Gilbert

I hesitate to comment only because my experience thus far has been against the computer.  I am now in a PBEM game but it is too early for me to evaluate that.

My biggest balance concern is that camps seem too easy for the south to build.  Camps are essentially limited by the supply of horses, and horses are the one thing the south has in abundance. In a game on "Major" level, I had enough camps to get 20,000 reinforcements every 2 weeks by Feb 1863.  I think this is too much, especially for the south.  In my few games as the Union, it is much harder to build camps, resulting in the ahistrical pattern of the North having more trouble filling its brigades than the south does.  (This is offset somewhat by the much easier time the union has raising new brigades)

I think that adding a money cost  (10-20 or so) it would limit the south's ability to create camps and make a more realistic balance of force.  Again, this is just based on games against the computer, and I am interested to hear if others have this impression as well.


A really solid point. Though it might also be dealt with by simply reducing the South's "Horses" to a more realistic total like 30. The Confederacy had no advantage over the Union in this regard in reality.
Alex





incbob -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/15/2006 3:02:47 AM)

I was gonna type a lot of things, but realized it wasn't in the scope of this thread. However, on the game balance and historic issue let me say this:

This is a ACW game, I bought it for the game, not because it recreated history. I applaude all those that want a more historic base and I DO want to see a Historic mod/patch/scenario. However, I do realize that we have hindsight and it is far easier for us armchair generals to order electron soldiers to die than it was for the real generals to order real soldiers to die. Therefore remember that it is a game and please keep an enjoyable experience.



incbob -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/15/2006 3:04:39 AM)

On the reinforcement issue could it be possible to set it so that the North gets more phsyical reinforcements, but their quality is lower?



Mike Scholl -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/15/2006 6:24:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: spruce

I played one long game as CSA (nov. scenario - 2'nd lt) - this is what I find =
- as the CSA - I hadn't much problems at developing a stable base economy - I invested heavely in plantations, which in fact is a life saver for the CSA together with mints. I agree that plantations bring in bonuses - but the amount of bonus should be reflected in the bigger picture. My feeling was that the CSA can have a very nice money surplus (+100 gold a turn) from late 1864 on ... I don't think this is valid - as the CSA was struggling more and more to become self sustaining. In my game I prove the opposite - I became more and more self-sustaining - to such a degree I was doing as good (or even better) then the Union ...



Spruce Have you played the game as the Union? You're comments seem to indicate that you were happily doing well as the South..., a lot better than the real South ever did. Have you looked at the "other side of the fence"?



Mike Scholl -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/15/2006 6:28:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: incbob

On the reinforcement issue could it be possible to set it so that the North gets more phsyical reinforcements, but their quality is lower?



Why should their quality be lower? Certainly the South had an advantage in the "initial rush to the colors" in 1861 with their well-developed Militia Tradition. But once those units were mobilized, what basis would there be for one side's "volunteer" Americans to be any better quality than the other side's?



chris0827 -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/15/2006 7:23:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: incbob

On the reinforcement issue could it be possible to set it so that the North gets more phsyical reinforcements, but their quality is lower?



Why should their quality be lower? Certainly the South had an advantage in the "initial rush to the colors" in 1861 with their well-developed Militia Tradition. But once those units were mobilized, what basis would there be for one side's "volunteer" Americans to be any better quality than the other side's?



It's part of the same myth that says confederate generals were military geniuses and union leaders were bumbling fools.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/15/2006 7:31:23 AM)

Kind of an odd "mythology" isn't it. "Our men were superior, our Generals all Napoleons: but a bunch of sub-human goons in blue commanded by incompetent, bumbling, cretins beat the crap out of us..." Maybe I'm missing something.....



Twotribes -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/15/2006 8:23:28 AM)

Well this probably doesnt belong here but. It is part of that age old victimhood thing.... the South was cheated, they really won but the North used underhanded means to cheat them of their victory. Just like the war was never about slavery at all.

The North does NOT have enough of an advantage as they did historically. And the AI seems to have a major cheat going for bringing in Europe on the side of the South, Emancipation is sometimes the ONLY thing that stops them and I mean early. I disagree that the South ever had a real chance to get England and France to send troops to fight for them.

The naval problem may be in another thread, but because ships cost so MUCH the North has little chance to build an army AND build a fleet capable of blockading the South , along the same lines the rule that prevents someone from conquering a province from the Sea makes seaborne Invasions problematic, added to that the inability of the North to pick up those forces once landed because the province doesnt belong to them. I dont recall tales in History class of large UNION armadas with Corps that were landed at places like Mobile and New Orleans or North Carolina dieing because they couldnt retreat.

Also I raise the limit on stored materials, while money can go to 2500 the file has everything else set at 500, that is way to low.

And the South can gain HUGE advantages in research with just a little luck, the Europeans ( any or all 3) can and do at times send in excess of 50 or 70 research points in one 2 week period. I would suggest it get toned down to a more realistic level.

Having said all that.... except a couple points all this things can be changed easily in the files and would appear to be personal likes and dislikes, so take them with a grain of salt. I can make changes as needed and even on those that cant change, none would appear yet to be a game breaker for me. GOOD work.



steveuk -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/15/2006 8:28:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: incbob

I was gonna type a lot of things, but realized it wasn't in the scope of this thread. However, on the game balance and historic issue let me say this:

This is a ACW game, I bought it for the game, not because it recreated history. I applaude all those that want a more historic base and I DO want to see a Historic mod/patch/scenario. However, I do realize that we have hindsight and it is far easier for us armchair generals to order electron soldiers to die than it was for the real generals to order real soldiers to die. Therefore remember that it is a game and please keep an enjoyable experience.



I quite agree with your comments. My main concerns have derived from the tactical battle side as strategic wise I know too little of the ACW.
A lot of people seem to post what should be possible/not possible according to what happened in the actual war. My take on this is that given the historical basic resources at war start....it should be possible to win as either side depending on how you play the game.
To my mind, the joy of playing a game like this is too try to change history...not re-enact it for the result would always be the same.

I also want to see an historic patch/mod...but overall, lets keep it a fun game as well.



Twotribes -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/15/2006 9:20:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: steveuk


quote:

ORIGINAL: incbob

I was gonna type a lot of things, but realized it wasn't in the scope of this thread. However, on the game balance and historic issue let me say this:

This is a ACW game, I bought it for the game, not because it recreated history. I applaude all those that want a more historic base and I DO want to see a Historic mod/patch/scenario. However, I do realize that we have hindsight and it is far easier for us armchair generals to order electron soldiers to die than it was for the real generals to order real soldiers to die. Therefore remember that it is a game and please keep an enjoyable experience.



I quite agree with your comments. My main concerns have derived from the tactical battle side as strategic wise I know too little of the ACW.
A lot of people seem to post what should be possible/not possible according to what happened in the actual war. My take on this is that given the historical basic resources at war start....it should be possible to win as either side depending on how you play the game.
To my mind, the joy of playing a game like this is too try to change history...not re-enact it for the result would always be the same.

I also want to see an historic patch/mod...but overall, lets keep it a fun game as well.



How does one try to change history when , in effect, a game is designed to give one side more than it had and the other side less than it had in advantages?



steveuk -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/15/2006 10:20:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

How does one try to change history when , in effect, a game is designed to give one side more than it had and the other side less than it had in advantages?


I'm not sure I totally understand your question in relation to what I said in my post.

As for FOF given one side or the other an advantage, I have no comment because the ACW is not my pet subject so I have no idea on starting compositions for the two sides involved.
My only interest in playing this game is to try to change history by playing the CSA. If the game designers make that difficult to do, then that would improve my game experience as long as I had available what the CSA had available at war start....no more, no less.
Playing wargames give us a chance to change what historically happened. We all know that Germany could have won WWII if certain things were/were not done. Likewise I guess it was possible for the CSA to win the ACW if certain things were/were not done.

When playing HPS Panzer Campaigns, I normally play Germany as to me the challenge is to win and change history. To play the allies imo is pointless as historically they did win so I see no point.

I just hope the game designers can bring out a more 'historical' mod/patch for the wargame grognards but still keep simple options for the more beer and pizza community.



Gil R. -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/15/2006 10:32:18 AM)

Regarding the issue of European diplomacy leading to great benefits for the CSA, that doesn't always happen. Look at my ongoing PBEM game, in which I'm maxing out on British and Other European diplomacy (and spending a bit on the French), and yet I've received almost nothing other than runners goods. Now, this past turn my diplomatic levels with both powers rose by one, so maybe I'll start to see more, but think about the fact that that's more than 100 Money per turn for roughly a year with no research and relatively little money to show for it -- just guns, horses and iron. If I had spent that roughly 2000 Money directly on my forces just think of how much more powerful they'd be.

Now, the reason for that must be in part that jchastain is also spending quite a lot on diplomacy. Perhaps in some of the games you guys have experienced the AI wasn't maxing out, which allowed the CSA to do much better in diplomacy and get richer rewards. If so, and I'd want more evidence of this, perhaps there should be some additional code put in to make it more likely for the AI to invest in diplomacy.



Tom_Doc_Holliday -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/15/2006 11:18:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alex Gilbert

I hesitate to comment only because my experience thus far has been against the computer.  I am now in a PBEM game but it is too early for me to evaluate that.

My biggest balance concern is that camps seem too easy for the south to build.  Camps are essentially limited by the supply of horses, and horses are the one thing the south has in abundance. In a game on "Major" level, I had enough camps to get 20,000 reinforcements every 2 weeks by Feb 1863.  I think this is too much, especially for the south.  In my few games as the Union, it is much harder to build camps, resulting in the ahistrical pattern of the North having more trouble filling its brigades than the south does.  (This is offset somewhat by the much easier time the union has raising new brigades)

I think that adding a money cost  (10-20 or so) it would limit the south's ability to create camps and make a more realistic balance of force.  Again, this is just based on games against the computer, and I am interested to hear if others have this impression as well.

Alex



Would it be possible to change the cost of a camp based on the number of camps within a province.
Example:
for the first camp in a province the cost is 20xL and 100xH
for the second camp in a province the cost is 10xM, 30xL, and 125xH
for the third camp in a province the cost is 10xM, 40xL, 10xI, and 150xH
etc...
This would help replicate that the reinforcements did not all come from the same place. Understand that historically they came from more populated areas than rural, but the recruiting locations were spread around a State and not just located in the major cities, or key strategic locations.
It would also allow someone to build greater than historical reinforcements, but at a substantial cost. Thus a decision point for the leader of either side. If the CSA player wants to pay the lower cost and keep them dispersed, they will then be harder to protect than picking a couple of well-placed camps that the USA player is hard-pressed to capture.

Tom



von Beanie -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/15/2006 12:49:04 PM)

As a veteran Union player versus the A.I., it is clear the south is much too strong. In my current game it is early 1863 and I'm just now clearing out central Tennessee. I haven't been able to move down the Mississippi River yet because each fort takes two or three turns to conquer, and then I have to defend each of them against repeated counterattacks. I haven't approached the north's strategic situation equivalent to when the battle of Shiloh was fought in April, 1862, and I'm already a year behind schedule.

Camps are much too hard for the Union to build (given they need to worry about their fleet, numerous governor requests and supplying their armies so that they can move south). Right now I've managed to get my replacements up to 6000 per turn. The border state governors continually ask for garrisons that I cannot fulfill if I want to move my armies south (I have started to ignore the neverending requests). Apparently, it is also much too easy for the south to replace their troops. I've won almost every battle so far (about 15 to 20), and the rebel armies in the west are still as strong as I am.

Assuming the Union is supposed to recreate its historical progress, here's what I would suggest:

1) Reduce the effectiveness of European diplomacy to make the shifts much harder to obtain--even if there's no funding. The north shouldn't have to invest 1/3 to 1/2 of its money there each turn.

2) Signifcantly reduce the numbers of governor requests, and eliminate the requests that make no sense (like a shipyard in Vermont). You could do this by limiting each governor to one construction request per year, or limit the combined annual requests to a specific amount of money or labor costs.

3) Make northern camps much easier to construct, and greatly reduce the ability of the south to create them (otherwise the north has no hope of operating in the eastern theatre of operations simply because of the periodic disease losses that cannot easily be replaced). At this point in the game most of my brigades are about 1000 men, and gradually getting weaker because I can't build enough camps to even replace the disease losses.

4) Since the north only has two 4 star generals at the beginning, only start them with two or three army containers. Make the other army containers corps containers so that they can be used effectively in the first few months of the campaign.

5) If you want to accelerate the campaign, randomly put some of the starting commanders in the western theatre of operations. Right now I waste two to three turns just to transfer and promote the commanders out west, and then to organize the forces. It would make much more sense to have a promotion routine before the game begins just to prepare and organize the starting forces for the campaign.

6) I'd also increase the starting railroad capacity for the north, as it is nearly impossible to expand it during the game, and it does greatly limit the speed at which reinforcements can be moved south, or from the eastern theatre of operations.

I guess that's enough suggestions for now. I'd like to see how these changes affect the game before making additional suggestions. Just giving the north the opportunity to spend more of their resources on the war effort (rather than all of the extraneous stuff) will help tremendously.

Norm






Mike Scholl -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/15/2006 1:03:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: steveuk


quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

How does one try to change history when , in effect, a game is designed to give one side more than it had and the other side less than it had in advantages?


I'm not sure I totally understand your question in relation to what I said in my post.

As for FOF given one side or the other an advantage, I have no comment because the ACW is not my pet subject so I have no idea on starting compositions for the two sides involved.
My only interest in playing this game is to try to change history by playing the CSA. If the game designers make that difficult to do, then that would improve my game experience as long as I had available what the CSA had available at war start....no more, no less. And this is a notible and worthwhile goal as a player. And the main reason so many of us are trying to get the game to a more historically realistic state. I'd love the challange of trying to "pull it off" as the Confederacy as much as the next person---but what "challange" is it if the designers have "leveled the playing field" to the point that it's easy to do so?Playing wargames give us a chance to change what historically happened. We all know that Germany could have won WWII if certain things were/were not done. Likewise I guess it was possible for the CSA to win the ACW if certain things were/were not done.

When playing HPS Panzer Campaigns, I normally play Germany as to me the challenge is to win and change history. To play the allies imo is pointless as historically they did win so I see no point. But if the designer gave the German's nothing but Tigers, and total air superiority, and unlimited supply, would you still want to play them? Trying to "do it better" with what was actually available is a challange as a player...., but doing it using a ton of ahistoric "freebies" is just "self-abuse".
I just hope the game designers can bring out a more 'historical' mod/patch for the wargame grognards but still keep simple options for the more beer and pizza community.





Mike Scholl -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/15/2006 1:09:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom_Doc_Holliday


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alex Gilbert

I hesitate to comment only because my experience thus far has been against the computer.  I am now in a PBEM game but it is too early for me to evaluate that.

My biggest balance concern is that camps seem too easy for the south to build.  Camps are essentially limited by the supply of horses, and horses are the one thing the south has in abundance. In a game on "Major" level, I had enough camps to get 20,000 reinforcements every 2 weeks by Feb 1863.  I think this is too much, especially for the south.  In my few games as the Union, it is much harder to build camps, resulting in the ahistrical pattern of the North having more trouble filling its brigades than the south does.  (This is offset somewhat by the much easier time the union has raising new brigades)

I think that adding a money cost  (10-20 or so) it would limit the south's ability to create camps and make a more realistic balance of force.  Again, this is just based on games against the computer, and I am interested to hear if others have this impression as well. Wouldn't this purpose be achieved much more simply by reducing the South's supply of "horses" to something like 30?
Alex



Would it be possible to change the cost of a camp based on the number of camps within a province.
Example:
for the first camp in a province the cost is 20xL and 100xH
for the second camp in a province the cost is 10xM, 30xL, and 125xH
for the third camp in a province the cost is 10xM, 40xL, 10xI, and 150xH
etc...
This would help replicate that the reinforcements did not all come from the same place. Understand that historically they came from more populated areas than rural, but the recruiting locations were spread around a State and not just located in the major cities, or key strategic locations. This would call for a lot more re-programming than simply reducing the enormous number of "horses" the South is being given.
It would also allow someone to build greater than historical reinforcements, but at a substantial cost. Thus a decision point for the leader of either side. If the CSA player wants to pay the lower cost and keep them dispersed, they will then be harder to protect than picking a couple of well-placed camps that the USA player is hard-pressed to capture.

Tom





elmo3 -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/15/2006 2:11:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

...

Also, of particular importance is the issue of economic balance (or imbalance). Even before “Forge of Freedom” was released, there were a host of comments on this forum and other war-gaming sites criticizing the economic system for insufficiently penalizing the South or boosting the North. Now that people have actually played the game (or, for that matter, followed the ongoing PBEM game and seen how hard-pressed I’ve been to purchase units or weapons on par with the North), are there still concerns about this? If so, what concrete suggestions do you have?

...



I am still early in my first game against the AI and have not started, much less finished, even one PBEM game against an experienced opponent. So I will not presume to tell you how to balance the economics or whether any rebalancing is needed. Based solely on following your PBEM game I'd say the economics look prety well balanced if the goal is to provide a fun game for both sides. That is not to say both sides are equal as it does look like you are having the tougher time when it comes to production decisions. I am not a Civil War historian and can't comment on whether the game economics rigidly reflect the situation from ~140 years ago. Nor am I that worried if they don't as this is first and foremost a game.

My only suggestion would be to be very wary of many well intentioned comments to cripple the Southern economy and/or strengthen the North. It's unlikely anyone but your testers have played the game all the way out more than once so most people will not have seen the effects of any advantage for the North played out over a number of games that make it into the late stages. Significant economic changes to the current economic models could result in the North rapidly overwhelming the South in games between experienced players.



elmo3 -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/15/2006 2:38:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Kind of an odd "mythology" isn't it. "Our men were superior, our Generals all Napoleons: but a bunch of sub-human goons in blue commanded by incompetent, bumbling, cretins beat the crap out of us..." Maybe I'm missing something.....


You and others might be missing the possibility that the South had beter Generals and better soldiers (at least initially) but still lost the war for other reasons.

As an analogy, many would argue the Germans had better Generals and better troops (certainly better trained and more experienced troops initially) in the war on the Eastern Front yet they eventually lost to the Soviets for other reasons.



Twotribes -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/15/2006 3:01:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: elmo3

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Kind of an odd "mythology" isn't it. "Our men were superior, our Generals all Napoleons: but a bunch of sub-human goons in blue commanded by incompetent, bumbling, cretins beat the crap out of us..." Maybe I'm missing something.....


You and others might be missing the possibility that the South had beter Generals and better soldiers (at least initially) but still lost the war for other reasons.

As an analogy, many would argue the Germans had better Generals and better troops (certainly better trained and more experienced troops initially) in the war on the Eastern Front yet they eventually lost to the Soviets for other reasons.


In one post you caution against giving the North and the South realistic economies based on historical fact, prefering that this just remain a fun balanced game,then you post this.... how exactly does the North win using its historical advantages that allowed it to do so when the "game" takes those historical advantages away?

I have played the Union almost exclusively in at least 20 starts... I have yet to take much along the Mississipi River past Paducah by even mid 1863. And I am completely incapable of moving from any coastal Invasion.

I have turned OFF disease not because I dont like the feature but because it invariably ends in the Union losing half its army if it invades anywhere ( in the first 2 weeks I might add) I also turn off upkeep because there is NOT enough of anything in the economies of the North to justify it at all. Build anywhere ( if you can) near the size military the North had and you wont have any economy at all, because you will have no manpower to run your cities and no money or commodities to build anything new, much less pay to appease the Europeans.

To recap I turn off manpower problems with city production, I turn off Upkeep... these two make no sense as currently employed based on the avaialble resources. I turn off disease , not because I dont want the feature, but because it costs WAY to much to anyone forced to conduct offensive operations in enemy territory. Building hospitals and gaining tech advances dont help a lot ( not to mention the more efficient tech is not available for quite some time). I WANT to use this feature but simply cant considering the results I have seen using it.

The manpower levels are way to low for both sides if one wants a reasonable fascimile of the war and the costs for raising each of the units to high. They are fine if one wants a balanced game that bears little resemblence to the actual war... Thus I will continue to make my own changes in this regard.

The comment about Germany would, in this case, be that the game provides Germany with the manpower and economy well passed its real conditions to "balance" the game.



nmleague -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/15/2006 4:05:40 PM)

Just a note on quick battles.   I have watched many of them playing as the North vs the South (computer), and watched the summary of each volley/attack along the bottom.  As I watch those results, out of the volleys/attacks on Southern units propbably 90% result in zero causualties, on the other hand almost every volley/attack on Northen units result in anywhere from small losses to losses of hundreds.  I under stand that the CSA had better quality troops and generals but this unevenness in losses is extreme.

An example, last night this happened.  CSA troops moved to wheeling to siege it.  Two of the AOP groups moved in to same area with a 2-1 manpower advantage.  The North had a fort and terrrian bonus as the defender, each side had 3 generals.   The result, USA causualties over 12,000 CSA about 300.   Moved the remaing AOP group over and all three moved in to the section, again with over a 2-1 advantage, same bonuses, same result, over 12,000 losses for the USA less than 1,000 for the CSA.   Most of the AOP troops had decent weapons and most attributes added.

There may be battles with lopsided results from time to time, but at this time with the fire power and weapons quaility available both sides should be well bloodied.

It would be interesting to see a summary of  many of the civil war battles to make a comparison of total losses for each side to see how lopesided they were.



ericbabe -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/15/2006 5:00:12 PM)

Comments
--------
On Economy: It's important to note that a lot of economic balance varies by (1) game options and (2) difficulty level. The AI does get significant economic bonuses at harder levels: this is necessary to make the AI more challenging and the game more enjoyable.

(In regard to this, I know some people don't want to believe that this is true, but there are many decisions I had to make while designing the game between "fun" and "realism"; material bonuses for the AI at harder levels is an excellent example of such a choice.)

Keep in mind that there are options to adjust the economies of both sides up or down, so players have a lot of control customizing this. I personally prefer playing the CS with a reduced economy against an AI with an increased economy... I think it's more historical, harder, and more enjoyable; game options let me do this.


Weapons: Haven't seen much consensus on the costs of weapons. Some people (on the main forum) want them to cost much less, others want them to cost more. Maybe we can increase the US's gun production a bit and increase the weapon costs slightly... make everybody happy (ha ha ha...)?


Reading through this thread three times, here are some ideas for changes that popped out at me. Please comment.

Ideas/Proposals for Changes
---------------------------
1) Reduce pursuit casualties after QB (by 75%? more?)

2) Progressive monetary costs for camps by province. +$30 per camp already there?

3) Add victory point requirement for emancipation. For US only? Need perhaps +7 VPs'?

4) Randomly start some generals in western theater...alternately, we could identify some generals to start in the western theater?

5) Easier for blockade runners to be damaged

6) Mints take longer to build. (Progressive cost, ala camps in #2?)

7) Fewer horses for the CSA? from Plantations?

8) Reduce research from Europe (by 25%? 50%?)

9) Reduce ship costs.

10) Make some US armies into corps (in Potomac) at start of scenario?

11) Minimum casualties in QB salvos?





elmo3 -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/15/2006 5:03:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes



In one post you caution against giving the North and the South realistic economies based on historical fact, prefering that this just remain a fun balanced game,then you post this.... how exactly does the North win using its historical advantages that allowed it to do so when the "game" takes those historical advantages away?
...


I cautioned against crippling the South or strengthening the North based on comments from people who have probably not played even one game all the way through.

I never posted ".... how exactly does the North win using its historical advantages that allowed it to do so when the "game" takes those historical advantages away?" You might have me confused with someone else.

With all due respect, just because you can't duplicate what happend historically does not necessarily mean the game is broken or that others have not been able to do what you could not.

Anyway, this thread is about game balance and I expressed my opinion as others are free to do as well.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.640625