Foreign Intervention Calculations

[The Red Baron]

I'm playing v1.03 as USA. It's early in the game. CSA is ahead of me in both VPs and NM, so FI should increase by +2 each turn until I am able to slow or decrease it by exceeding my opponent's totals in one or both categories (barring either player exercising special options like trade concessions, Emancipation Proclamation, etc, of course); however, last turn FI stayed the same; no increase despite being behind in VPs and NM. Is this WAD or did I miss a special rule somewhere?

[GraniteStater]

All I can add is that in about eight games now, from .01 to .03, it is not unusual for FI to plateau for a bit, sometimes a good bit. I'd have to do the spadework to tell you why - all I can report is my observations.

[moni kerr]

I'm playing v1.03 as USA. It's early in the game. CSA is ahead of me in both VPs and NM, so FI should increase by +2 each turn until I am able to slow or decrease it by exceeding my opponent's totals in one or both categories (barring either player exercising special options like trade concessions, Emancipation Proclamation, etc, of course); however, last turn FI stayed the same; no increase despite being behind in VPs and NM. Is this WAD or did I miss a special rule somewhere?

I believe it is a 50% chance to increase or decrease FI depending on who leads in NM or VP.

[The Red Baron]

Glad to know I'm not the only one who noticed, including v1.01 and v1.02 games. I didn't see any other posts about FI problems, so the 50% chance sounds about right, and it's most likely WAD.

[Mickey3D]

Yes, it is WAD : I don't know the % for sure but the increase in FI is not automatic.

[pgr]

Yes, it is WAD : I don't know the % for sure but the increase in FI is not automatic.

Thank God! we wouldn't want it to be too easy, now would we?

[GraniteStater]

Thank God! we wouldn't want it to be too easy, now would we?

Remember, there are settings for it in Options, including None, I believe. Against Athena, it's far from impossible - smack the Yankees long enough and hard enough, you'll get it. Just camp out in Harper's and Maryland, make life awful, keep trashing Union stacks - you'll get it.

[minipol]

I'm a bit surprised to how NM & FI is handled.
I'm fighting the Union fairly well. VP's for me are 58 vs 42. I have 3950 VP vs 2941
Casualties 204.000 vs 387.000, only Washington and Baltimore remain in Union hands.

I've steadily built my NM by loads of victories. The Union still has 79 NM after all those big losses.
Next, the FI points I built, are swept away by all kinds of events.

I see 2 problems in this:
- It's way to easy for the Union to keep a decent moral. I can get that they keep on coming.
But the lower morale should affect their ability to fight effectively and continue to field large armies after
these kinds of losses. Now it doesn't feel right.

- We're simulating the war, but in a "what could have happened" kind of way.
This would ideally mean, that great historic events, are linked to the current situation of the game.
A number of things should be taken in account. For instance, NM, VP's, FI.
That would really be altering history. I think some events only fire when morale is at a certain point.
But maybe the effects (lowering points of your opponents NM, or whatever) could be more related to the current values?

While the CSA might have been doing badly by this time in real life, I'm not, yet I'm punished the same,
and I feel like the events are punishing me instead of recognizing the victories I've gained.

What do you guys think about this?

[GraniteStater]

Seems like some of us are coming to similar conclusions.

Not that it ain't fun, it is. Maybe we'll get some tweaks to make what is an excellent title even better.

[Mickey3D]

I've steadily built my NM by loads of victories. The Union still has 79 NM after all those big losses.

There is a resilience factor : Under 100 NM there is a chance each turn the NM will increase by one or, not very often, even more. Unfortunately the chance is too high at the moment and I think it will be tweaked in the next patch and/or the NM threshold will be lowered (e.g. resilience will not happen above 90 NM).

The opposite is true : above 100 NM there is a chance for the NM to go down (the people get bored by the war) and there also I think the next patch will bring a change.

Next, the FI points I built, are swept away by all kinds of events.

Current FI events seems fair to me. I must agree that compared to the first version of the game, it seems more difficult to have high FI value but I don't have enough perspective at the moment to understand if it's a change in the game or sheer luck/unluck.
If you like "What if", you can change the settings of the game to make FI more easy.

But the lower morale should affect their ability to fight effectively

It does : your NM has an effect on your fighting ability in battle but I don't know the detailed numbers behind this effect.

[GraniteStater]

Per the Snowman's points:

* Yes, it does seem like really high NM is harder to get in CW2. I was wailing on the CSA by late 63, early 64, his NM was down to 40 and less and I was maybe, maybe at 120.

* Not detailed numbers & haven't really scoped it out in CW2, but IIRC, the big inflection points were less than 80 and greater than 115, maybe 120. The big ones, that is. In AACW, IIRC, 'normal' Cohesion was 95 to 105. Under 95, I think you were at about 90%; above 105, about 110%, I think. Just enough so that a 90 NM stack against a 107 NM or so was about 90% vs 110% - which is just significant enough, just enough of a spread to start hurting.

Oh, BTW, re FI: caught a ten-percenter roll, where Lincoln blew his cool and nixed the whole Trent Affair thing. Wow - shot up to darn near 75. I saved that game and reloaded, but want to revisit it for when I'm feeling pugnacious. In general, the 'normal' stuff I'm seeing can be somewhat high (on Normal setting for FI) - I was putting the CSA away and FI was around 57 or so. I haven't seen too many low ones, seems to hover around 40, 50, 60.

[minipol]

Since NM and FI are so important, and reason for debate, wouldn't it be a good thing to add the NM and FI as sliders in the options?
Then everybody can choose the settings he/she likes. Just a thought

[GraniteStater]

You can set the FI threshold in Options. NM is hardcoded as a fundamental structure of the game. What do you want, an 'Easy' NM setting, 'Normal', 'Hard'? How does that operate? Probably was discussed in design meetings, I would say, but...I don't have the meeting notes.

[minipol]

You're probably right. How about Historical, Slightly ridiculous and You can't beat the Union ?

[minipol]

Febr - March 1864. Union wins one battle (-1 NM for me). 1 seabattle. In 3 turns.
NM for them goes up from 70 to 91 (!!!!!!). This is really nuts.
They have double (!) the casualties I have. I have invaded the Union instead of them me.
For every 10 battles we fight, I win 8 or 9.
91 NM is really utterly and totally crazy.
Very discouraging to play like this.
The NM went up from 70 to 81, then to 86 and 91.

[GraniteStater]

Yeah, it's not really all that could be desired.

I think I'll blame it on Tammany Hall.

[Keeler]

Febr - March 1864. Union wins one battle (-1 NM for me). 1 seabattle. In 3 turns.
NM for them goes up from 70 to 91 (!!!!!!). This is really nuts.
They have double (!) the casualties I have. I have invaded the Union instead of them me.
For every 10 battles we fight, I win 8 or 9.
91 NM is really utterly and totally crazy.
Very discouraging to play like this.
The NM went up from 70 to 81, then to 86 and 91.

I have been wondering for some time whether National Morale changes generated by battles would be better tied to the differences between the number of hits, rather than the number of elements destroyed. But that's a topic for another thread.

[Q-Ball]

Febr - March 1864. Union wins one battle (-1 NM for me). 1 seabattle. In 3 turns.
NM for them goes up from 70 to 91 (!!!!!!). This is really nuts.
They have double (!) the casualties I have. I have invaded the Union instead of them me.
For every 10 battles we fight, I win 8 or 9.
91 NM is really utterly and totally crazy.
Very discouraging to play like this.
The NM went up from 70 to 81, then to 86 and 91.

The Union is boosted, at that time, by a +10 NM gain for the 1864 Election Campaign

I do feel NM is not working correctly, however, for BOTH sides; I think there is a general NM inflation going on all-around.

[minipol]

It's not the election. The date was feb 1865, not 1864 as I wrongly mentioned. No big battles lost, no elements lost

[Q-Ball]

It's not the election. The date was feb 1865, not 1864 as I wrongly mentioned. No big battles lost, no elements lost

Feb 1865, the Union gets a 10 NM boost by the passage of the 13th amendment....there are a few NM boosting events for the Union later in the war

[tripax]

As another datapoint, as union I decided to see what happened if I don't take richmond. I've now taken everything but Florida and some coastal forts and my NM has fallen from a high near 160 down below 140. Its mid-1965, Old Abe is gone (and a few NM with him), and confederate NM is above 70. If I don't take Richmond, I don't think I'll win on moral, but I'm definitely going to win on points. FI has been stuck on 12 (plus or minus a couple but I don't remember noticing any movement) for over a year. It seems pretty hard to win on moral without taking Richmond, but I've been up on points and NM for a long time with no FI movement.

[minipol]

Rosencrans went South. I'm kicking him around with a few corps, he eventually disappeared.
That's a couple of division, generals, supply trains and guns gone.
East, Joseph E. Johnston held off a few attacks.
Lots of big battles per turn, some 5 NM, loads of 3-4 NM battles.
My NM went up in 4 turns from 138 to 162.
Union's went down from 88 to 64.

I would have tought that winning such big battles in 1865 would convince Great Britain and France more,
but FI increased a wopping 2 (!!) points in those 4 turns where the Union didn't achieve 1 little victory lost a total
of more than 6/7 divisions...

You would expect FI to increase faster with such big battles with 4 or 5 NM gain.

[Mickey3D]

You would expect FI to increase faster with such big battles with 4 or 5 NM gain.

FI is not linked to the battle results but to your overall NM (which is dependant on the battle results) and VP : the side who has more NM has a chance (50% ?) each turn to have the FI to increase(CSA)/decrease(USA) by one, the same for VP.

So, if you have the advantage in both with the CSA, the FI may increase by 0 to 2 points per turn (depending on you luck/unluck).

Then you have some events allowing you to increase/decrease FI (blockade, coton embargo, trade and territory concession).

You are raising an interesting point : may be important victories should bring an immediate gain in FI.