hanny1 wrote: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...
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.
Nikel wrote:There seems to be too much talking and too few doing...
Ace wrote: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.
principes romanes wrote: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).
principes romanes wrote: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.
principes romanes wrote: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 wrote: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
Nikel wrote: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.
aariediger wrote:I've played most of my games with a few house rules that slow the Union down:
No river movement button
aariediger wrote:No redeployments of two or three star generals (with one exception, if an army commander is wounded/killed)
aariediger wrote: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.
aariediger wrote: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.
aariediger wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote: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.
Gray Fox wrote:How about an new event where McClellan wins the election with help from the Tzar?
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.
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.
Nikel wrote:Captain_Orso wrote: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.
aariediger wrote: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.
aariediger wrote: Perhaps my game isn't up to date
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
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests