Temgesic
Corporal
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 6:19 am

Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Fri Mar 17, 2017 1:24 pm

Hi!

In my personal opinion this game is still to unbalanced for the CSA in favor for the Union.
The Union gets awesome generals with great stats, and traits. I mean CSA get Samuel Cooper for instance to train militia or whatever up to Infantry, while the Union gets like 3-4 Generals with the trait, if not more. Haven´t played Union so much, im more of a CSA nerd.

But i think this game is great but it is still an unpolished diamond, but that´s just my opinion.

Anyone else who think´s the same as me, or even disagree with me.
Then let´s discuss this, maybe we could have have a poll so people can vote what they think of it.

And besides that, also a negative thing for the CSA is that they have, and get Generals that in real life actually got promoted to Brigadier General and such, Jo. Shelby is a great example for instance. After his raid in Missouri/Arkansas he got promoted to Brigadier General. I can go on with several things but i think people now what i mean and in what direction i'am pointing to.

To get it it short and simple. It seems a lot of research has been done on Union commanders during development of the game and the CSA got a bit behind. That´s my thought at least.

User avatar
Gray Fox
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1204
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:48 pm
Location: Englewood, OH

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Fri Mar 17, 2017 2:31 pm

The real world Union had enormous advantages, not least of which were three times the number of military age males, about twelve times the industrial might and shipyards that could produce over 600 warships. One factory in New England alone built as many cannon as the entire CSA. Still, a lot of us win as the CSA rather consistantly against the AI and even in PbeM. If you posted some AARs of what you are doing, then you might get some advice on polishing this diamond.

Temgesic
Corporal
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 6:19 am

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Fri Mar 17, 2017 5:26 pm

I'am much aware of the superiority of the Union contra CSA when it comes to resources.
But it´s the Generals that im concerned about. Sure the Confederates have good Generals in the '61 start. But as the game progresses the Union gets ridiculously amount of Generals with traits to train Millita/Conscript.

I mean i have read some here on the forum some people who play the Union that just uses 1-2 Generals to act as a "training camp" just for upgrading Infantry and such. And what does the Confederacy get? Samuel Cooper who disappear almost as fast as he shows up.

There are many Confederate generals that are obviously missing traits they should have. Like the Union, CSA also had
Generals that was good in training the men and should have the traits.

By '63 the CSA is literally f****d. Look at Grant, Sherman etc, he is a monster just steamrolling his way through the south and has the trait Training master or what it's called i have forgot that now.

The team NEED to do more research on the CSA Generals.

User avatar
Gray Fox
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1204
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:48 pm
Location: Englewood, OH

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:50 am

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!"

Taillebois
Brigadier General
Posts: 463
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 8:09 pm

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Sat Mar 18, 2017 1:12 pm

Has anybody modded the game so that they feel it gives about 50:50 balance?

There are games where you can vary lots of factors for one or more sides so that you get a balance that you the player feels right for your enjoyment, rather than the game maker having to say that's it, no variation.

Battles from the Bulge gives you the chance to have more supply or less supply for one side or the other; and also order delay increased or decreased.

User avatar
James W. Starnes
Corporal
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 12:05 am
Location: TN

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Sat Mar 18, 2017 4:18 pm

I don't know if I quite understand. The CSA has excellent generals, the Union has good generals as well, but as historically, it takes a while for them to come into the game and take higher commands. The only general that I think is underrated is Nathan Bedford Forrest, his defense needs to be at least 3-4, he needs to also have the "Deciever" trait if anyone has ever studied Brice's Crossroads, and his attack needs to be 7. We are talking about a military genius with no military back ground, rose to Lt. General from the rank of Pvt., and was the father of mobile warfare such as those that Erwin Rommel used. Then again, it could be a balancing stat.

User avatar
BattleVonWar
Major
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 3:22 am

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Sat Mar 18, 2017 4:24 pm

You really don't even need to train as the Union.(training will help you if the CSA is in the top 5 CSA CW2 players in the game but pretty much it's all there for you) The default Unit Build is so far superior to that of the Confederacy you can simply build nothing but pure infantry divisions without training. The only way the Union can lose is if they don't know how to defend D.C. and even then a determined Union Player can simply move his Capitol. I've never lost to anyone as the Union and I doubt I ever will.

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!"

User avatar
Gray Fox
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1204
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:48 pm
Location: Englewood, OH

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Sun Mar 19, 2017 4:25 am

For the reasons I posted and many others, the Union player should win. However, an aggressive CSA player can certainly beat the AI or an unwary Union player. When I proposed this strategic view, the general mood was that the Union in 1861 could shift forces to the Mississippi, launch an amphibious assault on a coastal city, build factories and blockade squadrons all while the CSA player was powerless to affect events. I believe this is no longer the case. A wise Union player knows that doom can come quickly and victory should not be taken for granted.

User avatar
BattleVonWar
Major
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 3:22 am

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:30 am

Grant*** General by early '62 with Lyon and companion.. Ignore the West and steamroll the East. With the kind of naval power the Union builds the CSA has a hard time doing anything significant on the Rivers or holding sustained deep attacks into the Hinterland. Mother Russia = Depleting resources... reverse All East Strategy Richmond Falls or The Army of Northern Virginia is dead about the time Lee comes to power. Can the CSA stop this??? Of course she can but it's then just about when not how... If the CSA strikes first she relies solely on luck! My buddy Buckeye did that in 1861 and one of the 4-2-4 CSA starter generals died on D.C. ... D.C. Can be moved

User avatar
Ace
Posts: 3474
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:33 pm
Location: Croatia

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Sun Mar 19, 2017 10:12 am

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). :pouet:

User avatar
DrPostman
Posts: 2880
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:39 pm
Location: Memphis, TN
Contact: Website

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:56 pm

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). :pouet:

I really like this idea. Keeping the Union from putting all it's eggs in one basket (theater) would help
make for a much more balanced game.
"War is merely the continuation of politics by other means."
― Carl von Clausewitz in his book 'On War' 1832.

“Courage cannot be counterfeited. It is one virtue that escapes hypocrisy”
― Napoleon I


Image

User avatar
Cardinal Ape
General
Posts: 579
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:59 am

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Mon Mar 20, 2017 5:03 am

I'd agree that the game is too imbalanced to make a good competitive game. It may be fun and historically accurate, but not balanced at all.

It seems to me that the Union has an abundance of ways to do better than they did in history, but the CSA does not. A decent Union player can alleviate all their command problems in a year. But what can the CSA do that's really better?

For example, if the South wanted to improve on its glaring industrial weakness, they are forced to build iron works in coastal border cities... The list of locations for their early industrial options reads more like a list of cities you are going to lose in the first year. How about letting them build an industrial complex in Atlanta?

Rod Smart
Colonel
Posts: 302
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2014 3:32 pm

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Mon Mar 20, 2017 5:47 pm

The game being unbalanced in favor of the Union is working as designed. It could be argued, as Gray Fox notes, that the Union is actually UNDER-powered. As Bruce Catton said, the north was basically fighting the war with one hand tied behind its back.

I like Ace's (historically accurate) suggestion of mandating keeping a certain amount of troops nearby, HOWEVER the South was even more guilty of this than the North. Governor Brown? North Carolina? Fighting for states rights against the overbearing federal government in DC?



I would like to see another trainer general for the South. Both Bragg and Hardee have the lesser kind of training attribute.
And perhaps swap Franz Sigel's training attribute for a recruitment attribute, since that was what he did in real life. He helped recruit German immigrants to the cause, but I don't believe he was ever noted for his skill at training troops.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5305
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Mon Mar 20, 2017 7:29 pm

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.

User avatar
Cardinal Ape
General
Posts: 579
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:59 am

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Mon Mar 20, 2017 11:21 pm

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.


I'd agree with that. I've been playing some BOA2 recently; in that game they do a pretty good job of having asymmetrical objective and strategic locations for each side. Maybe something like that could be done for CW2.

User avatar
DrPostman
Posts: 2880
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:39 pm
Location: Memphis, TN
Contact: Website

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Tue Mar 21, 2017 5:39 am

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.

I went in and changed the event for Cooper so that he never retires. Even if he gets unlocked I keep him
in Richmond and use him to train troops only.
"War is merely the continuation of politics by other means."
― Carl von Clausewitz in his book 'On War' 1832.

“Courage cannot be counterfeited. It is one virtue that escapes hypocrisy”
― Napoleon I




Image

User avatar
ArmChairGeneral
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 897
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:00 am
Location: Austin, TX, USA

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Tue Mar 21, 2017 2:52 pm

I know a lot of this discussion revolves around the PBeM game, but I would like to re-iterate my opinion that the game is completely winnable as either side in most of the major scenarios against the AI, even at the highest difficulty settings. (I take Louisville, Indianapolis and Cincinnati in almost every game I play against the Union AI, and get St. Louis about 75% off the time. I usually win in late 62 or by Spring of 63.) The key is setting up and then winning decisive battles and then surrounding and finishing off the defeated stacks. Union advantages disappear when they lose a few divisions and their NM drops below 85. CSA production is more than adequate once you have an ironworks and 130 NM. The South's most effective means of industrial expansion is to go and take WS and $$ producing cities away from the Union, which evens the odds considerably.

The focus for the South must be a NM victory, and the way to achieve this is victoriesin the field followed by taking DC.

User avatar
Ace
Posts: 3474
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:33 pm
Location: Croatia

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Tue Mar 21, 2017 4:39 pm

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.


You are 100% right. Now how do you model it ingame with current available tools.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5305
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Thu Mar 23, 2017 7:34 pm

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.

EvalRgnOwned
SetVP

SelectFaction = CSA
StartEvent = evt_CSA_Control_Cincinnati|999|1|NULL|NULL|$Cincinnati_OH|NULL

Conditions
MinDate = 1861/01/01
MaxDate = 1861/12/31
EvalRgnOwned = $Cincinnati_OH

Actions
SetVP = 6
SetEvtOccurs = evt_CSA_Control_Cincinnati;MaxOccurs;0
SetEvtOccurs = evt_USA_Control_Cincinnati;MaxOccurs;999
DescEvent = evt_desc_Control_Cincinnati_CSA

EndEvent

SelectFaction = USA
StartEvent = evt_USA_Control_Cincinnati|0|1|NULL|NULL|$Cincinnati_OH|NULL

Conditions
MinDate = 1861/01/01
MaxDate = 1861/12/31
EvalRgnOwned = $Cincinnati_OH

Actions
SetVP = 3
SetEvtOccurs = evt_USA_Control_Cincinnati;MaxOccurs;0
SetEvtOccurs = evt_CSA_Control_Cincinnati;MaxOccurs;999
DescEvent = evt_desc_Control_Cincinnati_USA

EndEvent


_______________________
LocalStrings_CW2.cvs
_______________________
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.;

User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 24685
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:37 am
Location: Lyon (France)

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Fri Mar 24, 2017 3:20 pm

You can also pilot that through the list of objectives that each faction has. The added bonus is that you can see your list of objectives (and the ones of your opponent) in the corresponding ledger page.
Objectives grant from 1 to 3 VP per turn depending if they are minor (1-2 NM change), medium, or major (7+ NM change).

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5305
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Fri Mar 24, 2017 11:42 pm

Image I didn't want to get ahead of myself, but yes, Objective Levels can be switched to ;)

If I understand correctly, if a region grants VPs (SetVP), it is listed as a Strategic Town with a star next to its name?
Last edited by Captain_Orso on Sun Mar 26, 2017 3:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

hanny1
Lieutenant
Posts: 125
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:57 am

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Sat Mar 25, 2017 10:54 am

Captain_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.

EvalRgnOwned
SetVP

SelectFaction = CSA
StartEvent = evt_CSA_Control_Cincinnati|999|1|NULL|NULL|$Cincinnati_OH|NULL

Conditions
MinDate = 1861/01/01
MaxDate = 1861/12/31
EvalRgnOwned = $Cincinnati_OH

Actions
SetVP = 6
SetEvtOccurs = evt_CSA_Control_Cincinnati;MaxOccurs;0
SetEvtOccurs = evt_USA_Control_Cincinnati;MaxOccurs;999
DescEvent = evt_desc_Control_Cincinnati_CSA

EndEvent

SelectFaction = USA
StartEvent = evt_USA_Control_Cincinnati|0|1|NULL|NULL|$Cincinnati_OH|NULL

Conditions
MinDate = 1861/01/01
MaxDate = 1861/12/31
EvalRgnOwned = $Cincinnati_OH

Actions
SetVP = 3
SetEvtOccurs = evt_USA_Control_Cincinnati;MaxOccurs;0
SetEvtOccurs = evt_CSA_Control_Cincinnati;MaxOccurs;999
DescEvent = evt_desc_Control_Cincinnati_USA

EndEvent


_______________________
LocalStrings_CW2.cvs
_______________________
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.;
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
Brigadier General
Posts: 491
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 11:57 pm

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Sat Mar 25, 2017 8:08 pm

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.

User avatar
Ace
Posts: 3474
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:33 pm
Location: Croatia

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 am

Nice work. Although ratio should be 4:1 rather than 2:1. Imagine the prestige in Europe if CSA would hold Ohio.

So, when will this be implemented?

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5305
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Sun Mar 26, 2017 3:30 pm

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... :p

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5305
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Sun Mar 26, 2017 3:55 pm

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, 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.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5305
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Sun Mar 26, 2017 3:57 pm

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.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5305
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Sun Mar 26, 2017 4:04 pm

Ace wrote:Nice work. Although ratio should be 4:1 rather than 2:1. Imagine the prestige in Europe if CSA would hold Ohio.


We'd have to do an in-depth analysis of VP locations and the time frames of when which cities were in who's hands, and extrapolate where the players left the historical time line. So, I don't think a simple ratio should be the basis.

Ace wrote:So, when will this be implemented?

Image

hanny1
Lieutenant
Posts: 125
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:57 am

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Sun Mar 26, 2017 5:07 pm

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... :p
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.

User avatar
Ace
Posts: 3474
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:33 pm
Location: Croatia

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:41 pm

Ace wrote:So, when will this be implemented?

Image[/quote]

I expected something like that...

Return to “Civil War II”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 2 guests