ACE Play Balance

[Mike]

So with the expanding experiece and numbers of games played getting larger. What is the consensus on play balance for ACW? Can the Rebs win? Do the Yanks have a chance? What are the experiences of the group?

In a game I'm having with Jim my Union side is winning a lot of battles but making very little headway at the end of '62. leure: The South holds all major cities including St. Louis, and I'm having to withdraw to go into winter quarters. So in my game I'm not to optimistic about a historical win as the North, although McDowell has whipped Bobby Lee several times.

[aryaman]

I am playing several PBEM games with different scenarios, and things are going very differently. IMO the range of options open with different decissions is very wide, my feelings are that the best player wins regardless of side, I am winning some and losing some others, those in which I played better I am doing better.
In PBEM my experience is that a good start is very important, your opponent then try to reverse that as quickly as possible, making mistakes in the process.
However all that, I think that in 1861 scenarios the CSA player has good options, if only because the Union player need a long time to get results, and many get too impatient. 1862 is more balanced, and 1863 is tipped to the Union, but again good play makes all the difference, I am losing badly a 1863 scenario as CSA, but again I was clearly outplayed.

[denisonh]

So with the expanding experiece and numbers of games played getting larger. What is the consensus on play balance for ACW? Can the Rebs win? Do the Yanks have a chance? What are the experiences of the group?

In a game I'm having with Jim my Union side is winning a lot of battles but making very little headway at the end of '62. leure: The South holds all major cities including St. Louis, and I'm having to withdraw to go into winter quarters. So in my game I'm not to optimistic about a historical win as the North, although McDowell has whipped Bobby Lee several times.

St Louis? How did your CSA oppponents manage that? In multiple PBEMs as the Union I haven't had a problem (so far 62/63) with keeping St Louis as I make it a major training center with Halleck and a ton of troops, not to mention the large Union river naval presence on the Mississippi(must use correctly to protect Cairo early on).

[denisonh]

I am playing several PBEM games with different scenarios, and things are going very differently. IMO the range of options open with different decissions is very wide, my feelings are that the best player wins regardless of side, I am winning some and losing some others, those in which I played better I am doing better.
In PBEM my experience is that a good start is very important, your opponent then try to reverse that as quickly as possible, making mistakes in the process.
However all that, I think that in 1861 scenarios the CSA player has good options, if only because the Union player need a long time to get results, and many get too impatient. 1862 is more balanced, and 1863 is tipped to the Union, but again good play makes all the difference, I am losing badly a 1863 scenario as CSA, but again I was clearly outplayed.

Early success is more important for the CSA than the Union early on, but IMO the Union has to press to keep the CSA off balance.

[aryaman]

St Louis? How did your CSA oppponents manage that? In multiple PBEMs as the Union I haven't had a problem (so far 62/63) with keeping St Louis as I make it a major training center with Halleck and a ton of troops, not to mention the large Union river naval presence on the Mississippi(must use correctly to protect Cairo early on).

I managed as CSA to take St Louis in a game april 1861, in which my opponent sent most troops down to Springfield, I used the railroads from New Madrid for a quick advance and in a single turn Polk´s force took the city in summer 1861. That was an inmense source of resources for the CSA.

[denisonh]

I managed as CSA to take St Louis in a game april 1861, in which my opponent sent most troops down to Springfield, I used the railroads from New Madrid for a quick advance and in a single turn Polk´s force took the city in summer 1861. That was an inmense source of resources for the CSA.

That was an strategic error and you took advantage of it. Springfield is of marginal value until 62, as the Union does not have the forces until then, IMO, to "squander" in a location that is strategically isolated in the winter. Secure Kentucky and northen Tennessee before "adventuring" into the plains beyond the railhead.

One thing that the Union must do early in the game is garrison border towns and create some strategic depth by staging reinforcements at key locations such as St Louis and Cincinnatti/Louisville. They both protect a strategic location and form the basis for counterattacks and reaction to raids.

The Union can do more to lose the war than win it in 1861 as mentioned above. Not covering key strategic cities is one way.

[jimwinsor]

I managed as CSA to take St Louis in a game april 1861, in which my opponent sent most troops down to Springfield, I used the railroads from New Madrid for a quick advance and in a single turn Polk´s force took the city in summer 1861. That was an inmense source of resources for the CSA.

That rail line, BTW, is on the list of ahistoric lines I found (mentioned in the rail thread).

[Mike]

St Louis? How did your CSA oppponents manage that? In multiple PBEMs as the Union I haven't had a problem (so far 62/63) with keeping St Louis as I make it a major training center with Halleck and a ton of troops, not to mention the large Union river naval presence on the Mississippi(must use correctly to protect Cairo early on).

Alas, not one of my better moments. leure: Price whipped Sumner and Lyons and pushed me back to the city. I thought I had enough to hold, but was breached and ejected from the city in late summer of '62. Little Mac returned with an army, won a battle and bottled the Rebs up. A siege of a couple of months failed to breach the city and I had to withdraw exhausted to winter quarters in December.

[Mike]

1- Rosecrans and Bragg square off in Tenn. Rosecrans wins but Bragg retreats N toward the Ohio. During the next few turns an immobile Rosecrans is almost wiped out by starvation as Bragg dances on his supply lines.

2- Lee is beaten by McDowell in Virginia and loses 40k troops to McDowell's 8.

3- Farrugut bombards Ft. Pulaski with a fleet. He inflicts 1 hit and takes 3 hits but his fleet is gone and he is recovering in the North, most likely in a mental hospital. At least tell me there was a hurricane that wiped the fleet out.

4- Meade moves his army to winter quarters from Spotslyvania to Manassas. Everybody moves except the army HQ which is then wiped out by Lee. leure:

Tonite I'm not a happy camper. I think there are still some issues to resolve

[Hobbes]

1- Rosecrans and Bragg square off in Tenn. Rosecrans wins but Bragg retreats N toward the Ohio. During the next few turns an immobile Rosecrans is almost wiped out by starvation as Bragg dances on his supply lines.

2- Lee is beaten by McDowell in Virginia and loses 40k troops to McDowell's 8.

3- Farrugut bombards Ft. Pulaski with a fleet. He inflicts 1 hit and takes 3 hits but his fleet is gone and he is recovering in the North, most likely in a mental hospital. At least tell me there was a hurricane that wiped the fleet out.

4- Meade moves his army to winter quarters from Spotslyvania to Manassas. Everybody moves except the army HQ which is then wiped out by Lee. leure:

Tonite I'm not a happy camper. I think there are still some issues to resolve

I'm finding it difficult to get going in PBEM with any of the larger scenarios due to problems like these. Hopefully in a couple of months they will be ironed out although I'm a bit worried that the focus seems to be on improving the AI when there are plenty of bugs that still need to be fixed or game parameters tweaked. I'm sure it will be a classic game soon enough though.

Chris

[Primasprit]

[...] Hopefully in a couple of months they will be ironed out although I'm a bit worried that the focus seems to be on improving the AI when there are plenty of bugs that still need to be fixed or game parameters tweaked.[...]

I don't think that is something to worry about, as all patches till now mainly focus on gameplay issues and bugfixing.

[Mike]

I'm finding it difficult to get going in PBEM with any of the larger scenarios due to problems like these. Hopefully in a couple of months they will be ironed out although I'm a bit worried that the focus seems to be on improving the AI when there are plenty of bugs that still need to be fixed or game parameters tweaked. I'm sure it will be a classic game soon enough though.

Chris

Suggest you dive into PBEM. Over all the experience has been very positive. Out of 40+ turns only a couple have had results that defied reason... like 3 hits sinking 6 ships.

AGEod has been responsive to complaints gripes and such so far, so Im confident of good things to come.

Personally I'm hopping for an analysis of the historical battles and losses and compare them to what typically happens in ACW. I suspect there are some basic things that need to be tweeked, such things as battle length, and losses, or how quick a side that is starting to lose will assume a defensive posture and end the battle, seem to be off still. Nevertheless this is by far the best ACW game out there IMHO. I plan to keep playing, and complaining.

[aryaman]

Losses look too high in battles mainly because armies themselves are too big. The problem, as has been pointed in another thread, is that regiments in the game are 1.000 strong and at full strength most of the time. I think there are some mods dealing with that problem.

[Mike]

Losses look too high in battles mainly because armies themselves are too big. The problem, as has been pointed in another thread, is that regiments in the game are 1.000 strong and at full strength most of the time. I think there are some mods dealing with that problem.

Ah so. Personnal hygene is too good. The desease model is incorrect.

[Queeg]

Army size is on the big side, but not wildly so. The main reason for huge battle casualties is the fact that the AI tends to fight to the death. Pocus has tweaked this a bit already and has said he is still working on it.

Disease is too little or too much depending on who it hits. If it hits one of your main armies, it can be a real headache.

[Queeg]

1- Rosecrans and Bragg square off in Tenn. Rosecrans wins but Bragg retreats N toward the Ohio. During the next few turns an immobile Rosecrans is almost wiped out by starvation as Bragg dances on his supply lines.

Where exactly did Bragg retreat? And where was Rosecrans? If both are in provinces loyal to the CSA, then Bragg can receive supply and Rosecrans not.

2- Lee is beaten by McDowell in Virginia and loses 40k troops to McDowell's 8.

Again, what was the situation? Lee won't win just because he is Lee. Was Lee attacking or defending? What was his supply, cohesion, etc.? What were the respective force compositions?

3- Farrugut bombards Ft. Pulaski with a fleet. He inflicts 1 hit and takes 3 hits but his fleet is gone and he is recovering in the North, most likely in a mental hospital. At least tell me there was a hurricane that wiped the fleet out.

That is a strange one. What was in his "fleet?" And what was his level of supply, cohesion, etc.?

4- Meade moves his army to winter quarters from Spotslyvania to Manassas. Everybody moves except the army HQ which is then wiped out by Lee. leure:

More details? Did you have one big stack, which included the HQ, or separate stacks? Did you order coordinated movement? I assume all this happened in a single turn. If so, I've seen situations where an enemy attack late in the turn period (i.e., days 13-15) will catch the tail end of my forces as they move out of a province. Units don't all move at once, and it is possible to catch some in transit.

[Pocus]

We don't mind that you complain, but give us details and then a saved game. Without that, we can't do anything

Queeg is on the right tracks here!

[veji1]

about disease, first it looks like it only affects cohesion... This is off, it should affect unit strength and cohesion.

Second there should still be specfic disease events, but also units number should trickle down with time, ie pumping replacements even when there are no battles :

I am fine with nominal regiment strength of 1000, but i think regiments, whether Inf or Cavalry, and arty batteries should lose 2% strength every turn, whatever you do.. this would mean constant strain on replacements, meaning either you pump all you got in replacements, or if you buy reinforcements, you will see your units shrinking regularly.

you would of course have exceptions : units inside a city or a depot for example. which means that during winter turns when you keep your units inside, you replenish them pretty well.

say you have a division with 10 inf regiments ( lets keep it simple ). its nominal strength is 10 000 men.

starting from the late march turn to the early november turn included, this units manouvers around : thats 16 turns in the wild. Without replacements available, and with no battle whatsoever, this unit will go from 10000 to 7 093 men in that time !!

I think that this is the major issue, players should be forced to arbitrate between reinforcements and replacements in a harsher way, with units number dwindling regularly to represent attrition (basic deseases, stragglers, desertion). This 2% reduction should affect numbers, not cohesion. Cohesion should be affected by special actions : marching, force marching, battles, etc...

I really think that the everyday attrition of units is the main feature missing in this game, of course we could create a detailed model and all, but I think my proposal has the advantage of simplicity.

[Queeg]

I think I like that attrition idea. There is something a bit unrealistic about having perpetually full-strength units.

[PhilThib]

OK, but we should be aware about possible side effects.... why don't you write down a detailed proposal and submit it to us. If it's realistic, fun and not overly complex to implement, we could study it... send it to me and Pocus via PM or support@ageod.com

[runyan99]

A 2% straggler/deserter/sick loss per turn might make sense from a historical point of view, but even so, I'm not sure I really want to see it implemented from a game perspective. I'm not sure watching my divisions melt away turn by turn is any fun.

I'd prefer the simpler method of choosing a new 'average' strength for the full strength regiment of 800 men rather than 1000. This instantly reduces army size by 20% and probably reduces battle casualties by a similar proportion. If you want to assume that the 200 missing men are sick or stragglers or whatever, that's an abstraction that we don't need to bother with.

[aryaman]

I agree if we think of a uniform 2% attrition, it doesn´t add anything to gameplay. Attrition should be applied with some modifiers, so that it could affect gameplay. Some ideas on the subject:
1) The more veteran a unit the less attrition it suffers. Historically, desertion was at its peak the first three months after a unit was recruited.
2) National Moral would affect the attrition rate
3) Low supply also would affect attrition.

[Pocus]

if we do an attrition rule, this will be optional and disabled by default. This is a big debate that we had... With historical attrition rates, you frustrate 75% of the players (the loss ratio between attrition and combat is 2 to 1 for the AACW I think, and was 4 to 1 for the Crimean War, but I'm citing from memory).

[saintsup]

if we do an attrition rule, this will be optional and disabled by default. This is a big debate that we had... With historical attrition rates, you frustrate 75% of the players (the loss ratio between attrition and combat is 2 to 1 for the AACW I think, and was 4 to 1 for the Crimean War, but I'm citing from memory).

I'm all for an attrition rule. It open a whole new layer of strategic thought for unit construction planification like 'après l'heure c'est pas l'heure mais avant l'heure c'est pas l'heure non plus'. (sorry but I'm pushing my english to the limits here)

[denisonh]

Attrition losses were significant issues in the ability to sustain a long campaigns and withstand sieges.

The cohesion factor seems to account for some of the effect in these area, so if we look at attririon rates, then we also would need to reevaluate the cohesion rules as well.

I like the idea of using the average strength rather than "full strength". Maybe the attrition effect could be somewhat non linear: effect full strength units more so than units at or below "average strength".

Another alternative is to have an "annual" sustainment cost for units.

I think that since the replacement system is abstracted and not "directly" under player control, than incurring too many losses would impact playability.