New patches / questionable game balance changes

[asdicus]

I am a big fan of this game and have been playing regular pbm games since v1.0. I am also very grateful to ageod for the excellent levels of support and commitment to fix bugs. However I am growing increasingly uneasy at the number of game balance changes being introduced via patches without ( in my view ) proper consultation or input from the wider game playing public.

Overall I believe the csa already has a good fighting chance in the long campaign game - if you read the aar reports the csa tends to do far better than in the real war. The csa has no shortage of war supply or money and can raise very large armies almost at will. Thus when I see proposals to make life even harder for the union I tend to get rather 'hot under the collar'. I note the next upcoming patch plans to up the 10 NM point penalty for the union failing to advance on richmond in 1861 to an unbelievable 20 MM points ! This is when the game starts with an auto csa NM advantage of 100 to 85. This penalty is almost impossible for the union to avoid so making the early NM csa advantage go to 100 to 65 - crazy. This is a big game balance change yet the decision to make this change seems to rest with a very small number of ageod 'helpers'.

As a player I need the new patches to fix any bugs that appear but I not want to keep having the game balance being changed unless those changes are properly considered by a large group of players. Ageod need to think hard about game balance issues and changes - sometimes just leaving stuff alone is the best thing to do.

[pasternakski]

As a player I need the new patches to fix any bugs that appear but I not want to keep having the game balance being changed unless those changes are properly considered by a large group of players. Ageod need to think hard about game balance issues and changes - sometimes just leaving stuff alone is the best thing to do.

Good luck with all that. I said just this a long time ago, and got accused of having "bigger problems" and just generally being a jerk (not that I'm contesting the fact, of course). Then, some of mama's little helpers started following me to other Web sites and laying out some very troll-like attacks at your poor, humble narrator's expense.

So, I just don't post here anymore, but thanks for saying what you said. I agree with you entirely that a lot of wrong-headed stuff has been perpetrated on this originally excellent game.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[gunnergoz]

OK, I have to say I was a bit worried about what I was reading in the initial post of this thread but by the time of the (semi-official?) AGEOD response, I was feeling better. This is indeed an unusual outfit.

[Pocus]

At the risk of revealing a big secret, I will dare say that when a game comes out, it is not necessarly a perfect achievement in balance, design, fun and historical gameplay

We make errors, we as the developers. Sometime by lack of time, by lack of competence, by lack of judgement. I think you can agree with that, Pasternakski et al. ?

So when AACW went out, we missed some things. Like the fact that the Union could sit and reinforce until the stars were aligned for the player, as in the game the time is on the Union side (he gets more VP than the CSA each turn!). This is far from the historical reality, where Lincoln was hard pressed, and hard pressed his generals, to act and quell the Rebels.

So comes into play tweaks and balances. Gray_Lensman proposal of augmenting the pressure on the Union was accepted by us as a thing we could (and should) have done since 1.00.

So sorry, a game is not a chapel done by divine beings which is dessecrated by heatens modders* . It is a human construct with plenty of inaccuracies, and we can only hope to fix as many of them as possible by hard work (mostly coming from volunteers now!!)


*: I believe this sentence will trigger a reaction from good old Tagwin

[Rafiki]

However I am growing increasingly uneasy at the number of game balance changes being introduced via patches without ( in my view ) proper consultation or input from the wider game playing public.

For quite a while now, patches go through a "public beta"-phase where they are made available through the "Help to improve AACW!"-forum. Changes and adjustments made are detailed in the patch notes when the patches are released like this. This is nothing but an invitation to the wider game playing public to provide feedback and comments on what has been done, and anyone and everyone is most welcome to accept the invitation

[Inside686]

as in the game the time is on the Union side (he gets more VP than the CSA each turn!)

Excuse me Pocus but are you sure about this ? Isn't it the opposite ?

[Gray_Lensman]

As a result of some consultation with Pocus, the new 1862 events will be scaled back to 5 NMs each for a total of 10 for failure to move out of Washington, but accompanied by a total rework of the VPs, such that the USA player is not also gathering in extra VPs each turn simply by having a higher balance of VP points due to the number of initial cities. This should help for all the years and not just for 1862.

Look for late February earliest to see this publicly. (The VP rework will take a while).

edit> As stated above, I will make the new 1862 event(s) much more accessible for modding purposes by placing it very near the end of the USA Events.sct file. That way, anyone still disatisfied can disable the event by simply changing a "1" to a "0".

[Rafiki]

Originally, the Union had a VP advantage, but this was tweked in the CSA's favor in patch 1.04...

[Jarkko]

Odd... I thought I read a post from Gray (right after Inside's post) before lunch, but now it's not there anymore. I must have been dreaming, and I spent all of my lunch chewing food and pondering something witty to write in response

[Rafiki]

Yeah, weird, ain't it...

(And no, nothing nefarious has taken place here )

[AndrewKurtz]

However I am growing increasingly uneasy at the number of game balance changes being introduced via patches without ( in my view ) proper consultation or input from the wider game playing public.

asdicus...are there other example where you think game balance has been impacted? Just curious to get a better understanding of which changes are triggering your concerns.

I ask because I take from your post that you are not opposed to game mechanic changes (many say improvements, but not all) but, instead, are only concerned with changes that impact game balance.

Which, if I'm correct, may be less of an issue with the change itself than it's impact on the ability for two equal players to play 100 times and come close to a 50/50 winning side split. So the concern may be less with the change that it is with a corresponding lack of adjustment in determining the winner.

There have been other discussions of spending time looking at the victory conditions and I suspect this will take place in the future as another (for some unwanted) improvement.

Let me know if I mis-understand what you mean by game balance impacting changes.

[lodilefty]

re: 'Victory'

To me, you should 'win' as the South [or North] if you do better than history...

My ideal would be to set up a 'forced' historical game, play through it and see what the VP end up as. In theory, this could be calculated by totaling up VP per turn and adding in 'historical combat losses' points.

Then, 'victory' could be compared to this 'answer'.

I agree though: if you want equality, or total control, or world domination, I suggest chess, Risk, etc...

[AndrewKurtz]

I'd posted this once before, but I'll repeat here:

"For the People" is a board game that, IMHO, did a great job with this and personally, it could be used effectively in AACW to determine a winner.

Below are the exact rules changed for AACW terminology. I'm not sure that the numbers would work exactly, but the general concept could probably be effectively made to work well in AACW.

Automatic victories:

1. USA wins if CSA NM drops below 0
2a. CSA wins if USA NM is below 50 in November, 1864 or
2b. CSA wins if at any time their NM is double the USA NM

Otherwise:
3. USA wins if it controls 10 original CSA and/or border states(MO, KY, WV) by April 1865

4. Anything else is a CSA win.

This might provide a good foundation for determining true victory. And one of the cool things about it in FTP is you see games go to the very end as victory is not out of the CSA hand just because they are running out of men/territory. Sometimes it is more about fighting for morale and holding one key state.

As I mentioned, the actual NM levels may not work as the mechanics in AACW are different but I'm sure we could figure out the right levels by finishing/measuring games over a period of time.

[lodilefty]

I'd posted this once before, but I'll repeat here:

"For the People" is a board game that, IMHO, did a great job with this and personally, it could be used effectively in AACW to determine a winner.

Below are the exact rules changed for AACW terminology. I'm not sure that the numbers would work exactly, but the general concept could probably be effectively made to work well in AACW.

Automatic victories:

1. USA wins if CSA NM drops below 0
2a. CSA wins if USA NM is below 50 in November, 1864 or
2b. CSA wins if at any time their NM is double the USA NM

Otherwise:
3. USA wins if it controls 10 original CSA and/or border states(MO, KY, WV) by April 1865

4. Anything else is a CSA win.

This might provide a good foundation for determining true victory. And one of the cool things about it in FTP is you see games go to the very end as victory is not out of the CSA hand just because they are running out of men/territory. Sometimes it is more about fighting for morale and holding one key state.

As I mentioned, the actual NM levels may not work as the mechanics in AACW are different but I'm sure we could figure out the right levels by finishing/measuring games over a period of time.

+1


Now THAT's what I'm talking about!

[asdicus]

I will try to clarify my initial post in light of the comments made so far.

I am very grateful to ageod for their continued efforts to improve this excellent game. The following points are not meant to criticise these efforts - merely to point out that some changes are not always for the best.

I fully support any bug fixes ( of course ! ) as well as new game features imported from later ageod games ( eg combat replays for non host player, new attack/defense option icons etc ). I also support improving the historical scenario data eg correcting oob, more historic generals, sorting out the rail network etc.

I do not however support the ever increasing number of changes to the overall game balance. One example is the new rule that corps cannot be formed before mid 1862. This is a recipe for total confusion for new players ( who find the div/corps/army stuff complicated anyway) and it adds nothing to the gameplay - a good example of something that wasn't broken so why change it ?

Generally I believe the csa/usa balance is about right at the moment and anything that seriously alters this balance should be avoided. Costing the union an extra 20 NM points in 1862 because they have not advanced on richmond will seriously affect the game balance. In all my pbm games the csa defends richmond strongly - so I advance instead in the west ( as per history). To try to move on richmond in 1862 as the union with rubbish generals is suicide against a decent defense. The game should not force players into moves like this yet a 20 NM point hit is so large they will have no choice but to try anyway. The argument that the union gets an extra 21 NM anyway in 1862 is spurious - kind of saying the union gets extra points so we better find a way to take them off again.

Generally I would say the developers should avoid game events which reduce NM for not moving on objectives as this rule could be applied to so many other events. For example in the april 61 campaign the csa loves to attack early on an undefended cairo - invading illinois a northern state. Southern public opinion did not support at all invading the north - so why not have a 20 NM point loss to the csa for such a move ?? Of course once introduced where do you stop with such rules - far better to avoid the rules in the first place.

So to summarise. Bug fixes and improving the game mechanics - yes please. Highly debatable events seriously changing the national morale totals - no thanks unless they are implemented on a large scale for many different events ( not practical really to do this ).

[Clovis]

I will try to clarify my initial post in light of the comments made so far.

I am very grateful to ageod for their continued efforts to improve this excellent game. The following points are not meant to criticise these efforts - merely to point out that some changes are not always for the best.

I fully support any bug fixes ( of course ! ) as well as new game features imported from later ageod games ( eg combat replays for non host player, new attack/defense option icons etc ). I also support improving the historical scenario data eg correcting oob, more historic generals, sorting out the rail network etc.

I do not however support the ever increasing number of changes to the overall game balance. One example is the new rule that corps cannot be formed before mid 1862. This is a recipe for total confusion for new players ( who find the div/corps/army stuff complicated anyway) and it adds nothing to the gameplay - a good example of something that wasn't broken so why change it ?

Generally I believe the csa/usa balance is about right at the moment and anything that seriously alters this balance should be avoided. Costing the union an extra 20 NM points in 1862 because they have not advanced on richmond will seriously affect the game balance. In all my pbm games the csa defends richmond strongly - so I advance instead in the west ( as per history). To try to move on richmond in 1862 as the union with rubbish generals is suicide against a decent defense. The game should not force players into moves like this yet a 20 NM point hit is so large they will have no choice but to try anyway. The argument that the union gets an extra 21 NM anyway in 1862 is spurious - kind of saying the union gets extra points so we better find a way to take them off again.

Generally I would say the developers should avoid game events which reduce NM for not moving on objectives as this rule could be applied to so many other events. For example in the april 61 campaign the csa loves to attack early on an undefended cairo - invading illinois a northern state. Southern public opinion did not support at all invading the north - so why not have a 20 NM point loss to the csa for such a move ?? Of course once introduced where do you stop with such rules - far better to avoid the rules in the first place.

So to summarise. Bug fixes and improving the game mechanics - yes please. Highly debatable events seriously changing the national morale totals - no thanks unless they are implemented on a large scale for many different events ( not practical really to do this ).

Corps and divisions: delay for their formation is necessary for historical reasons and for gameplay too. Currently the most striking problem AACW has comes from the easiness of the start game: too much WSU, men, too much organizational skills for both sides at start.

As a result, both sides get early huge and unhistorical armies led by much better leaders than in reality and without any feeling of the mess USA and CSA had to face when raising, equipping, supplying their forces and creating armed organization a little better shaped than moving mobs...

Events: you're right partly. Introduction of mandatory moves is always dangerous as the opponent will have knwoledge of this and will prepare defensive measures. But clearly during the war US led at least one offensive per year in Virginia. Not because Lincoln was obtuse, but any defensive attitude will have led him to serious popularity setback as public opinion remained convinced( until today...) war in Virginia was essential and Richmond to be taken to end the war.

We must to define events about this reality; on the contrary, Union side is playing defensively until the right men in the biggest armies are available. In the same time, you have events about McClellan demoting reflecting his incapacity to take Richmond...

But I agree these events shouldn't be simply " put an huge army around Richmond". They should:

- be geographically extended in most Virginian region to let US player maneuver possibilities
-be accompanied by other events rewarding NM for losses of Nashille, New Orleans, Mobile, other ports, Vicksburg, etc to let the choice to US player to try alternative strategies

[vonRocko]

Wow, I haven't played the game in a few months, Now it seems there are a lot of changes to learn. No corps before mid 62? Why not?
I love this game! But I wonder what else has changed since I last played. Are my old strategies obsolete?
Well part of the fun is finding out!
Thanks

[squarian]

the new rule that corps cannot be formed before mid 1862....is a recipe for total confusion for new players ( who find the div/corps/army stuff complicated anyway) and it adds nothing to the gameplay - a good example of something that wasn't broken so why change it?

As one of those new players (of about five months), I would disagree. The command-control aspect of the game is involved, but it's an involved game generally (and fortunately - this old grognard is very glad someone is making meaty historical wargames). Forming divisions wasn't especially intuitive for me - but the rest isn't that difficult.

More to the point, the new corps rule adds significantly IMO to the historicity of the game (per Clovis' points, above) and therefore to a satisfyingly authentic "game experience". If that's not adding to gameplay, I don't know what would.

Generally I would say the developers should avoid game events which reduce NM for not moving on objectives as this rule could be applied to so many other events.

To my mind, one of the first words on this subject - of "idiot rules" designed to enforce certain historical conditions no player with hindsight and omniscience would accept or follow in a simulation - was also the last. James Dunnigan's design notes for his game France 1940 (early 1970s Avalon Hill) addresses just this question. If you haven't read it, you should. If you can't find it, PM me and I'll get you a copy.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[berto]

Alas, they were board games and board games and small kids never mixed well.

not to mention cats

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Banks6060]

I know...considering that just about all there is left to fix in the game is historical accuracy and balance....

If you don't like the updates...don't download them

Just a note

[Banks6060]

Oh...and another thing. As the Union player in PBEM...you could always NOT sit back and build up your mammoth army with really great generals...and advance anyway...for fun .

I usually try to see what i can do with McClellan to challenge myself.

But that's just me...

[asdicus]

If you don't like the updates...don't download them

I have no desire to be drawn into a flame war re this topic but comments like this are not very helpful.

As I have pointed out the new patches are almost mandatory as they include bug fixes and useful new game mechanics. It is the inclusion of contentious game balance issues with these patches that I am concerned about. These morale changing events should either be made much more common and apply to BOTH sides or they should be left out altogether. Reading the comments made so far it seems I am not totally alone in my views on this subject.

[Eugene Carr]

I'm seeing bits from both sides here.

I agree that the Union should feel obliged to go on the offensive in Virginia every year. 20 NM may be too much.

I think the penalty for not covering Washington has to be taken into account. Not only force an attack but force an adequate defense of the Capital.

The 'freebie' NM points are for historical events which raised Union morale in the first half of 1862 - maybe there should be corresponding events for CSA later in the year -10 NM points for Lee becoming active?

Penalise CSA for Northern invasions in 1861 (army invasions as opposed to cavalry raiding) if Sidney Johnstone was rampaging around Chicago then 'On to Richmond' may have been pushed to the back burner.

What happens if the CSA capital is shifted ? Can events be tied to capital city rather than specifically Richmond? The Union could end up forced to operate against a false objective.

Lots of pondering required

S! EC

[lodilefty]

I have no desire to be drawn into a flame war re this topic but comments like this are not very helpful.

As I have pointed out the new patches are almost mandatory as they include bug fixes and useful new game mechanics. It is the inclusion of contentious game balance issues with these patches that I am concerned about. These morale changing events should either be made much more common and apply to BOTH sides or they should be left out altogether. Reading the comments made so far it seems I am not totally alone in my views on this subject.

So, simple. All you need do is:

it will be very easily modded to disable the event entirely if you so desire, by changing a single "1" to a "0" near the end of the associated event files using only a simple text editor.

[soundoff]

Oh...and another thing. As the Union player in PBEM...you could always NOT sit back and build up your mammoth army with really great generals...and advance anyway...for fun .

I usually try to see what i can do with McClellan to challenge myself.

But that's just me...

Now with my devils advocate hat on Banks 6060...I presume thats precisely what you would have done in the Grand Campaign had you have been playing on the Union side. Or is my more cynical self more accurate in that when it comes down to PBEMing a more fundamental desire to win comes out in all of us....you included?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Banks6060]

Now with my devils advocate hat on Banks 6060...I presume thats precisely what you would have done in the Grand Campaign had you have been playing on the Union side. Or is my more cynical self more accurate in that when it comes down to PBEMing a more fundamental desire to win comes out in all of us....you included?

In the GC I would most likely have been following orders...more or less .

But despite my usual desire to win...I like to provide as much fun for myself and my opponent as possible. Consider the Penninsula operation...

Not a horrible idea at all. Take your mammoth army with crappy generals and march your way to the gates of Richmond...in early 1862....as the Union...you SHOULD outnumber your reb PBEM partner at least 2 to 1. The rebs can't rail all the way down there....so you'd be half way to Richmond without a fight. Historically...the operation was a great idea...ol' Mac just didn't have the balls to see it through after Lee hit him with the left hook.

There are a whole host of options that can make the game fun in the east...besides, if you don't move...there's a pretty good chance your opponent will.