New patches / questionable game balance changes

[Redeemer]

not to mention cats

Which is why my gaming moved to the basement where no cats were allowed!

Anyone ever play World in Flames? I had to make my own tables just to fit all the maps, one for Europe and one for Asia.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Banks6060]

Interesting that the discussion has taken a turn in this particular direction. When I first brought up and described the 1862 Threaten Richmond events to Pocus his first thought was "This could encourage a Peninsular Campaign".

I had hoped players would give it a try themselves...without being forced into it...but I suppose McClellan was, in a way, forced into it by Lincoln.

I dunno. The PBEM guys that DON'T emmerse themselves in the period and use only the game's rules to dictate their actions are really missing out. I like to make little "self rules".

I'll usually try and take a stab at Richmond as the Union player as early as 1861 or 1862. It's just more fun that way. It gives the CSA opponent a chance to use some of those really cool generals...it gives me a chance to earn my troops some experience...even if they are losing...it actually puts pressure on my opponent to keep a respectable army in the field there. I dunno, it's just cooler to me for so many reasons. In all honesty...why NOT do it? You've got the resources...and Washington's not going to be under ANY threat with an entire Corps standing guard over it. (as is required via that event).

As the south...I'll hardly venture much further north than Harper's Ferry...even with cavalry raids. Politically...it just wouldn't have been acceptable...The South wanted BADLY to be seen as the victim...the one being attacked...so I just don't do it. perhaps a few raids on the B&O. But otherwise...I just don't like doing it.

[Maqver]

I don't see how someone who is a PBEM player, as he mentioned, could not keep up with the latest patch?

Asdicus, I am with you. Made my arguments in another thread on same subject.

I just don't think it takes into account what occurs in PBEM games. The only assumption that seems to have been considered is that all Union players just wait until they have the tools. That seems to be the gospel. I don't think that is necessarily true (rather I think it is that many want to but reasonably can not). With a change like this then all things should be considered, especially rushing militia that converts rapidly to line, "free" inflation, and early game invasion tactics by the south. They should receive NM hits for it.

But we just have to wait and see how it is playtested and if it works and makes an even great game better then great...load it up. If it doesn't though, I hope they hold off until other considerations are taken into account.

[tagwyn]

That's "Tagwyn," you "heaten!" LOL t

[denisonh]

I don't see how someone who is a PBEM player, as he mentioned, could not keep up with the latest patch?

Asdicus, I am with you. Made my arguments in another thread on same subject.

I just don't think it takes into account what occurs in PBEM games. The only assumption that seems to have been considered is that all Union players just wait until they have the tools. That seems to be the gospel. I don't think that is necessarily true (rather I think it is that many want to but reasonably can not). With a change like this then all things should be considered, especially rushing militia that converts rapidly to line, "free" inflation, and early game invasion tactics by the south. They should receive NM hits for it.

But we just have to wait and see how it is playtested and if it works and makes an even great game better then great...load it up. If it doesn't though, I hope they hold off until other considerations are taken into account.

Much like the other thread you referenced, I somewhat disagree with you here as I did there. I think Clovis pretty much summed up my views on the subject.

I would add that the idea of conducting military operations independent of political pressures, particularly in the ACW which is without a doubt the most political of conflicts the US has ever been involved in, goes from a historical wargame to an exersize in wishful thinking.

There is no doubt that McClelland would have preferred to sit in the Washington area and continued to organize the army. As such with the political pressures to move on Richmond, he embarked on the Peninsula Campaign.

No reason for the Union player to do ANYTHING in 1861/1862 in the game without some mechanism to force action on the Union players part. Without political pressure forcing action, it doesn't adequately provide the feel or context for making strategic military decisions of the Union leadership in the ACW.

Hell, I can be a better general than those in the ACW if I can ignore the political pressues. What is the fun in that?

[Jim Pfleck]

well, I have only PBEM a few times (twice) as the Union. But I do not sit back and wait. Constant pressure, even if it is a feint, is worth it to keep the rebs spread out so it is harder for them to dig in big armies.

Also, both times, I have used an attack down the Peninsula, the Valley, Norfolk and straight south all at the same time to spread the Rebs out. In both games I was finally able to wedge the rebs out of Richmond, once in a game ending mega-battle where the ANV was mostly trapped and destroyed near Charlottesivlle and the other, after a series of pretty even, tough battles, the Rebs fell back as I took Lynchurg/Roanoke (I always forget which is which) and Petersburg....

Not only is it boring to not attack in the first year or so but it is also a-historic. The pressure was on the Union and some sort of penalty needs to be invoked by the game for failing to try and attack. Trying to attack and failing generally comes with its own penalties...

[Maqver]

Originally Posted by Maqver
I don't see how someone who is a PBEM player, as he mentioned, could not keep up with the latest patch?

Asdicus, I am with you. Made my arguments in another thread on same subject.

I just don't think it takes into account what occurs in PBEM games. The only assumption that seems to have been considered is that all Union players just wait until they have the tools. That seems to be the gospel. I don't think that is necessarily true (rather I think it is that many want to but reasonably can not). With a change like this then all things should be considered, especially rushing militia that converts rapidly to line, "free" inflation, and early game invasion tactics by the south. They should receive NM hits for it.

But we just have to wait and see how it is playtested and if it works and makes an even great game better then great...load it up. If it doesn't though, I hope they hold off until other considerations are taken into account.

Much like the other thread you referenced, I somewhat disagree with you here as I did there. I think Clovis pretty much summed up my views on the subject.

I would add that the idea of conducting military operations independent of political pressures, particularly in the ACW which is without a doubt the most political of conflicts the US has ever been involved in, goes from a historical wargame to an exersize in wishful thinking.

There is no doubt that McClelland would have preferred to sit in the Washington area and continued to organize the army. As such with the political pressures to move on Richmond, he embarked on the Peninsula Campaign.

No reason for the Union player to do ANYTHING in 1861/1862 in the game without some mechanism to force action on the Union players part. Without political pressure forcing action, it doesn't adequately provide the feel or context for making strategic military decisions of the Union leadership in the ACW.

Hell, I can be a better general than those in the ACW if I can ignore the political pressues. What is the fun in that?

Well, that's fine. I am not sure how you are disagreeing with anything I said though.

I certainly haven't argued that political pressure be divorced from military operations or that Union players desire to sit and wait (in fact I have argued the opposite).

What I did argue was this (which is what I thought you were going to address since that was what I said):

"I just don't think it (the Union Threathen Richmond imperative) takes into account what occurs in PBEM games. The only assumption that seems to have been considered is that all Union players just wait until they have the tools. That seems to be the gospel. I don't think that is necessarily true (rather I think it is that many want to attack but reasonably can not). With a change like this then all things should be considered, especially rushing militia that converts rapidly to line, "free" inflation [for the CSA] and early game invasion tactics by the south. They should receive NM hits for it."

The CSA should not be divorced from political realities either, especially when it can have an effect on gameplay when the Union must weaken their defense of Washington in order to threaten Richmond.

[Maqver]

well, I have only PBEM a few times (twice) as the Union. But I do not sit back and wait. Constant pressure, even if it is a feint, is worth it to keep the rebs spread out so it is harder for them to dig in big armies.

One time in an early PBEM, it was in 1862 I think, I hit the exacta and three of my union corps commanders activated. I was so excited that I ordered an attack. Got crushed. .

Though I could not agree more about the the pressure. Even the pressure of making them bleed by filling in for their KIA.

EDIT: Most of the time the commanders are unactivated so that is the primary cause of All Quiet on the Potomac.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Franciscus]

Just some thoughts.

First, I personally am perfectly happy with the ongoing changes to the game. For my personal enjoyment, "historicity" is great (BTW, Gray, when do you plan to implement historical accurate spawning of the general's pools ? ).
Although not a PBEM player, I also think that for some of them, "historical" constraints are perceived as a nusance, because their objective is to win (note that I have nothing against it, of course).

So a compromise might be good. If I may, I would give 2 suggestions:
- Past this point, "patches" would be only to correct bugs or implement new engine or interface designs (like the replay feature). Game balance changes and historical corrections would be relegated to the Historical Accuracy mods
- Or it could be more easily made available a list of the several recent patches, with the game balance changes plainly clear, and available for download, to please everyone (but this would possibly lead to confusion and further aggravation, as the patches never have included only game balance or historical changes...)

Just my 2 cents.

[lodilefty]

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!!)

Doesn't this answer the last proposal?

[Franciscus]

Doesn't this answer the last proposal?

...only if you also believe that developers statements are also made by divine beings
(which is fine by me. I have a great deal of tolerance towards others religious beliefs...)

Now seriously, I think that it is reasonable to make suggestions to possibly improve the way things are going in this community. Note that as I posted, they are just fine, to me, but some are voicing disagreements...

[arsan]

So a compromise might be good. If I may, I would give 2 suggestions:
- Past this point, "patches" would be only to correct bugs or implement new engine or interface designs (like the replay feature). Game balance changes and historical corrections would be relegated to the Historical Accuracy mods
- Or it could be more easily made available a list of the several recent patches, with the game balance changes plainly clear, and available for download, to please everyone (but this would possibly lead to confusion and further aggravation, as the patches never have included only game balance or historical changes...)

Just my 2 cents.

Hi!
As most players are AI players (See poll result here http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=4757) and we AI players are much less worried about "balance" than about historic, fun and rich game play (which IMHO is what this kind of changes do) i will much prefer that the official patches continued tweaking and making the game "better" (this is subjective, of course ) and that somebody interested in the project will make a PBEM special mod, less historic but more balanced.
I', sure there woudl be a lot of discussions about how to get that "balance"

Just my two cents!

[lodilefty]

...only if you also believe that developers statements are also made by divine beings
(which is fine by me. I have a great deal of tolerance towards others religious beliefs...)

Now seriously, I think that it is reasonable to make suggestions to possibly improve the way things are going in this community. Note that as I posted, they are just fine, to me, but some are voicing disagreements...

OK, but as long as the devs agree to the proposals, it is their responsibility, and changed on thheir authority, not by the 'support community'.

Once devs deem a game 'legacy' [see BoA] then all further changes become mods.

Until that happens to AACW, the improvements should continue. Inputs are welcome, proposals are great, debates rage on, but it's the dev team [Phil, Pocus, Hok, etc. etc'] NOT the coordinators who determine content...

[Rafiki]

So a compromise might be good. If I may, I would give 2 suggestions:
- Past this point, "patches" would be only to correct bugs or implement new engine or interface designs (like the replay feature). Game balance changes and historical corrections would be relegated to the Historical Accuracy mods
- Or it could be more easily made available a list of the several recent patches, with the game balance changes plainly clear, and available for download, to please everyone (but this would possibly lead to confusion and further aggravation, as the patches never have included only game balance or historical changes...).

Fransiscus, I respectfully think that's a really bad way of doing it.

Only the latest patch is available for download, and so it shall be. There are a number of reasons for that, but having several "official" patches would cause a lot more confusion; there's already confusion over the (single) official patch versus the most recent beta patch.

Where do you draw the line between a "bug" and a "historical correction"? The discussions we've had here since the game release show that there are wildly varying perceptions on where that line is. Pinpointing such a divide would be controversial, and I won't even start to estimate how much extra work it would involve, both with regards to maintaining it and QA'ing it.

Also, I get the feel from several of the posts here that you have the impression that these changes are something that Gray Lensman dreams up on his own and stuffs into the games? This is certainly not the case, as Pocus' post (and others like it in the past) should leave little doubt about. *None* of the changes made to the datafiles are done without being clarified with and approved by the dev team. These are changes that the devs would do themselves, had they had the time for it, but luckily, there is an active beta team that can work on and test the data changes, so that the devteam achieves what it wants while "just" being involved in the general discussions about things and in the evaluation of how things turn out.

[soundoff]

The new requirement will make things 'interesting' to say the least. My only unease which is why I will not wipe my 1.12a installation is that there is an automatic assumption that all the Union player has to do is to 'move' troops into specific regions. Sounds easy on paper and kind of assumes that the CSA player is just going to let it happen.

My real unease about it is that you get no credit for ATTEMPTING to fulfill the conditions. You either win or lose. So the upshot may well be that the Union player is not only forced into taking potentially heavy battle losses but then getting hit again with a big NM loss. In which case, rather as happens most of the time with the 61 NM event the Union player may just decide to take the hit thereby defeating the aim of the change.

One point that has been already made many times in both this thead and others that is undeniably true is that an attempted move on Richmond by the Union is not aided by the 'activation rule'.

It would be nice in both 61 and 62 if there were at least a window where say Lincoln issued an order that AUTOMATICALLY caused the Union high command within a certain range of Washington to be activated for say 6 weeks

As for historical accuracy I would as well respectfully point out that in the Penninsula campaign of 62 the CSA lost more troops than the Union and some like Jackson performed badly. Now with the odd exception those two things are not going to happen in game. With most of the Union commanders probably unactivated and in enemy territory, attempting to advance is not just going to be expensive as regards losses it probably becomes suicidal.

[AndrewKurtz]

No reason for the Union player to do ANYTHING in 1861/1862 in the game without some mechanism to force action on the Union players part. Without political pressure forcing action, it doesn't adequately provide the feel or context for making strategic military decisions of the Union leadership in the ACW.

Hell, I can be a better general than those in the ACW if I can ignore the political pressues. What is the fun in that?

Personally, you just nailed it. This event (rightly in my opinion) puts "political" pressure on the Union Player to move on Richmond or, if ignored, the "better strategy" they decide to follow while bucking Washington had better be really strong!

I think it adds a lot.

[AndrewKurtz]

One point that has been already made many times in both this thead and others that is undeniably true is that an attempted move on Richmond by the Union is not aided by the 'activation rule'.

It would be nice in both 61 and 62 if there were at least a window where say Lincoln issued an order that AUTOMATICALLY caused the Union high command within a certain range of Washington to be activated for say 6 weeks.

Very true issue and interesting idea. Although, as Gray points out, just because they are inactive doesn't mean they can't move. They just fight with a [HUGE] penalty.

[denisonh]

Well, that's fine. I am not sure how you are disagreeing with anything I said though.

I certainly haven't argued that political pressure be divorced from military operations or that Union players desire to sit and wait (in fact I have argued the opposite).

What I did argue was this (which is what I thought you were going to address since that was what I said):

"I just don't think it (the Union Threathen Richmond imperative) takes into account what occurs in PBEM games. The only assumption that seems to have been considered is that all Union players just wait until they have the tools. That seems to be the gospel. I don't think that is necessarily true (rather I think it is that many want to attack but reasonably can not). With a change like this then all things should be considered, especially rushing militia that converts rapidly to line, "free" inflation [for the CSA] and early game invasion tactics by the south. They should receive NM hits for it."

The CSA should not be divorced from political realities either, especially when it can have an effect on gameplay when the Union must weaken their defense of Washington in order to threaten Richmond.

Agree that more than simply focusing on the "Union move on Richmond" is in order and most certainly agree that some "PBEM exploits" exist that create an unfair advantage for one side (I hate the fact that Polk can move up the Mississippi and get into Cairo before the gunboats at Cairo activate or any other forces are active. Absolutley a "slam dunk" no risk operation for the CSA).

One thing that helps is the lack of Corps in 1861, which makes it hard to defend everywhere and use march to the guns, so the CSA has to be more circumspect in defending northern VA rather than simply place a couple of Corps in the Manassas/Stafford areas and let the Union flail against him. Gives the Union more options than in prevuious versions IMO.

[Franciscus]

(...) Also, I get the feel from several of the posts here that you have the impression that these changes are something that Gray Lensman dreams up on his own and stuffs into the games? (...)

For the record, let me reiterate that is NOT my opinion, and never has been. Again, I say: To me, everything is fine, both with the methodology and the content of the changes that are being done in AACW.

Also, again, with the risk of becoming obnoxious, let me ask for a further "historical" change that should be considered: So many things have been changed and the AI has got so much improvements, why not try to finnaly relocate the spawning places of the generals pools as per history, as has been done already in several mods ? It bothers me to have "all" the generals appear in Richmond and Washington, but sometimes I feel that I am the only one...

[arsan]

why not try to finnaly relocate the spawning places of the generals pools as per history, as has been done already in several mods ? It bothers me to have "all" the generals appear in Richmond and Washington, but sometimes I feel that I am the only one...

+1
You are not alone!

[AndrewKurtz]

+1
You are not alone!

+1

[Rafiki]

For the record, let me reiterate that is NOT my opinion, and never has been. Again, I say: To me, everything is fine, both with the methodology and the content of the changes that are being done in AACW.

That was not the meaning of my post; I could've made that clearer. That part was primarily directed at asdicus and Pasternakski.

[soundoff]

Very true issue and interesting idea. Although, as Gray points out, just because they are inactive doesn't mean they can't move. They just fight with a [HUGE] penalty.

Trouble is Andrew given that the early Union commanders have such poor stats hitting them again by forcing them to fight with probably a huge penalty because the commanders are inactive creates a very big double whammy for the Union player and lets be honest its why most elect to stay put and defend. Its not so much that folks only want to win its more that they are adverse to committing suicide.

Another thought I had as well, Arsan in an earlier post contended that more play against the AI and are more interested in 'historic, fun and rich gameplay' so the proposed change should be welcomed. Well I dont necessarily buy into that logic. Anyone can play 'historically' without introducing any NM changes at all. You just enter 'historic' orders.....simple.

A potential problem I see, particularly when playing against the AI is that the change might be fine IF its the human player that is playing the Union side but what if the human player is playing the CSA? How wonderful a fist will the AI make in being forced to move on Richmond in 62? There must be a real danger that the change only serve to make the AI dumber than it already is and consequently make it easier still for the CSA human player to achieve a victory?

[arsan]

Another thought I had as well, Arsan in an earlier post contended that more play against the AI and are more interested in 'historic, fun and rich gameplay' so the proposed change should be welcomed. Well I dont necessarily buy into that logic. Anyone can play 'historically' without introducing any NM changes at all. You just enter 'historic' orders.....simple.

So you prefer unhistorical, boring and poor but perfectly balanced gameplay then??
What i want to say is that "balance" (as subjective as it may be) is an issue than mainly worries PBEM players.
AI players (or at least me, as an AI player) don't need/want a perfectly balanced game where both sides have 50% chance of wining.
I prefer a game that models historical realities and strategies (this is a an historical based wargame after all) as for example, the political pressure to "win the war" USA generals have to endure back then.
These events can maybe unbalance a PBEM game where both players are squeezing every dollar and conscription point for optimal results and using every gamey tactic invented to date.
But it will not be noticed that much against the AI, a weaker rival than most PBEM players. The NM loss can serve to spice up the game adding historical flavor.
My whole point about this is that as most players play against the AI, the official patches should strive to make a better, richer and more interesting and historical gameplay for the majority, not a perfectly balanced game for PBEM "powergamers".

The artificially balanced (and as a consequence probably much less historical game) can be made as a mod for PBEM players, and not the other way around as Franciscus proposed above.

Regarding the AI possible problems with the changes, some events can be made applicable only to a human players if needed.
In any case, from my experience of Athena gameplay style, i bet she tries harder to advance on Richmond on 1861/1862 than most human players
Regards

[soundoff]

So you prefer unhistorical, boring and poor but perfectly balanced gameplay then??
What i want to say is that "balance" (as subjective as it may be) is an issue than mainly worries PBEM players.
AI players (or at least me, as an AI player) don't need/want a perfectly balanced game where both sides have 50% chance of wining.
I prefer a game that models historical realities and strategies (this is a an historical based wargame after all) as for example, the political pressure to "win the war" USA generals have to endure back then.

Who the heck is asking for 'balance' arsan, certainly not me I just want to have an enjoyable experienceno matter what game I play. I do find however the view that somehow that the AI plays an 'historic' game or that somehow the 'game models historical realities and strategies' as quite frankly being total pie in the sky and will be for any computer game during my lifetime. AGeod does as good a job as any company of making a decent game thats challenging....but a game that 'models historical reality' now that really is some statement.
Regards

Oh and you are right I'm sure the AI tries harder to move on Richmond in 61/62 or any other year for that matter and once a player works out the way Athena thinks I'd be surprised if she does not get stuffed everytime.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[arsan]

Who the heck is asking for 'balance' arsan

Have you actually read the title of the thread you are posting on??
The one that says "questionable game balance changes", you know??
About your ideas about games and history...
In case you have not noticed till now, i must inform you that AGEOD's makes historical wargames, that to the extent of his capabilities, try to represent historical conflicts, modeling historical situations and strategies. Much time and effort is put by the team in trying to do this, and i think is appreciated by most of their costumers.
If you don't give a damn about the historical aspects of the game, maybe you should try other kind of games like, for example, World of Goo that offers excellent, fun an challenging games with no historical base.
Regards

[Franciscus]

Yes, this is obnoxious. (...)

Anyone is welcome to write these events and then submit them to me, but be sure to include the historical reference on where they first appeared and also show where you tested the events to ensure that they work properly for all affected scenarios. Only then, will they be placed in the "official" files for the vanilla games.

OK, Gray, I will not ask for this again...
Nevertheless, I feel that this work has for the most part been done already, for instance by runyan in his leader mod, that solved this very well IMHO. Too bad it stopped at 1.10.
I also feel that your requirements are a bit "high". If you require so much exaustive data, it will never be done, because for each general we could debate endlessly where they should appear - and when.
Let me just remind you that the original decision to place all generals in the capital have no "historical reference" and, that I know, no testing to see if it worked "properly" versus other alternative places of spawning. It was done just to help the AI (and probably to shorten the game development).
As it is it is fine. I play like this and have a good time. I just wished that I didn't have to shuttle old Ben Mcculloch to Arkansas every time I start playing...

To me, end of topic. Peace