New official 1.14 patch

[soundoff]

I think the fact that AACW is still attracting (in large numbers) the not-so-vocal "newbies" that are enjoyng the historical part of the design, speaks well enough that the game is still quite enjoyable even with the historical accuracy improvements.

It's a balancing act to properly implement "historically accurate" models and still retain the game's enjoyment factor. Obviously, we've been quite successful or the game's sales numbers would have suffered dramatically as the changes were implemented.

It's been stated elsewhere that the relatively "older" players have an understandable problem with historical accuracy changes since it "messes with their playstyle". This is unavoidable for AGEod since their development system emphasizes and indeed utilizes volunteers to continue the game improvements AFTER the game has been released to the general public. Even though we know this playstyle issue exists, we won't allow it to stiffle further game improvements especially since all the "oldsters" have to do is NOT upgrade beyond the version of the game that they are quite happy with.

Gray this sounds very plausible but and its a big but.....

Firstly I would hardly expect the new sales of this game to be adversely affected. To begin with the game is 2 years old now so I would suspect that 'new' sales are not that significant a number these days. Also for sales to drop off because of changes would require there to be lots of adverse publicity and I think even you would acknowledge that generally speaking the player base of AACW is loyal to AGEod so thats not going to happen.

Whether the 'historical' changes really are working however is not down to sales. Its down to the simple question....will/are these new players actually playing the game with the same intensity/longevity of the 'oldsters'?. For its how many times you come back to a game and play it over and over that determines whether or not its a 'good' game. There have been countless games that have sold lots of copies that have been quickly consigned to the dustbin by purchasers.

It will be interesting to see how many of the 'youngsters' are still active and around 12 months from now. That will be the real acid test as to whether or not 'historical' changes that affect game balance are worthwhile. Plus of course coupled with how many 'oldsters' cease to play because of game changes.

Finally whilst your view that 'oldsters' can cease to upgrade at any time seems eminently rational and conciliatory it only holds true if 'bug and correction' patches are kept totally separate from alterations to game design patches. Currently they are not so 'oldsters' are actual left with a like it or lump it scenario with the only choice being 'Hobsons'

<Edit> And now, with the exception of confining my thoughts and comments to reviewing my PBEM with Banks my time with AGEod's ACW is done, unless of course there happens to be a v2 in the future

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Big Muddy]

Problem solved, no more duplicate Generals

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jarkko]

We're currently "brainstorming" some way to model this as it was really applicable to the USA troops in the first year of the war. Current thoughts (not implemented yet) are to impose Hits across the board on the USA units periodically during the first year time frame. This would require the USA player to again use even more of his bountiful resources to produce more replacement chits to make up the losses.

I hope you first wait and see what effect the new draft system (in the campaign with Kentucky) has. USA is, as far as I can see, now much more forced to use money to buy more troops instead of replacements, and if the USA then *also* has a higher need for replacements, you would probably see unwanted results.

That said, I am quite willing to run a test game with somebody to see how the new draft rule changes the balance between USA and CSA. Not sure if I can find anybody willing to play a full campaign with the draconian settings I deem to be a must for a pleasing game though

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Eugene Carr]

We're currently "brainstorming" some way to model this as it was really applicable to the USA troops in the first year of the war.

Actually for the US expired enlistments were a factor all thru the war - 1 and 2 year hitches were up in 1863 and a lot of 3 year enlistments expired in 1864.

I think it would be good to see this modelled.

S! EC

[Franciscus]

I hope you first wait and see what effect the new draft system (in the campaign with Kentucky) has. USA is, as far as I can see, now much more forced to use money to buy more troops instead of replacements, and if the USA then *also* has a higher need for replacements, you would probably see unwanted results.

I have not playtested (yet) these new changes (I will when I get some free time, but now I am again very interested in Great Invasions :wacko . I would just like to point another issue that we should be attentive when testing this - is the USA AI capable to deal with the need to buy more troops ? Again, do not forget that many of the original game balancing decisions by Pocus had the AI in consideration, which is a good thing, as most of us play against the AI

(PS @ Gray: Do not misinterpret me in any way, please. I would like only for you to consider maybe, when the legacy patch for AACW comes out, to reformulate the KY-historical scenarios as a kind of Historical Mod version 2, to avoid any possible confusion with the original vanilla grand campaigns)

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[AndrewKurtz]

I am very surprised that some people do not seem to want to give changes to AACW time to be balanced. I personally think the game can have both an improved historical feel while, at the same time, being fun and balanced.

The recent changes to mobilization have been presented as a test, not permanent changes. And they are in new scenarios, not the original scenarios, for purposes of these tests.

Let's try some games with the mobilization changes, provide feedback, and move forward instead of saying you'll never play never playing again.

BTW, I've said this before and I'll repeat it. For the People (FtP) is a game in which the victory conditions provided for amazingly fun games even if the CSA was at a disadvantage. I played FtP games were the Union troops had overrun much of the CSA territory, but the CSA won because they were not defeated by April, 1865. VERY, VERY fun games.

AACW can be historically accurate and fun to play IF a CSA victory is properly defined. A CSA victory can't be defined as winning the war or taking DC. That should be defined as an ABSOLUTE CSA Victory and USA embarassment. In my opinion, anything other than a Union victory by April, 1865 should be considered a CSA Victory. There are no draws. Union does better or equal to history and they win, otherwise, the CSA player wins.

[Pocus]

The good thing is, as Gray said, that the changes introduced lately which are geared toward historical accuracies, are added to an alternate campaign (the 'KY campaign'). So the 'vanilla' (almost, we also allow data changes in it!) campaign is still there, for those preferring to stick to known stuff.

[cptcav]

Actually for the US expired enlistments were a factor all thru the war - 1 and 2 year hitches were up in 1863 and a lot of 3 year enlistments expired in 1864.

I think it would be good to see this modelled.

S! EC

Excellent point. Armies continue to grow with no attrition due to enlistments expiring. I, too, would like to see this modelled.

Regards,
CptCav

[Pocus]

The good thing is, as Gray said, that the changes introduced lately which are geared toward historical accuracies, are added to an alternate campaign (the 'KY campaign'). So the 'vanilla' (almost, we also allow data changes in it!) campaign is still there, for those preferring to stick to known stuff.

I'll correct myself here. There are some changes in the vanilla, which are rather important changes for game balance, and are motivated with more historicity in mind. Namely Corps and Division creation postponing. I don't want to open a Pandora box here, but unless there is a vast majority of player which are thinking this was not a sound move of us, the team don't regret the change, because there was much room for refinement in the setups when we released the game.

Now let's move on, parenthesis closed

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Big Muddy]

Anyone with reasonable verifiable numbers regarding enlistment expirations (especially in the form of overall percentage) on the army sizes, I'd be glad to hear more feedback from. I have some ideas regarding some rather simple events that could be specifically applied to the -KY scenarios to model this behavior AFTER this initial delayed draft testing stage is over.

I'm playing the April '61 Kentucky, I thought that the new draft system was coming in the near future. Sorry I've been playing a modded version for so long I'm not up with the regular game.

When is the first draft, is the player given random units, if so how is this dicided, or does the player get to choose from a list, buy the way, I'm game.

I had wo battles which I lost but both Generals were congratulated for their efforts. I thought getting phraise for losing only happens these days .

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[W.Barksdale]

I'm hoping this restores some balance to the game regarding army sizes, especially since the USA draft option arrives a year later than the CSA option. I could easily be wrong and more adjustments will be necessary to compensate. We'll have to wait and see what the feedback brings in.

Gray please note that I am totally for these historical changes, I am just concerned about the effect on game balance. I am positive companies will need to be increased too as some preliminary analysis suggests.

In my current PBEM, vanilla game, I did a tally of my current army manpower, that is all the men organised in divisions and totals 383.000. There are well under 50.000 troops in garrisons that I`ve placed (not locked units) It`is Late March 1863 and I`ve used all the full draft options available as well as 3k bounties everytime they are available. I am still always short on fresh companies.

Now according to soundoffs link above, on Jan. 1, 1863, the Federals had total manpower of 918.191, with 698.802 present for duty. Using these numbers I am still missing over 265.000 troops, compared with the date in the soundoffs link, using the present for duty total. Note that I`ve taken around 135.000 casualties.

Restricting drafts will only further increase this imbalance. Is the KY scenario significantly different in terms of the number of companies available by draft and volunteersÉ

[richfed]

Personally, I feel that changes such as these ought to be done primarily in beta-type patches. They clearly affect game-play and need testing/adjusting before implementing in the official game. I know it will be said that we need not update to these, but the fact of the matter is each patch/fix generally includes OTHER changes that may be more to the users liking. So, then a decision needs to made as to what outweighs the other. In my opinion, official patches should contain bug fixes and game-play tested changes only. A player deserves a stable build whenever they download an official patch.

That all said, placing this change only in the '61 w/Kentucky campaign was a good decision. Best of both worlds I suppose.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[W.Barksdale]

Several months subsequent to that, it was pointed out through feedback that the armies were too "big" in the overall displayed number of men, so these multiples were adjusted and tested extensively in the Beta forums until we got the "flavor" display to be about right using approx 60% of the original value. Again using the CSA model cited above, the MenPerHit multiple was now adjusted to 30 or (50 x .60). Now this model displays a "flavor" number of men of 600 (20 hits x 30 MenPerHit). Incidentally, if the multiples were changed back to the first values used, your numbers cited above would be close to 638,000 instead of 383,000, much closer to the values you are comparing your numbers against. This shows why it is a misapplication to compare the "flavor" numbers against real historic manpower numbers.
.

So you are saying, implicitly, that any reduction in manpower by restricting drafts, would bring game troops levels below historic ones? Agreed.

Judging by tons of feedback from reading virtually every post on this site concerning the subject, it appears that armies (especially the USA army) are very easily able to be built much larger than happened historically in terms of elements and units resulting quite often in an overrun of the historic values of real divisions used. This generally means "game over" in favor of the USA by mid to late 1863 instead of playing out to late 1864 early 1865.

Oh come on Gray! You know this isn't true. In my previous analysis of the historic number of divisions I found that there were indeed many more divisions built historically than are available to be formed in game. Both the rebels and Federals.

I am bowing out of this conversation. Thanks for all your work but you are so hypocritical. Don't agree with me behind closed doors then pull statements like these in public.

Anyway, If you actually played the game competitively, or at all, you could see what kind effect draft manpower will do to game balance. I just pray your mod testers play against real people when giving information if this makes it into the vanilla game.

[Chaplain Lovejoy]

An observation after playing the opening of the April 1861 campaign -KY scenario as USA against AI: CSA/Athena will ALWAYS choose the option of preemptive invasion of KY. Some randomness needed?

[richfed]

The game is beyond the beta stage and this is the only realistic way of getting the amount of feedback necessary (in terms of testing participants) in order to understand what adjustments might have to be made. It could have been done as a Mod but then the number of participants shrinks dramatically as a large percentage of gamers are quite reluctant to install Mods. Done in this form allows anyone interested to participate in the testing process or not. If they want to participate, they can load up the -KY scenarios and test away for us and hopefully provide needed feedback. If they don't want to participate they can stick with the "vanilla" scenarios and ignore the -KY scenarios. Pretty simple concept that Pocus has endorsed above.

We just had an extensive beta run with 1.14, yes? If I'm a new customer, shelling out $50, and I get a game that's still being tested ... well, then I get pissed. But, as a player since April '07, it's OK ... I'm just glad the game is still improving.

Anyhow, I agree with Champlain Lovejoy's observation above. I have restarted the '61 campaign w/ Kentucky numerous times since 1.14 has existed -- I have never seen a result other than Union invades [I play as CSA] --- in August, I believe.

[W.Barksdale]

Judging by tons of feedback from reading virtually every post on this site concerning the subject, it appears that armies (especially the USA army) are very easily able to be built much larger than happened historically in terms of elements and units resulting quite often in an overrun of the historic values of real divisions used.

This is because most players keep the bulk of their troops in their main armies and not defending back areas as was done historically. This is a player by player decision and if they want their armies bigger and rear areas undefended, not historical, but why not?

This generally means "game over" in favor of the USA by mid to late 1863 instead of playing out to late 1864 early 1865.

I don't know where you getting these findings. My last PBEM I played the rebels and we played into 1864 when my opponent conceded. He stated that he didn't think he had enough troops We very well could have gone on to the end of the game.

The PBEM I'm playing now, it is currently the middle of 1863. I don't expect the war to be over any time soon. In all honesty, if I was missing 4 divisions the south would be doing much better.

Usually games end early simply because the losing side has made a terrible strategic mistake. It's not because they are lacking manpower or the opponent has too much, as you claim. I gurantee you any player experience with the game will tell you the exact thing.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[W.Barksdale]

W. Barksdale:

a change done to an entirely separate set of scenarios that have no effect on the vanilla campaign scenarios.

Great news! Keep your changes to game balance within your own mod! Maybe one day you'll start playing for yourself!

I thought you were going to start messing with a very balanced vanilla game so my apologies.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[W.Barksdale]

Thanks for this quickfix Gray... This game wouldn't be the same without your dedication.

Please accept my apologies.

[AndrewKurtz]

Thanks for this quickfix Gray... This game wouldn't be the same without your dedication.

+1