Help for the South?

[Scum]

I've played 6 MP games, 3 Union and 3 Confederate. The Confederate have lost every game. I'm starting to think the it's play balance, not me. Advice? Anyone really good with the Confederates that would like to school me? I'm up for a MP game against anyone who can beat me as the South..

[BiteNibbleChomp]

Originally posted by Scum:

My artwork was posted by Steam. If you look at the map, you can see that with 3 turns left, the South still has much of the map. However; with the victory conditions as they are, I was actually worried I might lose as my F/S is in the low 20's.

This is my concern - If I were to lose this game, what would that say about the victory conditions?

Ask yourself; if 2 equal players meet, will each side win about 1/2 the time (by victory conditions, not actual territory). If the answer is no, then I think play balance is off.

That question you pose at the end is something I've been trying to get right for the last three years. Unfortunately the PBEM server doesn't have the data that would allow me to determine this for sure, and any MP games I play are going to come out rather biased given I wrote the game.

Thanks for the screenshots and the losses data, that game is certainly reflective of a strong performance by the Confederacy. Given losses are about equal, I think it's fair to say you're about the same skill level as your opponent (I'm saying this from my own experience, that if I'm significantly better than my opponent, a loss ratio of 2:1 or even better is well within the bounds of possibility, while here it's about 1.1:1), and that being the case the fact you're holding the majority of the core 11 Southern states into 1865 indicates that the Confederacy is sufficiently powerful (in terms of build limits, MPPs &c) to hold its own combat-wise against the Union. So it doesn't appear to me that a major change is needed in that respect? Keeping in mind this is only one game, hardly a large sample size, but not a bad starting point.

Fighting Spirit on the other hand I can see isn't quite as reflective of the performance of armies on the map as it perhaps should be. Confederate Fighting Spirit shouldn't be high - historically the CS was suffering from virtual economic collapse by 1864, and while your convoy losses aren't so dire as was historically the case (where they were shut down to near-zero), war weariness (and as a corollary, dwindling "supplies" of manpower) was very much a present concern.
Which leads me to the following proposed fix:

- Instead of 200 FS points per turn for Union war weariness, the Union now suffers 375 FS points per turn lost, for the duration of the war.
- Then, each state capital (I'll mark these on the map somehow, so players know which cities these are) in the 10 southern states (excluding Richmond, which has its own bonus), as well as the state capitals of MO, KY, MD and WV adds 25 FS points to whichever side controls it, per turn.

What this means is that, in the early part of the war when the Union hasn't captured a lot of ground, war weariness will bite harder than it does under the rules of 1.07. Once seven state capitals are controlled, the war weariness penalty for the Union is the same as it is under the current rules. Should they control eight or more, the Union is better off.
However, until you get to the point where ~11 state capitals are controlled by the Union (at which point the CS will collapse from lack of MPPs), the Confederacy is better off as well. In the early game, significantly more so (which will mean they have higher FS than the Union for longer, increasing their unit morale vis-a-vis the Union.

In your game, this would translate to the Union being at about 15% instead of 25%, and the CS at about 40-45% instead of 20% - still a minor win but one where the CS isn't in serious danger of falling below 10% a couple of turns before the game times out. Had you not lost New Orleans, the Union would likely be below 10% and you'd win a major victory.

Originally posted by DR34MC4T58:

1) Perhaps allow CSA and USA to build 2x Cavalry Corps (since Cav tech 2 and tactics tech level 2), instead of just divisions - iirc for CS one was attached since 63' to Army of Northern Virginia, second was commanded by Nathaniel Bedford Forrest in the West - US had one corps attached to Army of Potomac and at least one corps was in Western Theatre - it could allow for some nice offensive or counter-offensive openings in mid-to-late war stage not to mention increase in flavour and historical immersion

I quite like this suggestion too, although it won't have a lot of impact on balance given both sides would be able to build them. I'm strongly considering adding it in anyway, as it will make the (roughly) late 1862 part of the game that much more interesting.

[HB]

Originally posted by Tanaka:

I smell a troll looking for nothing but arguing just to argue.Do you really have nothing better to do than seek out players profiles and numbers for playing time?

Except that your post history, and steam playing times reveal relevant information.

Originally posted by Tanaka:

Everyone else lets get back to the Devs post and how we can improve this great game.

How much value, is 32 hours of game time experience, from player who jumps from this is the best to no this is the best, but i play another game i like least, more than both combined.

Moving on.

[HB]

Originally posted by BiteNibbleChomp:

Confederate Fighting Spirit shouldn't be high - historically the CS was suffering from virtual economic collapse by 1864, and while your convoy losses aren't so dire as was historically the case (where they were shut down to near-zero), war weariness (and as a corollary, dwindling "supplies" of manpower) was very much a present concern.

Except that we have data that shows the success rate of steam and sail blockade runners and how and why they moved from sail to steam and obtained nearly quarter of all their imports in 64 as steam was seldom caught and 64 was good year for imports.
steam success fail success rate.
1861 1411 1407 4 99.9
1862 205 155 50 75.6
1863 545 472 73 86.6
1864 474 401 73 83.3
1865 108 90 18 92.5
2743 2525 218 87.58

sail success fail success rate
1861 2168 2058 108 94.9
1862 658 413 240 63.2
1863 458 259 199 56.6
1864 249 121 128 48.6
1865 45 13 32 28.9
3578 2864 707 58.44


average success rate whole war steam 88% sail 58%
average success rate1864 steam 83% sail 49%

Stanley Lebergott, 'Through the Blockade: The Profitability and Extent of Cotton Smuggling, 1861-1865,' The Journal of Economic History , vol. 41, no. 4 (December 1981), p.873.)

What this shows is that the CSA blockade runners occurererd mainly in 61, ( 51% of all steam and 61% of all sail as the blockade was barely a thing) from 62 to 65 they moved to steam over sail as sail was increasing likley to be caught, simple economics meant they did it less as each failure decreased the profit margin from performing the run, so the average per year was 333 and 470 and 64 was a good year for steam running and a bad year for sail as the CS moved over to steam runners, as it saw 474 and 249 and 64 was 17% of the wars steam imports while sail was 7%.

You also seem unaware of the extent of CS mobolisation in 64

https://www.amazon.com/Lost-Cause-Confederate-Army-1864/dp/188281049X

[HB]

Originally posted by Scum:

My artwork was posted by Steam. If you look at the map, you can see that with 3 turns left, the South still has much of the map. However; with the victory conditions as they are, I was actually worried I might lose as my F/S is in the low 20's.

This is my concern - If I were to lose this game, what would that say about the victory conditions?

Hard to see exactly but looks like you have lost one state capital and the 4 border state capitals, so comparative historical end of 1861 your one state capital worse off, as the US has yet to achieve 1862 success rates by 65, and looks like a stunning CS victory.

Originally posted by BiteNibbleChomp:

Fighting Spirit on the other hand I can see isn't quite as reflective of the performance of armies on the map as it perhaps should be. Confederate Fighting Spirit shouldn't be high - historically the CS was suffering from virtual economic collapse by 1864, and while your convoy losses aren't so dire as was historically the case (where they were shut down to near-zero), war weariness (and as a corollary, dwindling "supplies" of manpower) was very much a present concern.
Which leads me to the following proposed fix:

- Instead of 200 FS points per turn for Union war weariness, the Union now suffers 375 FS points per turn lost, for the duration of the war.
- Then, each state capital (I'll mark these on the map somehow, so players know which cities these are) in the 10 southern states (excluding Richmond, which has its own bonus), as well as the state capitals of MO, KY, MD and WV adds 25 FS points to whichever side controls it, per turn.

by end of 1862 the US controls two CS state capital, and the 4 border capitals for score of 150, so is -225.
by end of 18 63 the US controls four CS state capital, and the 4 border capitals for score of 200 so is -175.
by end of 18 64 the US controls 5 CS state capital, and the 4 border capitals for score of 225 so is -150.
by end of 1865 the US controls 9 CS state capital, and the 4 border capitals for score of 325 so is -50.

Originally posted by Scum:

This is my concern - If I were to lose this game, what would that say about the victory conditions?

In your game your off the scale of success, ( -250) and is not reflected in victory terms.

[Scum]

thanx for the replies. i think the mentioned changes would help. I really thing that forts are more trouble than they are worth since they die so easy. would be great if i did not lose F/S for disbanding them!

As an aside, finished the game and got a minor. I had all the major cities but New Orleans. It seems that with the flooding option, it is just too easy for the union to guarantee that they will not do worse than a minor loss by just overwhelming the south at new orleans until they can get a ship to trigger the event..

[atshii]

Originally posted by Scum:

thanx for the replies. i think the mentioned changes would help. I really thing that forts are more trouble than they are worth since they die so easy. would be great if i did not lose F/S for disbanding them!

There is a discussion about forts in earlier threads. It was noted that they are pretty historical. A lot of effort was put into them, which led for public thinking they we impenetrable. And then they fell easily, hence the FS penalties.

[BigJohn]

If the game follows history the North wins. My personal interest isn't in that game. Maybe the South should have some event that allows them to possibly push into the North. The South got to Gettysburg in the Civil War, if two players of equal ability play is it possible for the South to get that far North?

[HB]

Originally posted by BigJohn:

If the game follows history the North wins. My personal interest isn't in that game. Maybe the South should have some event that allows them to possibly push into the North. The South got to Gettysburg in the Civil War, if two players of equal ability play is it possible for the South to get that far North?

Depends on how much realism your wanting from the game.

Logistics determines what is practical, so in short, logistic supply determined the strategic movements of Armys ( most to least) comes down rivers or down rail lines, and lastly by wagons, a force living of the land takes from the population what it needs at the expense of the civilians, so it can sustain itself only if the pop base is high enough, otherwise it has to be sustained by a daisy depot chain as it needs to take more than the pop base can provide. So both sides use rivers and railways as the conduits to base of supply and from there its wagon-ed on, example the operational coffin corner in VA limited US lines of advance as the rail network dictated the lines of advance. The US Military railroad built the lines to go where the army wanted to go, 000s of miles, and made them uniform gauge, the CS lacked that capacity and could only connect vital lines that were not connected at wars start by moving rail around from spur lines. It also lacked enough locomotives, so its only the US that had the capacity to produce new rail and the locomotives to invade and be supplied by rail, as the CS would need to convert to a different gauge or capture enough locos and stock cars to use Northern gauged railroads. All CS raids into the North, were limited in logistical reality to taking it all with them, and living of the land, hence ANV for G/burg had the most wagons an CS army ever used, and could only get munitions from the nearest rail head in VA when in PA.

Logistic reality and its impact on what you can operational do is almost non existent in game.

[BigJohn]

Originally posted by HB:

Originally posted by BigJohn:

If the game follows history the North wins. My personal interest isn't in that game. Maybe the South should have some event that allows them to possibly push into the North. The South got to Gettysburg in the Civil War, if two players of equal ability play is it possible for the South to get that far North?

Depends on how much realism your wanting from the game.

Logistics determines what is practical, so in short, logistic supply determined the strategic movements of Armys ( most to least) comes down rivers or down rail lines, and lastly by wagons, a force living of the land takes from the population what it needs at the expense of the civilians, so it can sustain itself only if the pop base is high enough, otherwise it has to be sustained by a daisy depot chain as it needs to take more than the pop base can provide. So both sides use rivers and railways as the conduits to base of supply and from there its wagon-ed on, example the operational coffin corner in VA limited US lines of advance as the rail network dictated the lines of advance. The US Military railroad built the lines to go where the army wanted to go, 000s of miles, and made them uniform gauge, the CS lacked that capacity and could only connect vital lines that were not connected at wars start by moving rail around from spur lines. It also lacked enough locomotives, so its only the US that had the capacity to produce new rail and the locomotives to invade and be supplied by rail, as the CS would need to convert to a different gauge or capture enough locos and stock cars to use Northern gauged railroads. All CS raids into the North, were limited in logistical reality to taking it all with them, and living of the land, hence ANV for G/burg had the most wagons an CS army ever used, and could only get munitions from the nearest rail head in VA when in PA.

Logistic reality and its impact on what you can operational do is almost non existent in game.

Thank you for the information. I haven't read on the Civil War in a long time but recall that the South basically had no chance of winning. The North had an overwhelming economy, population, technology etc. The question is how do they make the "game" more interesting and stay in some what of an historical context. IMO the historical rules will need to be bent so the South can put up a better fight. Maybe even push the North back. Someone mentioned New Orleans, I haven't played since the original version but IMO there should be some "what if" that the South holds New Orleans. Maybe there is an economic possibilty like tobacco prices increase and they get a large bonus. I mentioned this before the "game" allowing two chits on each research gives the North a huge advantage because they get so many MPPs. Historically (if I recall) the South had better leadership, in the game its reflected in the beginning but within a year the North has closed the gap.

[HB]

Originally posted by BigJohn:

Thank you for the information. I haven't read on the Civil War in a long time but recall that the South basically had no chance of winning.

Thats one plank of the post war lost cause mythology. One reasons its invalid is that its deterministic as it starts from knowing the outcome and pre supposes there could not be another outcome as the balance of resources was to great to over come, and allowed the CS writers to say we fought well but had no chance of winning, but by the same token the AWI should have been lost and not won, just like the 6 day war should have seen Israel defeated. In 60/61 no one knew the outcome, both sides chose to resort to conflict to settle the issue and both sides expected to win a short war, neither anticipated the length or scale of what was to come and it also avoids the thorny problem of how the CS made poor choices and contributed to there defeat.

Originally posted by BigJohn:

The North had an overwhelming economy, population, technology etc. The question is how do they make the "game" more interesting and stay in some what of an historical context.

CS never lost a major battle from lack of advanced weapons, US newly raised with repeaters often found themselves defeated ( Ewell took 000s of them in the run up to G/burg) or reduced to replacing them as they used up all the munitions, ( Forest cut the supply lines and destroyed/captured the repeater munitions leaving 2 months before the supply was resumed ). Use of telegraph ( Lincoln loved to try and micro mage a campaign, to control field operations was a mixed bag in outcomes, it very often produced poor outcomes rather than enhanced, the number of ballons was astonishingly small and had almost zero advantage from them, so technology was two edged advantage. US first use of live fire in the AoP began mid 63 with 3 rnds a month target practice as it had a poor performance of firing. Chamberalins 20th main expended c16k rnds, while CSA forces total casualties were c120.

Once the Miss was lost to the CSA, Kirby smith actually benefited from trade with the USA over what the CS War Dept had been able to supply his department with, and it effected grand strategy very little, but vastly increased US options and abilities. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Trading-Enemy-Economy-American-Disunion/dp/1594161992


Well to abstract the will to continue prosecute the war you could model casualty rates, ( you cant use winning major battles as teh combat model does not refelect how battles were fought and is often used in boardgames for vps, board games often use a qualitative CS over a numerical advantaged US and vps etc so borrow some of there better ideas) and geographical success, if the CS can kill faster than the US mobilises, or as lee did in 64 higher than the US manpower advantage, and hold territory/State capitals then compared to a historical base line you have metric to have a + or - level of achievement in game.

Originally posted by BigJohn:

IMO the historical rules will need to be bent so the South can put up a better fight.

SP its not really a problem, but in MP it becomes one, its not easy to balance game for SP and MP use as the human will use the same rules differently. In MP i think you need to house rule what victory would look like.

Originally posted by BigJohn:

Maybe even push the North back. Someone mentioned New Orleans, I haven't played since the original version but IMO there should be some "what if" that the South holds New Orleans. Maybe there is an economic possibilty like tobacco prices increase and they get a large bonus. I mentioned this before the "game" allowing two chits on each research gives the North a huge advantage because they get so many MPPs. Historically (if I recall) the South had better leadership, in the game its reflected in the beginning but within a year the North has closed the gap.

Loss of the meat processing and packing in NO, and transfer by rail East, meant herds had to be driven Eastwards, ( Pembertons meat herd from texas was captured coming up to V/burg, giving him a reduced meat ration for the siege) or coastal shipping along the coast, certainly a critical loss in war making potential for the CS and opening it up for US was even bigger a plus for US.

Leadership is often used in combat models to explain around a 25% better performance from the same equipped troops, just as is the CS practice from 62 on wards filling up existing units with replacements who learnt from vets what to do and when to do it, rather than raise fresh formations, while US continued to raise fresh formations instead, often trained in camps of instruction to assault in close columns as there default as they were still training for 61. Your quite right in game as the US you can simply chose to have better leadership and close the qualitative gap, ( compare G/burg rnds expended to obtain a hit ) that existed historically but is barely present in game.

[BigJohn]

Wow you really know your stuff, are you a history professor or just interested in the time period?

My interest is in the MP game. I lobbied the devs before the game came out to emphasize balance in the MP product but there are a good number of people who prefer a historic approach.

I think by being creative you can sort of accomplish both balance and historic. I mentioned how IMO the game too quickly closes the leadership gap. IMO it does the same for Cavalry. Extending the timeline on both leadership (HQs) and Cavalry would add some balance.

IMO there are "what ifs?" that could be blended in for balance. If I recall there were many more deaths in The Civil War on both sides from disease (Dysentery?) from poor sanitation than actual battle. "What if" the South realized it was poor sanitation and worked to improve sanitation thus decreasing deaths by disease. Both historic & balancing. example DE South spend 100MPP to improve sanitation?

[HB]

Originally posted by BigJohn:

Wow you really know your stuff, are you a history professor or just interested in the time period?

My interest is in the MP game. I lobbied the devs before the game came out to emphasize balance in the MP product but there are a good number of people who prefer a historic approach.

I think by being creative you can sort of accomplish both balance and historic. I mentioned how IMO the game too quickly closes the leadership gap. IMO it does the same for Cavalry. Extending the timeline on both leadership (HQs) and Cavalry would add some balance.

IMO there are "what ifs?" that could be blended in for balance. If I recall there were many more deaths in The Civil War on both sides from disease (Dysentery?) from poor sanitation than actual battle. "What if" the South realized it was poor sanitation and worked to improve sanitation thus decreasing deaths by disease. Both historic & balancing. example DE South spend 100MPP to improve sanitation?

My background includes a Degree in War Studies, with an emphasis in Conflict simulation.
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/warstudies/study-with-us/careers-and-alumni#:~:text=War%20Studies%20graduates%20go%20onto,public%2C%20private%20and%20voluntary%20sectors.

For a what if to work it must be plausible, dont you agree. There are several you could come up with and get a MP opponent to agree, but surely the easiest way to get a MP game is to house rule what you both agree upon rather than expect the devs to do something for what is a minority customer base. Otoh, the game is rather average so i for one would not bother to mod it or even play it in MP mode.

So what caused dysentery, the top disease killer, is 5 decades away from being understood and able to be treated, malaria the US had access to quinine and the CS less effective treatments due to the blockade,Poor sanitation was the norm because they at the time where doing what they did the best they knew how. Think of an Army (80K plus) as high urban pop center that moves around, a mobile city, with not enough medical staff or infrastructure.

These cities in the pre war census had c6% death rates per year, while rural areas, has c2% so just by making an Army changed the expected death rate by around 3, http://www.civilwardata.com/ca_demo6.html most deaths from disease occur in the initial period of mobolisation as rural america formed camps of instruction and Armies and brought 00s of 000s into contact for often the first time, so illness and sickness ran riot, USCT troops with even fewer medical staff had c13% disease rates.

Grant was well known for aggressive action, one reason was he sufferers one of the highest non combat loss rates of both sides, so doing something with them made sense as he expected to lose them by the bucket load anyways, while Hood was twice as good as Johnstone at keeping men healthy, and Pillow while a liability in combat command had one of the the best records of keeping men healthy as he was a superb admin officer who was also twice as good at getting men into service than any CS Mil Department commander or the conscription Service in general.

[HB]

Originally posted by BigJohn:

IMO there are "what ifs?" that could be blended in for balance. If I recall there were many more deaths in The Civil War on both sides from disease (Dysentery?) from poor sanitation than actual battle. "What if" the South realized it was poor sanitation and worked to improve sanitation thus decreasing deaths by disease. Both historic & balancing. example DE South spend 100MPP to improve sanitation?

You might find this of interest. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8559768/#:~:text=Then%20in%201915%2C%20Carl%20Sonne,agent%20of%20dysentery%20in%20Denmark

[BigJohn]

Thanks. I'm not suggesting the game introduce miracle cures or anesthesia long before they actually arrived. I'm suggesting offer an option that the South focuses more on sanitation (like Hood?) so the South has less casualties and are stronger. It bends history but within the realm of possibilities to add balance. In the end its up to the developers to decide what type product they want.

[HB]

Originally posted by BigJohn:

Thanks. I'm not suggesting the game introduce miracle cures or anesthesia long before they actually arrived. I'm suggesting offer an option that the South focuses more on sanitation (like Hood?) so the South has less casualties and are stronger. It bends history but within the realm of possibilities to add balance. In the end its up to the developers to decide what type product they want.

Well the out of combat administrative abilities/practices of Generals is seldom used in board/PC wargames, yet having a smaller proportion of your PDF excused duty for sick is certainly a military advantage, AoP began the Overland campaign with 102k PFD and 5k to sick to do anything, ( the medical and surgical history of the AoP is online as a pdf ) and ended up, with twice that, so even 5% loss of available manpower from illness was not nothing, but Mac took command of the AoP in 62, and it had 23% of its 103 PFD as sick and Mac brought in Letterman* to reduce its effects, one of first one was to introduce regulations for sanitarian, instead of offal/animal waste being thrown into a water source and washed down river, ( so the last formation posted down river had polluted water to drink cook etc) it was burnt and buried two down, deep its for urine and solid waste were dig and covered with 6 inches of soil/lime each day, instead of going wherever you wanted to go, generally not very far and so on, so what your after can be easily be abstracted in game with only a little thought.

* https://academic.oup.com/milmed/article/180/3/259/4160074 or https://www.facs.org/media/5gijwmbe/04_letterman.pdf

If you want a stronger CSA then use the high count for prob CSA manpower rather than the low count, and start counting the free blacks who are listed in the 1890 Veterans census, thats a 1% combat strength increase for land foces manpower and a 10% increase for naval, which means around 30% of free blacks of mil age served in a mil capacity, then look at the State archives for war time loyal service pensions, these were slaves who served in non combat role that freed up white to a combat role, so cooks, wagons drivers field musicians etc, that free up around 10% of the ANV white to fight by mid war. You wont need that in single player as you can win by 62/3 against the AI but would poss be of more use in MP or Sp against the CS.

More fitting perhaps, given the games design philosophy, would to make attacking less effective/defending more lethal.

Originally posted by BiteNibbleChomp:

That railroad has been annoying me for three years :evil: I don't know how many times I've looked at maps of Tennessee from 1860/61, none of them agree with each other and some have rails going through Dover, some have them going near Dover, some have nothing there at all :roll:

https://www.csa-railroads.com/

https://www.csa-railroads.com/images/Western%20Railroads.pdf

It had 4 locos, to service 21 stations https://www.csa-railroads.com/Memphis,_Clarksville_and_Louisville_Stations.htm