Playing the CSA

[Linstock]

Hello all,

I've always played the North in this game for a couple of reasons: first, I think Athena is better as the CSA; and second, I enjoy the huge effort involved in orchestrating all the Union's offensives, which I find quite challenging, even though the North has way more resources and population.

So, having never played the South, I'm wondering what usually happens with a North Athena. Is she capable of handling the huge production decisions? Are her armies big enough to actually conquer the South? Which settings are best? etc.

[LCcmdr]

From the bottom feeder perspective (not quite 200 hrs of game play), YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Athena amasses so many Union troops, of superior quality, that there MUST BE an AI cheat, scandal (or whatever) going on. I've fielded 2000 CSA stacks only to be met by 2 stacks of > 2200. In one game, Athena attacked my 1800 (with two supporting stacks in adjacent hexes) with nearly 75,000 troops. So, yeah, I'm a thinking it's good.


OTOH, for the few times I've upped the AI ability as CSA, Athena just exploits my weak flanks--ever so frustrating. Maybe, after a few hundred more hours of play, I'll understand better (or not).

[ifailmore]

try playing Leitenant AI this make you face semi historical numbers agasint USA you will be constantly fighting larger stacks than yours as it was in reality. +2 activision bonus so the AI actually move and do some naval landing, low bonus detection to prevent them going suicide rush in middle of csa and not capturing towns and cities.

[darioVMannstein]

try playing Leitenant AI this make you face semi historical numbers agasint USA you will be constantly fighting larger stacks than yours as it was in reality. +2 activision bonus so the AI actually move and do some naval landing, low bonus detection to prevent them going suicide rush in middle of csa and not capturing towns and cities.

Hey, that might be a solution for my game because I find it sometimes weird that AI is for some certain periods very passive, even tho I am playing +1. So giving them +2 might be a good solution.
I am not sure about the detection bonus because I find it very interesting if it makes the AI decisions wiser so a little bonus is recommended
Btw, Athena is called for AI ? I ve never heard this term before tbh

[Cromagnonman]

Athena is the name of the AGEOD AI (you know, goddess of war and all that). AFAIK, AGE stands for Athena Game Engine.

[darioVMannstein]

Athena is the name of the AGEOD AI (you know, goddess of war and all that). AFAIK, AGE stands for Athena Game Engine.

Thanks I thought so but wasnt sure

[ArmChairGeneral]

try playing Leitenant AI this make you face semi historical numbers agasint USA you will be constantly fighting larger stacks than yours as it was in reality. +2 activision bonus so the AI actually move and do some naval landing, low bonus detection to prevent them going suicide rush in middle of csa and not capturing towns and cities.

This comes up a lot among new players, but the game is specifically designed so that no AI setting grants direct combat bonuses, more resources, or more troops. The AI does not get more money, though it will seem like they do, the AI does not fight any better than you, and they do not get free units. They don't even get a larger force pool. On Colonel level only, the AI does get some extra reinforcement chits (not sure if that is extra free ones, or whether there are just more in the force pool and she still has to buy them) but that is not what people mean when they say the AI gets extra numbers. The Union gets more men and more resources than the CSA in the same proportion whether human or AI (except for the replacement thing if you are on Colonel). If it seems like the AI has more resources than you have when you play that side it is almost always because she is getting more mileage out of the same resources.

[LCcmdr]

This comes up a lot among new players, but the game is specifically designed so that no AI setting grants direct combat bonuses, more resources, or more troops. The AI does not get more money, though it will seem like they do, the AI does not fight any better than you, and they do not get free units. They don't even get a larger force pool. On Colonel level only, the AI does get some extra reinforcement chits (not sure if that is extra free ones, or whether there are just more in the force pool and she still has to buy them) but that is not what people mean when they say the AI gets extra numbers. The Union gets more men and more resources than the CSA in the same proportion whether human or AI (except for the replacement thing if you are on Colonel). If it seems like the AI has more resources than you have when you play that side it is almost always because she is getting more mileage out of the same resources.

So, Sergeant and Lt. just up the AI logic for attacking the human player (does Athena not get greater LOS?).

[Gray Fox]

I play maxed out and Athena's Generals do get higher Strat numbers, poor souls.

[Cardinal Ape]

It has been a while since i tested it, but I am 99% sure that the AI gets a 100% increase to money, conscripts, and war supplies at the highest difficulty setting.

[ArmChairGeneral]

I just started a fresh July 61 campaign as the Union with Colonel difficulty, processed the turn and switched sides to see how much money the CSA got. Then I rewound the turn, changed the AI to Private difficulty, (after switching back to the Union side for processing) and processed the same turn. I then switched sides and checked money again, and the number was the same at both difficulties.

[Cardinal Ape]

You sow the seeds of doubt, good sir. I must test again...

I am now 100% certain the AI difficulty affects resource production. At Lieutenant level there is an increase of 50% resource production. At Colonel level there is an increase of 100% to resource production. At Private level there is a decrease of 30% to Money and War Supply production and a 15% decrease to Conscript production.

My method to test was different than yours, ArmChairGeneral. I speculate that your test obtained different results because the AI level may be saved in the save file and may take another turn to implement. It may be that changing difficulty mid-game has no affect, not sure.

I selected the AI difficulty in the main menu and started a new game in the April '61 grand scenario. I played as the CSA and I ran the first turn. Then I loaded as the Union and documented their first turn gains from cities and production (not the on-hand resources.)

Union first turn conscript production at Colonel Level:
[ATTACH]36934[/ATTACH]

I created a new game for each difficulty. Here are the results:

AI Colonel - Cash 587 - Men 190 - WS 302
AI Lieutenant - Cash 439 - Men 139 - WS 226
AI Sergeant - Cash 294 - Men 89 - WS 149
AI Private - Cash 228 - Men 76 - WS 115

[LCcmdr]

Eek gads! And you guys regularly beat Athena, after granting such increases. I am mere mortal, unworthy, and existing in the realm of such war gods.....

That's awesome stats. By showing me how you did this, it helps me better use/track my own icons, which I only recently started checking.


Oh, and how do I reduce inflation?

[Cardinal Ape]

You can't really do much about inflation. There is an option or two to reduce inflation by a point. Other than that, you are at the mercy of a reoccurring random event called Economic Sunrise. This will reduce inflation by one point. The more inflation you have the higher the chance to trigger the event. The CSA is half as likely to receive this event than the Union.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Cardinal Ape,
OK, I'll buy that, what you describe happening in the save files sounds like the reason I kept getting the same number. Dang, nothing like being wrong at the top of your voice!

[Captain_Orso]

BTW guys, the resource income shown in the tool-tips at the top of the map, or in the regions list, are all historic. They show what the last turn's income was. So if you change something in parameters or wherever, you must run at least 1 turn to see the affects.

[LCcmdr]

BTW guys, the resource income shown in the tool-tips at the top of the map, or in the regions list, are all historic. They show what the last turn's income was. So if you change something in parameters or wherever, you must run at least 1 turn to see the affects.

What's the negative value--"return to normal"--all about? I see that in NM tooltip sometimes.

So, the values across the topic equal what happened via all decisions during the previous turn...to produce the current value?

[Cardinal Ape]

National Morale has a normal value of 100. Each turn, if either faction is above or below 100 NM, there is a chance their NM will stabilize toward 100.

If I remember right, the game rolls a d100 and checks it against the factions NM. If they are below 100 NM, then a die roll greater than their current NM will gain them 1NM. If you have more than 100 NM, then a die roll greater than your morale above 100 will cause you to lose 1NM.

I think the Union makes 4 rolls a turn, and the Confederates make 7 rolls.

Yes, if you bring up the tool-tip for NM, it should list the sources of the change. Whether from battles, events and RGDs, or normalization.

[LCcmdr]

Just the man kicking a brother when he's down! Drats. Those NM are rather hard to earn (costly, at least) and easy to lose.

[jjw509]

try playing Leitenant AI this make you face semi historical numbers agasint USA you will be constantly fighting larger stacks than yours as it was in reality. +2 activision bonus so the AI actually move and do some naval landing, low bonus detection to prevent them going suicide rush in middle of csa and not capturing towns and cities.

I found the AI was a little stronger historical in 1861 before divisions. The first battle of Bull run was delayed until the Yanks came in with over 2000. I had to abandon the valley temporarily and got knocked back from Mansas but eventually held them off at a region behind Manasas. What activation setting do you use? I was using the one just under veteran and it may have an effect as well.

[LCcmdr]

I found the AI was a little stronger historical in 1861 before divisions. The first battle of Bull run was delayed until the Yanks came in with over 2000. I had to abandon the valley temporarily and got knocked back from Mansas but eventually held them off at a region behind Manasas. What activation setting do you use? I was using the one just under veteran and it may have an effect as well.

I've experienced the same issue: Union troops, supposedly less capably led than the CSA (along with less cohesion initially), are regularly beating my "superior" CSA leaders and troops. It seems that CSA strength is not fully realized until divisions can be created.

In my latest games (ongoing), I've taken Alexandria, VA, only because the Union divided their 2500 stack to defend (er, defeat) my 600 strong flanking maneuver toward Gettysburg, PA. The real reason that I gained Alexandria is due to Athena overestimating the Union ability to assault Manassas: CSA won that battle, big time; I then hounded their Remnants back to DC, deciding at the last minute to not assault DC, thereby conserving lives, resources, and cohesion--hopefully making it less likely for the Union to counter and push me out of Alexandria (my first time to take and hold it).

[Gray Fox]

FYI, CTRL+click on a General and then a large brigade in the same stack using the graphic at the bottom of the screen. You'll be able to use the "+" icon to merge the two. This gives the brigade additional power (IIRC 10%). An army of such brigades will benefit a lot. They also get the bonus of a unit and stack commander in combat. This is a must prior to Division activation.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Good, tip Fox.

Also, don't be afraid of the under command penalty prior to Divisions. Once you hit -35% (which happens quickly prior to Divisions) it doesn't get any worse, so you might as well keep adding more units to the stack. Your opponent is doing the same, so the -35% balances each other out so that neither side has a relative advantage. How else do you think McDowell can march on Manassas with a 1500-2000 PWR stack?

The leadership difference between the two sides is modest in combat terms, don't expect it to carry the day. If you grant the Union AI any activity bonus you will similarly reduce the advantage in activity that the South gets. The leadership differential is most apparent when you compare your playing experience as one side vs what it is like to play the other. You will have to scramble as the Union to find any commander who stays active enough to campaign. When you play the CSA you don't have this problem at all, and are instead outnumbered and outgunned.

[LCcmdr]

Good, tip Fox.

Also, don't be afraid of the under command penalty prior to Divisions. Once you hit -35% (which happens quickly prior to Divisions) it doesn't get any worse, so you might as well keep adding more units to the stack. Your opponent is doing the same, so the -35% balances each other out so that neither side has a relative advantage. How else do you think McDowell can march on Manassas with a 1500-2000 PWR stack?

The leadership difference between the two sides is modest in combat terms, don't expect it to carry the day. If you grant the Union AI any activity bonus you will similarly reduce the advantage in activity that the South gets. The leadership differential is most apparent when you compare your playing experience as one side vs what it is like to play the other. You will have to scramble as the Union to find any commander who stays active enough to campaign. When you play the CSA you don't have this problem at all, and are instead outnumbered and outgunned.

Okay, but I thought that the 35% penalty seriously hampered combat performance, as well as cohesion recovery.

[Cardinal Ape]

The CP penalty doesn't affect cohesion recovery. It does slow movement speed though.

[ArmChairGeneral]

If both sides have a -35% then it is a wash, which is typically what happens in the big pre-division battles. For the most part it is more advantageous during combat to have one large stack than several, since there is no guarantee that all of them will join the battle. Before division formation you just have to accept the penalty in places you need a really big force.

The penalty is -5% per uncommanded CP. Once it hits 35% it doesn't get any worse. If you are right around that 7 CP maximum, then sure, it makes sense to pull a brigade out and put it in the structure where it won't fight so the rest of the stack has less of a penalty. But once you are 5 CP over the limit you might as well be 20 CPs over the limit, each extra element only increases the strength of the stack.

Now if you are going to be fighting a fully commanded equal sized enemy, then yeah, that would be a problem. But Athena likes to stack em big, especially around Manassas/DC. Think of the early Manassas battles. Doesn't the AI have big 1200+ PWR stacks? Those pretty much have to be past max penalty, and to stand against them you are going to need a roughly equivalent (or larger if you are the Union) sized stack that will also suffer from max penalty.

The situation is murkier in other theaters, you don't want to get a medium sized but max penalty stack into a fight with a roughly equal sized or slightly smaller stack that has more CPs and a smaller penalty, or you may well be at a substantial disadvantage. That said, sometimes there just aren't enough CPs to command the size of stack I need to get the job done, so I bite the bullet, accept the penalty and hope the enemy has the same problem with CPs I am having. It pays to look at the intel on the stack, you can make a pretty good guess about their CPs just by knowing the ranks of the generals in the stack.

At higher levels the AI's CP penalty is capped at lower levels than yours, somewhere in the high twenties, rather than the 35% you get, which means that in the early war they will have a slight advantage in battles fought between max penalty stacks. But this is all the more reason to cram even more troops into those stacks since they will need every scrap of power they can get.

It is worth considering the frontage of the region where you expect battle. If the frontage is small, it might not make sense to accept major CP penalties to add units that may not get to fight anyway.

[LCcmdr]

Thanks for the great replies!

So, the large stack penalties (assuming fighting a similar enemy stack) really don't impact battle results--except for the movement penalties, width of combat array, etc. Well, that redirects my early game play once again, since I had worked to make smaller stacks but have more of them in the same region. Based upon these above comments, I should be more certain of reliable results with one massive stack rather than smaller alternatives.

[ArmChairGeneral]

No problem, I (obviously) enjoy talking about this stuff.

You nailed it, reliability is the key. There are definitely (a minority of) cases where split stacks might have given better results, but minimizing stacks makes things a lot more predictable. Most of the really strange results I have gotten in battles happened when there were multiple stacks and no MTSGing.

[Gray Fox]

This is the only mention I have found in the Wiki about CP penalty:

http://www.ageod.net/agewiki/Combat_Explained

"Who goes first?
The order of fire is determined by the initiative-values of the elements: elements with higher initiative are likely to open fire before elements with lower initiative (there is a random factor involved though!). Each element has an initiative value that can be improved by some abilities or by experience, and can be degraded if the army is under commanded." (my italics)

So, "an under commanded", i.e. not enough CP's, army would take the -X% away from its initiative number. This might allow a well commanded stack to fire first more often then not against it.

[LCcmdr]

This is the only mention I have found in the Wiki about CP penalty:

http://www.ageod.net/agewiki/Combat_Explained

"Who goes first?
The order of fire is determined by the initiative-values of the elements: elements with higher initiative are likely to open fire before elements with lower initiative (there is a random factor involved though!). Each element has an initiative value that can be improved by some abilities or by experience, and can be degraded if the army is under commanded." (my italics)

So, "an under commanded", i.e. not enough CP's, army would take the -X% away from its initiative number. This might allow a well commanded stack to fire first more often then not against it.

Does that indicate better performance for divisions vs. 35% overloaded stacks of much larger size? It should, at least infer that adequate CP stacks should be able to retreat better, etc.