Victory points balance - VP ratio favors US over CSA

[Ace]

From multiplayer match experience (mine and from other players as well), as from results from ongoing CW2 tournament (all players agreed), I can with great certainty say that current VP ratio between USA and CSA is way off. The game historically portrays US as more powerful, which is absolutely on spot. The problem that rises here is what should be portrayed as CSA win. Could the "do better than history" be regarded as CSA minor win. I firmly believe Civil War grand strategy game should model victory points in such way that doing much better than historical should be regarded as win.

The problem with the game is, VP are not modelled like this, because after capturing only few Tennessee cities, USA takes VP lead till the end of the game. It shouldn't happen at least until all of Tennessee - Mississippi cities are captured that the USA produces more VP from cities than the CSA.

IMO, the right step in balancing it would be to increase CSA VP production by 15-20 points per turn, either by an increase in city production or by an event that gives fixed amount of VP to the CSA every turn. It would be a step in the right direction. If such thing would offset FI calculations we could modify formula for it to be affected only by NM.

An even better thing would be to have CSA VP production increased by 10 in 61, 15 in 62, and by 20 from 63 till the end.

What do you guys think of it? I would like to spur a discussion, so we can propose some changes for the 1.05. patch

[elxaime]

Interesting and a tough challenge. The idea would be to encourage certain historical behaviors.

Here is an idea - give the South more VP but only as a post-1864 election event choice which also raises their defeat morale threshold? This would simulate the increasingly desperate nature of the war after Lincoln's re-election. The South would get a boost and incentive to fight on, at the cost of increasing the chance of sudden death. You would in this bargain also increase the morale loss from losing a major city.

I think there are fun creative ways to make this a trade off. I think that is a better route than just boosting points.

[minipol]

Something along these lines has been discussed earlier.
I agree that the VP is off. The CSA should be ahead in VP just by maintaining their current borders.
Even the capture of a few cities shouldn't have a too big an effect as long as there are some results in battle.
The longer the war takes, the more advantage the Union has production wise, the more the CSA should get for still holding on to the important VP cities.
It makes sense to me.

[Jim-NC]

I agree that the VPs are tilted way towards the union. I wonder if we could make a different amount of VPs for each side for a city. For example, Harper's Ferry could be worth 1 point to the union, but 5 to the CSA. The downside would be Athena's desperate charge for certain cities, as she would know how valuable they are.

[Ace]

Only 4 replies. Does this mean other players think it is possible to win on VP as CSa in a match between equally skilled players?

I don't think it is!!

[elxaime]

Anything is possible, I suppose. But IMO a CSA points lead into the late game should be improbable. The current dynamic where the South needs to land a morale knockout seems to more accurately reflect reality. The problem is that savvy Union players, knowing that time is on their side, have learned how to parry the early CSA ploys by being much less aggressive early than historically. No Bull Run in July 1861, a Pennisular Campaign in 1862 that consists of planting enough elements at Williamsburg for the required number of turns, etc. Hence, most of the real fighting for the Union only starts in 1863. In their defense, the Union player, unlike his historical counterpart, knows how terrible his early leader situation is and how launching the sort of historical attacks the Union did is suicide. Not sure how to alter player behavior, as dealing with hindsight is a challenge in any historical war game.

[tripax]

I guess I just ignore VP. If the game had a really cool reward for winning, maybe I would care, but as it is, VP isn't really important to me. In my few PBEMs, the goal of the confederacy has been to outperform history. That is, keep a Sherman like force from roaming free in the south and hold Richmond until early 1865 as well as avoid NM loss past April 1865. It seems to make sense that having a VP reward for achieving goals each year based on goals from the real war - but doing so reduces how many fun variations in strategy are possible.

I agree that it is too hard for the CSA to win on VP, but that fact doesn't really matter in most cases. Also, while VP is an appealing way to score the game, it is never going to be perfect. Since VP will generally increase as the length of the game increases, it seems like a bad way to compare performance between games.

[elxaime]

I guess I just ignore VP. If the game had a really cool reward for winning, maybe I would care, but as it is, VP isn't really important to me. In my few PBEMs, the goal of the confederacy has been to outperform history. That is, keep a Sherman like force from roaming free in the south and hold Richmond until early 1865 as well as avoid NM loss past April 1865. It seems to make sense that having a VP reward for achieving goals each year based on goals from the real war - but doing so reduces how many fun variations in strategy are possible.

I agree that it is too hard for the CSA to win on VP, but that fact doesn't really matter in most cases. Also, while VP is an appealing way to score the game, it is never going to be perfect. Since VP will generally increase as the length of the game increases, it seems like a bad way to compare performance between games.

I agree that the most enjoyable games tend to be where both players are less concerned about points and just focus on what they would do as the actual leaders of that time.

[ohms_law]

VP's are important for PBEM games, though.
Honestly, Ace, I just think that there's more important things to worry about. I personally posted about a bunch of issues a few weeks ago (a couple of them were pretty noteworthy too, I thought), and now it's starting to feel like they've been buried.

[Ace]

I'll look up for your posts. It's always a question of time. We all agreed that VP currently mean little. If changing it by giving CSA cities some more VP output would help the issue, it can be done within minutes as long as we all agree it would help the game. There are always more important things that would help the game more but would require far more.developer time.

[Pocus]

VP's are important for PBEM games, though.
Honestly, Ace, I just think that there's more important things to worry about. I personally posted about a bunch of issues a few weeks ago (a couple of them were pretty noteworthy too, I thought), and now it's starting to feel like they've been buried.

I'm slowly in the process of checking pending CW2 issues, but please post the links there in case I missed them.

Changing VP is not asking for much time though, so can be done.

[FelixZ]

VP probably means little to many of us as it is artificial.

Two reasons for VP come to mind - 1) bolsters human morale and 2) is a bit of help to enable Foreign Intervention.

The word artificial brings to mind an apparent trend in CW2 to move away from historical simulation - what was really great about AAWC.

We've lost artillery upgrades, Anaconda Plan and GS limitations to enhance CSA survivability. And how about the implementation of stockade warfare?

All of the above is to make a more balanced game - keeping CSA in the game and maintaining human CSA morale.

There is Bloody Roads South - an ending scenario. How about expending some effort on a front end scenario - say through 1862 which is advertised as a balanced scenario for human generals. Have we focused too much attention on scenarios which last the entire war?

I'm not offering solutions in this post - just a suggestion to move CW2 back to a historical simulation.

[FelixZ]

VP's are important for PBEM games, though.
Honestly, Ace, I just think that there's more important things to worry about. I personally posted about a bunch of issues a few weeks ago (a couple of them were pretty noteworthy too, I thought), and now it's starting to feel like they've been buried.

As Ace says - it is always a question of time.

And as to secret exploits - they are secret until posted. Believe there are now five (including yourself) who have recognized Ranger stockade ability .

[FelixZ]

I seem to always be kicked out of my log-on while typing posts (maybe I'm just to slow).

But if there is a way to avoid the error message which means copying my words, logging out and logging back in just to make a post … .

Any help will be appreciated.

[ohms_law]

I seem to always be kicked out of my log-on while typing posts (maybe I'm just to slow).

But if there is a way to avoid the error message which means copying my words, logging out and logging back in just to make a post … .

Any help will be appreciated.

In one vBulletin forum I used to participate in a lot there was a setting available under General Settings to adjust that. I was going to PM you about it, but I went to look for it here and I couldn't find it. I vaguely recall, now, that we talked Clay (the owner of the board) into adding a mod onto the forum for that.

So, I'll just give you some advice instead. If you're composing a Quick Reply and it seems to be taking more than a couple of minutes, click the "Go advanced" button next to the "Post Quick Reply" button:
[ATTACH]31895[/ATTACH]
That'll save what you've already written, and reset the clock so-to-speak. In the advanced post interface, just "preview post" occasionally, and you should be fine.

Edit: oh, and be sure to switch your login so that the forum automatically logs you in when you visit.

[ohms_law]

I'm slowly in the process of checking pending CW2 issues, but please post the links there in case I missed them.

Changing VP is not asking for much time though, so can be done.

Thanks. I was going to in the post above, but I had to get to an appointment first.
Sorry about whining, it's just... well, you know.
I appreciate the interest, at least.

Ace found one already, but:

1. This one is huge: Union Athena not creating (enough) Corps
   I'm fairly certain that I won that game simply because Athena basically gave up. I'd like that (mid- to late- game AI) to be a top priority, really.
2. Fairly important: Penalized for capturing an objective
3. This really bothered me, too: Field Promotions
   Doing something about that may be beyond a patch, but... urgh. It's definitely an annoyance.
   Not having a dedicated General's listing in the ledger is right up there with this issue, too. *sigh*
4. This one just kinda irked me: West Virginia event
5. Annoying, but pretty minor: Belle Boyd's initial position
6. Interface complaint: Foreign Entry display
   Note that this is similar, if not the same, issue as the Money display problem when building factories.
   
   Minor issues:
7. rail around Atlanta
8. Naval movement time complaint
9. Martial Law cost
10. Missing CSA event name

[pgr]

I agree that the VP situation favors the USA, but I tend to see it as a bit of a VP location distribution problem. Basically there are a bunch of VP locations in relative easy reach of the Union, which removes a lot of the incentive to drive too deeply.

I would suggest re-locating vp locations further South. Say island no 10 to Grenada Mississippi, and Winchester Va to Fredricksburg Va. Barring that, make Richmond, Chattanooga, Atlanta, and Vicksburg "Super VP" sites. That would help drive the action deeper into the interior Confederacy. ( I have also suggested in the past that there should be some NM moral kicks for the Union to spur action to control the whole Mississippi... which didn't seem too popular )

[Captain_Orso]

I don't think we have to discuss about the chance of the South actually "winning" the war--IE causing the Union's NM to drop below the lower threshold. Sure it can happen, but with two equally good players it probably won't happen.

What is left to determine which player won the game is only the VP's, unless the players themselves decide on something else.

So we are talking about a game that continues through the end of Dec. '65. How should the winner be determined? This goes deeply into game-theory.

1. The very simplest way would be to count all the locations owned by each player, compare the totals, who ever has more wins. But that leaves much of the history out of the equation. There are simply locations which were historically more important than others.

2. Another way would be to set each location to be worth a certain amount of points. Then tally the points for all the locations each player owns at the end of the game, compare the point totals and the higher total wins. This however does not take into account how long each side held onto the locations. Were one side to dominate the game until the very last turn, but on the turn have his point-total drop to below his opponent's it would seem to me to be a bad victory, because the losing player would have played a better throughout the game and might have lost on some last-ditch-effort-quirky-battle-outcome.

3. Awarding VP's for locations during the game will measure the success of each player throughout the game much better. Give each location a certain VP value and tally the VP's each turn. This is much fairer and logical in determining which player played better overall. But it does not take into account the fact the balance of strength between both sides is not equal throughout the game. The scales tip toward the Union in Power the further the game develops until the South can hardly hold on to any location the North wants to take. Early in the war it's the other way around.

So here's one theory; the VP's awarded for locations should not only reflect their importance, but they should be weighted by the time-frame of the war. If this is done well, one could arbitrarily decide in advance approximately how much territory each side should have during each period of the war. If each side hold exactly what was approximated, each side should have the exact same total of VP's; in other words a tie.

One might also go by historically what areas were held by each side during each time-frame. It would not have to be the exact areas, but by looking at the Object Cities, Strategic Cities, other important locations, cities in general and possibly the number of regions. This way the players could be free to determine where they wanted to focus their strategies independent of how the war developed historically.

As the war moves on and the balance of power shift toward the North, the South should be accruing more points for the locations it holds than the North is gaining for the locations it hold. This should maintain a balance in VP's accrued throughout the game if both players play equally well, but as is expected, the North takes and an increasing number of locations.

The difficulty is first in deciding on what should be expected of each player during each time-frame, and secondly setting up the VP's system to be able to reflect this. Awarding 1 VP for a level 1 city each turn will probably be too inflexible to do this, because you cannot increase its VP value by any percentages. Setting the VP's to say 100 per turn would allow the award to be changed to for example 90 or 110 in a later time-frame, but it would also mean that the VP totals would be very high. I personally don't have an issue with this, but the game engine itself might, and I'm not even sure if the game might be coerced into changing the VP's awarded per the time-frame.

This would be a huge change in the paradigm of how the game determines who is the winner. It might not even be workable, but it is a though.

[PJL]

Regarding VPs, as far as I see it, each time a strategic city changes hands, one side gains VP(s) and the other loses VP(s). At the start, both the USA & CSA start out with the same number of points - 50. But surely the act of secession itself should cause a similar change, which doesn't occur on the US side (the CSA is fine as they get the VPs for each turn). Therefore, it might be a good idea to give the US some VP reduction events for the first few turns as states break away. By my reckoning, something like 30, 7, 11 & 3 VPs should be deducted from the US in the first four turns. The Kentucky event (if it doesn't already do so) should have a similar VP reduction for the losing side as well.

Edit - just thought about this, the CSA doesn't get the initial points gain at the start, so they should also get a 30 VP increase event on the first turn. Alternatively, neither get the event on the first turn, but CSA VP should be 80, & USA 20 at the campaign scenario start.

[ajarnlance]

I agree that the VP situation favors the USA, but I tend to see it as a bit of a VP location distribution problem. Basically there are a bunch of VP locations in relative easy reach of the Union, which removes a lot of the incentive to drive too deeply.

I would suggest re-locating vp locations further South. Say island no 10 to Grenada Mississippi, and Winchester Va to Fredricksburg Va. Barring that, make Richmond, Chattanooga, Atlanta, and Vicksburg "Super VP" sites. That would help drive the action deeper into the interior Confederacy. ( I have also suggested in the past that there should be some NM moral kicks for the Union to spur action to control the whole Mississippi... which didn't seem too popular )

Totally agree with the above. The AI Union is way too passive on the key rivers. I have seen the AI fleet under Foote just retreat into Nebraska while I take Cairo and St. Louis. Playing against a human opponent is much more challenging. In my current PBEM the Union player is making it very difficult to take Cairo and St. Louis by making good use of Union river forces.

[minipol]

Indeed and as the CSA or the Union, it's actually quite simple: join all the forces in a big fleet and counter everything.
It would already help immensly.
As for VP, from the start of the war, the CSA should be ahead. They defend against the Union who is the agressor. Therefor holding on to their territory should be enough to
start building a VP lead.

[ajarnlance]

Indeed and as the CSA or the Union, it's actually quite simple: join all the forces in a big fleet and counter everything.
It would already help immensly.
As for VP, from the start of the war, the CSA should be ahead. They defend against the Union who is the agressor. Therefor holding on to their territory should be enough to
start building a VP lead.

Agreed. This would encourage the Union to be more aggressive earlier in the war as IRL. There was tremendous political pressure on the Union to "march on Richmond" and to take the war to the rebels. There should be incentives in the game to spur the Union player to commit earlier to a more offensive approach (even with weak generals!).

[minipol]

Indeed and now they can just turtle and build up. I can see how having the CSA get more VP for defending their territory.
Maybe some events could be fired to give the Union a certain amount of time to attack a few objects, and if they fail to launch an attack, they could get an additional VP penalty?
Thing is, it really needs to be balanced otherwise, the Union is punished twice.
But as for the starting VP adjustment, that one should be changed no matter what.

[Merlin]

Am I the only one who as the Union routinely has a VP deficit of over 600 by 1863? Liberal use of VP-reducing RGDs and always playing full emancipation usually buries me and I rarely dig out until 1864 or even 1865. That's considering the conquest of Nashville, Memphis, New Orleans, Springfield, Fayetteville, Little Rock, Jackson, and points in between.

[ajarnlance]

The problem is that savvy Union players, knowing that time is on their side, have learned how to parry the early CSA ploys by being much less aggressive early than historically. No Bull Run in July 1861, a Pennisular Campaign in 1862 that consists of planting enough elements at Williamsburg for the required number of turns, etc. Hence, most of the real fighting for the Union only starts in 1863. In their defense, the Union player, unlike his historical counterpart, knows how terrible his early leader situation is and how launching the sort of historical attacks the Union did is suicide. Not sure how to alter player behavior, as dealing with hindsight is a challenge in any historical war game.

The above post is spot on... very true. Playing my first PBEM as the rebels and I am already noticing the lack of aggressive play by my Union opponent. IRL there was tremendous political pressure on the Northern generals to attack the South... of course it lead to the Union getting a bloody nose on more than one occasion. The key is how do you encourage historical behaviour while still giving the player the opportunity to deviate from history and try different strategies?? There are basically two ways of influencing behavior: 1) VP 2) NM
The answer then must be in setting up these 'rewards' to encourage more aggressive behaviour early on by the Northern armies. Minipol has mentioned perhaps setting time limits on taking cities for the North although this would increase the complexity in an already complex game. The VP balance definitely needs to be addressed in the next patch as Ace suggests. Maybe Northern morale should decline the longer the South maintains her territorial integrity??

My final point is that this is supposed to be a WAR game and not a BORE game The Union player sitting and building for two years before launching the inevitable avalanche of troops southward makes for a very boring experience... maybe penalise the North for not fighting major battles?? Could the northern troops lose experience/morale for NOT fighting?? Sounds crazy and possibly won't work but remember what Lincoln said about Grant when many wanted Grant dismissed: "I can't spare this man he fights!". I want a game where it makes sense for the Union player to FIGHT

[tripax]

+1

I support the idea that VP rewards should be larger early in the game when people thought the war would be very short and major objectives would have been thought to be indicative of victory approaching. As for the NM component, failing Northern Offensive events could be cost more than 10NM (since 10 NM isn't really much in the long run, bump it up to 15NM - or since the papers howl, maybe cause a drop in loyalty in eastern cities) but the goal could be more than just Manassas (why not make it Manassas OR New Market OR City Point OR Williamsburg OR Suffolk). I'm not sure, but it is an idea.

[ajarnlance]

+1

I support the idea that VP rewards should be larger early in the game when people thought the war would be very short and major objectives would have been thought to be indicative of victory approaching. As for the NM component, failing Northern Offensive events could be cost more than 10NM (since 10 NM isn't really much in the long run, bump it up to 15NM - or since the papers howl, maybe cause a drop in loyalty in eastern cities) but the goal could be more than just Manassas (why not make it Manassas OR New Market OR City Point OR Williamsburg OR Suffolk). I'm not sure, but it is an idea.

Your ideas are worth considering. Providing more objective cities for the Union might make the North more aggressive as it would be difficult for the South to 'cover all the bases'. As for getting the North to attack early, which is the key here, having VP points that decrease with time would add more urgency to the Union decision making process, although I am not sure how that would affect the late game? Are there any event driven decisions that could cause the Union to attack?? How about linking VP targets together in a 'chain'?? For example, if you take Manassas this then opens up other VP locations that are locked until then??

The pressure on McClellan early in the war was mostly communicated to him directly by Lincoln. One aspect of the game that could be modelled more extensively is the influence of Lincoln and Davis on military events. Historically Lincoln pushed the Union generals forward to Richmond. How could that be modelled in the game?? Historically Davis refused to give overall command of the CSA forces to one general until it was very late in the war and Lee was put in charge. How could this compartmentalisation of Southern strategy be reflected in the game?? Maybe VP costs for transferring generals from one theatre to another?? Just throwing ideas out there....

[pgr]

I would just like to link this discussion, to the one that is playing out in a similar way in the general forum.

I'm for steps that light a fire under the Union player to move.

[ajarnlance]

I would just like to link this discussion, to the one that is playing out in a similar way in the general forum.

I'm for steps that light a fire under the Union player to move.

+1 !! There seems to be a growing consensus for giving the Union player some kind of NM incentive to take certain cities (by certain dates??).

[RebelYell]

Also increasing the valuable farm and plantasion regions, more of the resources coming from them, they should also give VPs.

We have accurate maps to place these on the map more, Union should also get to recruit regiments in some of these locations.