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

jimwinsor -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/22/2006 1:58:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

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.


This was actually a hotly debated topic during beta testing, so it's good to see the issue getting discussed here as well.

The big fear was that to allow control conversion from sea would make the southern coastline too vulnerable, and permit a "Normandy" style invasion with the AoP, and ahistorical penetration into the Southern hinterlands. Because once a province is converted, it's eligible to provide Land and even Rail/River supply where applicable.

Did the Union take huge swaths of the South via coastal invasion by 1864? Ehhhh...well, thats a tricky question to answer because it's rather subjective, but here is the West Point map of the war, 1864, you be the judge:

http://www.dean.usma.edu/HISTORY/web03/atlases/american%20civil%20war/acw%20pages/acw45.html

This map is actually somewhat incomplete; there were some tiny Union enclaves around Ft. Pickens, Charleston, and Jacksonville as well that this map does not bother even showing.





marecone -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/22/2006 2:01:54 AM)

I am the first one that will raise his hand for historical accuracy in this game but... This is a game [:D] and not all players are historical freaks like some of us here [:D]. This is why Matrix team made both sides equal.
I would like to see some options that will be more historicaly accurate but I suggest that you leave the old ones as well for all those players wanting a good and fun war game.
Even if you don't change anything, I am sure that I will play this game for years. [&o]



chris0827 -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/22/2006 4:55:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

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.


This was actually a hotly debated topic during beta testing, so it's good to see the issue getting discussed here as well.

The big fear was that to allow control conversion from sea would make the southern coastline too vulnerable, and permit a "Normandy" style invasion with the AoP, and ahistorical penetration into the Southern hinterlands. Because once a province is converted, it's eligible to provide Land and even Rail/River supply where applicable.

Did the Union take huge swaths of the South via coastal invasion by 1864? Ehhhh...well, thats a tricky question to answer because it's rather subjective, but here is the West Point map of the war, 1864, you be the judge:

http://www.dean.usma.edu/HISTORY/web03/atlases/american%20civil%20war/acw%20pages/acw45.html

This map is actually somewhat incomplete; there were some tiny Union enclaves around Ft. Pickens, Charleston, and Jacksonville as well that this map does not bother even showing.





That's not a very accurate map. THe union held more of the North Carolina coast as well as parts of the South Carolina coast as well as a big chunk of northern Florida.



jimwinsor -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/22/2006 7:33:48 AM)

Yeah; Shelby Foote's "The Civil War, Vol 3" has a much better map showing those coastal holdings, on pg 2...if I had a link to that I woulda posted it instead....

The map on pg 2 of volumn 2 is interesting too; it shows the Union holdings in 1863, and you get a good look at the New Orleans holdings before Vicksburg and the entire Mississippi fell, causing a link up.  As you can see (for those of you with a copy handy)....ehhhhh, well I would not call it small, but...I'm not sure I'd necessarily call it large...or more imporantly, pushing far inland.  Hmmm...ehhhh...hmmm...  Like I said, you'll all have to judge for yourself.





Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/22/2006 9:17:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: spruce

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


If the "historical justified number" can be found, why not use it?

Why do you think that using wrong numbers will make it a better game? Surely it's much the same as a game whether you get the numbers right or wrong; so you may as well get them right.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/22/2006 9:54:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

quote:

ORIGINAL: spruce

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



If the "historical justified number" can be found, why not use it? Why do you think that using wrong numbers will make it a better game? Surely it's much the same as a game whether you get the numbers right or wrong; so you may as well get them right.




Jonathan. This "bone" has been "in contention" since day one. Some of us (you and I, for example) feel that a simulation on an historical subject isn't worthwhile unless it does it's level best to actually model the historical situation. Others (spruce among them) want a "game" that puts "balance" at the top of the list, and will ignore "reality" in favor of "fun". The best suggestion recently has come from Eric, who is proposing that both "sides" get their way.

What he's proposed is that they will leave the current "flights of fancy" scenarios in the game for the "balance" faction..., but add some that actually have something to do with the ACW for the rest of us. I think it's an elegant solution, as both "sides" can ignore the other's scenarios and do what they like to do. Keep your spirits up..., and wait for the next patch or two. Too bad they didn't think of this earlier...



marecone -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/22/2006 10:31:44 AM)

Yap, that is the best way. I would like to see historical scenario but also would like to have an option to play more balanced game.



Feltan -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/22/2006 10:39:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor

...The big fear was that to allow control conversion from sea would make the southern coastline too vulnerable, and permit a "Normandy" style invasion with the AoP, and ahistorical penetration into the Southern hinterlands. Because once a province is converted, it's eligible to provide Land and even Rail/River supply where applicable...



Didn't the Union land a large army on the Virginia capes by sea? Wasn't there a whole amphibious landing of an Army sized unit?

For Pete's sake, the southern coastline WAS vulnerable.

The only thing that prevented "ahistorical penetration" was supply, and a deliberate decision on the part of the Union to only occupy enclaves.

Regards,
Feltan



PaulWRoberts -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/22/2006 5:47:56 PM)

I've been following this thread with great interest. Is there any chance we'll have this patch for Christmas?




mlees -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/22/2006 6:22:47 PM)

I suspect that the biggest "brake" on Union sea invasions was the Union "sea supply" capacity. In other words, the Union may not have had the ships and/or organisation to supply vast numbers of brigades soley by sea. Remember, refrigeration hasn't come about yet, so if the cumbersome quarter master department spends too much time trying to organise itself, perishables spend too much time sitting in a wharehouse, and they will never do anybody any good...

(Sorry, I can't provide a cite. This is only what my "gut" tells me.)

This could be simulated either "x" number of supply points can be supplied via a sea route, based on year/date, naval tecnologies, and/or number of ships the Union possess in game...



Mike Scholl -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/22/2006 6:36:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees

I suspect that the biggest "brake" on Union sea invasions was the Union "sea supply" capacity. In other words, the Union may not have had the ships and/or organisation to supply vast numbers of brigades soley by sea. Remember, refrigeration hasn't come about yet, so if the cumbersome quarter master department spends too much time trying to organise itself, perishables spend too much time sitting in a wharehouse, and they will never do anybody any good...

(Sorry, I can't provide a cite. This is only what my "gut" tells me.)

This could be simulated either "x" number of supply points can be supplied via a sea route, based on year/date, naval tecnologies, and/or number of ships the Union possess in game...



Actually, the biggest "brake" was garrisoning. Even "conquered", the locals (excepting freed slaves) weren't friendly. Couple this with the South's inherently lousy system of communications and going very far inland was a lot of trouble unless you could follow a navagable river. And "navagable rivers" were where the Rebel defensive works were cited. Most "coastal operations" were to provide a "base camp" for operations against the Ports and Forts. Not sure how to reflect this in the game..., but once the Ports and Forts fell (as in New Orleans) control of the coastal region was achieved and further moves inland could be mounted.



jimwinsor -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/22/2006 6:44:09 PM)

Yeah, thats actually one of the ideas I threw out there during playtesting...allow a non-adjacent province to be control-converted if it contains a major port city.



regularbird -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/22/2006 6:52:32 PM)

I agree with Mike and JW on the province control. I still do not like the invasion force surrendering after an invasion if it is defeated in a land battle.



spruce -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/22/2006 8:51:14 PM)

come on guys - don't put me in a box where I don't belong. [:'(]

I just want to say that we are dealing with a game - and not some historical simulation. And I'm not planning to debate details ... the game should be fun to play - and neither do I like the fact that CSA can steamroll the Union ... but that's up to the game dev's to tweak. Losing a hardfought war isn't boring at all.

I think we have to find imbalancing parameters and discuss them and less talking about historical accuracy.



Twotribes -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/22/2006 10:56:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: spruce

come on guys - don't put me in a box where I don't belong. [:'(]

I just want to say that we are dealing with a game - and not some historical simulation. And I'm not planning to debate details ... the game should be fun to play - and neither do I like the fact that CSA can steamroll the Union ... but that's up to the game dev's to tweak. Losing a hardfought war isn't boring at all.

I think we have to find imbalancing parameters and discuss them and less talking about historical accuracy.


And we disagree. It is supposed to be about a historical war, one that the designers researched. You are falling into that trap where your assuming it cant be both. I suggest the game can be both.

Furthermore you are telling those of us that want a historical situation to stop making suggestion cause only balance matters. That would be your opinion and it obviously isnt shared by everyone.



spruce -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/22/2006 11:17:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

quote:

ORIGINAL: spruce

come on guys - don't put me in a box where I don't belong. [:'(]

I just want to say that we are dealing with a game - and not some historical simulation. And I'm not planning to debate details ... the game should be fun to play - and neither do I like the fact that CSA can steamroll the Union ... but that's up to the game dev's to tweak. Losing a hardfought war isn't boring at all.

I think we have to find imbalancing parameters and discuss them and less talking about historical accuracy.


And we disagree. It is supposed to be about a historical war, one that the designers researched. You are falling into that trap where your assuming it cant be both. I suggest the game can be both.

Furthermore you are telling those of us that want a historical situation to stop making suggestion cause only balance matters. That would be your opinion and it obviously isnt shared by everyone.


well that's just your opinion on me - and that's not what I said. I think you are trying to put words in my mouth I didn't spoke.

there's no need to turn up the heat in these forums and start some senseless polarisation. I'm also in favour of more historical correctness - but the game comes at the first place. And if there are imbalancing stuff - they should be discussed ...



Mike Scholl -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/22/2006 11:58:57 PM)

I'm also in favour of more historical correctness - but the game comes at the first place. And if there are imbalancing stuff - they should be discussed ...


Maybe we should let SPRUCE off the hook. He's still got it backwards (FIRST you make it as historically accurate as possible...; THEN you add "bonus toggles" and "adjustment levels" so players can balance the scenarios themselves to meet their own needs and fancies), but at least he's reccognizing that other points-of-view might be relevent and acceptable. I appologise if I "pigeonholed" you unfairly



Director -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/23/2006 1:34:01 AM)

As I see it the Union conducted seaborn invasions for three different purposes:

1) to take and hold bases for the blockading fleet (Port Royal)
2) to close ports as part of the blockade (North Carolina sounds, Fort Pulaski off Savannah, failed attacks on Charleston)
3) as a launching point for offensives (Pamunkey River/Petersburg operation, New Orleans)

Some were conceived as one and converted into another purpose (Wilmington as an example). One often talked-about but never attempted operation was moving inland from the North Carolina sounds to cut the Weldon railroad. It wasn't done early on because the demand for troops was higher for other operations.

In the game the North cannot rapidly build up a blockading fleet and doesn't need bases for the blockaders anyway (correct me if I'm wrong). Cutting railroads has no effect on supply, right? And closing ports doesn't affect blockade-running, only destroying the actual runners helps. So the only reason for the North to launch a seaborn invasion is for a major strategic offensive, which it can't do because it can't control the territory it takes unless the occupied territory borders other Union-controlled areas.

So there's no clear reason I can see to conduct amphib ops.


Steam-powered ships used a lot of coal even when idle, especially the fast ones that were best suited to a blockade squadron. These steam warships were as dependent on coal supply as the land armies were dependent on food and forage. If you abstract this and assume naval supply is handled by the staff officers, you still need to account for the rapid buildup of the USN from ninety ships to about two hundred and fifty by the end of 1862. Is it possible in the game to construct this fleet while also building the historic troop levels?



elmo3 -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/23/2006 2:31:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

...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.
...



Most people discussing allowing the North to control provinces via sea invasion, and many of the other suggestions posted here, seem to have forgotten the point of this thread as quoted from Gil R above (his italics) in the original post. Most of the requests belong in the Wish List thread, not here.



christof139 -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/23/2006 3:28:29 AM)

Hello everyone,

I have updated my computer power and am about to buy this game. It sounds OK and seems that bugs and other issues concerning balancing are being addressed by the devs. Also seems there is great dev support for this game and that is great.

One thing about the blockade and runners is that much raw material and 'luxury' resources were shipped, and so much space was being used on the runners for 'luxury items'  in detriment to essential war resources and weapons and gunpowder, that the Confederate Government passed laws that were enforced requiring runners to automatically consign a certain large percentage of their storage space for essential war goods. I think this may have been nearly 50% of available storage space at a latter date in the war, and was around 25% when first enacted in 1863 or 1864 or so, the specifics can be found by searching for and reading  the info. in many books and articles. It would not be necessary to be too specific if something like thais is patched into the game. The war resources, not weapons and gunpowder, that were shipped in would include: cloth, leather, chemicals and particularily nitre for making gunpowder and mercury compound for percussion caps, medical supplies, copper and brass, lead for bullets, etc.

The South exported sugar, molasses, and turpentine in additon to cotton. Also, some of these resources were imported into the South, it just depended on what area of the South runners were travelling to and from. just an added tidbit of info. to think about in overall terms for the blockade and runners.

It seems that the main issue is that the South is getting European resources and weapons directly without comming through the blockade, which is historically and realistically impossible, unless someone had a teleporter tucked away somewhere. Perhaps a random percentage of the actual European resources and armaments should only be allowed to get through the South, and something like this would avoid diddling with and changing the runners and their stats themselves. A simple percentage such as European resources etc. making it throught the blockade to the South for 1861 = 80 - 90%, 1862 = 65 - 79%, 1863 = 50 - 64%, 1864 = 30 - 49%, 1865 = 20 - 29%. Something simple like that.

Remember, many runners that were captured were small sailing brigs, brigantines, and sloops, and many sailed from Mexico and Central America as well as Cuba, the Bahamas etc. A lot of supplies came overland from Mexico and much cotton was shipped to Mexico, but after the capture of Brownsville, Texas much of the supply from Mexico and Central America and Cuba was stopped, although a longer overland route to Mexico was then used and the entire Gulf Coast of the South was also never completely and succesfully blockaded against the very numerous smaller runners. So, 1,500 or so runners may have been captred by the north, but the vast majority were smaller runners. These smaller runners were very important.

All this would most likely be fairly simple to patch into the game by using a variable simple runner resource percentage rate as I suggest. Something like that.

I look forward to enjoying this good game, and i also enjoy the ideas and tips posted by all the people here.

Have a good Holiday Season, Chris







Gil R. -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/23/2006 3:58:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: elmo3

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

...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.
...



Most people discussing allowing the North to control provinces via sea invasion, and many of the other suggestions posted here, seem to have forgotten the point of this thread as quoted from Gil R above (his italics) in the original post. Most of the requests belong in the Wish List thread, not here.


True, and thanks for pointing this out.

It's not too bad, though, since we do also read this thread. My main concern is that there might be a great idea in a thread that receives five responses and then quickly sinks out of sight. The Wish List thread, symbolically pinned to the top part of the forum, will not sink out of sight (though particular ideas might be rejected...).



Feltan -> Putting the Game on the Shelf for a While (12/24/2006 4:04:10 AM)

I am going to wait for the patch(es) before investing anymore time with this game.

Some parts of the game are really good. It is stable; nice graphics; nice game flow -- it has a lot going for it.

However, it is so imbalanced in favor of the South that I find it unenjoyable. I just played a campaign with Union power at +3 and the South at -2, as the South. No problem. The North never seriously threatened me. The southern diet for buildings, weapons and ships was mightly lean, but the relentess Union suicide attacks at Fredricksburg insured that they had little manpower to do anything else. All I had to do was defend Fredricksburg (and one small Union amphib on the coast), and build a few (very few) buildings. It was easy; not even a challenge.

I'll check back from time-to-time to see if a patch is out, but it isn't worth continued play for me. Good system; good game play, but lousy balance unless you are into some sort of alternate Confederate fantasy universe.

Regards,
Feltan



rook749 -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/25/2006 6:10:38 PM)


[/quote]

Didn't the Union land a large army on the Virginia capes by sea? Wasn't there a whole amphibious landing of an Army sized unit?

For Pete's sake, the southern coastline WAS vulnerable.

The only thing that prevented "ahistorical penetration" was supply, and a deliberate decision on the part of the Union to only occupy enclaves.

Regards,
Feltan

[/quote]


Yes the moved the entire AoP on the cape and mached for Richmond, the ANA was railed south to block them. This happened in 1862.

Rook



rook749 -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/25/2006 6:14:57 PM)

I've seen a lot of people posting on the balance and historical aspects of the game so I figured I¡¦d throw my two cent's in :) . Before I start keep in mind that balance and historical accuracy are also dependant on which options the player selects, which to me is one of the best features of the game. I¡¦ve now played five games as the north and one as the south. Without the following options: Richer Economy, Poorer Economy, Randomized Stats, Hidden Stats, Fewer Generals, Faster Sieges, Slower Sieges and Allow CSA Emancipation.

Camps - I don't feel they are horribly broken but do need some work. I don't think they should tied mainly to horses but instead tied to both labor, money and horses. As warm live bodies are needed to refill the ranks ¡V as well as horses for cavalry, artillery and supply trains. Maybe in a 20 Money ¡V 40 Horses ¡V 40 Labor combination. One of the problems the south had through the war was a shortage of men to refill the ranks and the north had was the need to draft or pay a "bounty" to sign up men for the army. As it stands right now battle attrition and disease hurts the North more than the South and this should not be the case at all.

Navy - Ships cost way too much for the north and are two easy for the south to build. Fleets Containers cost way too much, without a fleet container you can't blockage a port and there are a lot of ports to blockage. A) I think that the costs for ships & fleets needs to be adjusted down. B) The north needs to start with more naval building improvements to speed how quickly ships can be built as well as increase their quality. C) Some of the at start Union Ships should have their guns upgraded.

Quick Combat - It seems to me that casualties to me aren't correct they¡¦re either too low or very lopsided in the large battles. I have no idea how to resolve this.

Quality of the CSA/USA Army - At the risk of opening up a very heated debate :) I think the developers did a good job with the this issue. I do release that it is possible for the a Union player to promote their better generals in 1861 to 4/3 stars but this is also true of the CSA. Lee always seems to be in front of the ANA pretty fast and he didn¡¦t get command in the normal time line until Johnson was wounded. The real advantage the CSA (other then better generals, which they still have) was that from top to bottom their army was more professional (VMI, more West Point Graduates, etc) which is reflected in there better at start container stats. And should also (not sure if this is true or not, with only one game as the CSA) be reflected in the new containers built until the Union has time to build more improvements to build better units.

Generals - The Arrivals dates, at start general ranks and starting location for all the generals needs some work (which I know is something that is being worked on). I also think that the number of 2 Star Generals per academy needs to be adjusted up, personally I hate having a ton of one star generals and a lots of divisons without leaders. In several games I¡¦ve had 11 Academies and I still was short 2 Star Generals for my divisions.

Setup - The Army of the Potomac should start in Maryland in the July 1861 Setup not in Fredericksburg, VA.

Population Modifier Effect - I don't like how this option works at all, I like the idea of an effect that punishes a player for raising too many trooops.

Mansions/Plantations - Plantations work great, but I think the costs of Mansions should be but to between 60 - 80 money. It's very hard to meet governor demands if you can¡¦t keep at least one spot in each state open. Also each state should start with at least one open spot.

Governors - While a pain in my but from time to time work great but can we get some of the dumb requests removed. Like a Shipyard in the middle of the country or the need for 20 brigades in Maine.

European Diplomacy - I'm not a fan of how this system works but as I don't have an idea for better one. Reduce the chance for a shift at each level significantly and if possible allow for a one point shift to the side that wins a major battle. Reduce the number of research points given to the CSA, I've seen 70 - 100 points given turn after turn and its leads to the CSA having a much better naval research program than me in several games.

Blockage Runners - I think that there a little too valuable, I like the way they operate but increase the risk for each level. It would also be nice if the risk goes up as the USA blockades more ports (which will needs some changes to the navy ¡V see above) or have the risk go up each year.

Raiders/Partisan - Love the units, but tone down the amount of supplies destroyed. I¡¦ve used them destroy 30+ supplies twice now before a major battle and its helped win both battles. Going to start a PBEM game with a friend and I think he will be in a major surprise when his army loses a tone of supply right before a major battle.

Sea Invasions - They simply don¡¦t work, without the ability to take a province from the sea regardless if you own an adjacent province you can¡¦t take New Orleans from the sea as the Union did.

Emancipation - Works Great, has wonderful effects for both sides but the Union should only be able to do it when the have at least 4 Victory Points. The CSA should also have some sort of handy cap, maybe less than 4 relations with both England and France?

Rook



Nick R -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/25/2006 6:50:45 PM)

I would only add to what Rook said is to have the option to turn off the automatic 1 vp for the South at the end of the game. It seems very much like a reenactment than a simulation if you just give the points to the South.

I have suggested in another thread that National Will be used as a Morale Check for the Nation and use that to determine how long a Nation can endure further pursuit of the war. It has never made any sense to me that a simulation of a war does not have some form of this.

I would also suggest that National Will be made up of more than just battles. A State Will check should also be done that would make the Governors and keeping them happy more critical to the outcome of National Will and hence the continued support of the War. For example, a State that has a Governor that is loyal would be happier to press on the fight while one that isn’t may want to hasten the end for political gain. Factors, such as mustering, conscription, etc. would also affect the State's Will. In my opinion, this would really make the player really understand why Lincoln did some of the "appointments" and other decision he did and make for a better simulation and not just a reenactment of the Civil War. Other options could include espionage that affects the other Nation’s Will maybe something like subversion or assassination of the President or that of a Governor. It could also fail and increase the other Nation’s Will.

My reasoning is based on my belief that if you are simulating a battle, it’s fairly straight forward. Location is set, etc. with the only variable possibly being the Order of Battle. But when simulating a War numerous variables should now come into play. I have enjoyed the games complexities in having to balance the military needs vs. political needs. It would make it seem much more "real" and not just some artificial contrivance to help the South.



Thresh -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/27/2006 7:55:21 PM)

National Will could be tied into to how well a nation can muster troops.  The better the National will, the easier it is to muster, the lower the National will, the harder it is to muster, and you have to start conscripting.

Thresh





spruce -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/27/2006 10:40:33 PM)

I think that arms dropping should be tweaked ... now the South has easy acces to al sorts of good weapons cause they are dropped after a defensive battle against the Union.

My proposal would be that the losing party keeps on losing their weapons - so they go to IW ... but the victor only picks them up in 50% of the case.

Just to counterbalance the fact that defending troops have a better chance at winning a battle - and they'll pick up dropped weapons. So to avoid the defending guys (CSA) grows too fast in strength.

And also to lower the average arms quality a little - in my previous game all confederate troops where on crack weapons after a very short period of time ...



spruce -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/29/2006 12:33:21 AM)

I find this really a game breaker. In my Union game - in my third turn or so (jan 1862) - Kentucky joins CSA - ok for me ... let them do.

But the next turn the CSA is emancipating its slaves and gets all nice of diplo bonuses. I find myself facing the CSA - being loved by both France, UK and European nations.

I choose to support fully diplomacy on UK and France. 2 turns later - France declares war on the Union - before the summer of 1862 !

Isn't that too easy for the CSA to emancipate ? I have to say not one "big" battle was even fought - and a few turns later Europe is intervening already ?

I say it's a game breaker ... having the CSA emancipate so soon ... same problem the other way around - the Union is also too fas to emancipate.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/29/2006 12:37:01 AM)

Personally, I think "CSA Emancipation" is a total pipedream. Play with it OFF. You may still get "hosed" by the system in the "European Bribery" screen..., but at least you can try to do something about that.



Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch (12/29/2006 9:49:35 AM)

As I mentioned before, I prefer to turn off CSA Emancipation and European Bribery.



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.7810059