Game still to unbalanced for CSA

[Nikel]

There seems to be too much talking and too few doing...

[Ace]

Kidding aside, VP tally isn't the only dis-balance in this game.
Common phrase is Union was fighting the war with one hand behind its back and that's true.
What the game doesn't simulate well enough is the need to fight it with 50% effort. Union gets the same number of print money cards, raise taxes cards, same number of draft decisions when it's also common knowledge Union didn't push its economy or manpower pool to the edge. Yet in game there are same VP and NM penalties for strategic decisions both for CSA and USA.

[Captain_Orso]

nice work, if it was me, I would add in conditionals for was improvements purchased in game that make cities industrial output greater, i.e. They become a more important centre to control for vp determination

That would be possible, but it would entail adding a set of events per year, each for setting VPs depending on the number of structures in the city, or even more complex, depending the the types of structures.

If I had even a basic scripting language like in bash it might be feasible. It wouldn't cost any more processing time, because the first 'if' would be if the city had changed control. If not, the rest of the script would be skipped.

But the games scripts are very limited in their structure. You can only have 'if a [[[ and b] and c] and ...] then ...

Additionally, one should then also consider having to change the AI's 'interest' in locations, depending on structures, and I've never actually looked into how to do that. I imagine it would be possible, but...

or apply a vp ratio value per use of the ws function, i.e. If you build more industry to make yourself better at war, you give up Vps for each usage, that's just a line added per ws built, increasing for more you build with a lower score for the air at diff levels, which would be a quicker fix as weighting the ai to know strategic values of targets has changed etc would take a lot of cross referencing.

"ws function"?

"give up VPs for usage"?



If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting for it to cost VPs when you buy structures, which produce WSU? The purpose being, to incentivize fighting the war with as few resources as possible.

No, penalizing the player for utilizing the resources he has, makes no sense. It feels like, "ha, I can win the war using less than you". That's the kind of commander I'd put against the wall. If you're so good, then win the war quicker. Every day saved from war, is lives and money saved.

I'm not sure if the AI evaluates cites on for their structures, to determine an 'interest', or event if VPs produced are considered. If so, such locations will not be weighted with respect to how many VPs the South will get if they capture a specific location, because the VPs change after capture.

Anyway, that has to do with the AI in general, and not balance.

[Captain_Orso]

There seems to be too much talking and too few doing...

Ahhh yes. That is what gets you to buy furniture, that's too big to fit through your door, just as long as your through shopping...

[Captain_Orso]

Kidding aside, VP tally isn't the only dis-balance in this game.
Common phrase is Union was fighting the war with one hand behind its back and that's true.
What the game doesn't simulate well enough is the need to fight it with 50% effort. Union gets the same number of print money cards, raise taxes cards, same number of draft decisions when it's also common knowledge Union didn't push its economy or manpower pool to the edge. Yet in game there are same VP and NM penalties for strategic decisions both for CSA and USA.

Well.... although the U.S. could have invested more into the war effort, if I consider what status would have to exist to provoke that, I can't really assess how much worse things could have gone, before they cause a situation, which would have been represented by Sudden Lose through NM. It's really hard to say how close the U.S. came to it. Lincoln seemed to think pretty close.

Under that consideration, I kind of have the feeling that, although the economy and population could have given more to the war effort, if the situation came about, in which the government would have had to ask for more, maybe the public would have simply said, no, let the South go.

I'm not sure about the options. I'd really have to think about them.

[principes romanes]

I'm curious if the same is true for other players, but I find the biggest expenditure of VPs can easily be promoting generals out of seniority order. Giving Grant (and Sherman) lower seniority would force the Union player to either wait longer to promote them (and especially to give them army commands) or suffer a VP penalty. If a few other tricks are put in place to equalize the VPs, the VP penalty for promoting out of order could be significant. (You may also want to limit the number of army commands available more heavily or reduce the command radius to make it harder to make McClellan the commander of the Army of Maine).

Another note on VPs: Whoever is leading in VPs has a 50% chance each turn the FI will shift one point in their favor. Increase that to 75% and decrease the penalty to FI if the Trent affair 'settles' and FI may become a more likely event - and it potentially makes the VP lead more important to the game. Fun speculation, as I expect the base chance of an FI moving each turn is hard to change.

[Captain_Orso]

I'm curious if the same is true for other players, but I find the biggest expenditure of VPs can easily be promoting generals out of seniority order. Giving Grant (and Sherman) lower seniority would force the Union player to either wait longer to promote them (and especially to give them army commands) or suffer a VP penalty. If a few other tricks are put in place to equalize the VPs, the VP penalty for promoting out of order could be significant. (You may also want to limit the number of army commands available more heavily or reduce the command radius to make it harder to make McClellan the commander of the Army of Maine).

I believe the reasoning behind NM and VP penalties for accelerated promotions is not only historical, but also to allow the player more freedom in managing the game, without allowing him an unrestricted freehand. Since the player has more background information and intuition than the rules of the game, he will often wish to do things, which were unhistorical, like promoting Grant to Lt.Gen. as soon as he's on the board and giving him an army command.

Grant and Sherman are by no means always a shoe-in for immediate promotion. From my experience, the player will have to carefully protege them to accelerate their promotions. Even when doing so, I've found that I have to consider the penalties of accelerated promotion against waiting and working for seniority increases.

I feel that if Grant and Sherman's seniorities were reduced, it would lead to unhistorical situations, like forcing Grant into the role of corps commander while historically he was way past that position.

As far as influencing the use of army commands, the game has no concept of that, and without an extensive reworking of the game engine, it would not be possible to do that in a reasonable fashion. In the second half of this thread Just Curious - Any Way to Stop An All-East Union Strategy Featuring 3-star Grant? I wrote extensively (danger! it my bore you to tears) on my thoughts on how a proper chain of command ought to be organized in the game, which would solve the issue of relegating McClellan to a paper-bag army command in the back woods of Maine.

Another note on VPs: Whoever is leading in VPs has a 50% chance each turn the FI will shift one point in their favor. Increase that to 75% and decrease the penalty to FI if the Trent affair 'settles' and FI may become a more likely event - and it potentially makes the VP lead more important to the game. Fun speculation, as I expect the base chance of an FI moving each turn is hard to change.

I have no overview of the detailed nuances of FI. I've more or less given up on the idea of it occurring naturally in a game. The few times I've played the South, my impression was that chance is so heavily involved in FI occurring, that my efforts were better pressed into succeeding militarily as the South, than hoping on luck.

On the other hand, if a player or players wished to simply play a completely different kind of game, and insure that FI occurred, a simple event throwing Great Britain and France into the game would be the simplest solution. I've done that once, and it was quite an interesting game, although I have to say, I did it only after I had beaten the South to the edge of collapse and didn't want to abandon the game.

BTW the FI game ought to have a couple of updates made to it, like adding 1 or 2 army commands each to the British and French, and allow for corps and division formation. Currently they get some of each when FI occurs, but for example, the first time the British conducts an invasion into New England with a corps which then losses its corps status, which you cannot fix, it restricts the possibilities of the game greatly.

If you wished to increase the probability of FI, to allow the South to have a far greater chance of causing it, I know there are other players who could at least list the places where one might apply changes to do that far better than I could.

[Gray Fox]

How about an new event where McClellan wins the election with help from the Tzar?

[principes romanes]

Captain Orso, I agree entirely with what you are saying about how hard it would be to actually prevent an army command from going off to do nothing in Maine. My thinking was that the Union usually only actually uses 2-4 army commands. If you restricted the total number of army commands available to ~3, then giving McClellan the Army of Maine is no longer a freebie - it probably means pulling an army from somewhere in the West, leading to more CP penalties, less MTSG on the front.

[Nikel]

Some authors consider General Lee as a direct cause of why the South lost, so perhaps the better way to balance the game is to put General Lee in blue.


Already did a modded version of his portrait for AACW, could be done for CWII too




viewtopic.php?f=78&t=22175&p=213662&hilit=Lee#p213662

[Captain_Orso]

Captain Orso, I agree entirely with what you are saying about how hard it would be to actually prevent an army command from going off to do nothing in Maine. My thinking was that the Union usually only actually uses 2-4 army commands. If you restricted the total number of army commands available to ~3, then giving McClellan the Army of Maine is no longer a freebie - it probably means pulling an army from somewhere in the West, leading to more CP penalties, less MTSG on the front.

mmm... what you mean, is that you only use 2-4 army commands. I very often use all of them.

Of course I avoid using McClellan, Fremont, Halleck, etc. for as long as possible. But when I don't have a choice and want to invade Louisiana with 2 or more corps for example, I have to bite the bullet and take one of the miserables as an army commander.

[Captain_Orso]

Some authors consider General Lee as a direct cause of why the South lost, so perhaps the better way to balance the game is to put General Lee in blue.


Already did a modded version of his portrait for AACW, could be done for CWII too




viewtopic.php?f=78&t=22175&p=213662&hilit=Lee#p213662

You're an evil man Nikel

[Nikel]

Of course it is not my preference, I would like that somebody mod the game so that the Confederacy has an opportunity to triumph in a PBEM game.

Perhaps a campaign that is specifically designed to be played vs a human opponent.

Anyone?

[aariediger]

I've played most of my games with a few house rules that slow the Union down:

No river movement button
No redeployments of two or three star generals (with one exception, if an army commander is wounded/killed)
CSA gets partial mobilization in '61, full in '62 and Union is '62 and '63
Tied emancipation to the Black recruits choice that adds a per turn penalty, have to have both or neither

No river movement really slows down the western blitzkrieg, and having to physically move 2/3 star generals from one theater to the other means most of the good Union leaders stay west for longer, only shifting east over winter campaign breaks.

Besides that, we modded Grant's seniority lower so he takes longer to get into an army command. Changed some other leaders too so that the early war command situation sucks more overall, so even though I pumped up Halleck/McClellan some so they are usable, you are also stuck with them for much longer.

Biggest change though is adding back in the 5% retreat rule. I know, I know, some people hate it, but the ability to kill off an entire army corps or two really lets those southern counter-offensives pack some punch. It's also fun as the north to completely wipe out Lee Appomattox style, but that's not really relevant to the discussion.

There are other things you could try too that I haven't. Could forbid the north from changing capitals. Prevent them from buying replacements, and instead have to just continue to buy new units like they kind of did historically. Other stuff. But as a whole I've found that holding down the number of early Union units by limiting the draft, keeping the poor generals in command for longer, and adding more consequences to bad/risky moves where a retreat path can get cut off, force Northern players to play more conservatively and allow the southern player to build up a bigger stock pile of VPs early on. That leads to a longer, more balanced game.

[Durk]

If you must know, and you likely do not, it amazes me that gamers wish to further hobble the Union in this game. In pbem the CSA wins plenty of times for lots of reasons. The Union is tough to play. The CSA has so many advantages as the game opens.
I can see some players wish for a guaranteed win for the CSA, but seriously, a relatively historical reasonably balanced game, this is the game as designed.
Sure a slow careful Union often wins, but it is not a rollover. Why is this thread still active? Oh sure, to answer my own question, Save your Dixie Cups, the South will rise again.

[Captain_Orso]

Of course it is not my preference, I would like that somebody mod the game so that the Confederacy has an opportunity to triumph in a PBEM game.

Perhaps a campaign that is specifically designed to be played vs a human opponent.

Anyone?

It really depends on what you mean by "triumph". If Sherman had not taken Atlanta in late '64, McClellan might well have won the election. If he held to his word, he would have ended hostilities, and negotiated "a peace", which would have meant, secession for the southern states. For the South, that would have been "Triumph", event though Grant was knocking on the Richmond's back door, and the entire Mississippi was under Union control; that is, it would have been was.

[Captain_Orso]

I've played most of my games with a few house rules that slow the Union down:

No river movement button

I believe you mean, no using the Riverine Transport Pool to transport land stacks down rivers. Forbidding using the RivTP, for at least large stacks--one might agree on a weight--is valid. The game is very generic about the RivTP, as with the RailTP. There are no local restrictions. Practically speaking, all rivers are one river, and riverboats on the Missouri River are at the same time on the Hudson.

So, I understand this issue. I also spoke with Pocus about it once. For the player, it would be possible to actually forbid using the RivTP for stacks, but to implement it for Athena it would have taken some major changes. Also in light of the solution, which would have been to be able to use RGD's in friendly harbors to exchange RivTP points for actual riverine transports, but also the other way around. Using the RGD's would force the player to plan ahead and organize, and would have eliminated huge stacks suddenly jumping onto a fleet of generic riverboats to steam away.

On the plus side, it would have been changed so that debarking to the shore (invasion too) would have only taken one day, and not five; also embarking from the shore.

It is also assumed, wherever your army goes, there are enough fairies to bring it across the Mississippi and the Ohio, even where they are deep and wide; at least deep enough that fording would never be possible. But a solution to that would also require either a major house rule, or a major game change. Grant and Pope at least had to sneak their riverboats down river to effect a major crossing. We get to simple walk the waters.

No redeployments of two or three star generals (with one exception, if an army commander is wounded/killed)

As long as you are talking about leaders, why would you want to restrict them? You can look up how long it took Grant to get from Chattanooga to Washington D.C. when he was called by the President. IIRC it took about a week. Now try to do that without redeployment, and that's what it's for.

CSA gets partial mobilization in '61, full in '62 and Union is '62 and '63
Tied emancipation to the Black recruits choice that adds a per turn penalty, have to have both or neither

No river movement really slows down the western blitzkrieg, and having to physically move 2/3 star generals from one theater to the other means most of the good Union leaders stay west for longer, only shifting east over winter campaign breaks.

I restrict myself to only the RivTP for single units, or maybe a couple batteries at a time, but only from a major harbor, like Cairo. I don't have the feeling that I'm slowed down by it. Plus it means I always have great supply flow down the rivers.

Besides that, we modded Grant's seniority lower so he takes longer to get into an army command. Changed some other leaders too so that the early war command situation sucks more overall, so even though I pumped up Halleck/McClellan some so they are usable, you are also stuck with them for much longer.

Grant had an army actually already in December '61, although he was still pulling units together. If you're slowing him down further, it's just to drag out the game.

Biggest change though is adding back in the 5% retreat rule. I know, I know, some people hate it, but the ability to kill off an entire army corps or two really lets those southern counter-offensives pack some punch. It's also fun as the north to completely wipe out Lee Appomattox style, but that's not really relevant to the discussion.

There are other things you could try too that I haven't. Could forbid the north from changing capitals. Prevent them from buying replacements, and instead have to just continue to buy new units like they kind of did historically. Other stuff. But as a whole I've found that holding down the number of early Union units by limiting the draft, keeping the poor generals in command for longer, and adding more consequences to bad/risky moves where a retreat path can get cut off, force Northern players to play more conservatively and allow the southern player to build up a bigger stock pile of VPs early on. That leads to a longer, more balanced game.

Unless I've missed something, the Retreat Rule was put back to 5%, which is also why we have the 5% auto-attack rule. Well, at least Pocus put them together at about the same time, as they are very much related to each other.

It really came down to 2 conflicting arguments.
- In Reality™ an army commander paid very close attention to his lines of communications. IE supply lines and a path to retreat on, if need be. If a commander didn't have control of his path of retreat, he either had to fight his way through, or he didn't use it. And that means splitting his already defeated force. So commanders didn't do that, because it was a sure way to lose an army. It's also why Lee pulled out of the Wilderness and Spotsylvania exactly when he did. Because Grant was threatening to cut his line of egress.
- Desperate-Times-Call-For-Desperate-Measures™. If there's no other way out, you will try any way out possible. This lead to many instances of Johnston retreating from Pittsburgh toward the north-west, with a long retreating battle ensuing. Through enemy territory--from Johnston's point of view. I don't think there are any historical examples of anything like this happening in the 19th century. So the point is invalid. Don't stick your head out too far, lest you risk losing it. Even Eisenhower was very leery of letting Patton drive as fast as Patton wanted to, and could have, exactly for this reason.

So you get to try to wipe-out a corps or army or two, if your opponent is sloppy enough, or just has very bad luck.

[Nikel]

If you must know, and you likely do not, it amazes me that gamers wish to further hobble the Union in this game. In pbem the CSA wins plenty of times for lots of reasons. The Union is tough to play. The CSA has so many advantages as the game opens.
I can see some players wish for a guaranteed win for the CSA, but seriously, a relatively historical reasonably balanced game, this is the game as designed.
Sure a slow careful Union often wins, but it is not a rollover. Why is this thread still active? Oh sure, to answer my own question, Save your Dixie Cups, the South will rise again.

IMO Ageod should include scenarios (campaigns) designed specifically for PBEM.

And strictly historical to play vs the weak AI.

For example John Tiller's games (HPS and now JTS), have both types of scenarios.


I do not think this thread is about "a guaranteed win for the CSA", but to provide a balanced game that allows the Confederates an opportunity to secede, each side with his strengths and weaknesses of course, not a symmetric situation.

If people play with house rules, like aariediger, it means the game is not balanced for similar PBEM players. This is the reason why the thread is active.

[Nikel]

It really depends on what you mean by "triumph". If Sherman had not taken Atlanta in late '64, McClellan might well have won the election. If he held to his word, he would have ended hostilities, and negotiated "a peace", which would have meant, secession for the southern states. For the South, that would have been "Triumph", event though Grant was knocking on the Richmond's back door, and the entire Mississippi was under Union control; that is, it would have been was.

The problem is not what, balanced PBEM campaign.

But who is going to do it.

[Cardinal Ape]

How about an new event where McClellan wins the election with help from the Tzar?

New event? Its already in the game; there is an event for when the Russian Navy shows up in 1863.

Don't you remember the USS Miantonomoh? It transported the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, G. Fox, on a special assignment to Russia? Nyet? Honestly, it seems kinda suspicious that you would bring this up G. Fox. You got a story to tell? Need immunity first?

Anyhow..

On 1863/09/30, the Russian Navy pays a visit to New York. Like other historical events, such as the Trent Affair, it has a 10% chance to have an ahistorical outcome. The ahistorical outcome reduces Union NM by 1, FI by 5, and it also reduces Lincoln's chance to be re-elected by 20%. Normally those values are increased instead.

I'd guess most people don't know about the bad side of that event because who is really still playing the Union that late in the game - almost no one - I usually end the game by April first because Mr. T.

[Temgesic]

Never tought that it would emerge in to this massive discussion.
But im reading and taking in the information everybody's saying. And there really seems to exists really different opinions about the balance of the game. Of course a game can't be and never will be 100% balanced how hard we and the developers try, that's why we discuss it, like gentlemen

Im thinking of trying out a Union campaign, have only tried CSA for 90% of my games. But perhaps trying it from the Union side, give Athena som detection bonuses and see how it develops. So i can examine it from both sides.

[Durk]

Temgesic, you are so right. So much of whether or note a game is balanced depends upon who is playing and how well that person plays. Even versus one's self, the random elements create a wide diversity of results. And, of course, as I have stated many places, is this an historical simulation or chess? I lean on the historical simulation side.

[aariediger]

Unless I've missed something, the Retreat Rule was put back to 5%, which is also why we have the 5% auto-attack rule. Well, at least Pocus put them together at about the same time, as they are very much related to each other.

Under Game Logic, I find these settings

// ***** CONTROL & RETREAT *****
// ********************************************************

ctlContested = 5 // Minimum control gained upon entering a region (if not passive)
ctlAllowRetreat = 0 // Minimum control to have in a region to allow a retreat into it

Now, I may be wrong, but I think this means the retreat rule resolves at 0% or greater, so you can always retreat. Perhaps my game isn't up to date, you guys can of course check yours as well. And I guess I should have prefaced my statement on house rules somewhat, as I am currently playing a pbem game with all the player controlled bits, but none of the actual mods/edits that I normally use.

On the river move button, it doesn't bother me at all when the AI does it, but in the past I've used it as a 'get out of jail free car' to save corps that should really be dead, but I instead can dang near insta-transport to friendly territory. Nothing in my custom rules about building physical transports and using those, they just take more planning out ahead of time.

Honestly you make a good point on the re deployments though, and I'll confess that I've just stuck with it since AACW 1. Again, my 'gamy' use is part of the original reason, I used to teleport in active generals before a big battle if a corps commander or two was inactive, especially good generals like Jackson and Grant. But in AACW 2, the redeploy happens during the turn rather than before, so it probably isn't as big a deal. Helping keep Grant out west was admittedly more of a side affect than anything. Speaking of:

Grant had an army actually already in December '61, although he was still pulling units together. If you're slowing him down further, it's just to drag out the game.

This is completely fair! But, I don't know that an army in 'real life' and in 'game terms' really mean the same thing. I would consider Grant/Pope/Buell as corps commanders under one 'army' run by Halleck in 61/62, and that Grant really doesn't have an independent 'army' command until Halleck is transferred east. Kind of the same thing around 63 Chattanooga, where I would still call Grant the 'army' commander, and Hooker/Sherman/Thomas as serving corps commanders, even though at least two of them nominally lead armies by name.

I think we just have to use our imagination some in the end. I personally like re-naming individual corps after armies so that the 'Western Department' operates more like a de-facto Army Group Commander. In the end, preventing Grant from having an army in '61 can't be any more unrealistic then Lee being trapped inside Richmond during the West Virginia campaign! But I think both serve our needs. Early war Grant was stuck with a millstone around his neck by the name of Halleck, and almost resigned over it, and early war Lee doesn't personally have a huge impact on the battlefield until Johnston gets wounded. Obviously with perfect foresite, we know that these are the best generals for each side (at least stats wise, don't need to side-track this debate any more than it already is), so each player wants to get them in charge of as many troops as quick as possible. The game already has a semi-inaccurate way to put the breaks on the southern player in regards to Lee, I merely think we should do the same for Grant

[Captain_Orso]

It really depends on what you mean by "triumph". If Sherman had not taken Atlanta in late '64, McClellan might well have won the election. If he held to his word, he would have ended hostilities, and negotiated "a peace", which would have meant, secession for the southern states. For the South, that would have been "Triumph", event though Grant was knocking on the Richmond's back door, and the entire Mississippi was under Union control; that is, it would have been was.

The problem is not what, balanced PBEM campaign.

But who is going to do it.

In German there's a saying, Immer der, der fragt (always the one who asks)

Everybody's talking about balance, but nobody's talking about what balanced is. Aside from my flights into other aspects of the game, I've only talked about adjusting VP's to better reflect the player's progress, or success, in the game. I've said nothing about changing any other parameters, or units, or leaders, or time-frames; only VP's. And practically nobody has mentioned their thoughts on the subject.

In fact the devs are aware of this situation, and have stated that the VP's are not a measure of who is doing better than expected at any given time. VP's are just a vague measure of who won if the game went full length, and because of this, some balancing was done through allocating different VP's for each side at the start of the grand campaigns.

That's a simple solution, but I was thinking about using VP's differently, as I have stated.

[Captain_Orso]

Unless I've missed something, the Retreat Rule was put back to 5%, which is also why we have the 5% auto-attack rule. Well, at least Pocus put them together at about the same time, as they are very much related to each other.

Under Game Logic, I find these settings

// ***** CONTROL & RETREAT *****
// ********************************************************

ctlContested = 5 // Minimum control gained upon entering a region (if not passive)
ctlAllowRetreat = 0 // Minimum control to have in a region to allow a retreat into it

Now, I may be wrong, but I think this means the retreat rule resolves at 0% or greater, so you can always retreat.

No, I can assure you that you cannot retreat into a region where you have 0% MC. I, among many others, helped Pocus test his changes, and the parameters to decide in which direction your stack retreats. There was a lot involved, and some strange situations. It was a lot of work, and a lot of fun, and I think it made the game far better.

Perhaps my game isn't up to date

I'm on 1.06; actually 1.06.3, which is a beta. I don't recall which version got the retreat rework, but it's definitely in 1.06.

8<
8<
8<
This is completely fair! But, I don't know that an army in 'real life' and in 'game terms' really mean the same thing. I would consider Grant/Pope/Buell as corps commanders under one 'army' run by Halleck in 61/62, and that Grant really doesn't have an independent 'army' command until Halleck is transferred east. Kind of the same thing around 63 Chattanooga, where I would still call Grant the 'army' commander, and Hooker/Sherman/Thomas as serving corps commanders, even though at least two of them nominally lead armies by name.

I think we just have to use our imagination some in the end. I personally like re-naming individual corps after armies so that the 'Western Department' operates more like a de-facto Army Group Commander. In the end, preventing Grant from having an army in '61 can't be any more unrealistic then Lee being trapped inside Richmond during the West Virginia campaign! But I think both serve our needs. Early war Grant was stuck with a millstone around his neck by the name of Halleck, and almost resigned over it, and early war Lee doesn't personally have a huge impact on the battlefield until Johnston gets wounded. Obviously with perfect foresite, we know that these are the best generals for each side (at least stats wise, don't need to side-track this debate any more than it already is), so each player wants to get them in charge of as many troops as quick as possible. The game already has a semi-inaccurate way to put the breaks on the southern player in regards to Lee, I merely think we should do the same for Grant

It's a fairly complex subject, not the least of which is because throughout the war the army organization changed many times, sometimes just to fit to a regional situation.

The simplest way to think of it, is to take the game's chain-of-command, and then add from one to several layers on top of it. For example, in '62 Grant commanded the Army of the Tennessee, because he was in charge of The Department of West Tennessee (it has been noted in historical writings, that his army should have been named The Army of West Tennessee, but The Army of Tennessee just seemed to stick at the time, so that is what it was officially called). He was under the command of Henry Halleck, who was the commander of the Western District (the name and area changed often, mostly to accommodate short lived situations). Above Halleck, was McClellan as General-in-Chief, which was the highest position in the Federal Army.

So there is a minimum of 1 command level, which the game ought to have, which actually would play a major role in the game, and IMHO, there is no good way to fix that with this game engine.

[Ace]

Its been a while since I played the game, but the last time I played it, unit could retreat to 0%MC if it was nimble enough, depending on enemy Zone of control in a region it was retreating from. Basically, if Army carried its wagons it couldn't retreat to 0% MC region if it was retreating from fairly large enemy force.

[Ace]

Back to the Topic. Game is PBEM unbalanced and historical unbalanced since Union player has the advantage of knowing what are his best generals. Union cities are not worth a lot of NM points and CSA cities are, so USA can safely let parts of its territory undefended. Since I am very poor at modding, in order to balance the game and make it more historic I would suggest following PBEM house rules:

1) Every unit in the combat zone has to have a general leading it. This way it would be more historic and there would be no attacking without activated generals.
2) It should be played with Veteran (hidden) activation on. This way Union can not shuffle Corps commands between active and inactive generals.
3) Generals shouldn't be used as CP fillers. If you have independent division, it shouldn't be accompanied by a unit-less general only to fill its CP. If unit is detached, it is detached, suffer the penalty.
4) Army and corps commander should be in their historical roles. So Grant should be West, Lyon Trans-Mississippi, Mac should control AoP, and not Army of Maine, etc..
The same is true for CSA leaders. In 1862, Beauregaurd needs to go Westwards, Bragg needs to lead AoT, etc.
Army command should be more or less historic. For example, Union needs to have 2 similary sized armies in the Heartland, one led by Grant and one by Buell, Rosecrans, etc. Pemberton needs to have a large army as well, Polk the largest Corps, etc.. Historical promotions should be modded in if possible.
5) Troops can load river transports only in ports. Logistically and historically correct.
6) Union cities should have more NM points capture value (it can't be put into base game since AI would fall pretty quickly).
7) Draft cards shouldn't be used until full mobilization is on.
8) Requisition cards shouldn't be used until NM is lower than 60. It was scraping the burrel, not regular national income.
9) Partial mobilization should be pushed to 1862 for CSA and 1863 for the Union.
10) Full mobilization should be pushed to 1863 for the CSA and 1864 for the Union (actually Union never had full mobilization but balance wise 1864 is enough).

That's the stuff on top of my head, fell free to add or comment on the stuff above.

[BattleVonWar]

Logistics, give the CSA Full on infantry divisions on par with the Union till 1863 starts. That's about the time when Union Numbers start to dwarf Confederate numbers. The CSA Template it's dreadful. Too many 6lbers mixed in with infantry, forcing them to strain their resources to build an army that by Summer of '62 is a refined tool in the North. The Union has such a large pool, it doesn't have to, nor rarely recruits those dreadful mixed divisions that lack the same firepower.

This would change the game... Also the seniority process is broken!

Just because a General sieges a couple coastal forts or fights some backwater battles doesn't entitle him to HQ or high level Corp Command. It should not be as such. Make these abilities earned. Slowing the process of which CSA leadership degrades! As well as forcing the Union to fight with the same so so leadership she had till she can finally bring out the big guns. This puts a tighter strain on the fighting till '63 and by then forces the South to strike out. Force the Union to be cautious for a reason until then. Otherwise you will always see abuses! Ahistorical as you can imagine!

[Gray Fox]

Tovarishi, I mean gentlemen, rather than "bat rocks till 1863" in Pbem, why not just play one game and then switch sides. Whoever holds on the longest as the CSA wins the match. That way both sides would still be giving it their best shot instead of spinning their wheels. I mean the point of a strategy game is to teach you how to think and plan well.

[Ace]

Gray Fox, you are spot on with your comments about strategy and all East strategy.
I am advocating gameplay experience with some "historical reenactment" constraints.