RE: 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

Mike Scholl -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/17/2006 7:06:12 PM)

elmo I'm operating on the (hopefully correct) assumption that the Game's Designers did do a substantial amount of research into the ACW before producing a game on the topic. In which case they should already have the "basically correct" balance of forces and economic outlook for each side. Unless you have some reliable information to the contrary, don't you think it's a bit insulting to the Designers to imply they need this information supplied to them by players?

You make two very valid points about how the design models (or totally fails to model) certain factors. My contention is that they already know these facts, but seem to have rejected them in their attempts to "balance the game". And that I think they would have done better to give such facts more credence in the basic scenarios, and allow players to do more of the "balancing" themselves.



elmo3 -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/17/2006 7:25:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

...Unless you have some reliable information to the contrary, don't you think it's a bit insulting to the Designers to imply they need this information supplied to them by players?

...


You misunderstood me, or I wasn't clear enough. I meant that if people are claiming the current economic figures are wrong then those people should put up the numbers to back up their claims, not that the designers don't have numbers of their own.

Horses come to mind as an example. Some people, I forget who now, have said the starting numbers for horses are incorrect. Yet I don't believe anyone has produced any numbers to prove their contention. Of course "horses" are not just literally horses in the game so producing numbers to support a change would be problematic without knowing what that term really means in the game.

I too recall a discussion about a more historical startup that was subsequently balanced for playability. If that historical scenario already exists then that should satisfy people who aren't happy with the current scenarios.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/17/2006 7:33:44 PM)

OK..., your statement wasn't very clear. As to help, if the Designers want to "put out a call for information on a subject" I'm sure they'll get plenty. I know I did when I was trying to point out that the South really shouldn't have a "Navy" in game terms. Some excellent information backing me up came to light from a number of contributors; and I understand the Designers are now seriously considering a change in an upcoming patch. So I'm certain they know that help's available if they want to ask.



chris0827 -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/17/2006 7:51:50 PM)

in 1860 the North had 4,114,655 horses, the South 2,109,401 horses, and Kentucky 355,704 horses.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/17/2006 7:57:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827

in 1860 the North had 4,114,655 horses, the South 2,109,401 horses, and Kentucky 355,704 horses.



See what I mean? Toss in the mules and the question is answered. Thanks, Chris...



chris0827 -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/17/2006 8:08:15 PM)

You can get the whole 1860 census online. The south dominates in asses and mules but the north makes up for it in oxen.



TheHellPatrol -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/17/2006 9:19:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

I would suggest they eliminate the refrences to the ACW if this is the goal.
The title "Redneck Rampage" was already taken[:D][;)].



gunnergoz -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/17/2006 9:42:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827

You can get the whole 1860 census online. The south dominates in asses and mules but the north makes up for it in oxen.


I thought political commentary was out of bounds in the forum? [:D][:D][:D]



Mike Scholl -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/17/2006 10:53:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHellPatrol


quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

I would suggest they eliminate the refrences to the ACW if this is the goal.
The title "Redneck Rampage" was already taken[:D][;)].



Was "Jeff Davis has a Wet Dream" considered to risque? [:-)]



Paper Tiger -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/18/2006 3:45:22 PM)

For me the game is better played on the richer economy setting, as this better simulates the strength of the northern economy and it's ability to out produce the south.
After the early turns the South is effectively then fighting a delaying action waiting for the extra VP's for survival to start eroding any lead the north can build up for taking cities. Also allows the north to build a navy and an army and to build enough seige artillery to make a dent in all those overstrength forts.
One thing I would say is that the north should gain national will for capturing cities and the south lose it, the north should also only be able to emancipate with national will over +3? and this should eliminate the chances of foreign MILITARY intervention (not economic aid).



ericbabe -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/18/2006 4:09:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
You make two very valid points about how the design models (or totally fails to model) certain factors. My contention is that they already know these facts, but seem to have rejected them in their attempts to "balance the game". And that I think they would have done better to give such facts more credence in the basic scenarios, and allow players to do more of the "balancing" themselves.


We should have provided two starting scenarios -- one with more historical numbers and one that was more balanced. In the game with the historical numbers, the CSA could barely afford anything, needed to rely almost entirely on impressments and blockade runner income to buy anything new. I personally liked that, but people who were getting into the game were frustrated to have so many options of things to buy but so few things they could actually do.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/18/2006 4:17:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
You make two very valid points about how the design models (or totally fails to model) certain factors. My contention is that they already know these facts, but seem to have rejected them in their attempts to "balance the game". And that I think they would have done better to give such facts more credence in the basic scenarios, and allow players to do more of the "balancing" themselves.


We should have provided two starting scenarios -- one with more historical numbers and one that was more balanced. In the game with the historical numbers, the CSA could barely afford anything, needed to rely almost entirely on impressments and blockade runner income to buy anything new. I personally liked that, but people who were getting into the game were frustrated to have so many options of things to buy but so few things they could actually do.



Welcome to "Jefferson Davis' World". I think the two "Starting Scenarios" would have been a wonderful notion. I for one, have no objection to players who want to "fantasize" the game..., and have had real trouble figuring out what they have such a big predjudice against including a "reality check" as an option as well. I wish you had had your way from the beginning..., this forum would have had a lot less controversy.



Berkut -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/18/2006 4:55:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: elmo3

With all due respect, just because you can't duplicate what happend historically does not necessarily mean the game is broken


Hmmm, if the historical reult is not possible, then the *simulation* is certainly broken. It should at least be possible to get the historical result, if not likely.



chris0827 -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/18/2006 5:20:46 PM)

Make the game as close to history as possible but add some scenarios for those who want a more balanced game. Have one where Kentucky and Missouri start as confederate states or one where Britain starts the game at war with the north.



regularbird -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/18/2006 5:28:31 PM)

I think you should add the option that will allow the player to decide if kentucky goes union or confederate.



tevans6220 -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/18/2006 6:20:02 PM)

Sorry but I don't think balance should come into play at all. This is a game based on history. If it's not an exact simulation, it at least is supposed to represent the Civil War era. Balancing the game so that both sides have an equal chance to win simply makes it nothing more than a complicated version of checkers. The North and South both had strengths and weaknesses. Those strengths and weaknesses need to be represented in the game without balance. The war itself was never balanced. On the whole the South was always outnumbered on land and sea, always on the strategic defensive and never had the industrial capacity that the North did. Those things need to be represented without regard to balance. One of the reasons most of us play games like these is to see if we could do better than history under a representation of the same circumstances. There's no place for balance in a game based on history. History has never been balanced.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/18/2006 6:35:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tevans6220

Sorry but I don't think balance should come into play at all. This is a game based on history. If it's not an exact simulation, it at least is supposed to represent the Civil War era. Balancing the game so that both sides have an equal chance to win simply makes it nothing more than a complicated version of checkers. The North and South both had strengths and weaknesses. Those strengths and weaknesses need to be represented in the game without balance. The war itself was never balanced. On the whole the South was always outnumbered on land and sea, always on the strategic defensive and never had the industrial capacity that the North did. Those things need to be represented without regard to balance. One of the reasons most of us play games like these is to see if we could do better than history under a representation of the same circumstances. There's no place for balance in a game based on history. History has never been balanced.


While I agree with you, I also know there a lot of player's who AREN'T interested in a totally "historical" game. I like the idea of the game including something for everyone's tastes, which is why even though I've always pushed for a "historically realistic" BASE set of scenarios, I've never been against the "optional" bonus features for both sides. Offering two BASE scenarios (one absolutely historical; the other filled with "flights of fancy" and "wishfull thinking") sounds like a perfect compromise for everyone. And both would contain the adjustment sliders for further "handicapping" to suit each "taste". I think Eric's finally on the track of the game we would ALL have liked to recieve in the beginning.



tevans6220 -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/18/2006 7:43:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: tevans6220

Sorry but I don't think balance should come into play at all. This is a game based on history. If it's not an exact simulation, it at least is supposed to represent the Civil War era. Balancing the game so that both sides have an equal chance to win simply makes it nothing more than a complicated version of checkers. The North and South both had strengths and weaknesses. Those strengths and weaknesses need to be represented in the game without balance. The war itself was never balanced. On the whole the South was always outnumbered on land and sea, always on the strategic defensive and never had the industrial capacity that the North did. Those things need to be represented without regard to balance. One of the reasons most of us play games like these is to see if we could do better than history under a representation of the same circumstances. There's no place for balance in a game based on history. History has never been balanced.


While I agree with you, I also know there a lot of player's who AREN'T interested in a totally "historical" game. I like the idea of the game including something for everyone's tastes, which is why even though I've always pushed for a "historically realistic" BASE set of scenarios, I've never been against the "optional" bonus features for both sides. Offering two BASE scenarios (one absolutely historical; the other filled with "flights of fancy" and "wishfull thinking") sounds like a perfect compromise for everyone. And both would contain the adjustment sliders for further "handicapping" to suit each "taste". I think Eric's finally on the track of the game we would ALL have liked to recieve in the beginning.



What's the point of basing the game on a historical era if the game itself is not going to be 100% historical? The whole basis for wargaming -strategic or tactical- is to put the gamer into a historical situation. I'm not sure this game can be all things to all people. What's the point of playing a Civil War game where both sides are equal? You may as well be playing chess or checkers. I think we need to know what the actual vision for this game is. Is it a historical game that puts you into the role of Davis or Lincoln and the historical situations they faced? Or is this game supposed to be a game based only on the Civil War in name only so as to attract the largest group of potential customers? I would venture to say that most people were looking for a good historical game. Not trying to be insulting to anyone but I don't understand why anyone would want to play a game based on history and not have it be "historical".



Mike Scholl -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/18/2006 8:36:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tevans6220
What's the point of basing the game on a historical era if the game itself is not going to be 100% historical? The whole basis for wargaming -strategic or tactical- is to put the gamer into a historical situation. I'm not sure this game can be all things to all people. What's the point of playing a Civil War game where both sides are equal? You may as well be playing chess or checkers. I think we need to know what the actual vision for this game is. Is it a historical game that puts you into the role of Davis or Lincoln and the historical situations they faced? Or is this game supposed to be a game based only on the Civil War in name only so as to attract the largest group of potential customers? I would venture to say that most people were looking for a good historical game. Not trying to be insulting to anyone but I don't understand why anyone would want to play a game based on history and not have it be "historical".




I'm repeating myself from another thread, but "WHY NOT BOTH?" Should everybody in the world be forced to eat only the foods you like? Now I agree with you..., I don't see the point of playing a non-historical "historical" game----but lots of people LIKED "Dungeons & Dragons" and other fantastic games with some "historic" flavor involved. And the more people that like something, the more games MATRIX can sell. And that IS their business... So can we please all stop shouting "My way or the Highway!" and admit that just because WE don't want to "play that way" doesn't make it "invalid" as a choice for others? Maybe not an "understandable" one from our perspective..., but I don't understand why anyone would want to eat a snail either, and yet some folks continue to do so. ( just write it off as "Great..., more Roast Beef for me!)



tevans6220 -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/18/2006 11:11:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

I'm repeating myself from another thread, but "WHY NOT BOTH?" Should everybody in the world be forced to eat only the foods you like? Now I agree with you..., I don't see the point of playing a non-historical "historical" game----but lots of people LIKED "Dungeons & Dragons" and other fantastic games with some "historic" flavor involved. And the more people that like something, the more games MATRIX can sell. And that IS their business... So can we please all stop shouting "My way or the Highway!" and admit that just because WE don't want to "play that way" doesn't make it "invalid" as a choice for others? Maybe not an "understandable" one from our perspective..., but I don't understand why anyone would want to eat a snail either, and yet some folks continue to do so. ( just write it off as "Great..., more Roast Beef for me!)


Let me throw it back to you. Should those of us expecting a historically accurate game of the Civil War be forced to accept a less than historical game because development time was spent on creating "balanced" non-historical scenarios? It has nothing to do with forcing wants or beliefs on anyone else. The point is this game is supposed to be about the Civil War. An historical event. At this stage it seems the scenarios were created with only balance in mind and to hell with the historical aspects. Need examples? CSA navies and historical start dates for generals come to mind. You seem to imply that Matrix/WCS are so concerned about sales that balance took precedence in order to garner more sales. Read the forums. Most people anxiously awaiting the release of this game were interested in a historically accurate portrayal of the Civil War and not in something balanced to garner more sales. With the exception of a few games Matrix has made their reputation publishing historically accurate tactical, operational and strategic level wargames. I find it difficult to believe that they or WCS compromised themselves all for the sake of more sales. This game is very good but it's not very historically accurate. Thankfully it's fairly easy to mod to my taste which is also something those wanting balanced scenarios could also do. One last thing, I've played D&D and there's absolutely nothing historical about being a wizard. [:)]



Mike Scholl -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/18/2006 11:34:13 PM)

Let me throw it back to you. Should those of us expecting a historically accurate game of the Civil War be forced to accept a less than historical game because development time was spent on creating "balanced" non-historical scenarios?



Like I said, I agree with you. But it's fairly obvious from the original scenarios that the "design time" you begrudge has already been spent. Eric has suggested introducing a new set of scenarios just for folks like us who want history first and balance second..., and I think that would be just fine. You and I get what we want..., Malagant and others get what they want..., everybody gets a chance to "pursue happiness". What's wrong with that?



jsaurman -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/19/2006 12:23:23 AM)

I would also like to put in my vote for both "Historical" and "Balanced" starting points.   It seems that the players are pretty much split 50-50 on that point, so why not do both?   I'm sure it's not that hard to set up.

JIM



Sonny -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/19/2006 6:09:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tevans6220

Sorry but I don't think balance should come into play at all. This is a game based on history. If it's not an exact simulation, it at least is supposed to represent the Civil War era. Balancing the game so that both sides have an equal chance to win simply makes it nothing more than a complicated version of checkers. The North and South both had strengths and weaknesses. Those strengths and weaknesses need to be represented in the game without balance. The war itself was never balanced. On the whole the South was always outnumbered on land and sea, always on the strategic defensive and never had the industrial capacity that the North did. Those things need to be represented without regard to balance. One of the reasons most of us play games like these is to see if we could do better than history under a representation of the same circumstances. There's no place for balance in a game based on history. History has never been balanced.


The unfortunate part is that not everything can be simulated (i.e. historic) easily. When you add to that the fact that we know not to make the mistakes made historically any unbalance is magnified to the point that it is no longer even a contest.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/19/2006 7:03:07 PM)

"The unfortunate part is that not everything can be simulated (i.e. historic) easily. When you add to that the fact that we know not to make the mistakes made historically any unbalance is magnified to the point that it is no longer even a contest. "


Quite True..., somethings are always going to be "best guess". But we do have the Census Figures for 1860, and 140 years of research and writings, so it's not as if we were "fumbling in the dark" either.



Twotribes -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/19/2006 7:39:40 PM)

Actually the South would gain the most from our hindsight. They made the most costly blunders early that with Hindsight a player would not make if he could avoid it.... things like firing on Sumnter ( that was what caused Lincoln to form an army) ( and with out that we would have a hard time deciding when fighting starts) Boycotting the sale of cotton in a failed attempt to blackmail Europe into aiding them ( selling it before an effective blockade would have greatly improved the finances of the South) Putting off buying needed manufacturing equipment from Europe until the "Government" was more stable in the south, again resulting in the need to run a blockade to get it ( and few heavy things made the run) Neglecting the Western Theater in terms of men and leaders util it was to late. The refusal of States in the Confederacy to release State troops to the Confederate Armies. And of course no draft because of the same problems.

The biggest glaring errors in the released version is the fact that the economies are to close to the same with the only glaring advantage given to of all sides the South ( horses anyone) the overpowered southern troops ( if they really were that good we would probably have 2 countries now) and the massive aid that Europe sends to the South. As I understand it it takes 100 points of some research for a level and I have seen europena powers send over 70 or 80 of one type on repeated turns even when most of the ports are blockaded AND support is minimal to the south.

There simply is no way the south should have the ability to maintain a close and in some cases superior level of technology across the board.

Those are the obvious ones and all are ( in one way or another) modifiable if you know where to look and what to change.

I would venture to guess that this game can easily be BOTH of the competeing games we all want. It would be nice if the designers provided scenarios of both but each player CAN make changes on their own. This of course would be a problem for email games. I assume both players need identical game files in all the files.

I will repeat my ENJOYMNT with the game. It is in my nature to complain, hopefully I do not make the people that put so much into this game feel that they wasted their time or i am not appreciative of their efforts.



regularbird -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/19/2006 8:21:03 PM)

The south is just way to powerful in this game.  When you factor in the fact they get blockade runners, raiders and partisans it is even more so.  I like the game and I like many of the ideas and concepts, but it seems to me the south should be starting out making about 50 money, 15-20 labor, 0 iron and about 25 horses. the north about 200-80-80-25.  This is just guessing but I think it fair with the runners providing the rest.

Every PBEM game AAR the south has dominated.  I have played around with the difficulty and power setting but cant find the right combo.  Is there a way to mod starting buildings?

Oh yes there should be a cap on the amount of camps each side can have. maybe 20 union and 10 CSA.



gunnergoz -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/19/2006 10:06:39 PM)

It is worth remembering that game developers have to make a living and preferably a profit too.  They have to generate income through their projects.  Matrix is well known for historical simulation games but they can do more of them, if they reach a greater audience and generate enough income to fund more projects.  Game playability versus historical accuracy is but one consideration in their minds, I'm sure.  They know that designing a game that can stretch to fit a variety of gamer expectations is one way to insure its success.  Yet there are limits on development time and resources, so decisions are made about what can be included in the initial release.  Matrix has a good rep for following up its games with patches and enhancements so I personally am not a bit worried about FOF's future.  If it is now not exactly what I want, I know that Matrix will likely get it there sooner or later.
If we as grognards insist upon "pure" simulations with no game play or entertainment value, then we indeed are giving our developers a very skinny carcass to cook, so to speak.



ravinhood -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/19/2006 10:09:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Let me throw it back to you. Should those of us expecting a historically accurate game of the Civil War be forced to accept a less than historical game because development time was spent on creating "balanced" non-historical scenarios?



Like I said, I agree with you. But it's fairly obvious from the original scenarios that the "design time" you begrudge has already been spent. Eric has suggested introducing a new set of scenarios just for folks like us who want history first and balance second..., and I think that would be just fine. You and I get what we want..., Malagant and others get what they want..., everybody gets a chance to "pursue happiness". What's wrong with that?


Now THAT I can agree with. If they can give everyone what they want out of one game that's great. I prefer balanced and whatif's. Never like simulations that much. I don't buy many games retail upon release anymore, but, I bought this one because of the "balanced" aspect and the south having as much opportunity to win as the north. Just with a Civil War flavor. So, I like chess/checkers ;)



Mike Scholl -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/19/2006 10:17:12 PM)

And I have nothing against Chess, Checkers, or "balance". They're just not my "cup of tea". "Something for everybody" just seemed like a perfect compromise..., which is why I was confused by continuing negative reactions from both sides. Maybe everyone is finally catching on that "them getting theirs" does not mean that "you can't have yours".



Shoot Me_I Explode -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/20/2006 4:01:00 AM)

I believe the destroy supplies option for Confederate raiders is far too powerful at times.  The ability to destroy 30+ supplies in a province that has an army in it can is capable of bring the supply for the armies division below the magic 5 number that will give it a real disadvantage in any battle if your opponent times an attack with a successful raid. On one of my turns in my email game with JonReb he got two raider units in a province where the AoP was located and destroyed some 58 supplies in a single turn. Either raise the damger % for the raiders or limite the number of supplies a raider unit can destroy to something lower then it is now.


 
Also why do the Confederates have a monopoly on the raiders?  From my limited knowledge of the civil war I know that the union also employed some very successful raiders that caused havoc in the south.  



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.312988