AGEOD Forums

Not really sure how to start or finish this. I have nothing but total admiration of the work of such as Gray, Clovis and Biggus but I can't somehow but get an uneasy feeling that in the constant striving for historical accuracy that (in PBEM mode at least) the game has been made virtually impossible to win as the CSA.....and by winning I don't mean out and out victory I'm including in that just surviving beyond the historical end date.

Is it just me? Is it my outlook jaundiced? Or are my suspicions right. The game was never easy to win when playing as the CSA but with changes such as the 'no early corps' rule which inhibits MTG (more likely to be achieved by the CSA given their leader strategic ratings)....cheaper supply depot building (more likely to favour the Union)....no capturing of depots by cavalry on their own until 63 (unless the depot is a standalone structure.....only one of which exists in the 61 full campaign game) again tending to favour the Union side.

If I'm right the odds seem to be being stacked against the CSA at every turn and I do wonder whether its now almost impossible for the Confederates to survive into 64 unless a player is being particularly 'bloody minded' and taking advantage of the way the NM's work


I must admit when I'm playing as the Union I do so want my opponent to have a chance of pulling off that difficult victory. I'm becoming increasingly uneasy that its not possible.


Mind you I suppose I'm at odds with the community and am the only one that feels this way It would not be unusual.

that's the feeling I have, the CSA have very little or nothing to do

I don't see the depot building part as a disadvantage for the South, but instead an advantage. When I play as the South, I never have the resources to spare on new wagons, if I lose the free ones, or use them, they're gone, I can't afford to replace them. So anything that stretches them out is a plus for me. The Union should never have any issues buying new ones, so I don't see that making depots cheaper is a huge advantage for the side that already has more than enough resources to produce them. The cavalry thing is definitely a big one for the South though. I wonder if it's possible to seperate the depot from the city a bit. Make it vulnerable without capturing the city? I doubt it, but as it is, the inability to capture and burn anything but standalone depots (A legitimate cavalry exercse) puts a decent sized crimp in the CS delaying tactics.

I love the no corps formation when i play as the south which is about everytime because then i can usualy out position the Union forces and take them out pretty easy, they do not get overwelming numbers assaulting all at one time.

Unless something truly groundbreaking comes in a future patch....I think I'm done patching the game up. It's right about where I think I want it and I agree that some of the changes you mention, Soundoff, are going to make winning as the CSA pretty tough.

soundoff wrote:Not really sure how to start or finish this. I have nothing but total admiration of the work of such as Gray, Clovis and Biggus but I can't somehow but get an uneasy feeling that in the constant striving for historical accuracy that (in PBEM mode at least) the game has been made virtually impossible to win as the CSA.....and by winning I don't mean out and out victory I'm including in that just surviving beyond the historical end date.

Is it just me? Is it my outlook jaundiced? Or are my suspicions right. The game was never easy to win when playing as the CSA but with changes such as the 'no early corps' rule which inhibits MTG (more likely to be achieved by the CSA given their leader strategic ratings)....cheaper supply depot building (more likely to favour the Union)....no capturing of depots by cavalry on their own until 63 (unless the depot is a standalone structure.....only one of which exists in the 61 full campaign game) again tending to favour the Union side.

If I'm right the odds seem to be being stacked against the CSA at every turn and I do wonder whether its now almost impossible for the Confederates to survive into 64 unless a player is being particularly 'bloody minded' and taking advantage of the way the NM's work


I must admit when I'm playing as the Union I do so want my opponent to have a chance of pulling off that difficult victory. I'm becoming increasingly uneasy that its not possible.


Mind you I suppose I'm at odds with the community and am the only one that feels this way It would not be unusual.

Not so sure for corps. Union will sufer huge penalties for big stats and in any way should dissuade a bit Union player to launch too much in offensive until spring 62.

Depots/ I feel the same and I stick in SVF with higher costs.

Cavalry and depots: maybe some solutions could be found. In any case, I don't think balance should come from unhistorical facts. What's lacking in vanilla version is 3 things I will point out endlessly and your excellent AAAR is showing:

1) both sides have too much men, money and WSU to build unhistorical large armies very soon. And they got too much cavalry raiding anywhere... less men and moeny mean less cavalry...
2) Union cavalry isn't at start as bad it should be. I made the difference between CSA and USA stronger in SVF. A poorer Union cavalry balances back the game.

3) Union should lose NM each time CSA is threatening Washington or Baltimore. ..Done too in SVF.

Well I am playing CSA on latest patch and against AI on hard settings and its mid63 - so far holding own but I think AI is not so dumb in some of its moves as it once was.

The new Corps rule were a bit of a nightmare to start with but I adapted by way I form up my divisions - which has altered the way I used to play and the way I used to spend my conscipt points. I will not say how as I dont want my nephew to get hold of my plans for my next campaign against him - you could say I have given up the cigars as the little rat has been reading my posts.

I am not sure how latest changes are going to work against a human opponent but I fear for Dixie against an experienced opponent. It has altered my raiding straegy as well.

My nephew is allowing me though to remove the 30 division limit on CSA as a way of compensating for loss of CSA ability to form Corps early in game and other agreements on raiding rules. However we have reached a gentlemans agreement to restrict CSA divisions to 40.

It might be that in human v human contests that gentlemans agreements might be the way to go to achieve a theoretical game balance. Oh we also agreed a no attack rule before July61 and few other minor things. Xmas truces etc.

The changes have caused no end of discussion. Especially as he kicked my butt the last 2 times we played - I as CSA and he got faster about applying the kick butting.

Clovis,

I do so hope I'm not arguing for unhistorical facts. I'm not sure though that I'm comfortable with depots not being able to be destroyed just because the game code or whatever makes them part of a town/city structure. Seems to me that you stop 'unhistorical' taking of towns/cities but create a further 'unhistorical' situation of depots that are impregnable to cavalry raids - unless of course depots during the ACW were relatively impregnable to cavalry until 63?

Banks is right though in pointing out that each of us is able to stop patching whenever we reckon the game has reached its limits. My dilemma with that strategy, attractive though that on the surface it seems, is that currently, at least, it cuts you off from say downloading a vanilla Kentucky event that works correctly or perhaps say in the future downloading a patch that improves the way the naval side operates.


As an aside I'm far too long in the tooth to be comfortable with downloading and installing any program that is not 'official'....however easy the process may be. Its my hangup. So whilst there are many aspects of your SVF mod that I think I'd like to see incorporated into the 'vanilla' game...until they are they will remain as much of a mystery to me as the internal workings of the combustion engine.

Brochgale wrote:
It might be that in human v human contests that gentlemans agreements might be the way to go to achieve a theoretical game balance. Oh we also agreed a no attack rule before July61 and few other minor things. Xmas truces etc.

Hi Brochgale,

A small point but a very vital one. Its not about game balance. Its about 'historical' possibility. Now I know my knowledge of the ACW is not that hot but history tells me to me that it lasted from 61 to 65. I also read that if the CSA had managed to survive 65 that they might have achieved some sort of victory.

What I'm growing increasingly uneasy about is whether in PvP mode such an outcome is achievable. If its not it should be. At least I think it should but then what the heck do I know

The problem i see that makes it harder for the south to survive past 63 in pbem is that the union knows that they have more man power ahead of time, they dont act like McClellan or Rosacrans where they wait months before moving out and there no way to fix this.

Out of interest how do the Union win in '63 in PBEM (and in the '61 full campaign game)? Do they just overwhelm Richmond regardless of anything else?

The Union, provided they are not making any divisions out of militia + artillery and are having a serious go at Vicksburg and points south in Mississippi, and are going for Nashville and towards Atlanta, and are putting resource into a naval war, don't seem to me to have the beginnings of a decisive strength until end '63 earliest, and then they have to apply it in '64.

Richmond does seem to be much weaker than anyone might expect - no chance of Lee holding out in Richmond/Petersburg from summer '64 to spring '65 - but with a different strategy why should the CS go down so quickly?

Out of interest how do the Union win in '63 in PBEM (and in the '61 full campaign game)? Do they just overwhelm Richmond regardless of anything else?

The Union, provided they are not making any divisions out of militia + artillery and are having a serious go at Vicksburg and points south in Mississippi, and are going for Nashville and towards Atlanta, and are putting resource into a naval war, don't seem to me to have the beginnings of a decisive strength until end '63 earliest, and then they have to apply it in '64.

Richmond does seem to be much weaker than anyone might expect - no chance of Lee holding out in Richmond/Petersburg from summer '64 to spring '65 - but with a different strategy why should the CS go down so quickly?

deleted

deleted

soundoff wrote:Clovis,

I do so hope I'm not arguing for unhistorical facts. I'm not sure though that I'm comfortable with depots not being able to be destroyed just because the game code or whatever makes them part of a town/city structure. Seems to me that you stop 'unhistorical' taking of towns/cities but create a further 'unhistorical' situation of depots that are impregnable to cavalry raids - unless of course depots during the ACW were relatively impregnable to cavalry until 63?

Banks is right though in pointing out that each of us is able to stop patching whenever we reckon the game has reached its limits. My dilemma with that strategy, attractive though that on the surface it seems, is that currently, at least, it cuts you off from say downloading a vanilla Kentucky event that works correctly or perhaps say in the future downloading a patch that improves the way the naval side operates.


As an aside I'm far too long in the tooth to be comfortable with downloading and installing any program that is not 'official'....however easy the process may be. Its my hangup. So whilst there are many aspects of your SVF mod that I think I'd like to see incorporated into the 'vanilla' game...until they are they will remain as much of a mystery to me as the internal workings of the combustion engine.

Oh no . But we have to simulate something special, ie the evolution of military thinking during this period. You're right in the sense technically a 1861 depot is as much vulnerable than a 1863 depot. But I firmly belive before the end of 1862, neither side was really convinced a pure cavalry raid could capture a depot alone and far in the rear. The key was a trial and error process, essentially in the West with Van Dorn and Forrest.

This point may be discussed, of course, but that's a well known design problem players have more insight of what is working or not than the actual leaders. Taken as is, the rule, to be arbitrary, is taking into account this "soft limit" when the precedent versions were ignoring it.

Modding: SVF is'nt so hard to install . Modding has some interesting aspects, as I may implement changes without having to fear consumer complaints. As the grand father of Kentucky revamping, or the father of delay to division build( the first feature of SVF back in 2007), I may try things without the business pression AGEOD has.

What about this?

Instead of making the cavalry change in 63, make it in the spring of 62. This will give the Union 9+ months to garrison his towns and cities. If he fails to do that by then its his own fault, not the games.

This will force the Union player to play more historical and restrict him from going on the offensive early in the campaign.

deleted

deleted

Gray_Lensman wrote:Pardon me for quoting myself:



Having read thru all the above thread, Is there any interest now in these events being implemented to provide some balancing for the CSA as I originally envisioned? It's a simple task to turn the events on. They're already in the respective files but currently disabled.

I need to remind all of you that we can't provide changes all at once in a single patch... It's impossible... Instead, we work to fix bugs, correct OOB deficiencies, and implement new changes including new backfitted work from the newer games. Then we assess the priorities for the next changes to be included in the next patch. It's strictly an ongoing sequential process that's repeated over and over again. If it wasn't done in this fashion, you'd never see patches in the frequency that most of you seem to appreciate. This way also has the advantage of incremental changes and assessing player feedback along the way.

I think they should have been enabled from the first, go for it.

The main issue here is that everyone knows how things turned out. Every limitation put in place has historical precedent. But players of the Union know pretty much what they're going to get and know they can afford to push on regardless. Hindsight is always going to give the northern player an ahistorical advantage. So honestly, in PBEM, I think the house rules are your best bet, because what we should be, and are, moving toward is to make the game as historically accurate as possible.

Spharv2 wrote:I think they should have been enabled from the first, go for it.

The main issue here is that everyone knows how things turned out. Every limitation put in place has historical precedent. But players of the Union know pretty much what they're going to get and know they can afford to push on regardless. Hindsight is always going to give the northern player an ahistorical advantage.

Not sure. Any CSA player to let empty New Orleans? To place Hood at the army head? Too much money I repeat. Force Union player to have to choose between blockade navy and land units, industrialization or commerce and you should get much closer advance to reality.

Gray_Lensman wrote:
The depot cost change was made to redress a ridiculous difference in resource cost to build a depot with the only 3 possible units able to be used for that purpose.

Before the changes using:

Ocean Transports it cost $20, 8 conscripts, and 12 WarSupplies
River Transports it cost $$32, 16 conscripts, and 16 WarSupplies
Wagons it cost $80, 40 conscripts, and 40 WarSupplies

After the changes using:

Ocean Transports it cost $20, 8 conscripts, 12 WarSupplies
River Transports it cost $20, 8 conscripts, 12 WarSupplies
Wagons it cost $40, 20 conscripts, 20 WarSupplies

Besides any balance trouble, The initial discrepancies are, voluntary or not in desing, really justified. Considering a depot is abstarcting too the means needed to send supply from a point to another, these differences just portray the current advantage of naval over fluvial, and fluvial over land transport in the 19th Century.

Just a quick comment that so much of this conversation is based on the definition of a CSA victory. Properly defined, the game can be both historical and yet the CSA can win.

To me, the key is that a CSA win should be defined as doing better than they did historically. I've defined possible victory condition changes in other threads in the past based on this concept.

Gray_Lensman wrote:As an aside to soundoff: You were given the private opportunity to test the cavalry raiding and to give me feedback concerning its effects and how it played out. I was led to believe by your numerous positive feedback comments that it was accomplishing its purpose and that it suited your concerns about limiting the effects of Deep Cavalry raids. It strikes me rather odd that you now choose to post that the change is ill considered. Matter of fact, I'll call it what it really is... Two faced trolling... Why didn't you give me this type of feedback as I asked you to when you were privately testing it? I think you can pretty well rest assured you won't be bothered with any more opportunities to playtest anything else in the future.

Gray ... I admire your work and dedication, but, really, this does not belong here.

Anyway, I'd love to see some of Clovis's work incorporated ... don't know how possible this all is.

It's a simple task to turn the events on. They're already in the respective files but currently disabled.

How is this turned on?

Seems to me, making the game as historical as possible is the way to go. As Andrew says just above this post, victory conditions need to be changed to fix the balance. Another thing maybe possible is more on/off options to adjust the game to a wider array of users' satisfaction.

richfed wrote:
Anyway, I'd love to see some of Clovis's work incorporated ... don't know how possible this all is.

Eventually I will. But the more I work on AACW the more I realize how much a mod is a global effort. Putting some features in the vanilla as is wouldn't get the escompted result. When I create an event, or tweak a file, I think to the AI, to the balance of forces, to the possible side effects on other game aspects.

Take militia upgrading. You can't change that without thinking to AI behaviour as AI builds a lot of militias.

So I've yet to achieve first SVF before putting the things in xls files for adding in vanilla.

For the rest, the SVF definition of CSA victory is to not lose by the end of the game.

My 2 cents

As Andrew says, what is probably needed is to change the victory conditions. The changes that are being done are OK to me, as I play as CSA vs AI and the chalenge is better. Playing PBEM vs a good USA player is probably impossible to win, as has been shown in the current PBEM tournament. So, either the changes (specially the corps restriction) are made optional in the menu, or use house rules, change victory conditions (meaning, CSA wins if results better than history), or... quit PBEM playing

Regards

I think future changes such as those being discussed could justifiably improve the Player vs. AI aspect of the game...(Preventing pointless deep AI cavalry raids etc...). I tend to agree with several of the "House Rules" proponents who have posted on this and other threads though.

I think in PBEM...considering the relative unlikelihood of a CSA victory between two competent players...a house rule governing either VP's or National Morale would lprobably be in order.

As far as restrictions on the deep raids...house rules could be implemented here as well. Not necessarily restricting the raids....but implementing a political cost of waging "all out war" in an era where some still held to the belief that wars were to be fought in a "stand-up" and "gentlemanly" manner.

Something I think that could be included to help the CSA would be to keep Samuel Cooper in the whole game and give him the recruiting officer trait. This would give the CSA an extra 5 conscripts per turn. Cooper was the highest ranking officer in the CSA and this could have been used to attract people to the colours. Cooper's primary job was Adjutant General- and is responsible for the procedures affecting personnel procurement and for the administration of all army personnel. Cooper also served as Inspector General. Both roles he continued to perform until the end of the war. During the war Cooper is said, "to have fully discharged the onerous duties confided to him with a fidelity, an exactness, a loyalty, and an honesty, combined with a great ability, gave great satisfaction to the army and the country. Is is indeed difficult to place a proper estimate upon the value of his service during that trying period, so great was his capacity for work." In 1836- while with the USA- Cooper wrote: "Cooper's Volunteer's Manual"- a volunteer and militia handbook that helped simplify the previous training manuals. With an improved Samuel Cooper the CSA could get a much needed boost- while maintaining his historical role.

Big Ideas wrote:Something I think that could be included to help the CSA would be to keep Samuel Cooper in the whole game and give him the recruiting officer trait. This would give the CSA an extra 5 conscripts per turn. Cooper was the highest ranking officer in the CSA and this could have been used to attract people to the colours. Cooper's primary job was Adjutant General- and is responsible for the procedures affecting personnel procurement and for the administration of all army personnel. Cooper also served as Inspector General. Both roles he continued to perform until the end of the war. During the war Cooper is said, "to have fully discharged the onerous duties confided to him with a fidelity, an exactness, a loyalty, and an honesty, combined with a great ability, gave great satisfaction to the army and the country. Is is indeed difficult to place a proper estimate upon the value of his service during that trying period, so great was his capacity for work." In 1836- while with the USA- Cooper wrote: "Cooper's Volunteer's Manual"- a volunteer and militia handbook that helped simplify the previous training manuals. With an improved Samuel Cooper the CSA could get a much needed boost- while maintaining his historical role.

I think this is a good idea, deactivate the Cooper Retires event and give him Recruiting Officer Trait. He's fixed so I think he wont complain about other people getting armies.

deleted

Gray_Lensman wrote:edit> I am toying with the idea of making exceptions to pure cavalry deep raids if they are accompanied by certain specific cavalry generals. examples: Van Dorn, Morgan, Wheeler, Forrest, and JEB Stuart, but for sure I won't be making them able to utilize deep raids prior to July 1862 arbitrarily earliest. Hopefully, I can make this random also, to provide some variation vs the CSA player. (Keep the USA player guessing). As Clovis states above, this is to simulate a change in Cavalry tactics and thinking, much like the adaptation of Corps formations in 1862 and not from the start of the war as previous game versions allowed.

Opening rant

Idea introduces in SVF and I proponed to incorporate in official ideas by furnishing the files... Just in case if someone wonders why I'm talking of SVF in the main forum... SVF and official game aren't without connections. After all, the delay of division formation to October 61 is in my mod since 2007, the new Kentucky eventsare inspired by my own since the beginning of 2008. SVF first name was the experimental mod, to try new features in oder to study their feasability. That's why I will continue to talk of SVF here and in other places, Gray and I would like too some apologies for Soundoff. Because after all anyone has yet the right to change his opinion and state it publicly without being harassed in totally irrelevant terms.


Closing rant.

Back to work