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

von Beanie -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/20/2006 12:17:53 PM)

I'm not looking for a highly realistic simulation, but in the "standard scenario" it should be possible for the Union to advance into southern Tennessee and down the Mississippi River before 1863. Shiloh occurred within 25 miles of the Mississippi state border in April, 1862.

I empathize with those southern sympathizers that expect a "fun" game, but if a game never comes close to reproducing what actually happened, then something is wrong. The disillusionment I'm having is if I manage to take Forts Henry and Donelson before the end of 1862 I am quite happy, but when I realize that they were actually taken by US Grant in February 1862, I feel like an incompetent. I'm not certain the game mechanics allow anyone to take them this quickly. And in real life they were defended by more than ten thousand CSA troops that would definitely slow things down in game terms.

Perhaps if the turns represent a week (rather than 1/2 of a month) the present game timeline might become more realistic.

Just as important is the inactivity of both sides in northern Virginia. I'm not sure my suggestion is even possible (see below), but as it currently stands neither side has any incentive to do battle there in 1862 as happened in real life.

(Here's one idea to correct some of these problems: similar to one of Avalon Hill's old Russian front games, perhaps in January of each year each side would be forced to select one target from a list of three or four for that year. The lists would be known to both sides and involve attainable objectives, but the selected target would only be known to the attacker. Then, if either side takes their selected objective for that year they win if they hold it at the end of July or December. And if 50% of the objective list is centered in the eastern theatre then perhaps it might induce more activity by both sides there. As it stands, neither side has a realistic incentive to try campaigns like Lee's invasions of the north, McClellan's peninsula campaign, Price's 1864 invasion of western Missouri, or Bragg's 1864 Nashville campaign. And because neither side knows for certain their opponent's critical target, this design inevitably generates many feints and indirect maneuvers. In my opinion, an option like this would result in a more exciting game than trying to balance the forces ahistorically. And for play against the AI, the AI would always know both objectives, and operate to defend and/or attack them accordingly P.S. it seems like Wheeling is always the 1862 CSA objective--I'd just like to see it randomized more--and give the CSA a victory if they hold it at the end of July or December in 1862).

BTW, has anyone checked to make sure the first sergeant level is the basic level? I'm having an easier time conquering the south at a mid-level (colonel?) than on the default setting.



mlees -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/20/2006 7:08:44 PM)

#1) In my opinion, based on about a couple weeks of play versus the AI, is that the CSA is a bit too strong, economically, than was the case historically. But I realise that the player may want to have "something to do, stuff to build", so for balance the CSA is given more resources.

I swing between "historically accurate" and "fun & balanced, you decide", depending on my mood that day, for my approach to gaming.

So I would recommend/support the idea of two scenerios being created, labeled "balanced" and "historical", as ericbabe mentions in post #71.

#2) RE: Union sea invasions. Not attempted much, as province control does not change unless that province borders another of your own.

Is it possible to make the ocean/coastal spaces flagged as dual ownership? (Might be the most simple in coding...)

Or possibly decided based on the presence of non-empty Fleet containers?

If both powers have a fleet container in the coastal zone, or if neither has a fleet container in the coastal zone, the zone is considered "neutral", or "contested"... but if only one power has a fleet there, then they control that zone as long as the fleet stays there.

This way, sea invasions may change control of the invaded province, as there should always be a fleet container transporting the invasion forces, and if uncontested, that "friendly flagged" coastal zone allows change of ownership of a province. This would make a recreation of the Union capturing New Orleans (and it's province) possible.

#3) In the standard game, the Union is so busy trying to buff up it's armies (to invade the south) and investing in infrastructure (and European diplomacy, if that option is used), that little, if any, is left over for the navy. Respectfully request a slight decrease in the cost of ships. There seems to be one decisive sea fight, then that side controls the seas for the rest of the game...

Either a straight cost adjustment (which would benefit both sides equally), or based on the number of shipyards that player owns, if possible (which would probably favor the Union, if my memory is correct in telling me that the Union starts with more shipyards...).


Thank you for your time. [:)]



spruce -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/20/2006 10:51:09 PM)

hm, I'm surprised that you guys are overlooking the main imbalacing parameter in this game - and that's blockade runners. Those runners are just doing really imbalancing and a-historical things =

- they allow the South to go camp hoarding - any time - any day (if you get 100 extra horses each turn, that's quite a lot),

- those runners are ideal to "launch" the Confederate economy early game to become self-sustaining (mints and plantations and all sorts of cool weapons to chase off the yankee's). In 1864 my economy was so good - I didn't bother to use my blockade runners anymore - and I kept on getting stronger.

- they are a "stable" source of Confederate income - which they were not historically. It was more like a lottery and the lottery was getting harder and harder to win. In my 5 years of play, I lost one blockade runner and had to repair one runner ... and lost that runner late 1865. I think runners are the best investment in the game ... as the Union navy goes to max. 40% damage in the later game ... which is still pretty low if you take into account the South is making more then 100 gold coins profit each turn.

- there's not really any scarcity for the South - talking resource wise - you can get those resources always. The South even seems to keep the Unions pace - weaponwise ... due to all those weapon resources flooding the South.

conclusion = less resource missions for runners ... more gold missions - and lower success levels troughout the entire game ... and higher chance of getting damage - but lower damage early game. This should result in a more variable income for the South early game - meaning more scarcity in resources - so less camp hoarding - and less economical "prodigy projects" for the South.

Many of the imbalancing stuff come from these blockade runners ...

ps = I also feel that partisans and raiders are both taking a heavy toll on the union - they take a lot of weapons and supplies. They should be less effective I think...



regularbird -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/20/2006 11:39:17 PM)

I agree, Runners should be restricted to weapons only.  How common was it for the south to get large shipments of raw materials.



Hard Sarge -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/20/2006 11:48:30 PM)

Funny, I tend to park my runners, normally by the middle of 62, rarely lasting till 63, they are only good if the folks overseas like you, most of my games, the Union has the friends, so I pull my money and park my boats

if you want to camp horde, go ahead, but it is not needed, those resouces can be used for better things



Hard Sarge -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/20/2006 11:48:54 PM)

like this


[image]local://upfiles/1438/180D0F37E9DB41F9B374912E433F7EB4.jpg[/image]



spruce -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/20/2006 11:55:56 PM)

Hard Sarge,

I did exactly the same thing as you - the only difference was - I have to confess - that I had very good relations with the UK (at +4 to +6 until the Union emancipated). I got loads of resources from the runners and build a lot of mints, plantations in horse producing cities and camps. I did some camp hoarding, but not that extreme - and I too got good city development. I build zero mansions, and lots of plantations ...

I think blockade runners should get more money missions - and less resource missions like weapons, horses and iron. I think the runners shipped out cotton to get money - an sometimes there were resources - but I feel like in my CSA game I don't run into scarcity from 1863 on and that's a bit ahistorical...

tough might be related to my good relations with the UK until june 1862 ...



Mike Scholl -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/21/2006 12:21:37 AM)

"I think blockade runners should get more money missions - and less resource missions like weapons, horses and iron. I think the runners shipped out cotton to get money - an sometimes there were resources"


Actually "Weapons" and "luxuary goods" were the primary imports of runners. The only use the South had for foriegn money was to buy foriegn arms..., so why bring back money only to ship it out again?



spruce -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/21/2006 12:42:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

"I think blockade runners should get more money missions - and less resource missions like weapons, horses and iron. I think the runners shipped out cotton to get money - an sometimes there were resources"


Actually "Weapons" and "luxuary goods" were the primary imports of runners. The only use the South had for foriegn money was to buy foriegn arms..., so why bring back money only to ship it out again?


like I said - ship out cotton makes money (all that cotton sitting in the docks is worth nothing), shipping it out is pure profit - and for resources, we can't hardly say that the confederacy has a shortage of resources. It all comes from their blockade runners. If you have 2 of them - you can fetch some extra 80 horses each turn ... this is tremenduous if you see that some cities are like producing only between 6 to 10 horses ... that's virtually a "doubling" of the confederate resources.

blockade runners are just brining in too much resources ...

the money bonus should level out tweaking down mints and plantations - which are another deep source of income ...

And the South can do some quite nasty things with that money - f.e. buy English weapons for troops, forts and ships.



elmo3 -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/21/2006 2:09:14 AM)

From McPherson in Battle Cry of Freedom pages 378 and 380 on the blockade and blockade runner success:

"About 500 ships took part in the blockade during the war, with perhaps 150 on patrol at a given time over the four years of fighting. These ships destroyed or captured about 1,500 blockade tunners."

"...during the war an estimated five out of six runners got through (nine out of ten in 1861 scaling down to one out of two in 1865."

"They shipped out half a million bales of cotton and brought in a million pairs of shoes, half a million rifles, a thousand tons of gunpowder, several hundred cannon, and so on."



Shoot Me_I Explode -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/21/2006 2:18:54 AM)

As it stands now I feel the game is pretty bias toward the confederacy for the simple reason of raiders, runners, and plantations.  Raiders are just too effective for the low risk they offer.  Every single turn against JonReb I lose 30+ supply somewhere to his raiders forcing me to several of my division in normal supply level which sucks gold needed to build mansions away.  I am literary out of building room in the north and have to wait two turns before I accumulate enough gold to build one mansion from spending so much money to keep my units supplied.  I lost my two Calvary units to random encounters with from the enemy moving a division into the providence where my Calvary unit was located while it was chasseing a raider unit.
 
Plantations are another matter.  You get so much from investing so little into a plantation.  50 labor and 50 horses for a building that supports 4 buildings, +1 money, +2 labor, +2 horses and all for only waiting 12 turns.  Against JonReb again I’ve checked last turn through his cities and he has no less then 12 plantations under construction as it stands.  Must be worthwhile if he’s willing to wait 12 turns for them.  Maybe if they added on to the cost 100 gold they would be fair, but any building that supports more buildings and produces goods is unfair as long as one side has a monopoly over it.
 
Same thing with Runners, they can produce too many resources too quickly.  In the AAR’s I’ve seen they fetch 60 or 70 horses, money and so on, almost doubling the output of the entire south for that turn.  Plus the fact they seem impossible to destroy makes them very frustrating thing to fight. 
 
Any one of these three units by themselves would not be unfair or unbalanced but because the CSA has all three, and the Union has absolutely no equal to any of them severely evens out the economics of the game and I believe gives the south a distinct advantage in some areas.



General Quarters -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/21/2006 4:23:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

like this


[image]local://upfiles/1438/180D0F37E9DB41F9B374912E433F7EB4.jpg[/image]


Sorry to be obtuse, Hard Sarge, but what "this" are you focusing on? What I noticed is all those mansions. They don't produce the labor, iron, etc., that planations do, so why build them instead?



mlees -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/21/2006 5:28:17 AM)

GQ, the only advantage of mansions over plantations is that mansions are finished faster. If your swimming in resources, you need expansion room in the cities as soon as you can get it... and the +2 labor/horses may not matter that much, then.

spruce, I agree that runners are tough to counter, especially as sea invasions are not practical.

I thought that I saw a statement around here somewhere that the goods made available to the CSA runners is based on 1) Diplomatic relationship levels, and 2) open (nonblockaded) southern ports.

With navy ships being so expensive (and take a long time to show up), few players, if any, build enough ships to blockade the south.

Conquering the coastal provinces (and their ports) is the only alternative, except that you can't change ownership of said province unless it's adjacent to one of your own (from a Union point of view).

That's why I had suggested those changes. Do you think they wouldn't be enough?



Hard Sarge -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/21/2006 5:58:05 AM)

GC
well, as was said, I am concerned with time, not resouces, look at the map, I do not need goods, the Union is making them for me

also, the rules say, a Plantation changes to a Mansion once the Slaves are freed, so I wouldn't get any labor or Horses by building them, just wasted time

which if you can tell from the names, those are my Iron working centers and my Siege gun makers, wait a few turn, and build up my resources, and then buy what I want



marecone -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/21/2006 10:12:27 AM)

Camps issue
- I suggest that you leave the cost for camps but make one modification. Each time camp provides new men your total of working men in cities would be reduced by some number. Let say for 500 new reinforcements you would loose 0.1 working men in that province. Or maybe different numbers, I dunno.
By doing this you would make players think twice before building 20 camps or so. Also, if you would go with my idea then you should include option to turn of camps in some cities so they don't "die out".



Feltan -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/21/2006 12:07:44 PM)

I have to agree that the Confederates have a huge advantage in the game. I have tweaked power number, and I simply can't fine anything close to historical.

1. The replacement/camp issue needs to be fixed. It gives the South too much of an advantage.

2. I can live with runners; what I find more vexing is the european countries just shipping a ton of stuff that can't be intercepted or countered. Vast sums of raw materails and technology could simply NOT be shipped (let the runners fetch it) and the game would better.

3. Every container should have a leader at the start -- even if they suck. The Union is screwed from the get go just trying to pump leaders out west.

4. I question the at start navies. The Union navy seems underrepresented.

5. The Union needs more cashflow. Even with a generous economy, you simply can't produce enough $$$ to build a navy, research facilities, etc, etc

6. There is no point to do any sea invasions until the ownership thing gets corrected. You simply can't recreate the Union grabbing New Orleans early in the game, or occupying much of Florida. The South's back door is effectively secure.

The game mechanics seem just fine, in fact they are really good. However, I don't know who playtested this game. If you have a boner for the South, I suppose it could be a fun game. And, I am not looking for something so restricted that all you get are historical results. However, you should be able to envision a game where historical results are, or are close to, possible. It is painful playing the Union and a breeze playing the South -- it needs to be the other way around.

Regards,
Feltan



tevans6220 -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/21/2006 8:30:02 PM)

Something that I think needs changed is the morale/quality advantage given to the South in the standard scenario. The troop quality of both sides was practically the same for the entire war. The difference was in leadership and I think that's already reflected in the South having better leadership at the start. It was never a case of Southern troops being better fighters than their Northern counterparts. Leadership made the difference.



General Quarters -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/21/2006 8:55:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Feltan
6. There is no point to do any sea invasions until the ownership thing gets corrected. You simply can't recreate the Union grabbing New Orleans early in the game, or occupying much of Florida. The South's back door is effectively secure.



Several people have made this argument, but it seems to me that the game does a good job of matching the real war in this respect. Historically, Union capture of cities and forts around the periphery did not enable a land invasion farther into those states. Sherman marched to the sea; the sea did not march to Sherman. Historically and in the game, taking down the South's major coastal cities has a tremendous impact on its resources.

The only possible disconnect with regard to coastal operations is that the Union forces seem more vulnerable to attrition and counterattack than they were historically. I have wondered why the South did not briefly detach a couple of divisions and retake some of these. Some, e.g., Burnside on the North Carolina coast, were quite small, I think. Maybe someone who has studied these coastal operations can cast light on this question.



spruce -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/21/2006 9:48:21 PM)


quote:



also, the rules say, a Plantation changes to a Mansion once the Slaves are freed, so I wouldn't get any labor or Horses by building them, just wasted time


coughing ...

I had the Union emancipate in april 1862 - I hope it didn't effect the slaves in the South ? Meaning impact the production on confederate plantations?



Mike Scholl -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/21/2006 10:11:59 PM)

Several people have made this argument, but it seems to me that the game does a good job of matching the real war in this respect. Historically, Union capture of cities and forts around the periphery did not enable a land invasion farther into those states. Sherman marched to the sea; the sea did not march to Sherman. Historically and in the game, taking down the South's major coastal cities has a tremendous impact on its resources



Actually, this is not the case. New Orleans led eventually to all of Louisana, and the invasion attempt into Texas (Red River Campaign), and to the capture of Port Hudson on the Mississippi. Take a good look at a map of the South in 1864 and you will see very large areas of the Coast and a good deal inland have been taken from the sea.



chris0827 -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/21/2006 10:43:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: General Quarters


quote:

ORIGINAL: Feltan
6. There is no point to do any sea invasions until the ownership thing gets corrected. You simply can't recreate the Union grabbing New Orleans early in the game, or occupying much of Florida. The South's back door is effectively secure.



Several people have made this argument, but it seems to me that the game does a good job of matching the real war in this respect. Historically, Union capture of cities and forts around the periphery did not enable a land invasion farther into those states. Sherman marched to the sea; the sea did not march to Sherman. Historically and in the game, taking down the South's major coastal cities has a tremendous impact on its resources.

The only possible disconnect with regard to coastal operations is that the Union forces seem more vulnerable to attrition and counterattack than they were historically. I have wondered why the South did not briefly detach a couple of divisions and retake some of these. Some, e.g., Burnside on the North Carolina coast, were quite small, I think. Maybe someone who has studied these coastal operations can cast light on this question.


The sea did march to Sherman. 25,000 men under John Schofield marched inland from Wilmington to join up with Sherman at Goldsbore, NC.



Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/21/2006 11:38:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ericbabe
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.


Sorry, I've been away from this forum for a while because real life was too pressing.

There seems to be a split here between players who want a historical simulation and other players who don't care about that but want a fun game.

I'm puzzled that anyone sees this as a conflict. Any game such as this one should be a historical simulation and a fun game. If it fails in either respect, that's a defect.

Unfortunately, some people seem to think that "historical" means adding more and more details. This is not necessary. For me, a very simple game can still qualify as historical as long as the few details it has are more or less correct. Adding more details actually makes it more difficult to be historical, because you have to get all the details correct, and you also have to consider the very tricky interactions between all those details.

If players feel that a historical simulation would be unbalanced, well, the game already includes controls that can be used to adjust the balance. End of problem.

I think it's OK to add unhistorical options for people who want them, such as reequipping the Confederates with AK-47s in 1864; but these fantasy scenarios (if the company has the extra man-hours to add them) should be optional and not hardwired into the basic game.



Twotribes -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/21/2006 11:54:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: spruce


quote:



also, the rules say, a Plantation changes to a Mansion once the Slaves are freed, so I wouldn't get any labor or Horses by building them, just wasted time


coughing ...

I had the Union emancipate in april 1862 - I hope it didn't effect the slaves in the South ? Meaning impact the production on confederate plantations?


As far as I know Union Emancipation has NO effect on Plantations in the South. Now when or if the Union captures any cities with plantations I assume they will convert to mansions and then if the South retakes said city it will have no plantations ( but if they held it I assume they could build some)



Twotribes -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/21/2006 11:59:16 PM)

I am confused.. I read in other threads outside this one ( made by Eric for one) of things that seem to be decided BUT I dont see that here. Specifically can someone point me to the overwhelming opinion expressed in this thread that A) Camps dont cost enough and B) the solution is to tack on a monetary amount and restriction based on numbers in a province.

What I have seen is a suggestion of this BUT no concensus on it. Or are cer5tain posters given more wieght on their "suggestions" then others?

Now I have seen more than one poster here tell you that the South has to big an advantage, does this mean that it is decided to tone them down and to beef up the North?

Just a suggestion BUT how about a post that says what has been "decided " so far so we can all agree or disagree?



Mike Scholl -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/22/2006 12:25:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

I am confused.. I read in other threads outside this one ( made by Eric for one) of things that seem to be decided BUT I dont see that here. Specifically can someone point me to the overwhelming opinion expressed in this thread that A) Camps dont cost enough and B) the solution is to tack on a monetary amount and restriction based on numbers in a province.
Now I have seen more than one poster here tell you that the South has to big an advantage, does this mean that it is decided to tone them down and to beef up the North?



I think the basis for many complaints is not "how much" camps cost; but "what" they cost. Large amounts of "Horses"...., of which the Confederacy recieves far too many (based on the quotes from the 1860 Census) , or the Union far too few. Almost all problems would be solved if the amount of this resource available to each side were an "equal" 30-40 to start, with Kentucky holding the "balance". Nobody really wants EITHER side building dozens of cheap "Camps".



ericbabe -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/22/2006 12:44:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tevans6220
Something that I think needs changed is the morale/quality advantage given to the South in the standard scenario. The troop quality of both sides was practically the same for the entire war. The difference was in leadership and I think that's already reflected in the South having better leadership at the start. It was never a case of Southern troops being better fighters than their Northern counterparts. Leadership made the difference.


Nosworthy, in "The Bloody Crucible of Courage", argues that the biggest advantage that Southern infantry had is that they tended to come from rural backgrounds and were more likely to have learned how to shoot well while growing up, whereas the Northern soldiers tended to be more urban and many were handling guns for the first time. Don't know if there's anything to this, but it seems plausible.



ericbabe -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/22/2006 12:54:39 AM)

As far as Camps go, my current notion is to reduce the horse cost slightly and add a monetary cost.  The cost may be progressive by quantity/province, not sure.  I haven't decided anything absolutely based on this thread yet, though a while back I did post a summary of what seemed to me to have been preponderant opinions (that would be feasible things to change) at that point in time.

I like the suggestion to tie Camps into population levels, this is something our beta testers suggested as well.  Could do something such as: a Camp has a certain chance to lower the Men in the province it's in every turn and that they cease to function when the Men reaches 0.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/22/2006 1:26:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ericbabe
Nosworthy, in "The Bloody Crucible of Courage", argues that the biggest advantage that Southern infantry had is that they tended to come from rural backgrounds and were more likely to have learned how to shoot well while growing up, whereas the Northern soldiers tended to be more urban and many were handling guns for the first time. Don't know if there's anything to this, but it seems plausible.



This analysis leaves out all those "farm boys" from Ohio. Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, etc. It contains just enough truth to be mis-leading. The real strength was the Southern Militia Tradition..., Southerners were more likely to join such groups, and take it more seriously (mostly because of the possibility of slave revolts). This meant that in the "initial call ups" for troops, the South got more units that were already trained to some extent and used to being together. After these units were taken into service, the recruit pools for either side were fairly similar in quality. One BIG difference was in susceptability to desease. Turns out those "weak puny city boys were a lot less likely to come down with various forms of desease, already having aquired some immunity in their crowded streets back home.



Twotribes -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/22/2006 1:30:40 AM)

Fine, when you do that I will just be forced to add even MORE population to every city, since even now one can NOT come even remotely close to historical numbers in the civil war.

And I will again point out what I see as the concensus, that you at least tone down the south, I would suggest you beef up the North. There appears to be NO justification historically for the economy you have given the south IN realtion to what you have given the North. In fact the biggest glaring advantage goes not to the North but to the South, in Horses and the ability through "diplomacy" and bloackade runners to easily feed said economy and provide free research, at times in crazy numbers.

I enjoy the attrition concept too, but not as it is presently, I am going to have to find it in the files and change it if I can if I want to use it. There is , in my opinion, No excuse for the Union ( whom I play mostly) to lose as large a number as they do for actually going on the offensive. I moved several very large armies into enemy territory ( before the move I needed something like 20000 replacements to fill my ranks out. The next turn after a couple minimal battles ( I lost few men and had no lost battles and NO surrendered units) I needed well over 200,000 replacements, and no I didnt just research bigger brigades.

My suggestion being that A) hospitals effect to some degree provinces without railroads and B) that the effect of Hospitals occurs in contested provinces as well ( in the above case there were 3 forts in Fredricksburg preventing me from conquering said province, thus part of the HUGE attritional losses, which I had every reason to believe I would continue to suffer until I managed to capture or destroy all 3 forts AND capture said province) I also had the same problem with Fort Donaldson, a large army there unable to be helped by hospitals because on the first move I am unable to seige and capture a fort. As a side note I had researched all the hospital techs except the one for the one that effects detailed battles.

But most of this is modifiable, so I hope any changes you make are still in files that we can modify if we disagree with the majority?

And if I havent said it enough, I REALLY LIKE this game....and as far as I can tell you have done a very good job of making it changeable by the individual player both with numerous options on play screen and a easy to mod file system ( if a little cluttered and not so intuitive at times) . So even though I may seem a pain in the neck, THANK YOU.



spruce -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/22/2006 1:35:03 AM)

I think we have to tweak - not find the exact number - or the historical justified number ...



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.359985