Victory Points at start - should the South gets a boost?

[ERISS]

You may close the poll
and at least edit the first post by making a red bolded link to post#30.
Or make another thread instead.

I did not vote because I think we should not give artificially more VP to the South: the problem is that from the beginning there is too much objectives giving VPs in the North.
Remove some Northern cities from the objectives list and the net effect will be the same as giving more VPs to the South at the start of the game. Moreover it will be an incentive for the North to attack Southern objectives. (post #7)

[tripax]

It seems the best course of action is to alter, add or remove a few VP cities. This will change the balance over time, incite the Union to more a historical aggressiveness while perhaps reducing slightly the attractiveness of some areas, which can also help the AI.

So what would be the (at most) 5 cities that should be promoted to strat city or demoted to normal city if already strat city?

I support this idea. As strategic cities, off the top of my head I'd consider New Bern, NC or Beaufort, NC on the North Carolina coast, Lynchburg, VA was hard to defend but was a major reason the Shenandoah Valley was so well defended, I think, Fort Donelson/Dover, TN is an easy one, Port Hudson, LA was Vicksburg's twin on the Mississippi, although Baton Rouge plays a similar role in the game (maybe Baton Rouge could be dropped, but I think all state capitals should be included), and Athens, GA could be considered.

For some more choices, we can look at key cities in campaigns of the civil war:
Williamsburg, VA was a key city in the Peninsula Campaign, but Richmond was the real strategic goal.
The Franklin-Nashville campaign is represented by Nashville and Atlanta, but Athens, GA and Rome, GA could be added.
Bull Run, VA had 2 and almost a couple more major battles and could be considered.
Harper's Ferry seems to cover the Anteitem campaign, but Gettysburg, PA and Fredricktown, MD could be added.
Shreveport, LA and Alexandria, LA were key cities in Louisianan in the Red River Campaign
Camden, AR was a somewhat accidental strategic city in the failed Camden Expedition
Meridian, Mississippi was important in a number of raids and a key part of Sherman's threatened land campaigns against Mobile
Goldsboro, North Carolina was the goal of the Carolina's Campaign after Savannah fell.

[tripax]

For what it is worth, in the North I'd consider dropping Toledo, OH and adding Cairo, IL. I'd also consider Gettysburg, PA, maybe Kanawha, WV, and Pomeroy, OH (near where Morgan tried to cross the Ohio in his famous raid). Also, I think Erie, PA was paired with Cleveland, OH as an early goal of some Confederate plans of splitting the Union.

[ohms_law]

I like Tripax's Southern ideas.
I wouldn't make Gettysburg anything, though. The only reason that it's important is because of where it's located, which shouldn't bring VP's in and of itself.
I'd definitely remove Pittsburgh as a Strat city/VP location (for the AI more than the players, but regardless...). I tend to think that Cleveland, OH ought to be dropped as well. Playtesting will be more important for what Northern cities are dropped than what Southern cities are added, I think.

[Captain_Orso]

Pocus, or anybody else in the know, is it possible to have one location which will give different VP's to different factions?

I'm all for adding VP locations if they are logical and not just alibi locations. But, just speculating, if adding new VP locations in the South isn't enough, maybe it would be good to have some locations worth more VP's to the South than the Union.

[Merlin]

I'd trade some of the upper Ohio Valley towns for Shreveport, LA; Port Hudson, LA; Meridian, MS; Athens or Rome, GA; New Bern or Goldsboro, NC; Williamsburg or Fredericksburg, VA.

[ohms_law]

Pocus, or anybody else in the know, is it possible to have one location which will give different VP's to different factions?

I'm all for adding VP locations if they are logical and not just alibi locations. But, just speculating, if adding new VP locations in the South isn't enough, maybe it would be good to have some locations worth more VP's to the South than the Union.

I'm not clear where you're going with this train of thought, man. What brought this up? What do you have in mind?

[ArmChairGeneral]

I don't have much relevant to say since the main thrust of all this seems to be to improve the multiplayer game and I don't play it, (which is why I didn't vote) but the AI would probably benefit from reducing the importance of the Upper Ohio Valley.

[Jagger2013]

Pocus, or anybody else in the know, is it possible to have one location which will give different VP's to different factions?

Yes, in the scenario setup file, each faction has a list of VP locations and their values. The VP locations can be different for each faction and the VP points can be different values for the same location. Lot of flexibility in working with VP locations and values.

[Captain_Orso]

I'm not clear where you're going with this train of thought, man. What brought this up? What do you have in mind?

VP's should be measuring the PLAYERS and not the game factions. This is the most important point I have to make. If both players play equally well, they should both have about equal VP's.

The Union has a lot of locations that are valuable and merit an exchange of VP's if they are captured and if the CSA holds them they should award the CSA VP's for as long as they hold them. That, to me, is just logical. However, for the Union it falls under status quo for them to be holding the locations inside their loyal states. For the Confederacy, hold the locations with which they started the game is not the status quo. There is no military balance between the CSA and the USA. The CSA WILL lose territory which the CSA will not regain. This is a fact.

Currently the game is measuring the success of the factions at maintaining territory. The USA has n number of Objective, Strategic and other locations and gets VP's for holding each of these. The Confederacy starts with a smaller number of Objective, Strategic and other locations, for which they get VP's. But that means that if the South holds all the locations they start with and the Union holds all the locations they start with, and everybody gets the same number of VP's per location type, the Union will be gaining more VP's than the South, when in reality the South is winning, because they are preventing the Union player from capturing its locations.

Since the Union has a military advantage, we must expect them to be capturing more and more territory. This is reality and can be seen as the status quo. So if the South we must expect the South to lose locations. But at what rate? At what point must we say, the South has lost these locations but held these within this time-frame. That is better than we should expect from the South, so the South should be gaining on VP's. The converse is also true of the Union's VP's.

Yes, in the scenario setup file, each faction has a list of VP locations and their values. The VP locations can be different for each faction and the VP points can be different values for the same location. Lot of flexibility in working with VP locations and values.

This is good. It allows for a first step and evening up what VP's each location should be giving each player, which should seldom be the same value.

I don't have much relevant to say since the main thrust of all this seems to be to improve the multiplayer game and I don't play it, (which is why I didn't vote) but the AI would probably benefit from reducing the importance of the Upper Ohio Valley.

I don't really agree with this. If the CSA player can capture locations in WV and then OH without unproportionally endangering his forces and abandoning his own territory, why should he not be rewarded for his success? I believe your issue is with Athena making irrational, suicide moves to head up into Ohio and then making little effort into maintaining her forces and instead tries to play a game of cat-n-mouse, which she will eventually lose. The player knows this, but Athena doesn't seem to understand how to balance this.

[tripax]

I think it is ok but not great if strategic cities are set to help Athena's invasion paths be more robust and less likely to devolve into cat and mouse, but it is better if Athena were taught how to secure robust paths of supply from its heartland to its invading armies. That is, I'm happy if the setup of strategic cities helps Athena, but improving AI performance seems like a secondary consideration. Honestly, the relationship between VP and winning isn't my thing, either.

My suggestions of cities were meant to represent (to the best of my ability/memory) places that politicians, journalists, or generals suggested be the goal of the army. That way players and Athena both feel pressure to control cities that there was historical interest in controlling. As much as possible, I think the discussion here is supposed to be about VP balance and not AI performance. However, if AI performance would be degraded if more strategic cities were added, increasing the VP value of certain cities seems like a fine alternative.

[Pocus]

You can specify more than one VP for a given location, but it affects all factions equally. Done with the command SetVP = xxx within a script.

I beg to differ about the VP philosophy. VPs should not be given equally to both players, if they play at the same proficiency level. VPs can also be there to compensate an innate advantage from a side. What if the Union has more chance to win the CW than the South in CW2? With players of same skill, it means he who takes the South will lose more often. Is it good? I'm not sure.

[ArmChairGeneral]

As far as the AI goes, Pocus brought it up before I chimed in. By Upper Ohio Valley I meant Pittsburgh and (to a lesser extent) Wheeling; others have posted about Confederate Athena's unhealthy interest in WV/Western PA.

If we are looking at back-line Union cities that will never be contested, then Northern California, Hartford CT, Macomb MI (Detroit) and Cumberland, Maine (Portland) all get one VP each, and require little or no effort for the Union to maintain. I can see the justification for them getting VPs (most of them are state capitals) but if you are just looking to trim the fat....

Pocus,
If you are considering adjusting VPs, could you take a look at the Sibley campaign? Making it unwinnable for the CSA is historically accurate, but as a player it is disappointing to conquer all of New Mexico and still "lose."

[ERISS]

The Confederacy starts with a smaller number of Objective, Strategic and other locations, for which they get VP's. that means that if the South holds all the locations they start with and the Union holds all the locations they start with, and everybody gets the same number of VP's per location type, the Union will be gaining more VP's than the South, when in reality the South is winning, because they are preventing the Union player from capturing its locations.

VPs can also be there to compensate an innate advantage from a side. What if the Union has more chance to win the CW than the South in CW2? With players of same skill, it means he who takes the South will lose more often.

So, maybe the 1st post and its question is not so bad: the numbers are only too small (like Ace said): If town VP are not touched, the South must start with a huge VP stack, so he wins in the very end if the North does nothing but counting on their own towns.

[ohms_law]

VP's should be measuring the PLAYERS and not the game factions. This is the most important point I have to make. If both players play equally well, they should both have about equal VP's.

I disagree, and clearly Pocus does as well.
In addition to what he just said, he also mentioned earlier that VP's influence foreign intervention. That should clearly not be a factor of "measuring the PLAYERS and not the game factions".

With players of same skill, it means he who takes the South will lose more often. Is it good? I'm not sure.

It is good, in my opinion. There's obviously a balance to be found here, but historicity is certainly preferable to artificial "balance". I think that CW2 has already gone much too far into the "balanced" side of things.

[PJL]

It is good, in my opinion. There's obviously a balance to be found here, but historicity is certainly preferable to artificial "balance". I think that CW2 has already gone much too far into the "balanced" side of things.

I'd argue that giving more VPs to the South is more historical. If anything a historical outcome should result in having same VP at the end for both the US & CS. The only real issue here is that it would affect FP intervention ahistorically, which would be a bad thing.

Actually, a more ambitious idea would be to somehow catalogue at which turn each VP place changed sides in the historical war, do a running total of VPs for the historical war, then compare it to the game being played. Then show the VP difference compared to actual history. That would then be the real score to win by. Certainly something for the history buffs here to work out, if it was possible to implement.

By doing that, you could leave the VP situation as is, without upsetting any other consequences of altering the system.

[ohms_law]

Part of the reason to change VP's is to change Athena's behavior, though.
Anyway, I agree, giving more VPs to the South would be more historical. They wanted their own territory, not the North's, after all. And, the Union needed to "invade" the South in order to impose Federal power on the seceded States. These nuances were really important for Reconstruction, both during and after the war.
I guess that I don't quite follow how that leads to: "a historical outcome should result in having same VP at the end for both the US & CS."

[ERISS]

I don't quite follow how that leads to: "a historical outcome should result in having same VP at the end for both the US & CS."

The South had to submit to North entirely, so we can't say South political goal was reached.. What should be equality? It must be impossible: If South has not lost in the end, then North has lost: so, if equality, then North has lost: so no equality is possible.
So, if same VPs in the end, then the game is given to the South. It was not what happened historically.

What is to be balanced?
. the whole game (units and all slightly boosted for the South), so that history can change (and South can actually win), and the VPs are normally gained,
. or just the VPs ( boosted for the South, so that, at minimum history_result = equality) and the player has just to be better than historically?
. or both

[Merlin]

VPs seem of primary importance to the competitive players, so balance for them is important, while changing VPs is great for the SP players so a CSA Athena stops obsessing over the Ohio Valley. Thus a number of us are proposing the changing of VP towns in certain places.

[Captain_Orso]

This whole discussion started in this thread: Victory points balance - VP ratio favors US over CSA

I find that this discussion has become absurd. If VP's do not determine who the winner of a scenario is, in which neither player dropped below their NM lower-watermark, the they mean nothing and might as well be considered only FI-Influence Points.

I have played other 'board games', even in tourneys, where scenarios where know to favor one side. The scenarios had handicaps for each side to even play balance. In the tourneys, even with balanced scenarios, they used the Australian Balance System, which has the players bid for the side they wish to play. The ASB for CW2 might look like this:

Bid .. Handicap
U+3: Confederate player gets an additional 300 VP's
U+2: Confederate player gets an additional 200 VP's
U+1: Confederate player gets an additional 100 VP's
0: none
C+1: Union player gets an additional 100 VP's
C+2: Union player gets an additional 200 VP's
C+3: Union player gets an additional 300 VP's

Both players first secretly record their bid and reveal it then simultaneously.
The results of the bidding are as follows:

- Both players bid different sides. Each plays the side AND the handicap level they bid.

- If both players bid the same side, the player bidding the higher handicap level plays the side and level he bid, and the other player plays the opposite side at handicap level 0.

- If players bid the same side and handicap level, low DR plays the side and level he bid; high DR plays the other side at level 0.

Something like this only works if the VP's actually mean something.

In the above linked thread the complaint was made that VP's are being allocated unfairly. But why does that concern anybody? Because the game says at the end of the scenario, that the player with the most VP's wins.

On top of that, in tournaments in which the scenarios end before the played scenario reaches '66--generally tourney scenarios do not end with one side breaking their opponent's NM--having a balanced allocation of VP's would then more accurately reflect who the winner of the scenario is regardless of when the scenario ends.

And how is it now? Ask those who contributed so fervently to the above linked thread.

[Merlin]

I think that's great for tournaments, but I don't see why we can't improve Athena's decision-making by changing VP locations. I'll bet most people play SP and the vast majority of PBEM players play for the eventual win, not VPs, so what's the harm in switching a few locations?

[minipol]

I don't think you can compare it to a boardgame. History should dictate what the course of action should be. The North had to invade, the South didn't. If both sides defend from their starting positions, the South should build a VP lead on the Union.
As for how much VP we're talking about, I don't know. Pick a number and let the users adjust it in the gui or an ini file or whatever. Everybody happy. For pbem you could use your qualification system to play.

[Merlin]

I don't think you can compare it to a boardgame. History should dictate what the course of action should be. The North had to invade, the South didn't. If both sides defend from their starting positions, the South should build a VP lead on the Union[...]

Agreed, but for tournament purposes, it is a boardgame. They end well before the normal scenario end date, and as such encourage a Union player to go for VPs when he should normally go for production (loyalty). I think changing a few VP locations would help two groups and the rest of us won't give a damn.

[Jagger2013]

I don't believe with most scenarios, you can really design them for both optimum AI and PBEM play. IMO, you design either for aI play or for human vs human play. If you design for AI play, you give a lot of bonuses to the AI side and handicap the human. If you design for human to human play, you simply design for pure balance either side. Of course, the ideal solution is to have three copies of the same scenario. Two designed for play against the AI from either side and one designed for human to human play. But that is a lot of work.

[Captain_Orso]

I think that's great for tournaments, but I don't see why we can't improve Athena's decision-making by changing VP locations. I'll bet most people play SP and the vast majority of PBEM players play for the eventual win, not VPs, so what's the harm in switching a few locations?

I don't think you can compare it to a boardgame. History should dictate what the course of action should be. The North had to invade, the South didn't. If both sides defend from their starting positions, the South should build a VP lead on the Union.
As for how much VP we're talking about, I don't know. Pick a number and let the users adjust it in the gui or an ini file or whatever. Everybody happy. For pbem you could use your qualification system to play.

Agreed, but for tournament purposes, it is a boardgame. They end well before the normal scenario end date, and as such encourage a Union player to go for VPs when he should normally go for production (loyalty). I think changing a few VP locations would help two groups and the rest of us won't give a damn.

I don't believe with most scenarios, you can really design them for both optimum AI and PBEM play. IMO, you design either for aI play or for human vs human play. If you design for AI play, you give a lot of bonuses to the AI side and handicap the human. If you design for human to human play, you simply design for pure balance either side. Of course, the ideal solution is to have three copies of the same scenario. Two designed for play against the AI from either side and one designed for human to human play. But that is a lot of work.

This is NOT about how to coerce Athena into being interested in different areas, it is a question of play-balance, and apparently whether VP's are used AT ALL to measure which player is 'winning' or has won the game when the scenario has ended or when the player decides that the scenario should end.

If you want to adjust Athena's interest or disinterest in specific areas, go adjust the AI files. There you will have a much greater influence on Athena's behavior than if screwing with the VP's.

Yes! this is a board game(period) and it has nothing to do with whether the player is playing Athena for fun, playing an opponent in PBEM or playing in a tournament. It has to do with the mechanics of the game and nothing else.

[ERISS]

This is NOT about how to coerce Athena into being interested in different areas, it is a question of play-balance, and apparently whether VP's are used AT ALL to measure which player is 'winning' or has won the game when the scenario has ended or when the player decides that the scenario should end.

If you want to adjust Athena's interest or disinterest in specific areas, go adjust the AI files. There you will have a much greater influence on Athena's behavior than if screwing with the VP's.

Yes! this is a board game(period) and it has nothing to do with whether the player is playing Athena for fun, playing an opponent in PBEM or playing in a tournament. It has to do with the mechanics of the game and nothing else.

Yes it is, but it's more, than a plain boardgame (it's not Monopoly): it wants to be a military and historical one, so we can't do anything with VPs.
Sure it's not about coercing Athena at first, but, by the way, the AI can be adjusted too, it can be made to fix the VP problem: The VP problem can be fixed more elegantly than just giving a VP stack to a side, and even if done like that, the AI will have anyway to be then adjusted: South AI has not to invade the North... and it could be made by siting VPs differently, rather than just giving a stack..