Game balance

[TheDoctorKing]

I noticed that in the "PBEM tournament" thread, there seemed to be a consensus that the CSA is much less likely than the USA to "win" a PBEM game. First question: how do you decide who "wins" a PBEM game: is it having the most victory points at the end of the game? Or is the standard just CSA doesn't fall below the 25-point morale level by the end of the game?

Depending on what criteria you use, what has been the experience of most people who have played some PBEM games?

[ohms_law]

I don't actually play PBEM games, but realistically speaking anyhting other than complete CSA anihalation is a Rebel victory. In some ways, the Confederacy is actually easier to play, since the only goal is not to die... The Union is who needs to win. The Confederacy needs to not loose.

[Coregonas]

I want to say I ve played most of my life for the fun of gaming, not for the fun of winning. This gaming is interesting (again for me) while the game has real chances for both sides. i.e (UP TO 25-75% CHANCE EITHER SIDE)

As an example, all Paradox type games are very interesting and lots of fun during the early stages (there is a status quo between you and the other powers), you are trying to survive, slowly grow, and so on... but once some critical point is achieved, the game is totally decided and no more fun into going on.

So, once the game is too clearly decided (won or lost) there is no more fun (for me) in going on playing the game... (thats my personal experience...) however some times, the game is played until finished just for allowing the "winner" to feel more "happy"... or learning some future situations for other matchs

The question is: what do I consider as a win?
For me it is (mainly) performing considerably better than REAL history, and achieving my enemy performing poorer than me.

However the game simulates this by:
a) a win is achieved first as a NM value achieved.
in case a) is not achieved, the side with the most VP value wins
the game is not won by winning lots of battles or something similar. That are the rules.

-------
If I perform a lot better than history, but my ENEMY even performs more better -> he is the winner in my head.

In my first PBEM versus Asalex, I believed I performed better than history, but he did surely even best, so I conceded around 63, with Richmond totally blocked and ANV approaching unsupplied status. Dont remember exactly NM & VP but the game was really bad for me. After some months, I can see I did some excellent performance in the naval & economic affairs, while not so good in the military ones. So--- I did not beter on average than history.

[Daxil]

On the OP question I think what has been brought up is that the CSA is weaker than it was historically speaking due to too much attrition. You run out of reploacements by mid 1863 for example,when historically it wasnt until 1864 that they hit that wall. Thats questionable and under debate now.

See here: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=6174 and http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=10795

Also, I think the point system needs some modifying, personally, in the GC. As is you can do way better than the CSA did historically and still even lose on points. With both those things in mind it's adviseable that the more experienced player play CSA when running the GC for a more even match.

As an example, all Paradox type games are very interesting and lots of fun during the early stages (there is a status quo between you and the other powers), you are trying to survive, slowly grow, and so on... but once some critical point is achieved, the game is totally decided and no more fun into going on.

So, once the game is too clearly decided (won or lost) there is no more fun (for me) in going on playing the game... (thats my personal experience...) however some times, the game is played until finished just for allowing the "winner" to feel more "happy"... or learning some future situations for other matchs

Hah, I see a fellow Hearts of Iron player. I couldn't agree more. I never actually finished a game I don't think.

[TheDoctorKing]

If "victory" for the CSA is beating historical outcome then I think the game should end in June, 1865, not December. Then it's very clear - if CSA hasn't broken morale by that point, then they win. If they do, USA wins.

Between players of equal ability, I am guessing from other posters that a CSA victory is rather unlikely.

I too have fun playing. But I am sensitive to victory conditions and I like to feel like I'm in a fair game where good play on any side may be rewarded with something that can be called victory.

Is there any easy way to re-balance the game? I'm thinking about the advantages that you can give the AI (easier activation, more detection, etc.). Any way to apply those advantages to a human player? By modding? Would this require coding changes?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Coffee Sergeant]

Personally I think victory conditions should be changed. For the Union, capture of most Confederate capitals. For the CSA, capture of Washington. I think that would probably match up with history pretty well.

[TheDoctorKing]

Lensman, It is my understanding that the current game balance is against the Confederacy achieving a historical outcome - at least in PBEM games. Or at least that was the impression I got from the discussion on the PBEM tournament thread and from a few posters in this thread too. That is, I am just fine with the Confederacy being beaten in the end - that was the historical outcome and like you I believe that the game should reflect history. I'm not somebody who wants to set up a game where I can conquer Chicago and Boston as the CSA. But from what other posters have said, their experience is that in PBEM games between players of equal ability the CSA is beaten by the end of 1863, not 1865. So I was wondering if, in order to restore the balance to the historical condition, there was some way of easily increasing the CSA units' abilities by giving them easier activation or more detection. I, too, want the vanilla game to reflect historical outcomes, and perhaps with the AI it does. But with human players it appears not to.

[ohms_law]

For the CSA, capture of Washington.

That's really easy as long as the Union doesn't leave stacks of units there...
Even then, with the right commanders and a commitment to do it, it's generally possible.

[Coffee Sergeant]

That's really easy as long as the Union doesn't leave stacks of units there...
Even then, with the right commanders and a commitment to do it, it's generally possible.

Not against a good PBEM player, it shouldn't be. Even if the CSA player takes Alexandria and Harpers Ferry, they should have to cross the Potomac under guns.

[Big Ideas]

Hi all

You will probably find that a lot/most of the CSA being beaten by late 1863 is the player surrendering as he has been copping a hiding for a long time and doesn't want to go through another bunch of big defeats. so surrenders in 1863. But the game could go onto an 1865 ending if he stayed in.

bye

[ohms_law]

Not against a good PBEM player, it shouldn't be. Even if the CSA player takes Alexandria and Harpers Ferry, they should have to cross the Potomac under guns.

True. But then it's up to the Union to take the initiative... which the Union isn't good at doing (due to lack of leadership before ~ summer '63).
In the meantime the Confederate player can consolidate it's hold on Norther Virginian (and even WV) and spread out a bit behind the Potomac. That way, if the Union accidentally leaves an opening the CSA steps across the river... then there's no more river protection.

Hi all

You will probably find that a lot/most of the CSA being beaten by late 1863 is the player surrendering as he has been copping a hiding for a long time and doesn't want to go through another bunch of big defeats. so surrenders in 1863. But the game could go onto an 1865 ending if he stayed in.

bye

Good point.

Besides, the CSA is supposed to loose the war. The trick is to lengthen it as much as possible.

[AndrewKurtz]

"For the People" is a board game that, IMHO, did a great job with this and personally, it could be used effectively in AACW to determine a winner.

Below are the exact rules changed for AACW terminology. I'm not sure that the numbers would work exactly, but the general concept could probably be effectively made to work well in AACW.

Automatic victories:

1. USA wins if CSA NM drops below 0
2a. CSA wins if USA NM is below 50 in November, 1864 or
2b. CSA wins if at any time their NM is double the USA NM

Otherwise:
3. USA wins if it controls 10 original CSA and/or border states(MO, KY, WV) by April 1865

4. Anything else is a CSA win.

This might provide a good foundation for determining true victory. And one of the cool things about it in FTP is you see games go to the very end as victory is not out of the CSA hand just because they are running out of men/territory. Sometimes it is more about fighting for morale and holding one key state.

As I mentioned, the actual NM levels may not work as the mechanics in AACW are different but I'm sure we could figure out the right levels by finishing/measuring games over a period of time.

[ohms_law]

huh... that sounds good to me.

[TheDoctorKing]

Hi all

You will probably find that a lot/most of the CSA being beaten by late 1863 is the player surrendering as he has been copping a hiding for a long time and doesn't want to go through another bunch of big defeats. so surrenders in 1863. But the game could go onto an 1865 ending if he stayed in.

bye

Good point. I hadn't thought of that. In ASL terms, we call it "failing your personal morale check." I almost succumbed myself the other day, playing a really good (and very ethical) player I was getting the crap beaten out of me, the cardboard battlefield was littered with burning wrecks of Soviet tanks and running Soviet infantrymen. I was just starting to pick up my counters when my opponent pointed out that I had just enough points to win if I could hold out another turn. I made a few good moves, my luck turned, and I notched the victory. Of course, the Russians lost the _battle_. But I won the _scenario_.

If you are trying to make a historical simulation that is also a good game, you have to balance the game by balancing the victory conditions.