Decision Cards

[GraniteStater]

OK, I'll check it out - maybe read the manual a bit more; mostly I haven't, just 'playing by ear.'

[ArmChairGeneral]

Defensive Works:
I get a confirmation in the message-log when it completes; it even tells me when the opponent completes. You must keep 3 elements of regular infantry in the region for the whole build; as of 1.02 it will tell you if it canceled because of this requirement in the next turn-log, I don't think 1.01 told you about cancellation and this may be the source of the confusion. It increases the entrenchment and entrenchment rate in that region. (I guess it goes to max entrenchment?) More importantly, it increases loyalty by 10%. Like minipol, I use them in TN on Chattanooga and Knoxville along with Development to get those cities loyal again, and try to keep a spare if I can for Louisville for when I take it. I figure my troops entrench pretty quickly already; there are only so many ways to increase loyalty in friendly cities. According to my (not necessarily correct) understanding of the production algorithm, a 1% increase in loyalty results in a straight 1% increase in production for the region, so is a big consideration. That's why Athena usually declares Martial Law in Baltimore quickly. Captured farm-fields would warrant a Def Works too, in my book.

I could have sworn that this was one of the fixed-number-of-use cards, but maybe they return to the pool and I just didn't notice. There is no graphic change aside from the sandbags, and AFAIK, if you abandon the trenches the extra entrenchment disappears normally, though loyalty bonus remains.

I liked the cards in AJE, and I like them in CW2. Their effects will be adjusted over time until they are better balanced, I am sure. I don't find them to be optional. The effects of some of them (even ones I don't think are overpowered) change my tactics considerably. The clear/track/road/telegraph cards may in fact be good and useful cards, but since the effects of development level and track/road are not explicit, it is difficult to know how and when to use them.

BTW, I think Runner is priced wrong. A few WS in exchange for NM? That's a crappy trade, and I never use it. I would consider it for 50-100 WS/NM, but at those prices, would probably belong in the ledger rather than as a RGD.

[ArmChairGeneral]

GraniteStater,

Uh, I have to admit I have gotten out of the habit of reading the manuals too. The manuals from AGEOD have been, well.... bad, historically. Patches change game mechanics significantly and they don't get reflected in the manual, compounding any original errors and omissions, so I have gotten into the habit of just ignoring them. The tutorials, the boards, the Wikis and just playing are much more reliable sources of information. Not a big deal really, most games don't have a manual at all these days, and I would rather they spend their resources elsewhere, just saying. I too will go back and check it out. The AJE manual was pretty good, I think they are making this a higher priority.

[Ol' Choctaw]

BTW, I think Runner is priced wrong. A few WS in exchange for NM? That's a crappy trade, and I never use it. I would consider it for 50-100 WS/NM, but at those prices, would probably belong in the ledger rather than as a RGD.

You bet! Higher NM also ups your production. It could cost you.

[Keeler]

I could have sworn that this was one of the fixed-number-of-use cards, but maybe they return to the pool and I just didn't notice. There is no graphic change aside from the sandbags, and AFAIK, if you abandon the trenches the extra entrenchment disappears normally, though loyalty bonus remains.

They're not fixed. As the Union you can spam them on St. Louis, Washington, Baltimore, and anywhere else with low loyalty and fixed garrisons.

Has anyone compared the speed of entrenchment with engineers vs the decision card? Shouldn't the card require an engineer, or a commander/unit with the engineer/entrencher ability, present to play this card? I think that's true of the sea mines as well, which should require naval engineers in an adjacent region. I would go as far to say that almost every free card should require a unit in order to play them. Otherwise, cards should have a cost associated with them to simulate the experts and materials needed to build/enforce/enact whatever the card is supposed to do.

Edit: Case in Point. To build a level one fort, you need 4 6lb artillery batteries and 4 supply elements. Those units cost war supplies, money, and men. The supply wagons alone cost about 80 money for the Union. If you play the Redoubt card, you get a level one fort after six turns for 50 money. Granted there is a small, fixed number of them but when you compare them cost-wise to unit-built forts they're powerful cards. They should at least require an engineer present to play them and probably cost some war supply as well.

[aaminoff]

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?34021-design-philosophy-on-regional-decisions

My concern is that some regional decisions are overpowered, others are dubiously historical, and others are just plain busywork. It is certainly true that in PBEM one can adopt house rules about which to allow, but I would prefer if the base game were more stable and balanced - as in fact I think it was before the introduction of regional decisions. Negotiations about house rules also have the problem that if you already know which side you want to play, the inclusion or exclusion of certain regional decisions will impact play balance, so you don't know if someone is arguing for a house rule out of concern for the game or as special pleading.

To put it another way, I think CW2 does a marvellous job with the core of the Civil War - exciting and dramatic maneuvering for position by large armies across open terrain. A lot of the other stuff dilutes that excellent experience.

[ArmChairGeneral]

My concern is that some regional decisions are overpowered, others are dubiously historical, and others are just plain busywork.

Hmmm. I find that I can't disagree with any of these points.

Yet I still like the cards, and find myself firmly in the pro-RGD camp. They are fun, they help me do some internal storytelling and many have important and legitimate game effects. I think some of them are just not finished yet.

Aside/rant:
I am always a little nervous when people talk about balance/overpower issues (although it was my use of the word that ignited this whole thread). In AACW the balance and the AI behavior was steadily adjusted until by the end it was quite difficult to play as the CSA at even moderate levels of difficulty (although you could still take advantage of Athena's weird decisions around DC). While this was certainly "historical," it eventually became less fun to play. I was putting 30-60 hours into a game, I wanted at least a shot at winning. This conflict is not one between equals, in the long run the Union has every advantage. Fixing "unbalanced" and "overpowered" and "ahistorical" parts of the game almost by definition disadvantages the CSA.

That being said, I think that we can all agree that some work needs to be (and likely will be) done on RGDs. As much as I want to maintain the few advantages we have, farming 7 NM per year from mines and subs does seem a little too easy. In fact, I might go so far as to suggest that NM effects might be too large-scale for what the cards usefully model. NM effects would better be represented by ledger choices, whereas cards more naturally represent smaller scale effects like one-time resource boosts, structures or tactical effects.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Keeler,
Thanks for the clarification!

[soundoff]

.


That being said, I think that we can all agree that some work needs to be (and likely will be) done on RGDs. As much as I want to maintain the few advantages we have, farming 7 NM per year from mines and subs does seem a little too easy. In fact, I might go so far as to suggest that NM effects might be too large-scale for what the cards usefully model. NM effects would better be represented by ledger choices, whereas cards more naturally represent smaller scale effects like one-time resource boosts, structures or tactical effects.

Similarly to be able to raise loyalty of a city by 20% for just 3VP's when playing the Habeas Corpus RGD is just as wacky. In effect you are saying that with luck you can take a city with less than 50% loyalty and convert them to majority support of your faction all for the princely sum of 3VP's - just not right. Besides I never knew that rounding up dissidents ever increased the loyalty of anywhere. Control certainly but you do not make a population more loyal by imprisoning them and confiscating possessions.

[Q-Ball]

With subs, mines, and partisan cards, RGD's have more of an impact on NM than losing major cities. It's a problem, IMO. The result is NM inflation for both sides.

[soundoff]

With subs, mines, and partisan cards, RGD's have more of an impact on NM than losing major cities. It's a problem, IMO. The result is NM inflation for both sides.

+1 except that its not so big a deal as it appears at first glance given that the game automatically auto balances NM. If one sides NM is over 100 there a chance each turn that it will reduce. The reverse side of the coin is that if a sides NM is below 100 there is a chance it will automatically rise until it reaches 100. Those are irrespective of NM losses or gains in the game through actions and events.

[Ol' Choctaw]

Very true!

NM gains from these events are fleeting for those with a high morale but more important for low morale.

Partisans are more to point up the folly of ungarrisoned rear areas. Mines can not sink ships. They can only take half of what ever hits they have remaining. Submarines only target one ship with 30% chance of success.

I don’t see, at this time, any of these cards being over powered. Partisans in particular are weak and without them would be of very little use. These RGDs just make them a threat to be taken seriously.

They do not apply to raider. Regular troops can’t use them. It is the only way to destroy levels of a multi level depots.

[aaminoff]

> Mines can not sink ships. They can only take half of what ever hits they have remaining.

Mines are like Orbital Lasers in Fortress America: they fire first, sometimes they miss, but when they hit they have a huge effect on the upcoming battle. And they can be used anywhere on the map. They are certainly overpowered. They are also ahistorical: what possible historical event does suddenly taking half the hits off most of the armored ships in a fleet right before a battle represent? And NM on top of that?

If it was just a matter of balance, I would say, it is available to both sides, learn to plan for the possibility or cope with the effects. But the effect is so crazy and so nonsensical that it detracts from the game, both in the sense that it jars you out of suspension of disbelief and in the same way that a cat walking across your game board of Fortress America does.