CSA complaint about the game system based on a recent PBEM

[NormanMeek]

I recently completed a very competitive PBEM game with a strong Union commander that played very cautiously. By early summer 1863 his armies finally began to advance into the South. However, the game was over by late September 1863 even though the only objectives he had conquered were Nashville and Norfolk. In other words, the CSA went into a "death spiral" that was enhanced by having battle results affected by national morale, which then caused national morale to decline further because more battles were lost.

Most frustrating to me was that every time a town's militia surrendered, the CSA lost 1 national morale. Since those units occupy many towns, are fixed and thus cannot be disbanded, there is nothing the CSA can do to prevent this aspect of the ugly death spiral. In my opinion, the fact that the rapid morale loss that could not be stopped ruined a great game.

Having combat results affected by national morale is a design mistake. Most CSA armies fought as hard in 1864 as they did in 1861, such as happened in Price's 1864 Missouri campaign, and Lee's defense of Virginia the same year. The soldiers fought hard because they knew success could affect the election, and perhaps result in an end to the war. In short, the current game design cannot recreate the persistence of the CSA's effort into 1865, no matter how well they are doing as late as 1863.

Moreover, another problem is that the Union does not suffer any serious penalties for being excessively cautious and only starting their advance in 1863. If the CSA is going to suffer a 1 point National Morale point loss every time a town's militia surrenders, then the Union should suffer a similar penalty for every outpost on the plains that is burnt to the ground, and a much larger penalty for every turn that a northern state capital and city is held by the CSA. And perhaps there should even be "sudden death" conditions that require the Union to conquer at least one southern state capital or a certain number of objective points in 1862 for the war to continue. In other words, the Union player needs to be forced into taking some chances before he has constructed a huge army that can induce the "death spiral" effect.

In short, I believe that something needs to be done to make the CSA worth playing in a PBEM against a very cautious and methodical Union commander. A simple solution would be to disable the death spiral by either removing the effect of national morale on battle outcomes, and/or to remove the 1 point of national morale lost by a town's fixed militia surrendering.

[pgr]

+1. The union player really has no pressure to move quickly. Have suggested in the past that there be re-occurring NM hits for the Union as long as certain stratigic areas remain unsecured (I'm thinking Richmond, Vicksburg, and Atlanta). Something that would mean that a union player that just sits will have a big NM problem by 1863-64 (big enough that the 64 election event could cause the Union to loose). Just for giggles, I once ran the game with AI off, without making any moves. Every year the Union NM rose (through events and resiliency) and at about 105 in 1864, without literally any movement.

Of the problem with playing with NM is that it impacts combat....so you could wind up causing a spiral

I do wonder why NM impacts combat at all. In reality, a force's moral really came form its local conditions and commanders. Why would a militia unit in Kentucky surrendering impact how the ANV fights in Va? My understanding is that NM globally modifies cohesion (correct me if I am wrong), which makes it likely VP spirals develop.

If NM was detached from combat, then it could be played with more as a "political support" indicator that could be played with to help balance the game.

[ajarnlance]

Yes, I am finding the same faults in PBEM games as the CSA. Experienced Union players have learnt to sit and build for two years before launching an overwhelming onslaught with the predictable resulting defeat for the rebels. I totally agree about the problem with fixed militia being overrun in cities: the NM penalty for this is excessive. You are also correct that the Southern morale remained very high throughout the war despite their mounting defeats and losses. The game doesn't model this accurately. The main issue that needs to be addressed for me though is the excessive caution by Union players in the early game. This should be penalised. IRL there was immense political pressure on the Northern armies to attack the South, especially from the "on to Richmond" crowd. I like your idea of penalising the Union for every turn that the South holds a Union city. This should be much more severe in both VP and NM hits for the North. This would also encourage historical behaviour from the Confederate player who will have a big incentive to invade the North as Lee did twice. Not so sure about far flung western outposts being burned down, but cities closer to the Northern heartland should definitely be worth more to conquer and hold.

As it is the game is broken. The Union just need to sit, build and wait for 1863. It is still a lot of fun to play. It just needs rebalancing. I don't think it would actually take that much creative thought or programming time to fix it. Problem is the small AGEOD team are stretched more and more over a growing number of games. TEAW is I am sure their top priority right now. It is disappointing after all the hours I have invested in this wonderful game to discover that the only choices are playing against a dysfunctional AI or PBEM that exploits the game's flaws.... The promised land is there but it needs the design team to really focus on the overall game play... I fear that they have to spend their valuable time fixing nuts and bolts instead...

[ajarnlance]

"I do wonder why NM impacts combat at all. In reality, a force's moral really came form its local conditions and commanders. Why would a militia unit in Kentucky surrendering impact how the ANV fights in Va? My understanding is that NM globally modifies cohesion (correct me if I am wrong), which makes it likely VP spirals develop.

If NM was detached from combat, then it could be played with more as a "political support" indicator that could be played with to help balance the game."

Totally agree with this. Combat should not affect NM as much, especially if NM then impacts cohesion. Overall cohesion values should come solely from Leadership, training and experience (adjusted on a case by case basis for weather, terrain, fatigue etc..). The political aspect of the game needs to be modelled more accurately. That is where the balance can be restored. I like your idea of a political support indicator... sort of a domestic version of the foreign intervention indicator.

[havi]

Yep i had the same happening to me in one pbem.. When union cakes and start eating away those poor militia units there is nothing u can do than watch your NM do drop and union NM do rise 1 point of every surrender. It just isn't realistic that your militia 450men surrender in Missouri then I will affect the army of NVA 1000km away. It needs adjustment.

[Captain_Orso]

I can remember reading about a lot of raids by Forrest and co., through which a lot of hinterland garrisons (mostly militia, and conscripts, etc., but not only) were captured or surrendered.

What I cannot remember is hearing about some local garrison militia standing its ground in the face of an army literally 100 times its own strength.

I think when confronted with such a huge force-difference, the garrison should react to it:

The garrison should check if it retreats. Regular army do not have the same incentive to stay and defend the town as local militia might and should simply retreat--the wilder the terrain, the more likely the retreat.

Militia might retreat, or they might disband. If they disband, there is a chance that a partisan force is created--very likely for Confederate forces inside regions with high loyalty, less likely the lower the loyalty. If the garrison does not become a partisan, it's equivalent is added to the CC-Pool of it's faction.

Retreat might be simply putting the unit outside the town in PP with Evade Combat, and not suddenly being in a neighboring region.

Of course, NO NM gain/loss for a town changing hands or is a garrison retreats or is even captured.

Just my pipe-dreams.

[FelixZ]

Easy to avoid NM losses. When besieged, just move the besieged unit out of the structure. I prefer a B/G stance.

[minipol]

There has been a recent thread where this subject was touched.
The Union should get less VP at the start of the war so they are forced to attack cities for VP.
If they haven't captured some objectives by 1863 (or i the CSA has a significant VP lead), the war should be over as the South could claim it hasn't been succesfully invaded.

[FelixZ]

Yes, I am finding the same faults in PBEM games as the CSA. Experienced Union players have learnt to sit and build for two years before launching an overwhelming onslaught with the predictable resulting defeat for the rebels. I totally agree about the problem with fixed militia being overrun in cities: the NM penalty for this is excessive. You are also correct that the Southern morale remained very high throughout the war despite their mounting defeats and losses. The game doesn't model this accurately. The main issue that needs to be addressed for me though is the excessive caution by Union players in the early game. This should be penalised. IRL there was immense political pressure on the Northern armies to attack the South, especially from the "on to Richmond" crowd. I like your idea of penalising the Union for every turn that the South holds a Union city. This should be much more severe in both VP and NM hits for the North. This would also encourage historical behaviour from the Confederate player who will have a big incentive to invade the North as Lee did twice. Not so sure about far flung western outposts being burned down, but cities closer to the Northern heartland should definitely be worth more to conquer and hold.

As it is the game is broken. The Union just need to sit, build and wait for 1863. It is still a lot of fun to play. It just needs rebalancing. I don't think it would actually take that much creative thought or programming time to fix it. Problem is the small AGEOD team are stretched more and more over a growing number of games. TEAW is I am sure their top priority right now. It is disappointing after all the hours I have invested in this wonderful game to discover that the only choices are playing against a dysfunctional AI or PBEM that exploits the game's flaws.... The promised land is there but it needs the design team to really focus on the overall game play... I fear that they have to spend their valuable time fixing nuts and bolts instead...

You may be playing against an experienced player - does not mean that the player is good.

The best players will take advantage of total passivity.

[ajarnlance]

There has been a recent thread where this subject was touched.
The Union should get less VP at the start of the war so they are forced to attack cities for VP.
If they haven't captured some objectives by 1863 (or i the CSA has a significant VP lead), the war should be over as the South could claim it hasn't been succesfully invaded.

Yes. That would be a good way to begin to address these major flaws. The whole game needs rebalancing. Until this is done then fixing smaller issues is a bit like being upgraded to first class on the Titanic: I'm travelling in style but I'm still gonna sink after hitting that ice berg Unfortunately this may not be a top priority right now. Most small game developers are focused on putting out fires. It needs someone to step back, take a deep breath and look at the BIG PICTURE to fix this. It probably wouldn't take that long to rebalance the PBEM games. Fixing Athena so she stops behaving dysfunctionally in multi-theatre games is another thing altogether....

[FelixZ]

There has been a recent thread where this subject was touched.
The Union should get less VP at the start of the war so they are forced to attack cities for VP.
If they haven't captured some objectives by 1863 (or i the CSA has a significant VP lead), the war should be over as the South could claim it hasn't been succesfully invaded.

There is a gain of about 450 VPs available for an aggressive CSA player in the Western Plains (Texas to Minnesota).

[FelixZ]

+1. The union player really has no pressure to move quickly. Have suggested in the past that there be re-occurring NM hits for the Union as long as certain stratigic areas remain unsecured (I'm thinking Richmond, Vicksburg, and Atlanta). Something that would mean that a union player that just sits will have a big NM problem by 1863-64 (big enough that the 64 election event could cause the Union to loose). Just for giggles, I once ran the game with AI off, without making any moves. Every year the Union NM rose (through events and resiliency) and at about 105 in 1864, without literally any movement.

Of the problem with playing with NM is that it impacts combat....so you could wind up causing a spiral

I do wonder why NM impacts combat at all. In reality, a force's moral really came form its local conditions and commanders. Why would a militia unit in Kentucky surrendering impact how the ANV fights in Va? My understanding is that NM globally modifies cohesion (correct me if I am wrong), which makes it likely VP spirals develop.

If NM was detached from combat, then it could be played with more as a "political support" indicator that could be played with to help balance the game.

Strange that Pgr still holds these thoughts - I've played him twice as both USA and CSA - and have demonstrated the power of taking the initiative.

[ajarnlance]

There is a gain of about 450 VPs available for an aggressive CSA player in the Western Plains (Texas to Minnesota).

But is that historically accurate in any sense?? So now I send my best generals and troops way out west to collect VP points... Historically at the beginning of the war the areas that concerned Lincoln ie where he felt threatened by the rebels were:
1) Washington (of course)
2) Kentucky
3) The corridor north of Kentucky to the great lakes (Think Louisville/ Indianapolis to Cleveland) which could have cut the Union in half.

The real issue if you play the CSA in PBEM is that there needs to be more incentive for the Union player to invade the south earlier in the game... that is go south young man... not west Also I am not seeing the Union do much to attack forts along the CSA coast like they did IRL. Maybe a Union player could address whether the game provides enough incentive to do this currently.

[FelixZ]

But is that historically accurate in any sense?? So now I send my best generals and troops way out west to collect VP points... Historically at the beginning of the war the areas that concerned Lincoln ie where he felt threatened by the rebels were:
1) Washington (of course)
2) Kentucky
3) The corridor north of Kentucky to the great lakes (Think Louisville/ Indianapolis to Cleveland) which could have cut the Union in half.

The real issue if you play the CSA in PBEM is that there needs to be more incentive for the Union player to invade the south earlier in the game... that is go south young man... not west Also I am not seeing the Union do much to attack forts along the CSA coast like they did IRL. Maybe a Union player could address whether the game provides enough incentive to do this currently.

I agree it is not historic - but stockade warfare has been added to the game (it was not part of AACW).

And a Union player who chooses to not advance until 1863 is also not historic. One solution is to find another opponent. My solution is to advance in 1861.

I believe there are two major problems with the game - automatic garrisons and the old Manassas event.

Automatic garrisons should be replaced by permanent garrisons.

A good CSA player will hold Manassas until the event fires bringing a big NM imbalance: Early October 1861 CSA around 109 and USA in low 80's. Encourages USA to sit back and wait. AACW version had main CSA Army start in Richmond - so Manassas was in play.

[FelixZ]

But is that historically accurate in any sense?? So now I send my best generals and troops way out west to collect VP points... Historically at the beginning of the war the areas that concerned Lincoln ie where he felt threatened by the rebels were:
1) Washington (of course)
2) Kentucky
3) The corridor north of Kentucky to the great lakes (Think Louisville/ Indianapolis to Cleveland) which could have cut the Union in half.

The real issue if you play the CSA in PBEM is that there needs to be more incentive for the Union player to invade the south earlier in the game... that is go south young man... not west Also I am not seeing the Union do much to attack forts along the CSA coast like they did IRL. Maybe a Union player could address whether the game provides enough incentive to do this currently.

You do not need to send best generals/troops to the west. Just use your ranger units.

[ajarnlance]

I agree it is not historic - but stockade warfare has been added to the game (it was not part of AACW).

And a Union player who chooses to not advance until 1863 is also not historic. One solution is to find another opponent. My solution is to advance in 1861.

I believe there are two major problems with the game - automatic garrisons and the old Manassas event.

Automatic garrisons

I don't blame experienced Union players for sitting and building until 1863. The object is to win the game and they are using the best strategy to achieve victory. My beef is with the design of this game which encourages Union passivity for the first two years. Not only is it not historical it is incredibly BORING to play against.... As I have said in another thread: I want a WAR game not a BORE or is it SNORE game Give the Union a reason to fight earlier, as IRL.

[FelixZ]

But is that historically accurate in any sense?? So now I send my best generals and troops way out west to collect VP points... Historically at the beginning of the war the areas that concerned Lincoln ie where he felt threatened by the rebels were:
1) Washington (of course)
2) Kentucky
3) The corridor north of Kentucky to the great lakes (Think Louisville/ Indianapolis to Cleveland) which could have cut the Union in half.

The real issue if you play the CSA in PBEM is that there needs to be more incentive for the Union player to invade the south earlier in the game... that is go south young man... not west Also I am not seeing the Union do much to attack forts along the CSA coast like they did IRL. Maybe a Union player could address whether the game provides enough incentive to do this currently.

I approach the game from the Union standpoint is to take whatever the CSA offers - and there is always something/somewhere. I suggest you find a 'good' opponent and learn some hard lessons.

The game is not flawed.

[FelixZ]

I don't blame experienced Union players for sitting and building until 1863. The object is to win the game and they are using the best strategy to achieve victory. My beef is with the design of this game which encourages Union passivity for the first two years. Not only is it not historical it is incredibly BORING to play against.... As I have said in another thread: I want a WAR game not a BORE or is it SNORE game Give the Union a reason to fight earlier, as IRL.

Passivity is a weakness. The game does not encourage passivity for the first two years - it permits a player to take that course - doesn't mean it is the right course.

[FelixZ]

I don't blame experienced Union players for sitting and building until 1863. The object is to win the game and they are using the best strategy to achieve victory. My beef is with the design of this game which encourages Union passivity for the first two years. Not only is it not historical it is incredibly BORING to play against.... As I have said in another thread: I want a WAR game not a BORE or is it SNORE game Give the Union a reason to fight earlier, as IRL.

We can't control our opponent (except by taking the initiative).

There are players who do not sit back until 1863 - Gray Fox, Ace and Liberty Bell are examples. They do not require an artificial reason to fight.

Find one to avoid a Boring Game.

[havi]

The union needs more "Political" pressure to advance in south, so why not give it to them. No proclamation of emancipation if there isn't enough VP and VPs u got when u go south. Or something like that ?!

[FelixZ]

The union needs more "Political" pressure to advance in south, so why not give it to them. No proclamation of emancipation if there isn't enough VP and VPs u got when u go south. Or something like that ?!

The game allows for varied play from the players. Some players sit around and some go for the gusto.

My political pressure is that I haven't yet defeated you.

It would be wrong to constrict all players with the same strait jacket.

[havi]

Well yes u r right kinda. But in RL if union just sit 3years behind their trenches the Abe would been kicked out and we had 2 states in U.S.A now so some penalty there have to b if u just sit and play with your nuts 3years.

[ajarnlance]

We can't control our opponent (except by taking the initiative).

There are players who do not sit back until 1863 - Gray Fox, Ace and Liberty Bell are examples. They do not require an artificial reason to fight.

Find one to avoid a Boring Game.

It is good to know that other players are using a more aggressive (+ interesting/fun) approach. You mentioned Ace. Have you seen the thread he started about the game being unbalanced in terms of VP?? I am not the only one who thinks the game needs rebalancing. I agree about not rail-roading players down one path BUT it should be next to impossible to win by not invading the south for 2 years. IRL Lincoln just kept firing generals until he found one (Grant) who was aggressive and would fight. Politically I don't think Lincoln could have kept the northern people's support for the war without at least one major victory/ objective taken in the first two years. Maybe when I have grown in experience in the game I will be ready to take on one of the masters out there...

[Rod Smart]

As a Union player I've found this odd as well.

There have been times when I've won major battles, inflicting 5,000+ casualties and not gotten any victory points, and the next day walked into the little two bit town, had 100 troops surrender to me, and gotten NM and VP.

That doesn't make any sense.

[pgr]

Strange that Pgr still holds these thoughts - I've played him twice as both USA and CSA - and have demonstrated the power of taking the initiative.

Hey FelixZ, we have indeed had some good runs (btw...orders are coming, RL jumped up on me!). I'm sure you would agree though that a Union player has a lot more flexibility about when and where to strike. The South really has to come out swinging, and hope to put the USA on its heels early because it gets harder as time goes on. The North of course can come out aggressive (as you have done so effectively in our game), but the North only gets stronger as time goes on.

Given that is pretty easy for the North to flub things up early (say by having a Bull Run collapse followed by a reb rush to Washington in 61), it makes a lot of sense for a Union player to sit and go when he is good and ready. What the other posters on this thread are observing is that there really isn't a big downside to this, because nothing really models the political pressure on the Lincoln administration to act.

[FelixZ]

Well yes u r right kinda. But in RL if union just sit 3years behind their trenches the Abe would been kicked out and we had 2 states in U.S.A now so some penalty there have to b if u just sit and play with your nuts 3years.

We are stuck with how history played out. But if we have a hard coded simulation which just is an exact re-creation of history - what kind of game is that? Better to allow many outcomes.

Hard coding, restricting player initiative is not the answer. After all, everyone has their own ideas about history.

[FelixZ]

Hey FelixZ, we have indeed had some good runs (btw...orders are coming, RL jumped up on me!). I'm sure you would agree though that a Union player has a lot more flexibility about when and where to strike. The South really has to come out swinging, and hope to put the USA on its heels early because it gets harder as time goes on. The North of course can come out aggressive (as you have done so effectively in our game), but the North only gets stronger as time goes on.

Given that is pretty easy for the North to flub things up early (say by having a Bull Run collapse followed by a reb rush to Washington in 61), it makes a lot of sense for a Union player to sit and go when he is good and ready. What the other posters on this thread are observing is that there really isn't a big downside to this, because nothing really models the political pressure on the Lincoln administration to act.

I agree the Union has more opportunity to select where to begin or continue the action. WE are constrained by geography and overall resources which entices the Union to conquer the South. Would you prefer the old Avalon Hill Tactics II where the forces and situation were exactly the same?

But why restrict a player from trying out a passive strategy? Most CW2 games are not played to the end of the campaign - Human morale of one side fails or the game becomes uninteresting.

Downside is not the same to you as it is to me. But that is not a reason to mess with CW2 to make it fit one's pre-conceptions.

[pgr]

IRL Lincoln just kept firing generals until he found one (Grant) who was aggressive and would fight. Politically I don't think Lincoln could have kept the northern people's support for the war without at least one major victory/ objective taken in the first two years. Maybe when I have grown in experience in the game I will be ready to take on one of the masters out there...

Just to re-enforce the point, the 1862 congressional elections were a pretty darn good illustration of the political pressures facing the Union.

"The mid-term elections in 1862 brought the Republicans serious losses due to sharp disfavor with the Administration over its failure to deliver a speedy end to the war, as well as rising inflation, high new taxes, ugly rumors of corruption, the suspension of habeas corpus, the draft law, and fears that freed slaves would undermine the labor market. ... The Republicans did keep control of the major states except New York. Most important, the Republicans retained control of the House, in spite of falling from 59% of the seats to just over 46% because of their alliance with the 24 Unionist representatives; the Unionists were a group of disaffected pro-war Democrats who broke with their party during the previous Congress. The voters, editorialized the Cincinnati Gazette, "are depressed by the interminable nature of this war, as so far conducted, and by the rapid exhaustion of the national resources without progress.""

Lincoln's party lost its absolute majority, and only retained control thanks to a coalition with pro-war democrats. This of course was AFTER Western Tennessee and New Orleans had fallen to the Union. The official position of the Democratic Party was a negotiated end to the war. One can assume that if no progress had been made by November 1862, Republican losses would have been even bigger, there would have been a Democratic majority in the House, and they would have forced Lincoln to negotiate a settlement.

This kind of pressure isn't really modeled at all in the game. I suppose the best way to do it would be to create some events that impact NM (if there are any budding modders out there!)

As for it being "artificial," no more so than the system of VPs currently in place or the arbitrary NM impact of destroying single fixed militia elements, plus it would have the benefit of modeling the historic political context.

[ajarnlance]

We are stuck with how history played out. But if we have a hard coded simulation which just is an exact re-creation of history - what kind of game is that? Better to allow many outcomes.

Hard coding, restricting player initiative is not the answer. After all, everyone has their own ideas about history.

I don't think that hard coding the historical path is what people are asking for. I agree with you that many different outcomes should be possible depending on the strategies adopted by players... those fascinating "what ifs?" of history... which are fun to think about and interesting to try and recreate. The game should allow a variety of different outcomes (some more likely, some less likely) that could have happened in the real war had different decisions been made. BUT what should NOT be allowed in the game are entirely implausible scenarios. One of those is the Union being extremely passive and not attacking, not invading for two years. This would have been disastrous historically and so should be severely penalised in the game. Doing this won't drive a player down ONE predetermined path. In fact, it will open the game up more as the Union players who are playing it safe, sitting and building, will have to adopt new strategies to win. You will end up with more variety in games, not less, if you actively discourage the Union from being a turtle for half the game.

[ajarnlance]

Just to re-enforce the point, the 1862 congressional elections were a pretty darn good illustration of the political pressures facing the Union.

"The mid-term elections in 1862 brought the Republicans serious losses due to sharp disfavor with the Administration over its failure to deliver a speedy end to the war, as well as rising inflation, high new taxes, ugly rumors of corruption, the suspension of habeas corpus, the draft law, and fears that freed slaves would undermine the labor market. ... The Republicans did keep control of the major states except New York. Most important, the Republicans retained control of the House, in spite of falling from 59% of the seats to just over 46% because of their alliance with the 24 Unionist representatives; the Unionists were a group of disaffected pro-war Democrats who broke with their party during the previous Congress. The voters, editorialized the Cincinnati Gazette, "are depressed by the interminable nature of this war, as so far conducted, and by the rapid exhaustion of the national resources without progress.""

Lincoln's party lost its absolute majority, and only retained control thanks to a coalition with pro-war democrats. This of course was AFTER Western Tennessee and New Orleans had fallen to the Union. The official position of the Democratic Party was a negotiated end to the war. One can assume that if no progress had been made by November 1862, Republican losses would have been even bigger, there would have been a Democratic majority in the House, and they would have forced Lincoln to negotiate a settlement.

This kind of pressure isn't really modeled at all in the game. I suppose the best way to do it would be to create some events that impact NM (if there are any budding modders out there!)

As for it being "artificial," no more so than the system of VPs currently in place or the arbitrary NM impact of destroying single fixed militia elements, plus it would have the benefit of modeling the historic political context.

+1. Maybe the 1862 Congressional Elections should be an event in the game... penalties for the Union if there haven't been some successes by then. I think this is the crux of the issue... the political pressure on the Union generals to do something... I am not an advocate of forcing the Union player down a narrow path. The "do something" could be on any front, in any theatre, on land, in the rivers, on the coast... the possibilities remain very open... but NOT fighting/ attaining some kind of victory somewhere should be severely penalised.