vicberg
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:18 am

Is Play the CSA like playing Japan in War in the Pacific?

Sat Apr 23, 2016 6:12 pm

I've been away from the game for a bit. Coming back to it. I'm wondering if playing the CSA is much like playing Japan in War in the Pacific? Japan has no hope. The game designers beefed Japan up seriously in order to make it into a game at all. Japan has a chance but usually only if the Allied player screws up totally OR if Japan attacks constantly. Those are the only two strategies that work and one of them isn't really a strategy.

I'm starting to believe the only real chance for CSA to do anything is to take Washington early in the game. The hold them strategy doesn't work at all.

What I've noticed:

- CSA leadership "advantage" isn't really true at all. At least not until Longstreet/Jackson/Lee come fully into play. CSA has a few marginally better leaders, only 2 3-star leaders and 1 2 star leader to begin the game. Johnston (in the west) isn't really very good either. Union starts getting better leaders in 1862, so this "advantage" goes away quickly.
- Defensive strategies require lots of militia everywhere building up trenches. But that of course means less divisions.
- CSA production is pitiful. Hardly enough to build up divisions/replace let alone keep rail/river etc up to par
- Union has much better strong morale troops that affect full divisions. I'm seeing one or two brigades for the CSA. So more elite divisions in addition to huge manpower/production ability
- Too much to defend.
- Forts don't do much, see different thread.

Strikes me that this game comes down to one strategy and one only. Attack and take Washington or die trying. Shame if I'm right. A single strategy game isn't worth playing.

User avatar
Mickey3D
Posts: 1569
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:09 pm
Location: Lausanne, Switzerland

Sat Apr 23, 2016 6:26 pm

For me winning with the CSA doesn't mean to beat the Union but to do better than historically. You can achieve it without taking Washington. But unfortunately I think the VP system in the game is not well designed (to say the least) as it doesn't allow to compare players performance against history. So you have to use your own judgement to decide if you reach this objective. It already happened to me to play against a CSA opponent that at some point decided to resign the game because it was becoming a one side game for the Union but consider himself a "moral" winner (and I agree with him) as I didn't achieve much of what was done historically at the same time.

vicberg
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:18 am

Sat Apr 23, 2016 6:33 pm

My thoughts are that this game may be historical but not really a good game to play. CSA will lose (unless Washington is taken), it's just a matter of when. This is why there's numerous mods in WITP that beef the Japanese up and enable fun games.

After WON, I might give a go at modding this to give CSA a chance. The Union holds ALL of the cards. Every single one, with the CSA having a "marginal" leadership advantage in the beginning that quickly erodes.

Perhaps an EXPERT CSA player that knows every unit and leader, when they are coming into play and exactly what to build and where against a marginal Union player might have a chance. But again, that's not a game worth playing.

vicberg
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:18 am

Sat Apr 23, 2016 6:49 pm

OMG, right out of the gate looking at the game models. The Union and Rebels are about identical. Marginal differences and certainly not enough to make a significant difference in combat. It wasn't just leadership that kept the CSA in the war for so long. Lincoln could have lost support for the war at any point, which is why he pushed so hard for victories. Southern sympathy ran high, especially in the border states.

All the leadership in the world wouldn't make a difference if your troops run away from the fight. The south was more motivated, didn't nearly have the internal strife that the north contended with and their troop quality should immediately reflect it throughout the entire war.

How has everyone been playing this incredibly lopsided game for so long without a mod to try to balance it? This might explain why only a handful of people are posting on this part of the forum and very, very few AARs going. A historical game? Yes. Playable? No, unless you like to lose as the south or at best case, fight for a draw or "morale" victory.

User avatar
Mickey3D
Posts: 1569
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:09 pm
Location: Lausanne, Switzerland

Sat Apr 23, 2016 6:54 pm

A mod, even if not historical, might be interesting indeed as a "what if".

The Union and Rebels are about identical
NM will improve/diminish performance of your soldiers. CSA is starting with a better moral and will keep it higher for some times due to several events (Manassas, push for offensive).

vicberg
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:18 am

Sat Apr 23, 2016 7:01 pm

Mickey3D wrote:A mod, even if not historical, might be interesting indeed as a "what if".

NM will improve/diminish performance of your soldiers. CSA is starting with a better moral and will keep it higher for some times due to several events (Manassas, push for offensive).


Yes, and that's the equalizing factor in this game. The call for union offensives in 1861 should have a higher penalty. Every just accepts the -10 NM. What if it were -20 or -25. That would be a good place to start. Same with Union offensive in 1862. The penalties should be higher, not just a -10. In my game versus Tyler, I accepted the -20 in both cases. Brought Grant and Sherman over in 1862. Took ANOTHER NM hit making Grant Army commander and guess what? I still stomped Lee, Longstreet and Jackson. In 1862? There's got to be more done than just NM. Troops quality has to be higher for the CSA. The rebel yell wasn't more than just hurting ear drums. It inspired fear.

User avatar
Mickey3D
Posts: 1569
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:09 pm
Location: Lausanne, Switzerland

Sat Apr 23, 2016 7:01 pm

vicberg wrote: A historical game? Yes. Playable? No, unless you like to lose as the south or at best case, fight for a draw or "morale" victory.


Well, I always get the feeling people on this forum are not the kind of persons you meet everyday and they are looking for something else/more than victory ;) :siffle: :p apy:

User avatar
havi
Colonel
Posts: 321
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:31 am
Location: Lappeenranta

Sat Apr 23, 2016 7:05 pm

yes i do agree why the early CSA unit are not elite divisions? they historically kicked union arse and hard, and why there isnt a option of CSA player in 64 use the total call of conspricts what gine CSA -10NM if u are doing well u dont need to call of arms everybody and take the hit especially when the union have steam roller going on!

User avatar
Mickey3D
Posts: 1569
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:09 pm
Location: Lausanne, Switzerland

Sat Apr 23, 2016 7:06 pm

vicberg wrote:The penalties should be higher, not just a -10.

The problem is that in CW2 the NM is too easily recovered due to the "reslience" rule that will increase NM when under 100. It was already the case in AACW but in CW2 it is more/too much powerful.

User avatar
Mickey3D
Posts: 1569
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:09 pm
Location: Lausanne, Switzerland

Sat Apr 23, 2016 7:09 pm

vicberg wrote:Union has much better strong morale troops that affect full divisions. I'm seeing one or two brigades for the CSA.

Yes, it's something that always strikes me : even if you want to stay historical you can expect more elite troops on the CSA side.

vicberg
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:18 am

Sat Apr 23, 2016 7:28 pm

Mickey3D wrote:Yes, it's something that always strikes me : even if you want to stay historical you can expect more elite troops on the CSA side.


Exactly! Whoever wrote the initial versions of this game was consciously or unconsciously pro-Union. Seriously pro-Union. It happens. I'm doing a WON Mod and I've been making sure I haven't swung the game to farr in France's direction. Nappy is near and dear to my heart. It easy to give too much to a side.

The CSA should have all the elites, with maybe the exception of the Iron Brigade. But it's the Union that has all the elites, 2-star leaders, ships (makes sense), production and eventual studly leaders (Grant/Sherman) to offset Lee/Jackson/Longstreet. For the history buffs, it's my understanding that the South was known for it's markmanship, yet the Union can match markmanship via it's enormous building and plenty of units with sharpshooter ability. The Union can match everything the CSA has to offer. This probably why so few AARs or games actually last until 1865.

Amazed no one has modded this game yet. Again, EXPERT CSA play can offset the one-sidedness. Buti it's unbelievably one-sided.

khbynum
Major
Posts: 225
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 8:00 pm

Sat Apr 23, 2016 7:52 pm

vicberg, you should realize that most of the people who play this game, though perhaps not most of those who post here, play against the AI. I am one of them and can only speak for myself, but I couldn't care less about NM and VP rules. I play the game to understand history, not to win a game by the rules of the game. I value an historically accurate simulation far more than I value a good game.

You've made quite splash in the WoN forum with your mods. Perhaps you can do the same here and save us from ourselves. Mods are always welcome.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Sat Apr 23, 2016 7:59 pm

I'm going to make a bold statement, the South could not win militarily.

Whether historically the Union would have been willing to continue fighting were the capital taken by the South is questionable. Many opinions which were expressed in books and newspapers at the time were, in my opinion, simply rhetoric and bravado; basically, -we will defeat the enemy, because we are better than they are-. Such are statements which reflect only wishful thinking, and which mean nothing when the actual means of fighting a war are considered, other than perhaps the will to fight; but such persons often lose their resolve in the face of opposing reality. Their flags of opinion wave in the winds of least resistance, because they don't consider fact; only their own personal feelings.

What would have happened were Washington to fall to a Confederate attack could be discussed without end. Maybe it would spurn hate even further, and thus resolve to continue fighting; maybe Lincoln would have been impeached for incompetence for being unable to fulfill his duty to protect the capital, but what that might ultimately mean would still be an open question; maybe the Northern opponents of the war would gain enough political influence to first end the fighting and then negotiate a peace, which IMHO would probably mean allowing the South to secede.

"War is politics by other means" von Clausewitz

"power of resistance = means * will" Steve Knott, US Army War College https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrXxz4iniRs&t=273

So, if the 'will' of the Union to fight is reduced to zero, the South wins the war 'militarily', which sounds like it contradicts my first statement. But if we think of 'militarily winning' as only considering the Confederate and Federal military organizations, then the South cannot win the war. If we consider that 'war is politics' and 'power of resistance = means * will', then the South can win.

That is my standpoint on the conflict, which the game tries to represent. Does it succeed in doing so? Not to criticize the devs, but I think it could use some improvement.

I agree wholeheartedly with Mickey3D; VP's should reflect each player's success versus his/her opponent; and I don't think the game does that very well. Why? Because VP's are awarded equally to each side for 'owning' specific locations. For example, IIRC, each side gets 5 VP per turn for owning objective locations, 3 VP per turn for strategic locations, and 1 VP per turn for some, but far from all, other cities. But does it mean the same to the Union player, if he owns Indianapolis, as it would for the Confederate player? For the Union player it is simply status quo; for the Southern player it would mean that he has gone far beyond the historical. Should that not be honored?

Of course that opens a different question; Southern opinion on how the Confederacy should conduct the war, and I have no idea how it was actually viewed in general with regards to the South invading the North. I have read that some thought the South should only defend its own boarders, while I'm fairly sure that some would have been very enthusiastic about a Confederate army capturing a major Northern city and "showin' them damn Yankees!". A few times I've tried to find some objective facts about what the general Southern opinion was on Lee's two invasions of the North before the outcome of their ultimate battles were known, therefore, at a time when their success was still in question and hopes of positive conclusion were still a viable vision. I've failed miserably at this :( .

So the question of how to measure 'success' is IMO very open for discussion.
Image

User avatar
Durk
Posts: 2921
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 4:36 am
Location: Wyoming

Sat Apr 23, 2016 8:05 pm

I simply have to add my take. The American Civil War is a favorite topic of mine. I probable own every simulation of this war. CW2 is the only one to get it right across the board. It is a marvelous game. The CSA is not doomed to recreate history by only ever achieving glory, but never victory. The CSA is a real challenge to play to win, but victory is possible. Like Mickey3D, I only strive to do better than the historical, but that does mean there are not paths to Southern independence.

What the game models really well is Lee's offensive - defensive, I do not know of another game with the subtle interaction of command and engagement which allows realistic portrayal of this gifted commander. If the CSA player builds well and organizes well, then the 'marginally' better leader become decisive. I have engaged in pbem since the games publication and continue to do so. I really enjoy playing as the South.

vicberg
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:18 am

Sat Apr 23, 2016 8:27 pm

Orso, your point is well taken. Khbynum (would LOVE to know what your user name means), yes, most people play vs. AI but is that because PBEM is so difficult for the CSA.

I've already start doing something with this. The first thing I do is break up all the .sct files into individual events so I can sort and figure out what I'm working with. Then I copy individual events I want to customize into another folder, so it's clear what I'm customizing. Same with models. I use a program to do this. I already have it for WON. Simple changes for CW2. So in truth, I'm already halfway there.

NM and VP are the equalizing factors in this game. Orso, your points are well taken and that's where I'm going to start. CSA will start at 115 and the Union at 85. The penalties for lack of Union offensives will be steeper,which I believe is much more historically accurate. From 2 PBEM games now (I know, not a lot, but enough to have experienced the problem), the Union doesn't have to go on the offensive. They can sit back and wait for the overwhelming force. Losing 15 NM for no offensives, forces the union to play a bit more historically. It will force the Union to attack more with their inferior leadership and before their "big gun" leaders are ready for prime time.

This happens in WITP also as the Allied player has the foreknowledge that they will have overwhelming firepower by 1944, whereas the commanders IRL did not and knew it was not politically feasible to sit back and wait. Midway was a perfect example of this thinking as the Allies were outgunned, but yet couldn't take the political hit of doing nothing when Midway, itself, wasn't strategically critical to the war. Yet they sortied and fought and got unbelievably lucky combined with indecisive Japanese leadership.

The second area will be the elite models. Union will have ONE, the iron brigade. The rest will spawn as is without the strong morale/sharpshooter attributes. The third area will be to look at the spawned CSA units and add strong morale/Sharpshooter to quite a few of those or at least strong morale. This will create more CSA divisions with the strong morale. The fourth area will be sharpshooters. CSA should have a preponderance of them over the Union. That will be an adjustment of the # of builds that each side may have. CSA will stay the same. Union will be reduced. Finally, for this first version, I'll adjust fort strength. Forts will be adjusted based on another thread that discuss them in detail.

I won't adjust production to start with. I'll want to see what affects these have. The difference in NM should make it difficult for the Union to simply push down Virginia at will (or anywhere else). The steeper NM losses for lack of offensives will force the Union to act more historically. More CSA divisions will be tougher, as they were historically. Forts will pack more of a punch, forcing the Union to spend money on ships if they want to invade.

vicberg
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:18 am

Sat Apr 23, 2016 8:31 pm

Durk wrote:I simply have to add my take. The American Civil War is a favorite topic of mine. I probable own every simulation of this war. CW2 is the only one to get it right across the board. It is a marvelous game. The CSA is not doomed to recreate history by only ever achieving glory, but never victory. The CSA is a real challenge to play to win, but victory is possible. Like Mickey3D, I only strive to do better than the historical, but that does mean there are not paths to Southern independence.

What the game models really well is Lee's offensive - defensive, I do not know of another game with the subtle interaction of command and engagement which allows realistic portrayal of this gifted commander. If the CSA player builds well and organizes well, then the 'marginally' better leader become decisive. I have engaged in pbem since the games publication and continue to do so. I really enjoy playing as the South.


I agree. IMO, very historical. Very difficult for the CSA to even achieve historical results. Definitely a challenge to play the CSA. But IMO, from a game perspective, too lopsided. Very historical and very lopsided. Again, expert play (and you seem like an expert) will offset. But for average players or players looking to have a fun, balanced game while investing enormous time into it, not going to fly very far.

User avatar
Durk
Posts: 2921
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 4:36 am
Location: Wyoming

Sat Apr 23, 2016 9:03 pm

vicberg wrote:I agree. IMO, very historical. Very difficult for the CSA to even achieve historical results. Definitely a challenge to play the CSA. But IMO, from a game perspective, too lopsided. Very historical and very lopsided. Again, expert play (and you seem like an expert) will offset. But for average players or players looking to have a fun, balanced game while investing enormous time into it, not going to fly very far.


I do not want to sound caustic, but there are a dozen well balanced Civil War games players can choose. For me, part of the enjoyment of all AGEOD games is that are are challenging to play. Playing as the South in CW2 is not easy, but it is doable. The CSA player no longer has the superhero forces provided in some games, nor to they have production all out of proportion to what was possible provided in other games. Yet they can maximize resource selection. What CW2 achieves is something not replicated in other games of the American Civil War, once the player understands how to use the CSA Army and how leaders function in battle, the South is strong. I have recommended players replay a battle situation to discover the variables, not just let what happens happens..

That said, I do not mind mods, I just to not wish to see this excellent game modified in the base game. Many players have successfully added new interpretations and theories of play. I really like that AGEOD games are open to modding and that players explore their interpretations or improvements. In another thread, I advocate adding the feature from WON in the Options menu which provides for these types of variables. Experimentation to get it right is a worthy task.

vicberg
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:18 am

Sat Apr 23, 2016 9:18 pm

You aren't being caustic at all. This is why I posted. To get some feedback and understanding.

You ARE the target market for AGEOD games. Historical accuracy in the face of balanced game play. I'm more of a traditionalist for game play. Base game won't get modified one bit. The mod is entirely self contained separate from base game. A simple change to a file points the engine at one or the other. So best of both worlds.

Baris
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1945
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 9:50 pm

Sat Apr 23, 2016 9:28 pm

In RUS GOLD there are political options from the beginning and extendend options throughout the game can effect VP in long term. Red army is superior but can lose VP when not going to fullfill objectives in right direction. I think it is the most hardcore game to play pbem excluding AI. I’ve played pbem with Union until 1864 and 1865 as Confederate that both games give me experience. I think NM and VP adjustments could be sufficient.

User avatar
Durk
Posts: 2921
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 4:36 am
Location: Wyoming

Sat Apr 23, 2016 9:50 pm

Ah, so until Baris checks in, your desire for feedback on the mod kind of got hijacked.

These were your thoughts:
- CSA leadership "advantage" isn't really true at all. At least not until Longstreet/Jackson/Lee come fully into play. CSA has a few marginally better leaders, only 2 3-star leaders and 1 2 star leader to begin the game. Johnston (in the west) isn't really very good either. Union starts getting better leaders in 1862, so this "advantage" goes away quickly.
- Defensive strategies require lots of militia everywhere building up trenches. But that of course means less divisions.
- CSA production is pitiful. Hardly enough to build up divisions/replace let alone keep rail/river etc up to par
- Union has much better strong morale troops that affect full divisions. I'm seeing one or two brigades for the CSA. So more elite divisions in addition to huge manpower/production ability
- Too much to defend.
- Forts don't do much, see different thread.

Probably, fiddling with AS Johnston and Beauregard offensive ratings would suffice. CSA does have several late arriving leaders who help maintain an advantage. Of course what complicates leadership values is the player has to win battles.

There are other alternatives to using lots of militia to fortify. The benefits of this line of strategy might even be questioned as to its efficacy. Too defensive.

I would not tweak CSA production, instead I would tinker with importation as this is much more plausible. Simply change the blockade option available to the CSA sells all its cotton for a value per turn until USA has close blockade on X number of ports.

The relationship of morale and brigades is tricky and debatable, but this is a place to look. I would tend not to allow elite units to be built, but instead target the handful which emerged as high morale.

Too much to defend is the challenge.

I like how the forts perform in the game. I know many players are bothered by how weak they are, but it would be hard to point to a fort which had strong defense, except for flukes like Pensacola where it is terrain and not structure.

The idea of fulfilling objectives is engaging, have to think about this one.

Agree that RUS is the most hardcore pbem

User avatar
Mickey3D
Posts: 1569
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:09 pm
Location: Lausanne, Switzerland

Sat Apr 23, 2016 9:56 pm

vicberg wrote:Orso, your point is well taken. Khbynum (would LOVE to know what your user name means), yes, most people play vs. AI but is that because PBEM is so difficult for the CSA.

I've already start doing something with this. The first thing I do is break up all the .sct files into individual events so I can sort and figure out what I'm working with. Then I copy individual events I want to customize into another folder, so it's clear what I'm customizing. Same with models. I use a program to do this. I already have it for WON. Simple changes for CW2. So in truth, I'm already halfway there.

NM and VP are the equalizing factors in this game. Orso, your points are well taken and that's where I'm going to start. CSA will start at 115 and the Union at 85. The penalties for lack of Union offensives will be steeper,which I believe is much more historically accurate. From 2 PBEM games now (I know, not a lot, but enough to have experienced the problem), the Union doesn't have to go on the offensive. They can sit back and wait for the overwhelming force. Losing 15 NM for no offensives, forces the union to play a bit more historically. It will force the Union to attack more with their inferior leadership and before their "big gun" leaders are ready for prime time.

This happens in WITP also as the Allied player has the foreknowledge that they will have overwhelming firepower by 1944, whereas the commanders IRL did not and knew it was not politically feasible to sit back and wait. Midway was a perfect example of this thinking as the Allies were outgunned, but yet couldn't take the political hit of doing nothing when Midway, itself, wasn't strategically critical to the war. Yet they sortied and fought and got unbelievably lucky combined with indecisive Japanese leadership.

The second area will be the elite models. Union will have ONE, the iron brigade. The rest will spawn as is without the strong morale/sharpshooter attributes. The third area will be to look at the spawned CSA units and add strong morale/Sharpshooter to quite a few of those or at least strong morale. This will create more CSA divisions with the strong morale. The fourth area will be sharpshooters. CSA should have a preponderance of them over the Union. That will be an adjustment of the # of builds that each side may have. CSA will stay the same. Union will be reduced. Finally, for this first version, I'll adjust fort strength. Forts will be adjusted based on another thread that discuss them in detail.

I won't adjust production to start with. I'll want to see what affects these have. The difference in NM should make it difficult for the Union to simply push down Virginia at will (or anywhere else). The steeper NM losses for lack of offensives will force the Union to act more historically. More CSA divisions will be tougher, as they were historically. Forts will pack more of a punch, forcing the Union to spend money on ships if they want to invade.


Very interesting. But, as rightfully pointed by Orso, the big problem of the game is the VP system that gives VPs to the North for holding northern cities. I don't know if it is possible to give different VPs to each side for the same objective but that would also be an interesting part of a mod.

User avatar
DrPostman
Posts: 3005
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:39 pm
Location: Memphis, TN
Contact: Website Facebook Twitter YouTube

Sat Apr 23, 2016 10:13 pm

I've already modified my game by removing the event that takes Cooper
out of the game so that he can train up militias throughout the game. In
my current game VS Athena she attacked Richmond several times and
freed him up. I'm still keeping him put though.
"Ludus non nisi sanguineus"

Image

vicberg
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:18 am

Sat Apr 23, 2016 10:38 pm

Yes, objectives can be added for VP. So northern cities, etc...defensive objectives also. For example, CSA holds Manassas because the Union didn't attack or did attack and failed.

So right now, I'm think of starting with NM/VP. See how that plays out, then possible the # of elite divisions that may be formed. What I might do is instead of adding to the CSA, subtracting only from USA so they don't have so many. Those brigades that have both strong morale and sharshooter are plentiful in the union and they create multiple elite divs. In other words, minor tweaking. For forts, I'm think of reducing their affects on blockades (only). Combat the same, same mechanics, but capturing a fort doesn't mean a cheap blockade. Minor subtractions rather than large additions.

vicberg
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:18 am

Sat Apr 23, 2016 10:41 pm

DrPostman wrote:I've already modified my game by removing the event that takes Cooper
out of the game so that he can train up militias throughout the game. In
my current game VS Athena she attacked Richmond several times and
freed him up. I'm still keeping him put though.


I might do this also. It's another subtraction. Remove the event that is causing Cooper to disappear. Union has multiple training masters and the CSA, one (at least through 1862).

vicberg
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:18 am

Sun Apr 24, 2016 3:28 am

So we have a beta going. Not going to publish until we've had a chance to test out a bit.

Changes
1) -15 for the 3 Papers push for offensive events. There's 1 in 1861 and 2 in 1862
2) Coastal battery ROF has been increased from 2 to 4
3) Forts contributing to blockades have been reduce from 4 to 2
4) If Grant doesn't take Vicksburg and Chattanoga and shows up in the eastern theater, USA loses 1000 VP and -3 NM
5) If Sherman shows up at all in Eastern Theater, USA looses another 1000 VP and -3 NM

I'll be working on VP adjustment. I don't need to do anything about elite divisions as they are roughly the same between CSA and USA. USA gets their in the beginning.

Whats so very interesting is that in WON, I've removed most of the linear events. In CW2, I'm adding them back in.

Hopefully, the Union will be pressured to attack and cannot solely rely upon Grant and Sherman to make it happen. This last change for Grant and Sherman might be enough by itself and the other changes may get removed. Union relying upon Burnside, Pope, McClellan against Lee will not go well, as it was historically.

User avatar
Durk
Posts: 2921
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 4:36 am
Location: Wyoming

Sun Apr 24, 2016 3:55 am

I will be interested in how this goes.
What surprises me, the need to limit Grant and Sherman. I always keep them in the West, so, I get kind of what you are trying to fix. Makes sense to me what you are doing. I have brought Grant East earlier, but only when the CSA has devastated the Union Armies.
I do think the penalty for the failure for the Union to press into Virginia is a mistake. This will make for an unnecessary penalty which will not fix what you are trying to fix.

User avatar
DrPostman
Posts: 3005
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:39 pm
Location: Memphis, TN
Contact: Website Facebook Twitter YouTube

Sun Apr 24, 2016 4:17 am

Let us know when you finish. I'll be interested in trying this. I was an avid fan
of AACW and do still love CWII, but I believe it can be improved. I don't think we
need a CWIII, just some good mods. I'm really grateful the devs are happy to have
us mod their game.

Perhaps you could start a thread on your mod and invite suggestions and critiques.
"Ludus non nisi sanguineus"

Image

User avatar
GraniteStater
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1778
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:16 am
Location: Annapolis, MD - What?

Sun Apr 24, 2016 5:03 am

Just out of curiosity, you wouldn't want to ask anyone who plays the Union a lot for any input, would you?

vicberg, my good man, how long have you been playing this and have you played any against a good CSA player? How many people on this thread have done so?

Am I playing the same game described above? I'll forbear the particulars right now, but I'm sure we can discuss them.

From the proposed changes in the post described, all I can see is CSA Fanboy Wetdream.

Do you realize what a -15 NM hit would do? Seriously, do you? And starting off at 85? Are you doing arithmetic? I'm sorry, I see specifics like those, and I have definite reservations if the author(s) have any idea what a Union player can experience.

Start off at 85, dole out -15 hits, and you're going to have the Union with 55 NM by May, 1862. Oh yeah, that's fun. I'm playing two PbeMs right now and have been bouncing around in the 70s throughout most of one and from 78 - 85 in the other.

You cannot just gamble and attack without serious planning and preparation if you're in the ranges I describe. You cannot. You will lose entire Corps with an imprudent move.

Not to mention that NM affects everything - production, Cohesion, movement, anything important.

Now maybe I just plain stink at this game, but I have learned some things, especially as the Union - and I've played some CSA, too, I'm not unacquainted with its problems.

So far, what I see here is: trash Union NM, make sure it stays down, neuter the Blockade, and just about make it a Rule that neither Sherman not Grant can come to the East if the player so desires.

In the meantime, Longstreet or Jackson can go anywhere the CSA player wants, PGT and JJ can keep up their lovely defensive land blockades at chokepoints (you are aware that the two starting ***s for the CSA are both a 4 on defense, right? You are aware that the Union has no Leader to match this for quite a while, and even then, no Union *** has stats anywhere close to CSA out of the box ***s - none. The very best Union *** out of the box is Rosecrans, I would hazard), and the CSA can assemble Corps that run 4-3-3 ** / 5-4-4/ 3-2-3/4-2-2.

Meanwhile, unless you get Grant promoted to Army Leader, or some other promising officer, the Union player has whatever measly ** that might possibly run along the lines of 3-2-2 (maybe, can't recall anybody except Meade and Thomas at ** that's anything other than 3-1-1, and even they have to wait for an Autopromote, and in my present games Meade still hasn't been promoted - oh, yeah, there's Kearny, and maybe Lyons if he gets noticed) and when they do take a Corps command, McDowell (he Da Bomb, 2-2-2), or Buell or Fremont or fer chrissake, McClellan, makes darn sure any positive stats the Corps has gets ironed out to 2-1-1.

My freakin' word, have you guys played the Union at all?

As I said not too long ago, just what advantages is the Union supposed to have? Anything?

I'm sorry, but I have no tears to shed for the CSA. The basic game model is tilted the CSA's way to begin with. FI? Historically, the chances were slim and none, and Slim left town in September 1862 - there was no way on God's earth the UK was going to go to war with the US to aid a slavocracy after the Proclamation, not the UK that had abolished slavery thirty years earlier and whose Royal Navy ran down slavers on sight (and who had been joined by the USN on slave patrols in recent years). No UK, no France - Nappy III wasn't going to go it alone - picking on a half defenseless Mexico was more his style.

Y'know, there's been a recurrent theme here for a few years, going back to AACW, and I'm starting to think that Rhett Butler in the opening act of GWTW was succinct and correct: "Gentlemen, the North has steel mills, and coal mines, and railroads, and a navy to bottle up our harbors, and what do we have? Arrogance, mostly."

If you want to play the CSA, don't cry when you start to see you're outnumbered, possibly outequipped, blockaded, and feel the pinch when it comes to resource allocation.

Poor pitiful CSA, which, don't forget, Replaces twice as fast as the Union. So human wave assaults against better Leaders in level 4 trenches (or even 3, or sometimes 2) don't work. They do not work. I know, believe me, I know, I know, I know. Even with careful prep and planning, it had better go off right, 'cuz otherwise, it's licking your wounds until finally, you've got the red out and can try again.

And geez, what if Jackson counterattacks?

Gentlemen, seriously, pray tell, how exactly is a Union player supposed to win? Zerg rush Manassas right out of the starting blocks? Yeah, right, go play any half decent CSA player and see how far you get.

It's getting to be spring of 1863 against havi and I still haven't taken Bowling Green, for cryin' out loud. I did just take Charleston, though, and we shall see what happens. Get the idea? Hit 'em where they ain't, but it takes some doing, 'cuz the CSA can clog bottlenecks very early on. God forbid they attack.

Maybe I'm just bad at this game - but I know what a competent CSA player can do. It's not just overwhelm the D, 'cuz it doesn't work, you need 2:1+ at least, to even think about it, and even then, it's usually prudent to wait for better odds, 3:1 is closer to the ratio needed to take a well placed position. Don't even think about attacking the middle of a line of Corps, because MTSG will cut you to ribbons, and, yes, Virginia, Bobby Lee can be in two places at once, or near enough to make no nevermind - "I'll attack here and while he's busy..." doesn't work, It Does Not Work, the Turns are 15 days and the Denver Broncos will only be too happy to squash you flat while you run that crossbuck off the tackle.

Just a number of reasons why I evolved HiTek with a Real Navy. Now I'm trying it out and I'll see what happens. If all you want to do is goose the game so the Union Steamroller approach (yeah, right) is neutered entirely, then have a ball, but you're doing at the expense of any balance at all.

On the other hand, you can just play Wars of Napoleon as France, where, for a very long time, you have Corps and can MTSG and no one else can (which is not a knock against WoN, it's great, I'm playing it now, love vicberg's ED mod, but Frrance's problems are in other areas, not tactically).
[color="#AFEEEE"]"Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!"[/color]
-Daniel Webster

[color="#FFA07A"]"C'mon, boys, we got the damn Yankees on the run!"[/color]
-General Joseph Wheeler, US Army, serving at Santiago in 1898

RULES
(A) When in doubt, agree with Ace.
(B) Pull my reins up sharply when needed, for I am a spirited thoroughbred and forget to turn at the post sometimes.


Image

User avatar
Cardinal Ape
General of the Army
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:59 am

Sun Apr 24, 2016 5:53 am

vicberg wrote:I've been away from the game for a bit. Coming back to it. I'm wondering if playing the CSA is much like playing Japan in War in the Pacific? Japan has no hope. The game designers beefed Japan up seriously in order to make it into a game at all. Japan has a chance but usually only if the Allied player screws up totally OR if Japan attacks constantly. Those are the only two strategies that work and one of them isn't really a strategy.

I'm starting to believe the only real chance for CSA to do anything is to take Washington early in the game. The hold them strategy doesn't work at all.

What I've noticed:

1- CSA leadership "advantage" isn't really true at all. At least not until Longstreet/Jackson/Lee come fully into play. CSA has a few marginally better leaders, only 2 3-star leaders and 1 2 star leader to begin the game. Johnston (in the west) isn't really very good either. Union starts getting better leaders in 1862, so this "advantage" goes away quickly.
2- Defensive strategies require lots of militia everywhere building up trenches. But that of course means less divisions.
3- CSA production is pitiful. Hardly enough to build up divisions/replace let alone keep rail/river etc up to par
4- Union has much better strong morale troops that affect full divisions. I'm seeing one or two brigades for the CSA. So more elite divisions in addition to huge manpower/production ability
5- Too much to defend.
6- Forts don't do much, see different thread.

Strikes me that this game comes down to one strategy and one only. Attack and take Washington or die trying. Shame if I'm right. A single strategy game isn't worth playing.


I agree with your main point; Its D.C. or bust.

Having only one viable strategy is not always a bad thing in games, as long that one strategy has a good amount of variables to explore. But in CW2, against a human, the capital attack has to go off like clockwork. With players of equal skill level I'm not convinced this is even a feasible strategy. It relies on the Union making mistakes. If both sides devote everything to VA then the South will be outnumbered by more than 2:1. Not only does the South need to outplay the North in every single aspect, but they also need to get good weather rolls lest a blizzard bury their plans. At the least I would rate the degree of difficulty of this strategy to be a 10/10.

History may dictate the level of imbalance in this game, but it is a severe imbalance. I'd love to be able to sit here and say that my undefeated pbem record as the Union is solely because of my skill, but it is not, there is no balance in this game. The longest I've seen the CSA last in a pbem is late July of 1863 by Straight Arrow. The VPs are pointless, my standard rule is: If a major Union victory is not achieved then the South wins. I've never had to use the rule.

The main problem with the Union is that they are allowed to pursue a strategy other than 'Attack the enemy with direct frontal assualts until you achieve a glorious war-winning battlefield victory'. In my dumb opinion the most historically accurate way to play as the Union is to go to the local pub, get wasted and pick a fight, then come home and take your turn while channeling your drunken rage. Start by screaming as loud as you can, 'On to Richmond!' three times. Only then will attacking Manassas with a weaker force look like a war winning move. Do not stop for one second to think about grand strategy; only focus on battlefield tactics. Any plan other than 'On to Richmond' should be forbidden until mid-war. Yeah, that's an over exaggeration, but if the Union veers too far from 'On to Richmond' things can get real bad for the South real quick.

While CW2 is a wonderful historical simulation, turning it into a balanced competitive game might take it beyond the realm of realism. You would need to force the Union to make massive mistakes or punish them for not. That is not most peoples idea of a fun game. However, making changes to slow the Union down so that the game remains consistently competitive going into '63 would be good goal in my opinion. My suggestion would be to focus on improving the South. Give them more tools so that they may be more flexible in their strategic options, don't just neuter the North into a single scripted strategy.


Well, that's my rant. I probably got my history all wrong.. I'm a hardcore gamer first and history buff second, I should have bit my tongue and went straight to your in-game points:

1- Agreed. The CSA has a meaningful advantage in the strategic rating of its commanders. The defensive ratings have a decent advantage as well. On offense the advantage is almost not existent. When Lee shows up he can be countered by Grant. But before Lee shows up, when it really counts, the best the South has is a two. Only one better than the Union's defensive rating. Jackson is pretty darn good, but it is hard to use him effectively before corps.

What bothers me most about Southern generals is the Surpriser trait. It doesn't work. I get the feeling it is supposed to be a powerful trait, a trait that could be responsible for victories in rare occasions. But since it doesn't work, many of the best Southern generals have a trait that does nothing. On that same note, I still think the traits that affect militia cohesion are broken in divisions. So there is another set of traits that the CSA generals should have an advantage with but don't.

As others have mentioned, I also think the CSA should get some trainers. This is the first thing I would change. At least one early general (well before Cooper). To not have a way to train soldiers in a war-game of this scale is almost unheard of and boring. I enjoy the logistics of setting up training camps as the Union. When I play as the South I feel like I am missing out on an important and fun aspect of a large scale war-game.

A large part of an early Union steamroller is the mass training of the three element volunteers brigades. When the volunteers get upgraded to infantry the brigade becomes quite powerful. The light infantry element is not a weakness in my opinion. The light infantry has one of the lowest frontage demands and preforms better the worse the terrain gets. If the South could train more than one of these...

2- Ya, sparing units for tench digging is tough. Though, since the South can't train militia I never build them. Using militia divisions for defense is risky, putting one among a corp of regulars even
more so. If the militia division gets put on the front and it takes a lot of damage it can force defenders using hold at all costs to bail. I think it is 20% total casualties will cause a force to auto-retreat.

3- The production disparity by itself is not that bad in my opinion (Southern units do cost slightly less on average). Though, when combined with Union trainers and recruiters and all the other free stuff they receive it does add up. A couple of trainers for the South would go a long way, especially once inflation gets high. Also, the South is scripted to receive a bunch of free placements through out the first year. Once these stop in '62 things get pretty tight.

I do think it is worth mentioning the speed of building units. Compared to the North, the South does have a big advantage. Most of their non-artillery units take a turn or two less to build. Also, when Union NM is below 95 everything they build takes a turn longer. This does make it difficult for the Union to build in response to a threat, and the opposite for the South.

Digressing a bit: I've always been rather amused by the story of the CSN taking their own rails and welding them onto ships for extra armor.. Probably not the best long term decision, but it could be a fun option. A one time choice to lower your own rail pool by 100 to get a couple of ironclads in Charleston.

4- I've never been clear on why the Union gets so many more elite brigades before the South does. I'd much rather see the South get more of these than removing Union ones. Having unique brigades among the hundreds of generic ones adds some nice flavor.

If the South does get more free stuff I would almost rather it be artillery. I don't know if this has any place in history. But the way the games works leaves almost no opportunity for either side to capture artillery that is not fixed coastal batteries. No matter how thoroughly you rout an opposing force you won't capture a single one of their guns. The only way it would be possible is if you killed every single unit that is not an artillery piece or a supply unit, even then artillery inside divisions is exempt from capture, it must be loose. So maybe some events for the South simulating historical artillery captures would be good. Southern NM can make up for a lack of elite brigades but not for their pitiful array of cannon. Even if they only came as replacements that would help the South a good amount.

About this whole NM balancing thing: I've seen that this bothers a lot of people. It bothers me too, but, I think for a different reason. Others think it helps the Union too much. I think it hurts the CSA too much. I'm guessing the system was designed to help a beaten nation regain its will to fight. However, in game what tends to happen is that the NM system sinks the high CSA morale. The CSA was given 7 rolls to the Unions 4, perhaps to reflect their higher will to fight, but instead they make 7 rolls a turn, each with a chance to lower their NM. To me this system does the opposite of its intent; it consistently hurts the Southern will to fight rather than help it.

User avatar
DrPostman
Posts: 3005
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:39 pm
Location: Memphis, TN
Contact: Website Facebook Twitter YouTube

Sun Apr 24, 2016 5:56 am

I've always felt like playing the CSA was a losing proposition. It's in how well you
lose that matters to me. It wasn't balanced to make it ahistorical, it was balance
to make the game fun to play, especially in PBEM, but even against Athena, which
I still enjoy. I have to agree that -15 is a bit much, and if you are going to restrict
Grant and Sherman you should also restrict Lee and Jackson to their theaters for
at least until 64. Longstreet is another matter, since he was able to take his corps
to Georgia. There are ways to mod the game to make it interesting though, and
ways to mod it to make it more playable.
"Ludus non nisi sanguineus"

Image

Return to “Civil War II”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests