RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Civil War II



Message

Ace1_slith -> RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance (11/29/2013 4:23:54 PM)

From 62 onwards, it is basiclly a spiral with CSA every year receiving less than half recruits from US. So, this is a quick reaction from them[:)]

Note also how US morale rose to 106 via events even with Manassas event which triggered in the first year. At the same time CSA morale did not venture far beyond initial 110. So everything is historical there as well.

So, in my opinion no one can say now that the game unhistorically favors CSA side.



loki100 -> RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance (11/29/2013 5:14:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

What I would like to know is if the Union can come back from the dead. I can live with some sort of ahistorical Confederate offensives. If anything, to remain flexible and allow the South players to have some fun.

Is there any empirical data? I mean chez AGEOD forum. The hardcore veterans seem to be there. What are they saying?

Ace seems to be one of them. He keeps saying the Union will have the upper hand (and he concedes the Confederates are MORE strong the first year at least).


This is less ACW specific and more generic to AGE games. But one very strong feature is it is common to come back from the death, or lose from a dominant position. I lost a Rise of Prussia game (with Prussia) having been at the gates of Vienna earlier) and won a game of Revolution under Siege despite losing Petrograd and being boxed in around Moscow.

Some of this is down to events kicking in (ie in the RoP game I couldn't afford to keep the Prussian army at Wien with France and Russia in the war) and some is down to game mechanics.

Ace has made the point of how the US side gradually pulls itself back.

Now it may well be that this iteration of ACW2 is too one-sided at the start, but unlike most wargames I've played, the AGE engine does allow for massive reversal of fortunes.



Aurelian -> RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance (11/29/2013 5:18:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ace1

From 62 onwards, it is basiclly a spiral with CSA every year receiving less than half recruits from US. So, this is a quick reaction from them[:)]

Note also how US morale rose to 106 via events even with Manassas event which triggered in the first year. At the same time CSA morale did not venture far beyond initial 110. So everything is historical there as well.

So, in my opinion no one can say now that the game unhistorically favors CSA side.


The question remains. How does one stop the Gray Tide in 1861?



Ace1_slith -> RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance (11/29/2013 5:40:01 PM)

Did you compare the numbers. After next patch CSA will have 30.000 men less in 61 than now. I would not call it Gray Tide at all.

US will now receive about 15.000 more new troops in 61 than the CSA receives.

In 62, it will receive additional 130.000 more troops than CSA. I did not test the 63, but the difference can only rise.

So if the CSA does not grab some substantional victories with equal or smaller force in 61, they are about doomed.



KamilS -> RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance (11/29/2013 7:17:02 PM)

Well, it looks to me, that after this modifications south will not survive past '64 and as far as I remember victory conditions it wont constitute even chance of winning game.



Michael T -> RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance (11/29/2013 8:00:30 PM)

Maybe the changes go too far. I guess we shall see. Good thing is they accept the problem exists. What I don't get is why these things are not picked up in play testing.



Ace1_slith -> RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance (11/29/2013 8:19:33 PM)

Play testing prior to release is primary to quell bugs. And when beta veterans played against AI, believe me, nobody was defeated as Union.

About the proposed 1.02. changes. It takes about 30.000 men from the CSA first year and 50.000 every next year.

So if we look at the current setting. With 80.000 more men in 2 years, in the current build everybody complained about, at the end of 62 US could muster 145-80 = 65.000 more men. Of course, for that to happen, he must not be stamped at the beggining, he must be able to proclaim emancipation, he must keep his morale in 80-100 range.

You see where I am getting at. I was saying even with patch 1.01, Union is stronger than CSA. It is just not historically stronger. And if Union player makes a few early mistakes, it is hard to him to recover. The game as it is now is more or less evenly matched with CSA having early advantage which, if he does not use well, quickly melts in 63.

So, everyone must ask himself, do I want historic game or balanced game. The AGEod has always opted for historic and I like them for that.



Michael T -> RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance (11/29/2013 8:36:48 PM)

You can have an historical game. Victory conditions just need to be adjusted accordingly.



mmarquo -> RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance (11/29/2013 9:45:00 PM)

Ace,

What are relative power percentages from the objectives screen?

Marquo



Emx77 -> RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance (11/29/2013 11:32:09 PM)

Good luck with trying to determine how end score is calculated in games based on AGE engine. [:)]

For example, in this thread, Pocus explained where end score comes from in AJE (it is another game but on same engine). It is beyond me why exact score is not presented during play time but is only (re)calculated at the end of scenario. Sometimes, even today, I have hard time figuring out victory determination criteria in AJE (see last post in mentioned thread).



vonRocko -> RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance (11/29/2013 11:43:06 PM)

Thanks
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pocus

We are seriously considering a change here indeed. Patch 1.02 is almost ready internally, need to send it to Matrix QA now.




mmarquo -> RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance (11/30/2013 3:13:50 AM)

I think there is a problem with Ace's test: remember that you can pay a premium for volunteers; and 1,500,000 buys a large quantity of recruits .



Ace1_slith -> RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance (11/30/2013 5:42:44 AM)

In my test, I used premium for volunteers with 1,5$ bounty for each side every time I had the chance. It gave 250 conscripts for CSA and 500 for US.
2$ gives 600 conscripts for US. I woud not choose that because I would then run out of money to arm all those conscripts. Realtive power percentage are the same as in the start. I did not buy anything, I was just going through the game with AI turned off to show each side's potential in recources.

CSA Victory conditions are forcing Union morale below 25, or below 40 in 64. - that is sudden death victory - a mayor victory
Another victory can be acheived by having more VP at the end of scenario. Grand campaign ends in 65/66. If South holds all its possesions by the end of 63 (something that was historically possible), he will have a solid lead in VP which later he can guard to win on points - minor victory. So for the South, the victory is to do better than historically.



cmdrsam -> RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance (11/30/2013 1:07:52 PM)

Well here is my situation. Now I don't claim to be the best. Nor do I think I'm the worst. But during my pbem, I quick attacked harper ferry and won. When Lyons became available I attacked rolls and Jeff city. Both of those ate repulsed. He countered in my at harper ferry. And has attacked Cairo. Plus it looks Luke he is beginning operations to surround Washington. Feel I can hold at st Louis. Cairo is probably doomed. And it appears I'm down 3-1 in the east.



TulliusDetritus -> RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance (11/30/2013 1:19:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cmdrsam

Well here is my situation. Now I don't claim to be the best. Nor do I think I'm the worst. But during my pbem, I quick attacked harper ferry and won. When Lyons became available I attacked rolls and Jeff city. Both of those ate repulsed. He countered in my at harper ferry. And has attacked Cairo. Plus it looks Luke he is beginning operations to surround Washington. Feel I can hold at st Louis. Cairo is probably doomed. And it appears I'm down 3-1 in the east.


3:1 in the Potomac area? [&:] When you start, McDowell and Patterson will make sure you're not even 1:2 (more 1:1). Where do these Confederate forces come from? Didn't you recruit units (Potomac area ONLY)?



cmdrsam -> RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance (11/30/2013 1:49:45 PM)

I bought line troops but they are a turn or two away. He can attack washinton by then. He has bory with 800, longstreet with 500, Jackson with about 250. And Joe with 700. Maybe 3-1 probably 2-1.



TulliusDetritus -> RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance (11/30/2013 2:11:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cmdrsam

I bought line troops but they are a turn or two away. He can attack washinton by then. He has bory with 800, longstreet with 500, Jackson with about 250. And Joe with 700. Maybe 3-1 probably 2-1.



That makes a CV of 2250. So you're saying you only have 1100 (1:2) or 700 (1:3) in the Potomac area? McDowell's initial forces alone will rise to above 1000 when all the elements will be filled. And then Patterson. And the scripted reinforcemts.

What date? Summer 1861? Autumn?



cmdrsam -> RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance (11/30/2013 3:07:44 PM)

Summer I think. Maybe I should of used paid conscripts.but don't see how that will help because I still won't have the money to buy the units. Or maybe I am just that bad. :)



TulliusDetritus -> RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance (11/30/2013 3:15:15 PM)

If he managed to gather that amazing horde before you could do anything to prevent it (only McDowell's and Patterson's forces) then yes, you are doomed and it's the game fault. I don't think such a Blitz towards Washington should be remotely possible [:)]



Ace1_slith -> RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance (11/30/2013 3:32:57 PM)

Up to summer of 61, CSA in 1.01 can recruit 10-15.000 more men than it can in 1.02 beta. And if all 10-15.000 extra men are concentrated in the East, yes, they can make a difference. Bottom line, you could have bought some reinf of your own to prevent it, but either way, csa was too strong and it is being toned down.



Jim D Burns -> RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance (12/1/2013 8:12:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ace1

Did you compare the numbers. After next patch CSA will have 30.000 men less in 61 than now. I would not call it Gray Tide at all.

US will now receive about 15.000 more new troops in 61 than the CSA receives.

In 62, it will receive additional 130.000 more troops than CSA. I did not test the 63, but the difference can only rise.

So if the CSA does not grab some substantional victories with equal or smaller force in 61, they are about doomed.


I just don’t understand what is so difficult about adding the historical Union strength on map in rear area strategic locations but FIXED for the first year or two. Then release it gradually until it is all in play by the end of 1863 and you won’t have shifted the balance in favor of the Union too early in game.

If you give the Union its historical strength in unfixed mobile forces by giving them more conscripts to buy mobile units with, we know from the first game they are going to be too strong too early in the war. Giving them just enough conscripts to stay even in on map strength with the south is not even remotely historically accurate and turns the game into something other than an historical wargame about the civil war. Fixing the stuff on map in the rear makes the Union defensible but not too offensively capable too early in game.

I hate that they are trying to balance things by tweaking incomes and not trying to stick to historical accuracy. Stay historically accurate and then find ways to balance the game by hindering the Union’s ability to go on offense for the first two years of the game.

If the Union is twice as strong as the south in strength, but only about half (or maybe even less than half) of their on-map strength is mobile/unfixed, they aren’t going to be crushing the south too early in game. It’s the mobile armies that count, not the strength ratios.

Jim



loki100 -> RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance (12/1/2013 10:37:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
If the Union is twice as strong as the south in strength, but only about half (or maybe even less than half) of their on-map strength is mobile/unfixed, they aren’t going to be crushing the south too early in game. It’s the mobile armies that count, not the strength ratios.

Jim



An alternative, at least in the East is to give the Union an activation malus for 1861-2. So you have the defensive force (albeit hampered) but its very hard to turn that into a reliable offensive formation?



Aurelian -> RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance (12/1/2013 12:40:01 PM)



quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
If the Union is twice as strong as the south in strength, but only about half (or maybe even less than half) of their on-map strength is mobile/unfixed, they aren’t going to be crushing the south too early in game. It’s the mobile armies that count, not the strength ratios.

Jim



An alternative, at least in the East is to give the Union an activation malus for 1861-2. So you have the defensive force (albeit hampered) but its very hard to turn that into a reliable offensive formation?



The eastern 3 stars already have an activation rating of 1 or 2. And you want to make it *worse*?

How do you plan to stop the hordes streaming north while your leaders are nailed in place



TulliusDetritus -> RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance (12/1/2013 1:41:50 PM)

My [PBEM] experience so far. But first of all:

1) I am not a Zhukov (not even close)
2) Marquo is not incompetent (not even close)

I have not seen a 2:1 on my game. And I take it Marquo threw everything he had. In the end 10.000 or 15.000 more Confederate are that decisive? I am sorry, but I cannot agree.

If I had a 30.000 men army, yes it would be decisive. Because 15.000 is 1/2 of that force. BUT if I have let's say 80.000, those extra 15.000 will not necessarily doom me [;)]

And this is exactly what I have seen in the Potomac area in 1861. The Confederates had MORE men, yes, but NOT overwhelming numbers.

He could have stripped the whole west and sent these forces to the Potomac?

Bad news. I ALWAYS follow these two principles (which were very useful against highly mobile and deadly Panzer units):

1) I always concentrate forces
2) wherever the enemy goes there I WILL GO (as long as I care about the destination of the aforementioned enemy) [sm=00000622.gif]

In other words, if he concentrates all the Confederate forces I will do the same at the same place. In the end there will be a huge army. And given the size of these armies, again, a mere 10.000 or 15.000 cannot doom you.

Not to mention that given that we are talking about a Confederate assault, you will be defending. AND on this game the defender is stronger. Ergo, the enemy will lose more forces than you... until this 10.000 or 15.000 men difference melt like snow under the sun.

So this is my experience. Those of you who saw mega Confederate stacks near Washington (a VITAL target you must defend to death), by any chance did you ignore the concentration of forces principle? Did you allow the enemy to freely maneuver unmolested?

Now if you can prove that the South can gather overwhelming numbers then all I can say is Marquo missed that. Which is really weird [sm=00000028.gif]



Ace1_slith -> RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance (12/1/2013 2:51:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


I just don’t understand what is so difficult about adding the historical Union strength on map in rear area strategic locations but FIXED for the first year or two. Then release it gradually until it is all in play by the end of 1863 and you won’t have shifted the balance in favor of the Union too early in game.

If you give the Union its historical strength in unfixed mobile forces by giving them more conscripts to buy mobile units with, we know from the first game they are going to be too strong too early in the war. Giving them just enough conscripts to stay even in on map strength with the south is not even remotely historically accurate and turns the game into something other than an historical wargame about the civil war. Fixing the stuff on map in the rear makes the Union defensible but not too offensively capable too early in game.

I hate that they are trying to balance things by tweaking incomes and not trying to stick to historical accuracy. Stay historically accurate and then find ways to balance the game by hindering the Union’s ability to go on offense for the first two years of the game.

If the Union is twice as strong as the south in strength, but only about half (or maybe even less than half) of their on-map strength is mobile/unfixed, they aren’t going to be crushing the south too early in game. It’s the mobile armies that count, not the strength ratios.

Jim




Actually, they are not actually balancing at the moment, they are correcting the bug. There is a bug which created plantation structures to bring 3-5 conscripts/turn. And since CSA has many plantations, and US none, it has created imbalance. Those plantations in my game are giving +35 conscripts/turn to csa. given there are 24 turns in a year, it comes to 35*24 = 840 conscripts per year. That is a lot of conscripts, or 50.000 men per year.
So, by mid 62 having another 50.000 men really makes a difference. There is no need to strengthen the US besides that.

If you do not wish to wait for patch, you can edit 25-Plantation.str file located in
Civil War II\CW2\GameData\Structures folder.

Find the line Out_Conscript = 3 and change it to Out_Conscript = 0.

You will get historic game then. CSA will not be able to storm North, while North will have 2:1 men ratio by the end of 62.

Cheers!



Werewolf13 -> RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance (12/1/2013 3:13:36 PM)

Suggestion: Give the Union its historical strength and its historical command competencies. Union generals almost without exception were pretty much overly cautious and/or just plain incompetent for the 1st 2 years of the war. Add political constraints that resulted from perceived high casualty rates as unacceptable (kind'a like today's environment) and you end up with having to tweak the NM model for the union by putting it on a slding scale for a couple of years.

The current model is overly simple and built around trying to play balance a war that was unbalanced and unwinnable by the south from day 1.

I thoroughly enjoy ACW2 (once I wrapped my head around it not really being a Civil war simulation) but it shouldn't be called Civil War 2 because of the way command and NM works. Call it Age of Rifles or something and put it on a fantasy map. It would work just as well.



Q-Ball -> RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance (12/1/2013 3:22:01 PM)

I like the changes, but I wonder if they will go too far. Time will tell, but it feels like a bit of an over correction.

The Union has one advantage in-game the real Union doesn't, and that is much greater flexibility with Leaders. Is anyone appointing McClellan to command the largest army now?




Ace1_slith -> RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance (12/1/2013 3:31:40 PM)

In AACW1, in PBEM there were house rules where players agreed to put McClellan in charge out East, and Grant out west. Once, the CSA is toned down, I see no reason why it cannot be done as well.



TulliusDetritus -> RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance (12/1/2013 3:34:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
Is anyone appointing McClellan to command the largest army now?


I will [sm=innocent0004.gif] Fun above all.



Jim D Burns -> RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance (12/1/2013 3:43:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ace1
CSA will not be able to storm North, while North will have 2:1 men ratio by the end of 62.


But the point I was trying to make is simply giving the Union its historical strength advantage in mobile form just takes us back to AACW1 where the Union was too strong and too flexible too early. Something needs to be done to tone down Union offensive capabilities from 1861 till about mid 1863.

In a perfect world having all the state militias on map and mobile, but restricted to operating within their own state borders only would be the best solution. Baring that I think fixing a large percentage of the Union strength in rear areas is the best solution to keep the game from being a blow-out early in the war.

If you just swing the strength pendulum from the CSA camp into the USA camp, you still end up with an historically inaccurate situation. Give the Union their historical strength advantage, but do something to keep them from using that strength offensively too soon in game. Now is the time to do it, while you guys have the team working on it.

Jim

Edit: Just had another thought, is it possible to restrict militia elements from entering enemy controlled regions? If so that would be a perfect solution if you then removed most regular brigades from the Union force pool early in the game thus forcing players to spend most of their conscripts on militia units.



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.625