GC Point System discussion

[Daxil]

I just wanted to get a discussion going on if people think the GC's point system is properly constructed. It is my understanding that it is intended to roughly rate you against how your historical counterpart performed. With that in mind it seems to me that the CSA is almost penalized if they survive past their historical surrender point. More and more points stack against you as USA dominates the map. Eventually you'll find yourself down 1,000, 2,000 points. I just don't know if it's been playtested too well. IMO it should be a CSA points victory almost invariably if they manage to survive to the end. What is the point in continuing on otherwise?

As a remedy I might suggest each turn they survive past Early April 1865 they get an additional 10, 15 points per turn? Just throwing that number out there so we can debate it. Maybe you think things work well as is also, which you're certainly welcome to present your point on.

How many of you have survived to the end as CSA and what was the average point spread?

Brought to by the words point and points.

Thanks.

[Banks6060]

I think points are just a manner in which developers tried to present a qualitative measure for victory. IMO, if you're the south and you haven't already won the game prior to January 1866...you're probably on your way to losing it...as was the case historically.

Of course I'm speaking purely from a PBEM standpoint.

[Daxil]

I think points are just a manner in which developers tried to present a qualitative measure for victory. IMO, if you're the south and you haven't already won the game prior to January 1866...you're probably on your way to losing it...as was the case historically.

Of course I'm speaking purely from a PBEM standpoint.

The historical surrender was April 10 1865 and the game ends Jan 1866. My point is, if you survive longer than April 1865 you should probably be rewarded as the CSA. You disagree on that Banks? I'm unclear.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Franciscus]

I do not care a bit about victory points, and that's because I play exclusively against the AI and for fun, not necessarily to "win"

[Banks6060]

The historical surrender was April 10 1865 and the game ends Jan 1866. My point is, if you survive longer than April 1865 you should probably be rewarded as the CSA. You disagree on that Banks? I'm unclear.

Yes. I disagree. I don't think the south should be rewarded because time is always against the CSA.

There are essentially two windows of time for the south to win an all out victory.

1861-1862: take Washington, Louisville and St. Louis early on.

1863-1864: Cause USA so many losses they're NM drops below the threshold, which in 1864 rises to 60 because of the election.

My point is, if you're the south and you haven't managed to win by election day 1864....you WON'T win...and you shouldn't receive anything that might suggest you still could. You continue to fight it out for fun...but, considering reality, you're not going to win. Even if there's a giant stalemate and the GAME's time-frame expires....even in that case...outisde the game's time-frame...the war would continue...and the south would lose.

[Heldenkaiser]

My point is, if you're the south and you haven't managed to win by election day 1864....you WON'T win...and you shouldn't receive anything that might suggest you still could. You continue to fight it out for fun...but, considering reality, you're not going to win. Even if there's a giant stalemate and the GAME's time-frame expires....even in that case...outisde the game's time-frame...the war would continue...and the south would lose.

I concur.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Daxil]

Yes. I disagree. I don't think the south should be rewarded because time is always against the CSA.

There are essentially two windows of time for the south to win an all out victory.

1861-1862: take Washington, Louisville and St. Louis early on.

1863-1864: Cause USA so many losses they're NM drops below the threshold, which in 1864 rises to 60 because of the election.

My point is, if you're the south and you haven't managed to win by election day 1864....you WON'T win...and you shouldn't receive anything that might suggest you still could. You continue to fight it out for fun...but, considering reality, you're not going to win. Even if there's a giant stalemate and the GAME's time-frame expires....even in that case...outisde the game's time-frame...the war would continue...and the south would lose.

Yeah, but you shouldn't think you've "won" as the North either if you can't put away an opponent that historically folded 8 months prior. On the contrary, you're underperforming and are not using the advantage given to you in material and numbers to maximum effect. Why even have a point system with your philosophy? You're saying that "decisive victory" is all that matters. Catch my point?

Not to mention, if there is a point system designed the way I think it's supposed to be, the Southern player has a reason to keep playing. Sorry, but it's not "fun" to be pummeled at the end by a Northern player with al the advantages. It would be, however, if you knew you could still acquire the lesser points victory, and so too could he still acquire the decisive victory. There would be drama instead of boredom and "I quit."

[Roll Tide]

I would have to agree with Daxil on this. The point system doesn't necessarily need reworking though. In actuality, I would much rather have the design guys working on other improvements with their limited time than on a points system that nobody really cares about anyway.

The fact is that when you are playing against the AI you will usually win regardless of the points total and if you are losing, people usually identify where they made their mistakes and try again.

In a PBEM game both sides can agree on victory conditions beforehand. I know that if I haven't taken out the South by end of 1865 then they definitely gave me a butt kicking. Doesn't matter what the points say.

[Daxil]

In actuality, I would much rather have the design guys working on other improvements with their limited time than on a points system that nobody really cares about anyway.

I'm not sure that it's true no one else cares about it. Sure, youi can make up your own PBEM rules, but it sort of takes away from the immersiveness to have to pretend and it's perfectly correctable. No one's demanding it be done immediatelly, anyways. This is a debate thread.

[aryaman]

I agree with Daxil in that a reworking of the points system is required for PBEM, in fact it was done before, about a year ago. Back then the system point was so terribly unbalanced that the CSA player started losing since the first year and there was no chance to win on points. I myself pointed that in the forum and corrections were done.
Now, I understand Gray´s point, but AACW is an ongoing project, and within it something could be improved without necessarily being the last word. Besides, the VP system is relevant to the options system, as the selection of some options are penalized in VPs.
IMO the VP system should accompish the following objectives
1) Reward the better player regardless of the outcome of the war, in a PBEM as important as yopur side winning is beating your opponent.
2) Compel the players to take tough decisions. Presently that is not the case, players go to full mobilization with no doubt in their minds because the penalties are too light. Union player can play a relaxed strategy during 1862 as he is not really forced to attack, Fredericksburg and Chancelorsville can be easily avoided.

[soundoff]

I concur.

+ a second one

I always play against a long standing friend (yes I have one) whom I regularly used to tabletop with and we've found that the South can survive quite nicely by conceding territory everywhere in the early years....particularly if you relocate the capital (what use is trying to hold onto the east then?) For example as the South give up Tennessee without a fight just see how that stretches the Unions lines of supply and movement.

So for the two of us its simple....South wins by the end time or its a Union victory....either marginal or decisive.

[Gray_Lensman]

The end time should also contain the summer of 1866 campaign season. The fact that Lee was surprised and surrounded at Appomattox was a chance occurance while he was trying to escape to join up with Johnston, so the game should allow for this extra chance for a final campaign season. It should not end arbitrarily at the same time as the historic Appomattox surrender.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[aryaman]

As far as VPs are concerned, I really don't think they should figure into the final win computation at all. Only possession of specific defined objectives (state capitals, etc) should count and only at the very end of the game. VPs should only be used for tie breakers at the very end.

But then, what happens to options linked to VP cost? They would become senseless.
If we go for a system based exclusively on final result, I think NM should then be the key factor,, and NM linked events reworked.

[Heldenkaiser]

But then, what happens to options linked to VP cost? They would become senseless.
If we go for a system based exclusively on final result, I think NM should then be the key factor,, and NM linked events reworked.

I think the suggestion is to have VPs (for such purposes as you mention) but not use them to determine the end final outcome of the game.

[aryaman]

I think the suggestion is to have VPs (for such purposes as you mention) but not use them to determine the end final outcome of the game.

But then, VP penalties are senseless, you can take them happily as they are not going to count in the end, and the influence on other aspects, as money raised by taxes, would be negligible.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Banks6060]

Yeah, but you shouldn't think you've "won" as the North either if you can't put away an opponent that historically folded 8 months prior. On the contrary, you're underperforming and are not using the advantage given to you in material and numbers to maximum effect. Why even have a point system with your philosophy? You're saying that "decisive victory" is all that matters. Catch my point?

Not to mention, if there is a point system designed the way I think it's supposed to be, the Southern player has a reason to keep playing. Sorry, but it's not "fun" to be pummeled at the end by a Northern player with al the advantages. It would be, however, if you knew you could still acquire the lesser points victory, and so too could he still acquire the decisive victory. There would be drama instead of boredom and "I quit."

Let me say that I can agree with you on one point. If the Yanks haven't won by April 1865...they should probably be PENALIZED in some way. Perhaps an even higher NM threshold. To symbolize a severely war weary populace.

I don't think VP's are the answer to keeping the game competitive through its entirety...especially in PBEM.

But again...I DON'T believe the south should in any way be rewarded for carrying the war past its historical conclusion. As I mentioned above...I think the north should conversly be PENALIZED.

fin.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[ghostlight]

If the north cannot force the south's capitulation by 1866, it should be declared a CSA Player victory.

Yes. The goal of the South was simply to survive as a country. If the South had avoided catastrophic casualties and continued to hold, say, Chatanooga, the Mississippi from Vicksburg to the Gulf, and the East through 1866, it seems doubtful to me that the Union would have continued a 'total war' strategy for much longer. That would be a clear Southern win historically and should be in game terms as well.

By the way, Lincoln's assassination wouldn't have an effect on a result like this, since historically it was a last gasp reaction to the Southern defeat. It wouldn't have occurred if it looked like the South would win.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Daxil]

I agree that the south should not be rewarded, but neither should the north be penalized. There should just be one more bloody year to fight it out if necessary, and this is what the game provides. If the north cannot force the south's capitulation by 1866, it should be declared a CSA Player victory.

Why even have points then? I'm not understanding the idea of points as it pertains to this game. You guys mostly seem to think I'm implying the North hasn't won if they cant put away the South by 1865, April. That's not really what I'm saying. Although I think things should seriously be weighted towards the South, I think a points tally should simply acknowledge, they could have done better or worse. If the casualty difference was high in USA favor or something, then that could outweigh the time penalty. Right now it's a crushing Union victory either way and the South is actually penalized points-wise for holding on .

[TheDoctorKing]

I think of VP as another measure of popular support for the war effort. To my mind, "victory" in the game is exceeding the historical outcome - for the USA, collapse of CSA NM before April, 1865, for the CSA, lasting beyond April 1865 (or collapsing USA NM at any point).

But if you are going to have victory in a competitive game determined by VP, then I agree that the CSA should get points for just surviving. Maybe not in 1862, but they should start getting points in 1863, more in 64, more yet in 65, to make up for the increasing amount of points the USA is getting for all the cities they are taking.

[Coffee Sergeant]

Why even have points then? I'm not understanding the idea of points as it pertains to this game. You guys mostly seem to think I'm implying the North hasn't won if they cant put away the South by 1865, April. That's not really what I'm saying. Although I think things should seriously be weighted towards the South, I think a points tally should simply acknowledge, they could have done better or worse. If the casualty difference was high in USA favor or something, then that could outweigh the time penalty. Right now it's a crushing Union victory either way and the South is actually penalized points-wise for holding on .

Points determine how much you get from the draft and financial options, as well as affecting foreign intervention.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted