Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: flanyboy
I would say the causality numbers need to be tweaked a bit so that you don’t see 15,000 for one side and 3,000 for another. When I get the game I plan to play all detailed battles i hear this is less of an issue there but still 2-1 casualties almost never happened and if you altered that I don’t think it would affect game play much at all. If its doable in a patch I would definitely say make losses more realistic.

That said I LOVE the idea of march attrition and diseases great job with that developers. (Believe it or not most civil war games don’t deal with this)

quote:

It seams CSA numbers are slightly inflated but its not to bad to make the game unbearable for me.

quote:

Oh on the Naval aspect the CSA SHOULD NOT start with an ironclad. I think people tried to balance the navy a bit too much. Frankly I don’t think there should have been a balance at all really as the CSA historically started with 0 navy. The idea that the CSA could even hope to do more than keep a few ports open is a unrealistic idea and for the civil war I think they start far to strong.

quote:

That said i would like to see raiders added as that may give the CSA a naval element where they can raid like partisans or raiders do on land, though just destroy resources of the union. That would make the CSA player have a naval component to manage (other than blockade runners) while the Union would have to invest in a navy to try to hunt down these privateers.

quote:

As for diplomacy I see why money was included which isn’t entirely a bad idea but I think it should be made so battle results also will affect diplomacy, could you make it so that National Will somehow is tied into diplomacy? That would be pretty cool. (While of course not entirely getting rid of the money)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jchastain

So, for the reasons discussed above in the framework of this game, the amount of action is directly related to the economic disparity between the nations. As economic disparity increases, the initial quality level must compensate, and the defensive bonus must rise to a corresponding level, and its increase will directly reduce offensive operations. So, I have seen two primary historical criticisms of this game on these boards (other than the ironclad discussion which will be addressed and won't impact gameplay) – that there isn’t enough action and that the economic disparity isn’t great enough. In my mind, it is difficult to address both of those criticisms in the context of the framework of the game as the fix to either probably makes the other worse. Perhaps the fact that both are being criticized suggests we didn’t do too badly within the game’s framework.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jchastain

It would probably be best to allow people to have a little more experience with the game before starting this conversation, ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: jchastain
OK, so with all that said... let's talk balance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: elmo3

That brings us back to my first point, that until you have a larger pool of people who know the mechanics really well, and how they all interact, then please have the salt shaker handy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Money doesnt directly buy research. You have to pay with other resources as well and unless you modify the game the Union doesnt have a HUGE edge in research at start.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

quote:

ORIGINAL: jchastain

So, for the reasons discussed above in the framework of this game, the amount of action is directly related to the economic disparity between the nations. As economic disparity increases, the initial quality level must compensate, and the defensive bonus must rise to a corresponding level, and its increase will directly reduce offensive operations. So, I have seen two primary historical criticisms of this game on these boards (other than the ironclad discussion which will be addressed and won't impact gameplay) – that there isn’t enough action and that the economic disparity isn’t great enough. In my mind, it is difficult to address both of those criticisms in the context of the framework of the game as the fix to either probably makes the other worse. Perhaps the fact that both are being criticized suggests we didn’t do too badly within the game’s framework.

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. But I think there's something else to be considered. If you get the economic disparity historically right, and the defensive bonus historically right, and yet the game doesn't seem to work right, that suggests to me that the effects of the economic disparity aren't being modelled right.

Specifically, I get the impression that money and other resources can buy too much military advantage in the game -- more than they should be able to. In reality, you can't throw money at research and get rapid inventions. Money helps, but not as much as you might think. Probably the same applies to diplomacy.

It's obvious that the USA had the economic advantage in the war. The Northern troops had good clothes and shoes and food and weapons, and the Southern troops were often reduced to scavenging enemy supplies. But that economic advantage didn't seem to buy an overwhelming military advantage. In the end, it was sheer weight of numbers that was more important.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

I do think the Governor influence is a bit over done even if random. As I recall you get like 15 extra for some research if a Governor supports it. Thats a 15 percent increase since it only takes 100 points per research level. Each building only provides 3 points ( or 3 percent) And Universities take 1 Year to build. ( they increase all research in a city)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

So to sum it all up I’d say go ahead and pursue game balance over accuracy if there is a choice to make as the task to get things historically accurate would be a Herculean one.

Jim

P.S. It is a fun strategy game, I just don’t think it can really be called a Civil War simulation as too many things in the game are just not accurate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jchastain

OK, so with all that said... let's talk balance. And there are my ideas – not those of the devs or anyone else. This is intended as a discussion and not as an explanation.

It seems to me that the basic framework of this game begins with the fact that the USA has the economic and manpower advantages. The counterbalance is that the CSA starts with slightly higher quality forces. With the CSA holding the initial quality advantage, you do not want them incented to go on an initial offensive as that would be horribly ahistorical. So, there is a fairly substantial defensive bonus that helps keep them in check at the outset. That same defensive bonus will also make it harder for the USA to steamroll through the south later as they build their capabilities. This seems a quite practical solution to the problem..., and so far in my limited play seems to be working that way

While a defensive bonus makes sense historically and works well as a game mechanism in combination with the economic/quality balancing, the downside is that it tends to discourage offensiveness in general. If overwhelming force is required to win, then no one will attack until they can assemble overwhelming force – and that makes the game bog down. From what I've seen in play, the "drag" seems to be in assembling a force that can successfully "siege" a location when it get's there. Ft's Henry and Donaldson didn't hold out for months historically, but they will in the game if you don't have the right tools to attack them when you get there.

So, for the reasons discussed above in the framework of this game, the amount of action is directly related to the economic disparity between the nations. As economic disparity increases, the initial quality level must compensate, and the defensive bonus must rise to a corresponding level, and its increase will directly reduce offensive operations. So, I have seen two primary historical criticisms of this game on these boards (other than the ironclad discussion which will be addressed and won't impact gameplay) – that there isn’t enough action and that the economic disparity isn’t great enough. In my mind, it is difficult to address both of those criticisms in the context of the framework of the game as the fix to either probably makes the other worse. Perhaps the fact that both are being criticized suggests we didn’t do too badly within the game’s framework. The point I'm running into problems with so far in my play is that the Union's Naval superiority doesn't seem to be coming through in play. After maintaining and improving the land forces, and commiting cash to keeping the Europeans from nullifying any economic "edge" I might have, there is nothing left to build up the Union Navy. Yet the South seems to be able to afford to build ships to come attack me with. This result is way out of line with history, where by 1862 the North was siezing large portions of the Southern coasts and even New Orleans with their Fleet.

It might be possible to adjust the cost of everything so as to allow a greater diversity of income without changing the overall balance – though I would question the value of making significant changes with the specific idea of not affecting gameplay. And to do as some suggest and alter the economy to where the USA can afford anything they want would really dilute the game in my mind. Is money really what drives 19th century diplomacy? Of course not. But diplomacy isn’t and shouldn’t be the central tenant of a Civil War game so designers have to somehow embed it within the existing strategic framework. Making it use money embeds it into the strategic fabric fairly successfully and I am sure someone creative could imagine a rationale for what that money is supposed to represent. But the real question is, what would be a better option without introducing a lot of needless additional complexity? How about arming the Union Navy from the start with it's real guns? The reason the South siezed numbers of large cannon at Norfolk (which they used to arm their river Forts) was because these were the guns the Navy was equipped with. Give the Union Fleets "Rifled Dahlgren's" to start with. They were ships of the United State's Navy, they didn't have "improvised armament". Then the South wouldn't be tempted to try and build "Ships" they couldn't arm, and perhaps they would concentrate as they did historically on building a few "Ironclads" that they could find guns for.

Finally, those relying on our AAR might have a distorted view of the economic disparity. In the real war, the USA made several advanced that I have failed to make. They took New Orleans while I did not (and that likely would have been a better target than Tallahassee in hind sight). I tried to move against Nashville and failed. Had I secured it I would have not only taken that income from him (and added it to my own) but I also would have cut his remaining Tennessee income in half. Had I focused more on the Navy and blockaded his cities, it would also have helped more than anything I have done. Gil and I have played PBEM before. We’ve both won before. But in the ongoing game, he is clearly beating me. Had I done better, the economic picture within our game would look more lopsided. But a game where the player can do everything requires no strategy. I personally like having to make these decisions – even though I sometimes make the wrong ones. The one thing that I've noticed that seems to be overlooked in discussions of economic disparity is the "boost" the Rebs get from Europe. Even investing large amounts of money doesn't seem to discourage this flow. Any other ideas on how to bandage this wound would be appreciated.

One thing I am interested in is opinions on the required build times of units. As it stands, building new units require fairly significant lead times which delays the North’s ability to convert its economic muscle into actual benefit on the battle field. I suppose theoretically by increasing the build time, one could reduce the impact of economic advantage but I think that would actually take the game in the wrong direction. Were I to make an argument, it would be for reducing the build time for units to allow them to be deployed more quickly, not more slowly. The troop mix (as was also discussed in another thread) is too infantry centric. But allowing units and armies to be built quickly gives more benefit to the side with the economic advantage. Again, we have competing goals in terms of game balance and historical accuracy. Agree that "balance and accuracy" are the goals..., still trying to play enough to find out how well they have been achieved. But I think the "naval adjustment" I mentioned above needs to be in the game. It might also add some "flavor" to the game if "Ironclads" were single powerful ships instead of coming in 10-ship squadrons.

Personally, I believe discussions about game accuracy are great. I don’t think anyone is opposed to better historical accuracy. But I don’t think it is enough to criticize the accuracy without making suggestions for how to improve it. And in so doing, it is important to consider the impacts to the game systems and overall balance. I’m not a dev – just a player like everyone else here. And I can’t promise the devs will consider anything we discuss or suggest. But I’m willing to have these discussions if anyone else wants to talk through them. I think the designers and testers made the right choice not to stick with 100% historical accuracy in the economics of the game (though since it's probably the first thing "modders" would change anyway, it might not have been a great loss to let every player see just once before he switched to playing a "mod".). The question I'm looking at right now is "Did they go too far in seeking game balance?". Does it have the "feel" of the South being a "struggling, scrappy, underdog"---or is it a "Clash of the Titans"? So far, I'm thinking "too far", but I need to play for at least another week before commiting to that thesis.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

Let me know how you're going with the rules and drop me a line for some PBEM - I'll be happy to learn whilst playing with you.

What's your gut feel? Do you think there's a deep and meaningful game in here? I'm a little turned off by the city management side but I can't see another way to simulate the all important economics and supply limitations of the era/theatre any better.

I'm watching the Ken Burns DVD series right now for some clues I really need to hit the rules and print out that AAR you suggested.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


Well after spending some time with this game I’ve come to the conclusion that this is really just a strategy game with a Civil War theme overlaying it and not much of an historical wargame at all.

So many things are off from an historical point of view that it really can’t be called a wargame in my view anymore, thus I’ve decided not to make strong historical arguments for major changes in the forums as I would if I thought there was any hope of getting it done right.

I thought this place was a empire, now im the last, I can't be sure...

quote:

ORIGINAL: jchastain

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

I do think the Governor influence is a bit over done even if random. As I recall you get like 15 extra for some research if a Governor supports it. Thats a 15 percent increase since it only takes 100 points per research level. Each building only provides 3 points ( or 3 percent) And Universities take 1 Year to build. ( they increase all research in a city)

Actually, I believe a governor's support only provides +5 to research. If you are lucky enough to have 3 governors supporting research you might reach +15, but I would say that would be quite rare. We played around with the level of support from governors during the testing. I believe +5 is the right balance, though I'm up for talking about it if you think otherwise. But check your number first and let's make sure we're talking apples to apples.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jchastain
... a game cannot be all things to all people. I agree that this game aims for fun over absolute accuracy and I think it hits that nail on the head. For many of us, that's what we're looking for. Others are looking for something a little different. There's nothing wrong with that either. Good luck in finding the game that suits your needs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Well after spending some time with this game I’ve come to the conclusion that this is really just a strategy game with a Civil War theme overlaying it and not much of an historical wargame at all.

So many things are off from an historical point of view that it really can’t be called a wargame in my view anymore, thus I’ve decided not to make strong historical arguments for major changes in the forums as I would if I thought there was any hope of getting it done right.

AGEOD’s new Civil War title will probably be much better suited to those of us who prefer that the game gets the history aspect right first and then develops game models to make playing out that history a challenging prospect in a game.

...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joram

...

You don't have to sacrifice historical accuracy as long as you have sufficient victory conditions. Yes, maybe the South is supposed to lose but as long as the southern player can do better than his historical counterpart, then that player has won! It's pretty simple really...

quote:

ORIGINAL: tc237

Thank you JChastain, for starting this thread.



One suggestion I would make:
It seems the data .txt files are very easy to change, if we can get a basic SDK/modders guide on how some of the files work, the ACW "grogs" can make the perfectly accurate game they want. And all will be right in the universe.

I thought this place was a empire, now im the last, I can't be sure...

quote:

ORIGINAL: elmo3

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joram

...

You don't have to sacrifice historical accuracy as long as you have sufficient victory conditions. Yes, maybe the South is supposed to lose but as long as the southern player can do better than his historical counterpart, then that player has won! It's pretty simple really...

From the rules:

"A nation wins the game when it has a total of 24 victory points, or it has 32 more Victory points than the other nation."

Can we assume from the victory conditions above that in April of 1865 the USA got the winning number of points, and that neither side reached those numbers earlier in the war? An interesting exercise would be to take the victory points that each side can earn and apply them to history to see if that is indeed what happened. I'll leave that exercise to someone more ambitious than I!

quote:

ORIGINAL: jchastain
While there is merit to your comments, I would say that any game system sacrifices some degree of accuracy in order to achieve a degree of simplicity. Were any game to be entirely accurate, it would have to model everything. As you begin excluding complexities, it necessarily alters the dynamics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jchastain
If money and resources cannot buy significant advantages, then why play the economic game at all?

quote:

ORIGINAL: jchastain
Or since the USA had an advantage in materials, do you think buying weapons for each brigade isn't enough and the player should have to buy them boots and clothes as well? That might have some aspects of realism, but it sounds like a lot of micromanagement that would not be much fun to me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jchastain
But again, criticism absent suggestions get us no where. I would respectfully suggest that you make suggestions for how to make the game better.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jchastain
If you just believe the game isn't accurate enough for you and you can't think of how to make it better, then all I can say is fine then you should play something else.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.
At WCS we believe in a historicity-fun matrix, i.e. an imaginary graph that shows that if one makes a game too historical it becomes less fun, and if it's too fun it almost certainly is less accurate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.
Finally, I'd note that all of the complaints about ahistoricity are focused on the strategic game. Remember, an enormous area of this game (just see how many manual pages are devoted to it!) is the detailed battle simulation, where historicity has been a vital objective in terms of unit capabilities, formations, weapons' ranges, terrain, weather effects, etc.

quote:

While a defensive bonus makes sense historically and works well as a game mechanism in combination with the economic/quality balancing, the downside is that it tends to discourage offensiveness in general. If overwhelming force is required to win, then no one will attack until they can assemble overwhelming force – and that makes the game bog down.

quote:

That said i would like to see raiders added as that may give the CSA a naval element where they can raid like partisans or raiders do on land, though just destroy resources of the union. That would make the CSA player have a naval component to manage (other than blockade runners) while the Union would have to invest in a navy to try to hunt down these privateers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees

One of the issues as stated by the OP was that there appears to be a lack of "action" by the players.


I guess most players are more conservative, building up a superiority in power before attacking.

In real life, in many cases, political considerations forced the politicians to demand offensive action before the Generals felt they were ready.

Is it possible to cobble up a routine that penalizes a player who does not fight? A governer loyalty hit, loss of victory points, British/French/Other diplomatic hits?

Each player has an "Aggressiveness" point pool. Small fights, entering an empty enemy province, and seiges generate a few "aggression" points, engaging in a battle with/against X number of enemy brigades, Naval fights (which were more "headline" grabbing...) earn you a few more. These "agression" points go into a pool. The pool will decay over time. (The pools in the very first turn of a game will have 0 points, so the first turn needs to be immune from penalties...)

A pool of zero (modified by year? By 1865, the Union needs to be Aggressive with a capital A...) causes some penalties to be suffered.

A player initiates fights by moving into a province containing an enemy force/fort, and engaging it. (The player must be able to be considered conducting an offensive in friendly territory, when repulsing an enemy invasion/incursion.) As it is, the computer generates the turns course of action through initiative rolls, I think. Therefore, you might be able to figure out what roll was used to determine who started a fight in a given area, and earns credit for that.

Thoughts?

I thought this place was a empire, now im the last, I can't be sure...