AmRev morale and play-balance

[squarian]

I and my opponent are nearing the end of a full '75 campaign - my first full PBEM game and I believe his also. The British gained an early morale ascendancy which seems to have doomed any hope of an American recovery, despite some significant American successes in mid-game, so much so that the impact of France's intervention was essentially nullified.

I'm wondering if this has happened before, if other people have experienced it, or if this is fairly abnormal - or to put it in other words, how well balanced are the '75 or '76 start Am Rev campaigns?

Lastly, I want to draw attention and solicit comment on an idea for a morale correction on French intervention which Pocus posted in this thread - what does everyone think about an American morale boost upon French intervention:

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=16042

[arsan]

No doubt the foreign intervention should grant a big moral boost for the USA as Pocus proposes.
Let's see what Lodi thinks about it
But as a general rule, the moral ascendancy effect is also cool thing in the game system. I like it
How is it that the USA didn't recovered its moral after scoring some successes??
In any case, what NM levels are we talking about?? in my AI game as the USA i'm in the brink of expelling the Brits form the continent and have only managed 130 or so NM level.
That means my cohesion is 115% IIRC. Its nice, but not too unbalancing i think... the Brits can still put a good fight when the AI manages to get his forces together

Cheers

[squarian]

Arsan - I'm not saying I'm against the morale effects, which I agree are cool, but I am wondering about other people's experience with it. I don't have much data, after all - two or three complete campaigns vs. AI and one PBEM nearly at the end. This is all with 1.05, btw - haven't had the chance to play out a full 75-83 game with 1.06 yet. Not nearly enough data to leap to conclusions about play balance - but so far in each one the British have won without too much trouble.

In my pbem game, the mid-game success came when the Americans captured an entire army in New York (I'd built a fort, garrisoned it well, and it surrendered after a month of siege - c'est la guerre). It gained him a few points of morale - but I'd already taken Philly and by then he was so deep it didn't matter - it bought him time, but his troops still couldn't win field battles with the morale difference so great. Since about that time I've kept my morale over 120, and I gather his has been below 90, maybe lower.

Partly this problem has already been addressed in 1.06 by reducing the morale value of Philadelphia, which really hurt the Americans under 1.05, but I like Pocus' idea very much - Lodi, anyone else?

[arsan]

In my pbem game, the mid-game success came when the Americans captured an entire army in New York (I'd built a fort, garrisoned it well, and it surrendered after a month of siege - c'est la guerre).

Ouch! What a bunch or traitors!!! You were really unlucky there!
Did your opponent get the -25 NM hit for losing Philly or the revised -5 NM hit??

Any PBEM balance and playability reports are very interesting as i don't think there has been many around

Cheers!

[lodilefty]

I like the idea

How much NM boost?
Boost when French Alliance or when troops actually arrive or both?

I'm thinking that there would be a minimimal boost if USA NM is already >100

Should the GBR side take a morale 'hit' when French arrive?

Easy to add, just give me input on WHAT to add

[squarian]

How much NM boost? I'm thinking that there would be a minimimal boost if USA NM is already >100. Boost when French Alliance or when troops actually arrive or both?

Pocus suggested bumping it to 80 if <80, but that seems pretty minimalist - if the Yankees are that far down, jumping to 80 isn't going to be much help.

How about this:

Effective when French alliance happens (easier to write than arrival of troops, since it can be added to an existing event and the alternative gets into questions of how many Fr troops and where).

If Am morale <80, then +20.
If Am morale 80-100, then +10.
If Am morale >100, then +5.

Should the GBR side take a morale 'hit' when French arrive?

I don't think so - Mackesy, War for America among others makes it pretty clear the British gov't were expecting French intervention sooner or later. It had already been "factored in" to British plans - unlike the Americans, for whom it was a kind of heaven-sent salvation.

[squarian]

Ouch! What a bunch or traitors!!! You were really unlucky there!
Did your opponent get the -25 NM hit for losing Philly or the revised -5 NM hit??

Any PBEM balance and playability reports are very interesting as i don't think there has been many around

Cheers!

Actually, a turn or two earlier I had taken Philadelphia much the same way - no fort there, but the American garrison was large, entrenched, well-led and supplied. Washington and the main Continental Army was in the field outside. My main army under Cornwallis got lucky (winter was approaching!) and forced Washington to retreat - the following turn the American troops inside Philly surrendered. (Bertram, if you're following this feel free to correct my fallible memory)

After trading New York for Philly we both concluded that garrisons were not much use, and I've been very cautious about them since. I have long since learned to avoid large garrisons in AACW, but I'd considered it a more viable tactic in WIA. This was 1.05, of course - but I don't recall any changes to sieges in 1.06?

[arsan]

Hi!

I like you NM boost proposal, Squarian

Regarding sieges, my game experience its pretty different
I don't think i've seen any 1 turn surrender in my whole campaign (1.05-1.06+interim updates).
Usually its aroudn 3 turns for normal sieges and still more for big fortresses. Faster that before (it could tale more than half a year to surrender a simple fort).
There has been siege tweaks in the recent patches, but i can't recall when (too much beta patches and interim updates ) MAyeb lodi can help us here
If you have not patched since your PBEM campaign you could check what numbers you two had been using. Take a look at Bombard&Blockade&Siege.opt file in Wars in America\WIA\Settings

My siege variables right now (with the latest interim update) are this:

// ***** SIEGE *****
sieValueForSiegeBonus = 12 // How many Artillery Combat Pts needed to get a +1/-1 modifier to siege
sieOutcomeDiceRollSides = 15 // Sides of the Siege Outcome rolls / compared to TQ/Discipline
sieWagonDepotProtectChance = 50 // Chance that a non empty depot/wagon protects against surrender
aseProdCoefLocked = 25 // Percent of base supply when under siege with port unblocked
sieExtraModifier = 1 // Extra Modifier (positive: help the besieger)

And they seem to work OK
What were yours??

Cheers

[squarian]

// ***** SIEGE *****
sieValueForSiegeBonus = 12 // How many Artillery Combat Pts needed to get a +1/-1 modifier to siege
sieOutcomeDiceRollSides = 15 // Sides of the Siege Outcome rolls / compared to TQ/Discipline
sieWagonDepotProtectChance = 50 // Chance that a non empty depot/wagon protects against surrender
aseProdCoefLocked = 25 // Percent of base supply when under siege with port unblocked
sieExtraModifier = 1 // Extra Modifier (positive: help the besieger)


Exactly the same - so maybe it was just a coincidence. It certainly made for a dramatic couple of turns, anyhow. With a fort, lvl 2 depot, garrison of about 500 pts including five or six artillery and/or siege guns, plus a "fort defender" leader in charge I really thought NYC was impregnable. So imagine my surprise when....

And for that matter, my opponent felt about the same when he lost his capital virtually without a fight.

Fortunes of war, eh?

[lodilefty]

I missed your replies somehow

[been sitting here wondering why nobody answered my questions ]

re: sieges
I've seen 1 or 2 'one turn sieges', but they seemed to have in common poor quality troops [militia, provos, settlers etc] inside, and no supply unit inside....

For USA NM boost how about these [easier to code ]:
+10 when Alliance announced
+10 when France declares War
+10 on 2nd turn after troops first arrive

...and in all cases, bonus only if USA NM is < GBR NM

[lodilefty]

See Interim Update at:
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=16062

Happy New Year!!!!

[arsan]

Sounds Ok too (as long as the USA NM is < GBR NM is cheked for each +10 NM event as i understand it will )

Regarding sieges, i find Squarian results very weird.
Squarian, are you sure you have not updated the game (which could ahve modified the siege variables nubers) since that campaign??
In my recently finished camping i have not see any 1 turn surrender.
Just one 2 turn surrender on a western spanish fort manned just by farmers.

On the last turns of the campaign (played it yesterday) i was siegeing Pensacola (fort), Quebec and Kingston (both fortress) with very large forces with siege equipment and port blockade (except Kingston) against small sized garrisons.
After 3 turns of sieging nobody has surrendered and i only managed to breach Pensacola fort (twice).
The garrisons were so weak that i finally assaulted and took Quebec and Pensacola (and had to retreat from Kingston )

Certainly i have never put a 500 pwr garrison inside any fort or city. The cap outside so thsy cna retreat if defeated.
My biggest garrisons are just 3-4 units with a leader and a wagon.
I won't risk anything more important than this to be destroyed to the last man in a siege or assault

Cheers!

[squarian]

re: sieges
I've seen 1 or 2 'one turn sieges', but they seemed to have in common poor quality troops [militia, provos, settlers etc] inside, and no supply unit inside....

Not the case in either Philly or NYC - not sure about the exact composition of troops in Philly, but I know there were continentals under Thomas and a depot which I captured. In NYC I had almost all regulars, including some highlanders and German grenadiers. I had been using the town as my "hospital" so maybe 1/3 of the units were seriously understrength, but definitely not militia/provos.

Not sure how sieges work, but there is a random element somewhere right? Maybe both "die rolls" were extremely (un)lucky? Unfortunately for play-testing purposes, we've both been very wary of leaving troops in garrison since getting burned, so there aren't any later tests to prove whether its a bug or just outrageous luck.

+10 when Alliance announced
+10 when France declares War
+10 on 2nd turn after troops first arrive

...and in all cases, bonus only if USA NM is < GBR NM

USA NM < GBR NM would be a trigger condition - if true, event fires? How about leaving that trigger out for the first event (alliance), to allow for a slight boost even if US NM is =/> than GB? Seems to me even a winning US side should still get some morale boost from the good news.

[squarian]

Squarian, are you sure you have not updated the game (which could ahve modified the siege variables nubers) since that campaign??

It's pbem, and my opponent is hosting - but AFAIK we are both using 1.05 without further updates for this game. I'll ask him with my next turn.

[arsan]

Oh, i see. Then the siege variables that are used are theirs, not yours.
I can't recall how where the variables on 1.05, but it sounds they were more pro-besieger than the current ones.
Indeed on the siege resolution there is a luck factor. This one if i understand right

sieOutcomeDiceRollSides = 15 // Sides of the Siege Outcome rolls / compared to TQ/Discipline

Now, i have no idea what that means and how it works
But i think that if the number is higher, the surrender is harder and if lower its easier. IIRC originally it was 20, and on some patches (can't recall if it was beta or not) it was 12.
Cheers!

[lodilefty]

<snip>


USA NM < GBR NM would be a trigger condition - if true, event fires? How about leaving that trigger out for the first event (alliance), to allow for a slight boost even if US NM is =/> than GB? Seems to me even a winning US side should still get some morale boost from the good news.

Yes. When the event cited triggeres, the check is made to compare NM before the NM points are also awarded.

I'm a bit worried about play balance, that's why I've limited to USA NM lower than GBR.... let's see how it plays

[squarian]

I'm a bit worried about play balance, that's why I've limited to USA NM lower than GBR.... let's see how it plays

Yeah, makes sense. Lot's of great stuff in the last couple of updates, btw - thanks.



Arsan - the siege variable numbers I posted above are from my installation of 1.05, but I'll ask if my opponent can check his to make sure they're the same.

[squarian]

arsan - you wanted to know what siege numbers were being used in my game - my opponent checked his file and sent these - so we are playing with the same parameters. Maybe just luck?



// ***** SIEGE *****
sieValueForSiegeBonus = 12 // How many Artillery Combat Pts
needed to get a +1/-1 modifier to siege
sieOutcomeDiceRollSides = 15 // Sides of the Siege Outcome
rolls / compared to TQ/Discipline
sieWagonDepotProtectChance = 50 // Chance that a non empty
depot/wagon protects against surrender
aseProdCoefLocked = 25 // Percent of base supply when
under siege with port unblocked
sieExtraModifier = 1 // Extra Modifier (positive: help
the besieger)

[arsan]

Hi!

Thanks Squarian!
It must be good/bad luck, then Its surprising how different are the results we both get
In any case let's keep posting things we get on campaigns so we could fine tune the results.
Also, we have to take care to not only take notice of the outstanding results.
I mean, a couple of 1 turn surrenders are very noticiable (specially if they involve big stacks)... but if hey happen alongside 20 other normal siege results in a campaign they are just the effect of bad/good luck.
If they happen in half of the sieges or in all, then we have a problem that should be tweaked
Cheers

[Bertram]

Hi,

I am squarians opponent.

He remembered essentially all dretails right. Regarding Philly:
I had a garrison of 300 strenght, and an army outside (under Washington). I really had a string of bad luck those turns. Just having arrived from liberating New York (and bagging a complete British army) morale was high (got a +3 morale from that, to 103). When the British crossed the river Washington engaged them, and actually won the battle. Then he retreated to the wilderness north-west of Philly - leaving the British in possesion of the battlefield and outside the town.
Next turn Washington (and his army) was locked, the garrison surrendered (I guess they felt deserted by Washington - and rightly so). I lost 30 morale that turn (to 73). A combination of lost regiments and Philly I guess.

After that my morale never raised agan, even though I won some battles. (Well, actually I managed to get it to 75 once).

As a result my French intervention didnt do much - the British easily wiped any landing force. In fact they intercepted a fleet and sunk most of the ships when it arrived as reinforcements (in the game I have had 3 fleets sunk - I think about a 100 ships of the line are resting on the bottom).
Regarding this - all my French regular (and marine) regiments are only 46 strenght when they arrive. Are the French (and the Spanish) realy so incompetent compared to the British regulars? I mean - these is the same army that at this time is kicking ass in Italy isnt it?

One other (minor?) point I noticed: some terretories get contested immediatly once theuy come in play. St. Lousi is the most obvious of those. It is Spanish, but as soon as the Spanish intervene it seems 24% of the population is pro rebel, and 76% is pro British (none are pro spanish ). As there are only 3 non-regular regiments (an some artillery) in the town the US/Spanish side loosses control at once, and the town stays contested for the rest of the time, till one of the sides sends in real troops. Was the population of St. Louis so pro-British at this time that Spain lost control of the surrounding region at once? (The same geos for two Forts the US player has at the start of the game - there is only militia in them, and for some reason the population is pro -British. Makes the forts contested. Seems strange - who raised the militia if the population is mainly pro-British?).

Bertram


Nb.: We will start a 1.06 game in a few days. Curious to see what has changed.

[arsan]

Hi Bertram!

Besides bad or good luck, i think your big problem on the PBEM campaign was the -25 NM loss caused by losing your capital (Philadelphia).
The number is too high by far and can unbalance the campaign completely, besides not being too historical.
Hopefully it was reported recently and Lodilefty fixed it for 1.06
No its only worth -5 NM points which should make thing more much interesting!

The loyalty values of regions were also tweaked on 1.06. There is no problem now with Saint Louis (at least on my recently finished 1775 campaign as the USA i had no problem to keep it controlled with its militia garrison.
At campaign start there are a couple of locations (Pittsburgh and other one i can't recall now) which loyalty is evenly divided between loyalists and rebels. So none will get control over it unless they send a regular unit there... or wait until the war's development and the historical events modify the loyalties enough (usually in favor of the USA).
There is no Spanish (or French) loyalty rating. There are only two sides: rebels and loyalist. As the Spanish and French are rebel allies they count as rebels in this regard

Hope your new game fare better. I'm sure it will!
You should try the latest interim update too

Regards!