Balance in the 1861 Scenario

[battlevonwar]

I am playing in one of my first Multiplayer Games as the CSA. The Union has 81 Land Units vs my 53, and a lot more Naval Units than I do which act a lot like Naval Artillery purely for land attacks.(gunboats can take out 1 HP per smack, and with 5-10 of them say assaulting 1 location act more like 3 Infantry that are of good quality and cheaper, they can even destroy units) Though my losses are now double that of my opponent I can't replace my units at an even pace let alone build to the level to match him or be slightly under him. A certain event didn't fire so I think I'm short 4-5 units from the Far West due to that but regardless there is no parity in strength here. With the naval power of the Union you really can't be stopped as far as I can see.

I think it's Summer of 1862 and the Union is now proceeding to capture Richmond and there isn't whole lot in his way now at this point. I might have 5 more units or 6 that I lost due to bad choices but pumping out units at this point with the tech change isn't going to stop him from capturing the Capitol. The Gunboats destroy the forts like they're made of swiss cheese(Forts at this point in the game 1861-1862 pretty useless and I have tech 1 forts)

I predict that with 3 Trains, 3 Artillery 5-10 gunboats, an endless Sea of Infantry Units the Union can just slugfest his way through Virginia by late in '62 or early '63 and crush it. No leadership or anything else will likely stop him. If They really are making errors perhaps you can slow it down.

I have held in the West slightly but 50 vs 80 is not equal for gameplay. I doubt for historical sense. Union has too many units or cash... in scenario..

Solutions:

Cut the Union Income or Build Limits. Add an additional 15 CSA Units by event in(Add enough money Build to keep some level of parity till later in the game) 1.5 or 2 to 1 I would assume... I imagine my opponent will have a 100 land units if there are no limits or wants them and I'll be pushing 60 by the end of '62. This in game means he can take Richmond every game this way. So ...

P.S. Losses are not so high initially either up until this point. Maybe up until his Summer Offensive it was 10 vs his 5.

[Beriand]

Well, in my two Confederacy multiplayer games now, in summer 1862 I took Washington and am sitting at Potomac - and what about it, how one game can tell us about general balance? I guess 1861 scenario game knowledge is reversed in case of our games, but just wanted to say that suggesting some specific solutions after one (and first) game is a bit, ahem, hasty
In my opinon too Union is stronger than Confederacy, yeah. And at some point their mass produced units grind their way down to Richmond. But we probably need to wait, play and see some more. And some shift in balance of power (weaken Union unholy eco/give CSA some emergency units) would be nice in 1863, not earlier, I would say.

[Jim D Burns]

I just did a quick count in my Confederate game and I have 78 units (Both inf and cav Corps, Divisions and Brigades only counted, regiments were not included) across the map in late Oct 62. Granted 4 of the brigades just spawned when Mexican units crossed into Texas, so without the French joining I would have 74 units on map. This includes the entire force pool as well as the Indians. There are another 12 units in production not yet on map, so it's a total unit count of 86 units in a non-intervention game. Many of the brigades on map spawned free via event after the brigade pool was built out so as they die off I will not be able to rebuild a lot of brigades that are over the force pool limit, but for now my unit count is pretty good. Only 8 of the units are Corps, so I as yet do not have a lot of corps on map.

[battlevonwar]

That is the question though against who? My opponent suggests the issue is also that he can build/build/build.... Ask Fafnir on his 3rd or 4th game(with my game this is 5th Histories). He has 5 trains, 4 Artillery(which I can count) now I believe 10 gunboats in the Atlantic (my guess is there is nothing else for him to build so he's just loading up on the extras and saying I'm taking Richmond 1 year and a few months into the game?)... With the early tech taking Washington shouldn't be really doable unless the Union Opponent forgets to entrench along the Potomac. I mean you really can't break those fortifications unless it's AI level intellect? Max Damage on a 2 entrench River crossing should be Minus Damage. Even the AI can probably do better I imagine?

I will admit I am not that great I think I have killed 12 to 20 of his units. Mind you that may be even if you count fortifications(not sure this is included?) and Garrison Spawns? So that in mind the Union has a near 1.75 to 1 Advantage in numbers in Summer of '62. If the Event that misfired would of fired I'd of had some cheap Western Units... So that may inch closer to 1.5 to 1? Can you fight that when the tech goes up? I imagine if I gave away Tennessee and Missouri and the Coast I could defend Virginia. But nowhere else.

Let's see but I'm going to make an educated guess that '61 is mismatched bigtime!

Well, in my two Confederacy multiplayer games now, in summer 1862 I took Washington and am sitting at Potomac - and what about it, how one game can tell us about general balance? I guess 1861 scenario game knowledge is reversed in case of our games, but just wanted to say that suggesting some specific solutions after one (and first) game is a bit, ahem, hasty
In my opinon too Union is stronger than Confederacy, yeah. And at some point their mass produced units grind their way down to Richmond. But we probably need to wait, play and see some more. And some shift in balance of power (weaken Union unholy eco/give CSA some emergency units) would be nice in 1863, not earlier, I would say.

[PvtBenjamin]

I've only played a couple turns but aren't the Southern HQs far superior to the North?

[battlevonwar]

Multiplayer or AI? And that isn't different than my own experience but opponent maybe?

I have 53 with the death of 20+ defending for my Capitol and the loss of 4-8 to event in the Far West that misfired. So I'd be at over 80 with 5-8 in the Build now. I have not one moment where I'm not maxed out on the build in a long time I think near 10 months or so maxed out land techs ... I imagine you haven't lost any/many units really?

I have watched the unit count I don't see at any point where the Union is less than +10 that of the CSA in this Scenario so far. Which increases as they grow... Early/Early all this doesn't matter but quickly this changes when the fronts open and the tech bumps.

I just did a quick count in my Confederate game and I have 78 units (Both inf and cav Corps, Divisions and Brigades only counted, regiments were not included) across the map in late Oct 62. Granted 4 of the brigades just spawned when Mexican units crossed into Texas, so without the French joining I would have 74 units on map. This includes the entire force pool as well as the Indians. There are another 12 units in production not yet on map, so it's a total unit count of 86 units in a non-intervention game. Many of the brigades on map spawned free via event after the brigade pool was built out so as they die off I will not be able to rebuild a lot of brigades that are over the force pool limit, but for now my unit count is pretty good. Only 8 of the units are Corps, so I as yet do not have a lot of corps on map.

[battlevonwar]

Lee or Jackson isn't going to pop out and destroy 5-6 Units per turn. Remember now historically even Little Napoleon could of marched straight into Richmond had he known he outgunned the CSA with literally Magruder putting up a smoke screen as a defense and having nothing there... Lee was forcing retreats but not destroying any armies. He was usually taking as many casualties as he gave. Stonewall did some amazing things in the Valley. The Union Generals were very good at the lower Echelons. . . Plus their men were better supplied and much more numerous. To make the in game values = you would really need to tweak things a lot more than they are.

You probably get a +1 or +2 bonus on offense and a -1 or -2 on Defense from a higher rated General vs say a level 6 or level 7 vs a 8 or level 9. That isn't all that significant in game vs the other mitigating factors.

I've only played a couple turns but aren't the Southern HQs far superior to the North?

[PvtBenjamin]

I'm playing MP with the large differential in HQs ability the confederates should be able to be successful with many less troops.

I'm guessing this game is similar to previous SC games and if you have your best units attached to a level 8/9 HQ they have a very large advantage over units attached to a 6/7 HQ.

[PvtBenjamin]

above edited

[battlevonwar]

If you insist on this theory put it to the test with me and I'll prove you wrong as they say... I've played several games now AI, Real, Hotseat...Leadership is a factor among several(not 1) PM me a Password and your CSA and we'll see how far that leadership bonus works?

I'm playing MP with the large differential in HQs ability the confederates should be able to be successful with many less troops.

I'm guessing this game is similar to previous SC games and if you have your best units attached to a level 8/9 HQ they have a very large advantage over units attached to a 6/7 HQ.

[Jim D Burns]

Multiplayer or AI?

First try at the Confederates, so AI only for now as I learn the game. I must admit my first game played was Union so when I saw the lower income for the South I instantly decided to not launch any attacks unless the enemy unit was heavily damaged or very low on readiness. I don't think the South can afford the repair bills for an aggressive 61 campaign as all points need to go into unit builds except for a few key techs. Even so, I was still strapped for enough units into mid 62 to try and keep the Union at bay and was pushed back hard in the west, but keeping the cotton finally paid off and once it added another 400 per turn income in 62 I was able to build out my force pool pretty quickly. By December 62 I only have 6 gunboats left to build, everything else is built out and I'm at about 1800 build points a turn now. About 400-500 of those are due to foreign entry advances due to the AI's inability to keep a blockade going, so figure the South should be at about 1200-1400 income by the end of 62 if the blockade keeps foreign entry down as you would expect.

It all comes down to losing those extra brigades or not I think. If you max build as many brigades as you can in the first three turns before auto arrivals wipe out the force pool limits, you can get a lot of extra brigades over the force pool limit as events fire in the first year. Keeping those extra brigades alive should be your priority until you get all your divisions and corps built to be able to keep a cohesive front line. If you go on offense in 61 you will lose a lot of them and then your short a lot of units before you get your force pools built out.

[battlevonwar]

If the CSA could do an early Rush on Washington I think this would actually balance things if it works ... AI doesn't have a brain and I beat it on my first game by encircling Washington(you have to pump it full of advantages to last) it's a good training wheels tool but not for any thinking man's game. It doesn't even encircle sometimes when I offer up units ...

Have to play a Player to get that little extra viciousness, edge and thinking out of the box. Trickiness and intellect with thinking what you will do vs what they will do. The AI can't do this and never does this. Hotseating yourself is more a challenge and educational.

Multiplayer or AI?

First try at the Confederates, so AI only for now as I learn the game. I must admit my first game played was Union so when I saw the lower income for the South I instantly decided to not launch any attacks unless the enemy unit was heavily damaged or very low on readiness. I don't think the South can afford the repair bills for an aggressive 61 campaign as all points need to go into unit builds except for a few key techs. Even so, I was still strapped for enough units into mid 62 to try and keep the Union at bay and was pushed back hard in the west, but keeping the cotton finally paid off and once it added another 400 per turn income in 62 I was able to build out my force pool pretty quickly. By December 62 I only have 6 gunboats left to build, everything else is built out and I'm at about 1800 build points a turn now. About 400-500 of those are due to foreign entry advances due to the AI's inability to keep a blockade going, so figure the South should be at about 1200-1400 income by the end of 62 if the blockade keeps foreign entry down as you would expect.

It all comes down to losing those extra brigades or not I think. If you max build as many brigades as you can in the first three turns before auto arrivals wipe out the force pool limits, you can get a lot of extra brigades over the force pool limit as events fire in the first year. Keeping those extra brigades alive should be your priority until you get all your divisions and corps built to be able to keep a cohesive front line. If you go on offense in 61 you will lose a lot of them and then your short a lot of units before you get your force pools built out.

[BiteNibbleChomp]

Very interesting discussion, I will be watching this thread with great interest

But I also don't want to jump to conclusions. One match isn't enough to say whether the game is balanced or not, and if not, in favour of who. I've been testing the game fairly regularly for more than two years and even with that I'm not totally sure . A lot of it comes down to how well certain strategies work against other strategies, the skill of the players involved, even little things like when diplomatic or research breakthroughs were achieved. The only way to average those out is to play lots and lots of games.

What I do know at this stage is that at the end of beta the prevailing opinion was that the Union is favoured, although generally this is only really noticeable from 1863 onwards. My automatic AI-vs-AI tests have seen similar results, lending further weight to this opinion. I'm currently working on a patch, primarily to fix some AI issues and bugs that I have become aware of, this will also include a couple of events that I hope will strengthen the Confederacy's position particularly in the back half of the game.

Regarding this game specifically, if you are losing units at double the rate of your opponent, that's very likely a skill disparity at play rather than a game imbalance - during the alpha the best kill ratio I've ever achieved against a human opponent is about 3:2 (and that was with the substantial advantage of having designed the game), but it is a ratio I was able to achieve with some regularity playing both the Union and Confederacy.
MPP-wise, the Confederacy will usually be receiving about 10-20% less MPPs than the Union at that stage in the game (it will be less if a strong blockade is being enforced), and considering the CS doesn't need to attack the way the Union does that should be plenty to hold most of your territory without too much issue.

Are you using soft builds or some sort of mod? Because "5 trains and 4 artillery" is impossible under the regular settings. The Union is capped at 2 Armoured Trains, 1 Railroad Battery and 3 Siege Artillery units.

I'm playing MP with the large differential in HQs ability the confederates should be able to be successful with many less troops.

I'm guessing this game is similar to previous SC games and if you have your best units attached to a level 8/9 HQ they have a very large advantage over units attached to a 6/7 HQ.

HQ mechanics are unchanged compared to previous SC titles, with the exception of the +10% prepared attack for generals of skill >=8.
In 1862, the Confederacy should have several commanders of skills 6 and better (Beauregard, both Johnstons and Lee all spawn with these, and of course Leadership tech will up this further). Except for Grant, virtually all Union commanders will be about a 3. The differences there (often morale differentials of 30% or so) add up quickly.

- BNC

[PvtBenjamin]

If you insist on this theory put it to the test with me and I'll prove you wrong as they say... I've played several games now AI, Real, Hotseat...Leadership is a factor among several(not 1) PM me a Password and your CSA and we'll see how far that leadership bonus works?

I'm playing MP with the large differential in HQs ability the confederates should be able to be successful with many less troops.

I'm guessing this game is similar to previous SC games and if you have your best units attached to a level 8/9 HQ they have a very large advantage over units attached to a 6/7 HQ.

No reason to get rude, I'm just throwing out a possibility. My understanding is the MP game was thoroughly beta tested with the objective of being balanced so we'll have to see over time. I just started playing and prefer not to play contentious games anyway. good luck

[Fafnir]

After playing now about 10 MP games with this scenario I am surprised that anyone does not see a hughe advantage for the Union. All my Union games were just a walk in the park. No need to make big attacks just wait and build you units and research with the MPP advantage against the Confeds. Then take Garibaldi and smash Richmond. Diplomacy advances for the CSA are cancelled by taking the port cities with marines. Once Richmond is gone the game is lost for the CSA.
Only option for the CSA is to attack early Washington or other valuable targets to decrease the FS of the Union.
This will only work if the Union is not prepared for this. So against beginners the CSA may win.
The CSA does not have the capability to do long lasted attacks, it is too weak MPP wise.

So to fix this the MPP gap has to be lower and it should be harder for the Union to take the port cities and fortresses.
Also Garibaldi ist too strong at this point in time. There is also no real punishment for taking Garibaldi with 3 stars expierence. Since the mobilization of the European countries will be gone by taking the port cities.

To make offesive possibles the CSA should have siege artilleries with 2 or 3 shells. Otherwise they cannot affort to attack the entrenced units. With 1 shell they are of very limited use.
The fortresses should be upgrade until level 4 and start with level 1 for the CSA otherwise they can be smashed anytime with 2 marines.
The long range marines are also too cheap. They should be double the cost. I have seen players landing them. Get the city then next turn make them LR amphis again and do this until all easy targets are destroyed.

Main problem is the Union has MPP for eveything; research, units, amphip. attacks while the CSA struggle to keep a force to defend itself. That may be the historical facts but it should not happen so early in the game.
So maybe start with a lower industrialization value for the Union which then will increase more by tech.

[Beriand]

So maybe start with a lower industrialization value for the Union which then will increase more by tech.

If Garibaldi would lose some power, and forts would be better at defending/amphibs cost more, I do not think you want additionally weaken starting position of Union. Then we might get regular deep incursions into Maryland, which kind of suck. For me it would be better to decrease additional income for Union, like those gold rushes and maybe occupied southern mines/industry (minor though). Then possibly add draft-like event for CSA in 1863 ('Lee offensive'...) to give them a couple of units, and throw some emergency units when Nashville/Fredericks/Orleans/Norfolk/Memphis or some other border objectives falls.
But I guess I stated those things already

[Bobo2025]

The same problem exists for the Germans in WW2. Historically speaking, the Rebels are on a timer where if the war reaches a certain point the mass of Union production will bury them. They have to cripple the union early so the idea that the Union, like the Allies, have an edge if things go on too long isn't an issue,

My question would be if there are just too many total MPP's early in the game in general as I don't feel much scarcity in any theater as the Union (and the Rebels don't appear to be terribly constrained based on the forces I am running into) and that is both land and naval forces that I am just pumping out in absurd levels - while doing a ton of research.

[Bobo2025]

Main problem is the Union has MPP for eveything; research, units, amphip. attacks while the CSA struggle to keep a force to defend itself. That may be the historical facts but it should not happen so early in the game.
So maybe start with a lower industrialization value for the Union which then will increase more by tech.

This is my issue. In 1861 as the Union I feel like to do in 1944-45 as the Soviet Union in SC WW2 where I can buy everything, research everything and I am churning MPP's on vanity items. That might be the right feel in 1864 but in 1861 I would expect things to feel a lot tighter where I am making tradeoffs.

[Alter Native]

A pure land combat favors the confederacy in the beginning due to having much better generals and being in a defensive position and with just brigades and some early divisions neither side can make meaningful gains.

However in my opinion the main problem right now is, that it is incredibly easy for the Union to shut down the confederate economy. Around 1/3 - 400 MPP come from trading and it is just trivial to shut this down.

- After destroying the fort west of New Orleans just land with 1 maybe 2 marines there, destroy the New Orleans defense, take the city, shut down a 80 MPP route. In my last game I had 3 marines prepared for this, the first one just one shotted the New Orleans fort and walked into the city afterwards.

- Fort Pulaski is even easier, 3 gunboats, destroy the garrison and even get an event that places a unit there . That's another 40 MPP route. I mean the bare minimum we can expect the union player to do is ship a brigade down there.

- Wilmington and Mobile can be easily cleared too with just a single or maybe two marines. (Btw there seems to be a bug. When you take Mobile you don't get the harbor and the route is not shut down. You have to take Blakeley too even though the harbor clearly belongs to Mobile.)

- Jacksonville, just place two ships down there reducing the strength of the harbor, another 50 MPP route shut down.

- Only Charlston (due to geography) and Galveston TX (due to Texas volunteers) is more difficult, but you have an entire fleet that can plunder those routes.

None of this requires special tactics, techs or special units you have to built or where you have to make sacrifices in other areas. It can all be done with the starting units and maybe a second marine unit.

After this ~62, the union has around twice as much income as the confederacy

Oh and there is another bonus, once you take one of the FS-objectives close to the sea, such as New Orleans, Norfolk or Mobile the European mobilization falls immediately which shuts down another 100 MPP of European routes
I was commenting on this in another post.
Right now there is very little counterplay the Confederacy can do against any of this.

After weakening the economy in the first 1.5 years the union usually gets the +2 infantry upgrades first at which point the fighting becomes very bloody and both sides have high casualties. Unlike in the WWI game the offensive becomes much more powerful than the defense as the game progresses.

However the union can replace the high casualties while the confederacy can not due to the now extremely weak economy.
Now this is exactly what happened historically. But right now the turning point happens in early 63 with 2-3 more years of fighting and there is simply no way the Confederacy can keep up with that fighting intensity.


In my opinion, it should be much much harder for the union to shut down the confederate economy.
Some suggestions:
- Marines should be more expensive
- Marines shouldn't have two action points after landing, imo it shouldn't be possible for them to attack and move afterwards after landing. This would help with New Orleans, Wilmington and Mobile because the confederate get a turn to respond.
- The union shouldn't start with 3 techs of amphibious warfare
- amphibious operations should be much much more expensive, right now they are 1/2 the price of WWII amphibious shipments while being more powerful and MPP being more plentiful

Also the Confederacy needs a better way to protect against those navel invasions. Right now the forts are a complete joke. Even with the upgrade it's incredibly easy to take them down.
- These static forts need a buff (!) Maybe 10 hitpoints, maybe just better stats in general. A single marine should not be able to one shot them
- Some forts could start with the upgrade already applied and/or both sides start with the +1 fort upgrade
- Please, allow the Confederate player to dissolve forts. I want to protect New Orleans, Mobile, Norfolk but the game doesn't let me because of the fort. Just allow me to dissolve it (returning 0 MPP to avoid exploits) and place a division there.
- Imo, the Confederacy should have a higher building limit for Brigades as they are good cost effective defensive units, just... the game doesn't let you build any.


One possible fix could be to only allow one point in infantry research instead of two. This would prolong the period where both are roughly of equal strength.
A second idea would be to reduce the amount of Korps one level of Korps research gives as they are the backbone of any offensive in the later game which would again help the defense.

[Beriand]

(Btw there seems to be a bug. When you take Mobile you don't get the harbor and the route is not shut down. You have to take Blakeley too even though the harbor clearly belongs to Mobile.)

This is a feature, port will not change owneership if there is still enemy unit adjacent to it.

- Marines shouldn't have two action points after landing, imo it shouldn't be possible for them to attack and move afterwards after landing. This would help with New Orleans, Wilmington and Mobile because the confederate get a turn to respond.

Eh, two points are fine for me. It is not like there are panzers waiting near Caen for landing. If Confederacy can just rail units from anywhere to protect landing spot anywhere, it is too hard to get the ports. Same with more powerful forts, there were some discussion about this. The point is that historically, Union took tons of them with relative ease, and very early too - so it cannot be extremely hard in the game, too.
But it could be good if the landings would not create such MPPs disparity, so quickly.

Right now there is very little counterplay the Confederacy can do against any of this.

Not really, Mobile is easy to screen. New Orleans also can be defended with some effort. Monitors also are nice sometimes.

- The union shouldn't start with 3 techs of amphibious warfare
- amphibious operations should be much much more expensive, right now they are 1/2 the price of WWII amphibious shipments while being more powerful and MPP being more plentiful

I kind of agree. But still, sadly, blockade can be enforced by ships anyway, no need for marines everywhere. So does it change that much in eco situation?

A single marine should not be able to one shot them

And is it? I am sure that one marine landing from amphib totally do not one shot almost any fort. Sometimes even two marines is not enough (depends on supply, techs and luck). Do you mean 'next turn attack', when landed single marine is adjacent to the fort and gets the bonus?