AGEOD Forums

As a new player i have just finished playing against the AI as both sides. I wanted to know what the opinions are of experienced players vs AI and human opponents on the balance between the nations.


1] Mainly does it seem 50-50 on who wins by either victory points or NM? if fought by even players

2] and does the balance reflect historically the capabilities of both sides


thanks.

Athena is one of the better AI's Ive gone up against. At Lieutenant level
and even higher she's a tough opponent and can surprise you. An AI still
has a lot of limitations, but with the game being driven by leaders and
their stats for the most part it can make every game different and very
entertaining. Try playing against a human and you find where this game
really shines. If you aren't used to Athena then you have a pretty good
balanced game, but eventually you catch on to some of her tricks. At that
point you put the settings as high as you can (other than detection, because
then she tends to go after soft targets way too far behind the lines) or find
a human to play against.

1stvermont wrote:As a new player i have just finished playing against the AI as both sides. I wanted to know what the opinions are of experienced players vs AI and human opponents on the balance between the nations.


1] Mainly does it seem 50-50 on who wins by either victory points or NM? if fought by even players

2] and does the balance reflect historically the capabilities of both sides


thanks.

I've played a handful of complete games as the union. Above Sargent, the AI builds a lot of troops. Combined with their leaders it makes for a challenging game. So far it seems to play out a lot like the war. Build up, grind them down, win in the west.

I haven't seen the confederacy have any chance of winning automatically, but they have come close to winning on points at expiration of the game.

It's easier to beat Athena with NM. She doesn't seem to have an algorithm for moving her capital when it's in imminent danger. A human opponent can avoid this and then you are left with winning by VPs. It is also possible to move Athena's capital for her and then go for a long VP game. To gain VPs and NM you must win battles and take objectives. The CSA has better troops/leaders in 1861, but "even" CSA players seldom take advantage of this and go for the jugular. In 1862 an "even" Union player can redress this with lots of upgraded militia, big artillery and better leaders. From 1863 on, the Union should have a clear advantage in troops and at least parity in leadership. So, it is not really a balance but more of a historical pendulum swing.

1- against the AI, even when trying to play a long, drawn out game- I've never been able to take it to victory points. Eventually there will be a series of battles that will result in a 20 point NM swing.

2- yes. CSA has the advantage from summer '61 to fall '62. Their better troops and better generals have the initiative, and they can dictate the action and control the game/war. Union manpower and industry takes over once the '62 campaign ends and they can spend the winter reorganizing. From then on, the Union can do what they want where they want, and dictate the action and control of the game/war

Thank you for responses. What of player vs player results? how do they often end?

Human opponents that play the Union well can win by 1863. The Union would have to really have a series of terrible events to lose. That or a loss of Capitol.

The CSA is more entertaining if your like underdogs but it's a lot of dig and do not make errors for historical feel. If you want an outright win, take risks and go for broke early...I have seen a Union opponent push me early as well, two..the CSA troops quality/General Quality can be negated.

1stvermont wrote:Thank you for responses. What of player vs player results? how do they often end?

1stvermont wrote:Thank you for responses. What of player vs player results? how do they often end?

I think they end with a certain sadness over the passing of incredible fun.

...like at the end of a roller coaster ride

I like very much this game and especially PBEM but for me there is clearly a problem with the victory conditions : they should allow the South to win the game (even if it loses the war) if it can do better than History. This is unfortunately not the case currently : VP system is too much balanced in favor of the Union.