1864 Electioon

[GraniteStater]

Anyone know what the criteria are for Lincoln being re-elected? 100 NM? Anything, or things, in particular? Stuff to watch out for? Red flags? Hard and fast numbers in a category?

*****

Aaarrggh! Misspell in the thread title!

[lycortas2]

While the election is in progress (Summer/Autumn 1864) the minimum Union morale becomes 60. If you fall below 60 a peace candidate is assumed to win.
After the election the Union minimum morale returns to 20 and the Union gains 10NM.

Mike

[GraniteStater]

Yes, I knew the minmax values for victory/defeat change. That's not what I'm asking, though. Are you trying to say that if Union NM > 60, Lincoln gets re-elected? Seems a bit too easy, if you ask me.

I ask, because in the Grand Tourney of AACW, the games stopped in thee summer of '63. Against Athena, most Union players win before November 64. I really don't know what the criteria were, or are.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Here are lines I could find in the game files (CW2->Events->USA Events) relating to the 1864 Election. There may be something I missed elsewhere, but I looked everywhere I could think of.



SelectFaction = USA
SelectRegion = $Prince_George_MD
StartEvent = evt_nam_USA_PresidentialElection1864|1|2|evt_txt_USA_PresidentialElection1864|Event-img_USA_PresidentialElection1864|$Prince_George_MD|118

Conditions
MinDate = 1864/01/01
MaxDate = 1864/06/31

Actions
DescEvent = evt_desc_USA_PresidentialElection1864
SetMoraleLevels = 60;225
.
.
.
some events about McLellan and new states
.
.
.
SelectFaction = USA
SelectRegion = $Prince_George_MD
StartEvent = evt_nam_USA_LincolnReelected1864|1|2|evt_txt_USA_LincolnReelected1864|Event-img_USA_LincolnReelected1864|$Prince_George_MD|96

Conditions
MinDate = 1864/11/19

Actions
DescEvent = evt_desc_USA_LincolnReelected1864
SetMoraleLevels = 25;185
ChangeFacMorale = 10

EndEvent


There is no mention of what happens if McClellan wins, and there is no probability attached to Lincoln's re-election. My conclusion (I may be missing something though) is that in game terms, Lincoln automatically wins if he stays above 60 NM between Jan and July; in other words, if the Union is still playing in November, then Lincoln wins. (It looks like the threshold goes down to 40 in the last months before the election because new states enter the Union, but I could be misinterpreting, it might stay 60 all the way to November.)

Interesting that the win threshold is more difficult (225) for the Union during the Election: apparently the CSA won't surrender because they are hanging on hoping that Lincoln will lose in November (although that possibility is not actually allowed by the events as far as I can tell). After Lincoln is re-elected, the writing is on the wall and the CSA is more ready to give up than before the Election.

[John S. Mosby]

Anyone know what the criteria are for Lincoln being re-elected? 100 NM? Anything, or things, in particular? Stuff to watch out for? Red flags? Hard and fast numbers in a category?

Sometimes I wonder if over analyzing a game takes some of the fun out of it. Things in particular? Stuff to watch out for? Sure. But for me, hard numbers kinda takes the excitement and mystery out of in this case an election. Don't get me wrong, fine to ask but sorry I read this.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Sorry, Mosby, didn't mean to mess it up for you. Plus, I might not be right, there may be more to this event than I found.

[GraniteStater]

Sometimes I wonder if over analyzing a game takes some of the fun out of it. Things in particular? Stuff to watch out for? Sure. But for me, hard numbers kinda takes the excitement and mystery out of in this case an election. Don't get me wrong, fine to ask but sorry I read this.

I'm probably the least analytical player in five counties. I've got a PbeM going; I'm the Union; it's six months before the Election. As I stated in the first post, I've never heard of any threshhold triggers, not in nearly half a dozen PbeMs in AACW, nor in the manual that I can see in a search, nor anyone's AAR I've read. The best ACG could do was say, 'looks like 60 NM might be it'.

Thanks, Comfy Guy. Next time I'll run any questions by the Committee for approval.

[John S. Mosby]

Sorry, Mosby, didn't mean to mess it up for you. Plus, I might not be right, there may be more to this event than I found.

Apology is certainly not necessary but is very kind. There was nothing wrong with the question regarding event triggers etc. There was nothing wrong with the answer. Really no need for GS to comment about running questions by the Committee. I know he is stressed out over his game.

I commented only to maybe inject some thought on keeping the game fun. I never analyze game files to acquire numbers but that's just me. Others are of course welcome to do that and discuss it.

Again, not faulting anyone in this thread.

[GraniteStater]

Y'know, I'm starting to feel like Nicholson, playing JJ Gittes, in the barbershop scene in Chinatown.

Ever heard of discretion? "Sorry you read this?" Ever think of keeping some things to oneself?

I'm not stressed out about a flipping game, Sigmund.

Between one guy calling me a BS artist and another tut-tutting about a question I ask, ...

I come here to relax, actually, have some fun and pick some people's brains. I really don't need anybody 'sharing their feelings' about what I choose to ask, thank you.

**********

Back on the thread's actual topic: 60 NM is the Defeat threshhold. If that's the only criterion, don't suffer AutoDefeat, then it's not that hard to be re-elected.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Although I have already crossed the Rubicon by opening up the game files, (mainly so I could figure out what was going on with Army leaders passing their traits and figuring out some of the numbers for the Combat Resolution threads) I know what you mean about not wanting to know too much. For example, I try never to open a scenario as the Union unless I can help it; I don't want to know their starting dispositions etc. to maintain some of the mystery and to preserve some advantage for Athena.

[GraniteStater]

And yours is a perfectly understandable attitude. Some here have no interest in PbeMs. I think PbeM is where it's at - and ACG, if you ever take the plunge, you'll be a junkie, I have a strong feeling - there's no substitute for an opponent who thinks.

As I said, I'm a very unanalytical player. Some people want to know how stuff works behind the scenes - some people mod the game.

But I would encourage anyone, even people who just want to play one side all the time, and have no intention of PbeM - try the Other Side once in a while. Obviously, I know the Union much better than the CSA - but I did play two PbeMs as the CSA; have two CSA AI games going right now. It helps, it makes you a better player, particularly in AACW/CW2, because the strategic imperatives are so different.

I would hazard that if you like to brawl, the CSA is for you. I like to play the CSA for just that - warring. The Union's concerns are much different - you have to Do a Lot of Things, you have to organize, you have to learn how to judge the moment, because you must attack and the clock is ticking. When you play the Union, you get to use all the toys and see what the mistakes with them are. It'll make a CSA player a better CSA player, I would say, a better manager. My CSA experience has taught me a greater appreciation for over the board tactics. But mostly I play the CSA 'cuz it's just fun. The Union is a bit more work.

[John S. Mosby]

Although I have already crossed the Rubicon by opening up the game files, (mainly so I could figure out what was going on with Army leaders passing their traits and figuring out some of the numbers for the Combat Resolution threads) I know what you mean about not wanting to know too much. For example, I try never to open a scenario as the Union unless I can help it; I don't want to know their starting dispositions etc. to maintain some of the mystery and to preserve some advantage for Athena.

Thank you for your understanding.

[pgr]

I for one am glad to know. And I'm a little underwhelmed. It seems like it is just a window for the south to get a NM victory. I'm surprised there isn't some percentage chance for Lincoln loosing. Say if a certain number of VPs haven't been accumulated, the chance for Lincoln loosing goes up. That would make a Union player feel the heat to make good progress in 62 and 63.

Now there might be some interaction going on with other events. Does anyone know if the "Northern Papers Push for an Offensive" fires every year? If I just sat on my rear through 64 doing nothing, would that event firing 4 times push me below 60?

Otherwise, I'm not quite sure how useful the event is. Aside from loosing D.C., it seems like a tall order to drop NM from say 80 to 60 (or 100 for that matter).

(Of course, I guess if you have been saving Stonewall all those years, the summer of 64 is the time to send him to Washington...)

[minipol]

Working with a percentage change that Lincoln won't be reelected even when NM > 60 isn't a bad idea.
But how do you set good criteria?
That's not an easy thing to do.

Ideally one would have to go over the big battles from the war to calculate how much VP both would have achieved by 1864.
Then you could compare the historical situation in 1864 with the one in the ongoing game to decide wether the player is doing better
or worse than the historical counterpart.

[Mickey3D]

It seems like it is just a window for the south to get a NM victory. I'm surprised there isn't some percentage chance for Lincoln loosing. Say if a certain number of VPs haven't been accumulated, the chance for Lincoln loosing goes up. That would make a Union player feel the heat to make good progress in 62 and 63.

The raise to 60 of the Union NM defeat threshold at the beginning of 1864 is simulating the possibility of Lincoln loosing the election : If you can't secure objectives and you loose important battles you'll loose the game which is equivalent to the peace party/democrats winning the election.

However, this is not perfect because a gamey strategy is to take no risk and let the moral resilience (your NM can increase each turn when you have less than 100 NM) increase your NM. May be the northern player should loose each turn one NM between 01/01/64 and 06/30/64 to force him to act.

I would personally find a percentage based on VP not very interesting : it means I could loose the game just because of bad luck on one specific "dice roll".

[soundoff]

The raise to 60 of the Union NM defeat threshold at the beginning of 1864 is simulating the possibility of Lincoln loosing the election : If you can't secure objectives and you loose important battles you'll loose the game which is equivalent to the peace party/democrats winning the election.

However, this is not perfect because a gamey strategy is to take no risk and let the moral resilience (your NM can increase each turn when you have less than 100 NM) increase your NM. May be the northern player should loose each turn one NM between 01/01/64 and 06/30/64 to force him to act.

I would personally find a percentage based on VP not very interesting : it means I could loose the game just because of bad luck on one specific "dice roll".

I think the current way is quite sensible. My issue with it is that the NM is set too darned low. If the North has not achieved a higher NM than 80 (let alone 60) by June 64 then IMHO it deserves to lose particularly as in CW2 there is auto NM balancing across the board.

[GraniteStater]

Does anyone know if the "Northern Papers Push for an Offensive" fires every year?

No, it's done in 62, IIRC - maybe once in Jan 63 if you're really slow like me, but I think it's pretty much done by the EP time.

[GraniteStater]

I think the current way is quite sensible. My issue with it is that the NM is set too darned low. If the North has not achieved a higher NM than 80 (let alone 60) by June 64 then IMHO it deserves to lose particularly as in CW2 there is auto NM balancing across the board.

The AutoCorrect on NM is not the greatest idea, IMHO. It almost entirely relieves the Union of getting a move on in the early going. In AACW, if you didn't watch it, you were going into early battles at 85/105, south, and it could be disastrous. If you really messed up, NM<80 in mid 62 and no EP.

Now I can tell Horace Greeley to go hang himself and nobody cares.

[Mickey3D]

The AutoCorrect on NM is not the greatest idea, IMHO.

It should be limitated by example by being triggered only when NM is below 80. I.e. the NM of a side could not go over 80 due to national resilience.

[GraniteStater]

That's a really good suggestion. Maybe 90?

[Mickey3D]

That's a really good suggestion. Maybe 90?

That was my initial idea but Ace made a good comment (well, he always makes good comments...) : you must reach 80 NM to be able to proclame emancipation. So national resilience mechanism should not allow you to play the emancipation event. May be national resilience should even be limitated to 75.

[GraniteStater]

well, he always makes good comments...

See sig. He's 1,359 and zippo in rectitude.

A true gentleman - unlike that guy from New Hampshire. He's just too darn excitable at times.

[soundoff]

That was my initial idea but Ace made a good comment (well, he always makes good comments...) : you must reach 80 NM to be able to proclame emancipation. So national resilience mechanism should not allow you to play the emancipation event. May be national resilience should even be limitated to 75.

IMHO auto balancing to represent national resilience has to be set far lower than 75 (as it was in AACW) otherwise it seems to me that it becomes virtually impossible particularly for the North to achieve an early outright victory. You can end up almost swamping the South and still find that they fight on just because NM is above the magic number. This is especially true given that NM gains and losses for winning battles (I think I'm right) has remained as it was in AACW which was always a weakness.

By early I mean by the natural game end date.

[minipol]

I agree auto balancing can be a problem. As the South, you can keep pouding Union armies, achieve a 2-1 loss rate, have lot's more VP and still the Union morale is high enough.
Maybe there should be different thresholds for both the South and the Union for autobalance, even per year?

[GraniteStater]

I have no idea why they altered the algorithm. It worked very, very well in AACW. As I said, I can thoroughly ignore the Northern papers now.

[GraniteStater]

We had the election - Lincoln was retained.

However, the messages said, threshold for 'moral Victory 125' (sic), but the Objectives screen says 185.

So...which is it?