AGEOD Forums

Some argue that the South leads by a too low margin, VP wise, at start of the war, leading to the Union happily sitting until it amasses enough troops.

In the game, both opponents start with 50 VP, with the South producing slightly more (45 vp compared to 42 for the North) at start. Morale margin is much higher in favor of the South. Also take into account that he who has the lead in VP gets the chance each turn to gain one Foreign Entry point, the same for Morale.

Why not give a choice in the game?

Many other wargames give you the opportunity to give yourself more or less power, or economy or whatever.

Set one level you as AGEOD believe is "historical" then allow a huge variation of a number of factors from either side of that.

Indeed you could do it for any scenario - suggested start VP =X allow the player to vary.


Also do it for all other AGEOD games so I can fix it to get more wins

NB - but also quicker wins - (or losses). Not all of your customers can spend hours/days/weeks on one scenario.

By my reckoning, the South needs about an extra 80 VP if you take into account VPs for the actual state secessions themselves. Arguably they should even count for double VPs. So a boost of 100 is about right for the South.

Look at the torunament results here(only 1 year of play). If we exclude Guru vs Havi game where Havi was basically a rookie (I know, hosted the game), Union in only 1 year got advantage of 200-300 points.
Now let's imagine how that advantage would soar in later years. I voted for 200 VP fpr the CSA since it was the top offered, but I really think 200/year is closer to real numbers!!!

People have to be ignoring loyalty and the VP-penaltied RGDs. There's simply no other way to get points like that as the Union. I suppose they can do that if they're fine with a hobbled economy and the consequent smaller army.

I voted for a large VP bonus but as some here suggested, and as I have done so for other options, ideally, you should be able to chose this in the gui.

I did not vote because I think we should not give artificially more VP to the South : the problem is that from the beginning there is too much objectives giving VPs in the North.

Remove some Northern cities from the objectives list and the net effect will be the same as giving more VPs to the South at the start of the game. Moreover it will be an incentive for the North to attack Southern objectives.

Mickey3D wrote:I did not vote because I think we should not give artificially more VP to the South : the problem is that from the beginning there is too much objectives giving VPs in the North.

Remove some Northern cities from the objectives list and the net effect will be the same as giving more VPs to the South at the start of the game. Moreover it will be an incentive for the North to attack Southern objectives.

I agree. The South didn't really want Northern territory anyway... well, except for Missouri.
I did vote, but I definitely agree with this.

Mickey3D wrote:
Remove some Northern cities from the objectives list and the net effect will be the same as giving more VPs to the South at the start of the game. Moreover it will be an incentive for the North to attack Southern objectives.

This is actually a good idea.
It would give the South more VP from the start, giving a good reason for initiative to the North.
It might even solve some silly raids by Athena as the CSA.
However, this would mean that the South has less objectives where you would really diminish the chance for the CSA to achieve a major victory by invading and going for big cities.
It might change the nature of how the CSA is played. As the CSA you would have more benefit from digging in and waiting.
That's ok for me as I believe this is more historical. In the East you would still see action because of the proximity of the capitals.

Would it also mean the weight in NM for the remaining North objectives is higher?
Would this upset the balance of the game?

The more I see all this options and opinions, the more I believe the only way to implement this in the game is by letting these settings be set somewhere.
Preferably in the gui or even an ini file. Then people could test it and some values (or mods) would turn up which would suite a certain style of play and take on history.

Actually, reducing the VP density in West Virginia and western Pennsylvania would help reduce Athena's obsession with the region, or at least one would hope for that. I don't think CSA players tend to do much in that area either given its near death-trap attributes, and if they do I would imagine they have the game well in hand to be expecting success in the upper Ohio valley. It's also worth keeping in mind that one VP translates into a two VP difference, so even three VP would make for a huge shift over time.

The problem would be to set it up so Union players who use a lot of the RGDs don't get punished excessively by an enormous tide of Confederate VP.

I didn't actually vote, because I'm an obnoxious lil' bastard who couldn't find his choice

I would rather see the South earning more VP's than they do now, than 'giving' them a set amount at the start of the game or periodically.

I also feel the South should earn more VP's than the Union for holding the same locations. At the very least later in the war.

If the VP's are to represent how well each player is doing at playing the game--not how well each faction is doing at prosecuting the war--then since the South is going to be in an ever worsening economic situation--at least in comparison to the Union--as the game advances, it's inevitable that the South will be losing more and more territory. If the South can hold territory longer than is expected of it, it should be gaining VP's vs his opponent.

I voted yes, because I think the Union player does not have to invade too far to gain a VP advantage. That said, I'm not really for a flat VP bonus. I would rather see southern VP cities producing more, moving some VP locations further south (Winchester to Fredricksburg anyone?), and perhaps having a Union NM hit for certain strategic cities not under its control.

I'd rather see Morgantown and Pittsburg exchanged for Southern cities, keeping Athena out of the upper Ohio if possible. Not that I play much SP anymore, but I'm sure the SP people would appreciate it.

And I'm dead set against any NM loss events at all. NM more accurately reflects a side's confidence that they can win the war, while loyalty reflects support for said war, which are two different things. Having a NM difference of 25-35 just because I failed to take some set objective means I'm for damn sure not going to move unless I think I can win. Having a difference of 5-10 means I'll take chances to avoid loyalty problems (assuming they're added to the game that way) which affect my future production and VPs.

pgr wrote:I voted yes, because I think the Union player does not have to invade too far to gain a VP advantage. That said, I'm not really for a flat VP bonus. I would rather see southern VP cities producing more, moving some VP locations further south (Winchester to Fredricksburg anyone?), and perhaps having a Union NM hit for certain strategic cities not under its control.

+1. Maybe some more VP down the Mississipi and on the southern Atlantic coast to encourage more Anaconda behaviour too...

Merlin wrote:NM more accurately reflects a side's confidence that they can win the war, while loyalty reflects support for said war, which are two different things.

I'm not really sure this is an accurate description of the game model, simply because the instant win/loss in the game is measured by NM, not regional loyalty. In addition the political model events, like the 1864 election are NM events. (in 1864 the Union Fail NM goes from 40 ish to 60). As it stands, loyalty in game only impacts production, revolt risk, and VP production (less than 50%, and you have to garrison with regular units).

I think that NM should be the metric for general public support for the war...my only beef is that it has such a large global impact on combat (which seems odd to me)

Sure it is. You can still have public support for the war and lose on the field, and the reverse is also true. That's why I want the negative events to reflect loyalty instead of NM. Lack of appreciable progress caused people to wonder why they were spending their nation's blood and treasure when the government seemed incapable of using it effectively (loss of support or loyalty), while major defeats caused confidence in future victory to fail, at least for a time (loss of NM).

Civil War II
Instruction Manual

Page 97
Appendices
Glossary & Abbreviations

• NM: National Morale. A measure of your side’s will to fight, or willingness to surrender if sufficiently depressed.

The term "willingness to surrender" is probably poorly chosen. The more proper term would be "willingness to concede and sue for peace". In other words, -we give up, let's stop fighting-.

This is getting off topic so I'll leave it alone after this, but NM equates to "We're losing/winning the war" and Loyalty equates to "We do/don't support the war." NM shifts with everything, when it should really be tied almost exclusively to battle and FI. Nobody up north would've thought the government was going to lose the war if there had been no 1861 offensive in the East, but they would've seriously questioned the way the administration was prosecuting the war. So we have a situation where failing to do anything significant in Virginia in 1861 equates to losing 2-3 big battles, but nobody loses their faith in the administration. It's... obtuse.

pgr wrote:I'm not really sure this is an accurate description of the game model, simply because the instant win/loss in the game is measured by NM, not regional loyalty. In addition the political model events, like the 1864 election are NM events. (in 1864 the Union Fail NM goes from 40 ish to 60). As it stands, loyalty in game only impacts production, revolt risk, and VP production (less than 50%, and you have to garrison with regular units).

I think that NM should be the metric for general public support for the war...my only beef is that it has such a large global impact on combat (which seems odd to me)

So if I capture a city that has less than 50 % loyalty I won't get any VP points unless I garrison with regular units. Does that include militia? And must they be INSIDE the city to get the VP?

No, the loyalty has nothing to do with the VP's. It has to do with capturing the city.

If you have =<50% loyalty in a region you cannot capture the town in that region with early war cavalry, raiders or partisans nor militia. The exceptions is militia can capture the town, but only if they actually enter the town and remain inside. As soon as they go outside the town will revert to being uncontrolled and if it's a strategic or objective location, then you will stop getting VP's for controlling the now uncontrolled town.

Unfortunately you do not see this unless you look for it, because the regional ownership flat, which flies over the town, remains in your faction's colors as longs as you have control over the region. You have to look at the town's tool-tip.

Captain_Orso wrote:No, the loyalty has nothing to do with the VP's. It has to do with capturing the city.

If you have =<50% loyalty in a region you cannot capture the town in that region with early war cavalry, raiders or partisans nor militia. The exceptions is militia can capture the town, but only if they actually enter the town and remain inside. As soon as they go outside the town will revert to being uncontrolled and if it's a strategic or objective location, then you will stop getting VP's for controlling the now uncontrolled town.

Unfortunately you do not see this unless you look for it, because the regional ownership flat, which flies over the town, remains in your faction's colors as longs as you have control over the region. You have to look at the town's tool-tip.

Thanks for the explanation. I was wondering why my early cavalry couldn't capture certain towns....

If you don't have >50% loyalty, town has to be garrisoned with regular units (not militias) to bring VP.

Ace wrote:If you don't have >50% loyalty, town has to be garrisoned with regular units (not militias) to bring VP.

Ace, I promise you, you do not have to have a garrison to collect VP's. You must control the town.

To control the town where you have =<50% loyalty in the region you can:
- Have a conscript or line infantry (or any non-militia cavalry)[SUP]1)[/SUP] in the region--it does not have to, but may be inside the town.
- Have a militia inside the town.

[SUP]1)[/SUP] I'm not absolutely 100% certain of this, but I'm fairly sure of it. It may have to be late war cavalry to stand outside and control the location.

What is the historical reason for this distinction between the ability of late cavalry vs. early cavalry?

ajarnlance wrote:What is the historical reason for this distinction between the ability of late cavalry vs. early cavalry?

There were no cavalry operations/city capture in early war.

Yeah. It was basically their doctrine. Once they were equipped with repeater rifles, they could operate more offensively and changed their doctrine.

Originally in AACW early war cav could capture low-loyalty towns, but it was deemed it allowed them to be too offensive for early in the war.

Hey, we agreed on something Ace!

Thanks for the historical insight. On a different subject is anyone else surprised that only 12 people have voted in one week?

Yes. It's great the devs ask for our feedback, and then when we get the chance, only 12 people vote.
I'm disappointed on that. Then again, not everybody wants to delve deeper into the game mechanics.
If people don't, they might not feel like it's appropriate to vote on the subject.

I suppose I can comment, even if I abstain from voting. As I've said, I don't pay attention to VP. As a predominately Union player, I follow the same strategy as Merlin - I liberally trade VP for loyalty.

Near as I can tell, this question stems from an issue that arose in the PBEM tournament - that VP gaming can influence the outcome and a better played game might not get the highest VP. Giving the South a one time boost won't affect this very much since a union player can still game VP and end up with exactly the same increase in VP than another union player who does not.

Since the path of VP for a game won by a Confederate player is very different than that of a game won by a Union player, and since the path of VP for any game is heavily influenced by strategy, I don't think comparing VP across games can explain who is a better player. For instance, the Union can win on NM with any of the following non-comprehensive list of strategies and each strategy will likely lead to a different length of game and a different VP total: Aggressive trans-Mississippi, Aggressive West, Aggressive East, Anaconda, Atlantic Coast Invasion, Gulf Coast Invasion, Grey Fox's Steamroller, Turtle until mid-1863; each will lead in VP by the end in many cases. For a tournament, perhaps VP at a given date (which can mean playing beyond NM finish) makes sense for certain purposes, I don't know.

Pocus notes in his explanation of the poll that the Union has an easy time getting a VP lead which it can just sit on allowing it to win on VP. I don't know anything about that strategy, and while the game might be to easy for the Union to win, VP has not had much to do with how easy or hard it is for the Union to win in games I've played.

By the way, if I remember correctly, in AACW, VP changed the effectiveness of decisions and the economy. Is this still the case in CW2? Either way, I don't think this sort of boost would affect me very much at all, so I abstain.

And VP lead give you more foreign entry, so VP play a role through the whole game, from start to finish.

It seems the best course of action is to alter, add or remove a few VP cities. This will change the balance over time, incite the Union to more a historical aggressiveness while perhaps reducing slightly the attractiveness of some areas, which can also help the AI.

So what would be the (at most) 5 cities that should be promoted to strat city or demoted to normal city if already strat city?