Gray Fox wrote:I posted a few years ago how the CSA can and must win quickly in 1862 or even '61. Others have dug in their Confederate heels and fought to the bitter end in victory. I posted that the Union could use all three trainer Generals to convert lots of militia into line infantry. I have also posted how a Union army juggernaut might look. This was meant as further evidence that the CSA should not plan for a long war. I am a retired soldier and trained to use every trick to win. The CSA is faced with a looming train wreck. Don't expect anything to balance that out. Strike while the iron is hot.
Always be bold!
"L'Audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace!"
Ace wrote:Absolutely agree with the forum topic.
What the game needs is a mechanic that puts politic pressure on the player to spread its forces to all states. After all, individual states had much more influence then than now.
The game has scripts in place that count regiments in an area (on to Richmond, Washington defenses, Indian uprising). All it needs is an event that checks for number of regiments and appropriate political penalty if not fullfilled).
Captain_Orso wrote:Considering the disparity in the number and size of cities on each side of the game, I don't feel that granting the same VPs for controlling them should be the same. If the Union controls Memphis in '63 it's really no big deal. But if the South does, that is an accomplishment, and ought to be honored with fitting VPs.
Rod Smart wrote:I would like to see another trainer general for the South. Both Bragg and Hardee have the lesser kind of training attribute.
Captain_Orso wrote:The real question is, what do you understand as balance? If you consider the military rule of thumb that you never attack with less than 1-3 odds, and the fact that the Union must basically attack and conquer the entire South, balance would be for the Union to have 3x the force size of the South, very roughly stated. But I think anybody who knows this game will agree that that would not be balance.
There are two measures of success in this game, National Morale and Victory Points. NM comes first, because it takes precedence over VPs. This is fairly straight forward, and AFAIK both sides gain and lose NM the same. The differences are in that during some phases of the game the each side can have different Instant Win NM levels and different Instant Lose NM levels. In other words, it can be easier for one side to win by attaining that side's IWNM level while it can be easier for one side to lose by having its NM reduced to its ILNM level. I don't recall having heard complaints about these levels, other than the change through the November '64 election.
VPs are also gained and lost the same for each side, mostly by holding cities, which grant VPs to their controller each turn. One big discrepancy here is in the territory each side owns at the start of the game, the territory it might be expected to have at different times during the game, and what it might or ought to mean, whether a city is controlled by one side or the other.
For example, Indianapolis is a small, industrial city and the capital of Indiana. IIRC the controller gets 1 VP for controlling it each turn. It's far enough away from the fighting and 'southern' states, that one might expect it to never change hands during a game with little effort on the side of the Union. But what if it did? What if the South managed to capture it? IMHO it would be a far greater blow to the Union than can be measured be the 1 VP the South gains for each turn it is held, and one VP not gained by the North. But more than this does not occur during the game.
The reverse is also to consider. It's a fact, that we should expect more and more Southern cities to be captured by the North, with the progression of the game. But is it fair for the South to simply get the 1VP for maintaining Memphis, regardless of how log the South manages to do that?
Considering the disparity in the number and size of cities on each side of the game, I don't feel that granting the same VPs for controlling them should be the same. If the Union controls Memphis in '63 it's really no big deal. But if the South does, that is an accomplishment, and ought to be honored with fitting VPs.
Ace wrote:You are 100% right. Now how do you model it ingame with current available tools.
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 determinationCaptain_Orso wrote:Ace wrote:You are 100% right. Now how do you model it ingame with current available tools.
You would need a set of events, which check for who controls a city. If the CS controls the city, VPs are X, if the US controls the city the VPs are Y. You could also have one set of such events for different time-frames, for example one set for each calendar year of the war.
SelectFaction = CSA
StartEvent = evt_CSA_Control_Cincinnati|999|1|NULL|NULL|$Cincinnati_OH|NULL
MinDate = 1861/01/01
MaxDate = 1861/12/31
EvalRgnOwned = $Cincinnati_OH
SetVP = 6
SetEvtOccurs = evt_CSA_Control_Cincinnati;MaxOccurs;0
SetEvtOccurs = evt_USA_Control_Cincinnati;MaxOccurs;999
DescEvent = evt_desc_Control_Cincinnati_CSA
SelectFaction = USA
StartEvent = evt_USA_Control_Cincinnati|0|1|NULL|NULL|$Cincinnati_OH|NULL
MinDate = 1861/01/01
MaxDate = 1861/12/31
EvalRgnOwned = $Cincinnati_OH
SetVP = 3
SetEvtOccurs = evt_USA_Control_Cincinnati;MaxOccurs;0
SetEvtOccurs = evt_CSA_Control_Cincinnati;MaxOccurs;999
DescEvent = evt_desc_Control_Cincinnati_USA
evt_desc_Control_Cincinnati_CSA;The South has captured Cincinnati Ohio and will receive 6 VPs each turn it maintains control of it.;
evt_desc_Control_Cincinnati_USA;The Union has captured Cincinnati Ohio and will receive 3 VPs each turn it maintains control of it.;
hanny1 wrote: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
elxaime wrote:I think the best way to address balance issues is by adjusting the VP. I think CW2 is like Matrix WIP - the Japanese and CSA best shot is early on.
Captain_Orso wrote:elxaime wrote:I think the best way to address balance issues is by adjusting the VP. I think CW2 is like Matrix WIP - the Japanese and CSA best shot is early on.
I think the VPs should reflect the player's success in playing the game, and not how close they are coming to winning the war. Barring the collapse of one sides will to fight, in other words Instant Victory through NM, the outcome of the war was pretty much a forgone conclusion. Militarily the South was bound to lose the war.
The largest differences between the Confederacy and Japan was mass media and the fact that the South was still considered brethren to the North. If you compare the Overland Campaign and the Battle of Okinawa, the casualties at Okinawa were much worse, although they took place over almost the exact same time frame, and yet the U.S., IMHO, could not be considered to suffer greatly from war weariness through the events of the battle having been reported through pictures and film, bring the horrors of the battle into film theaters and onto front pages delivers to door steps across the U.S. To the U.S. the Japanese were a demonized enemy in all senses, where as the South was more akin to your brother taking his football and storming off in the middle of the game.
Ace wrote:Nice work. Although ratio should be 4:1 rather than 2:1. Imagine the prestige in Europe if CSA would hold Ohio.
Ace wrote:So, when will this be implemented?
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.Captain_Orso wrote:hanny1 wrote: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...
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 2 guests