Strategic Command - American Civil War Improvements Needed

[BruceAZ]

Regardless of the issues dealing with map size, here are the things that should be addressed by the developer when the next version or update is released...

1. Redo the impact of Generals in the game as you do a disservice to the CSA. It was not technology that saved the CSA in the first two and a half years, it was generals. Update the game that brings back Generalship into the game.
2. Eliminate the CSA seagoing ironclads and monitors as they never had them and eliminate the USN from submarines or at least make this decision as part of a script to include or exclude in the game.
3. Eliminate Armored Trains, Buoyancy Tanks, and Ships of the Line. What were you guys thinking?
4. Improve the defensive firepower of forts against ships/boats as this is what impacted them more than the artillery fire from a ground unit. In addition, a maneuver unit such as a Brigade etc does little to impact an ironclad riverboat but should have impact on timber-based boats.
5. You need to change the basis of Engineers to something more realistic such as building a fort or fortifications such as those around Petersburg. I cannot get the USA engineers to do anything and its August 1863 while the CSA engineers were building like crazy. This makes no sense and does the game a disservice.
6. Finally, you need a simple way of eliminating the impact of Allies to either side while you are learning the game without pushing 300 script buttons. I bought the game as a WAR GAME and care not for the diplomacy until I mastered the game mechanics.

On a more positive note, I have really enjoyed playing this game. I am one of Matrix's oldest members and have a lot of their games. This one I like. Others not so much.

[Shellshock]

2. Eliminate the CSA seagoing ironclads and monitors as they never had them and eliminate the USN from submarines or at least make this decision as part of a script to include or exclude in the game.

The Confederacy has monitors in this game? Those Rebs are more innovative than I thought.

[BiteNibbleChomp]

G'day Bruce,

Glad to hear you're enjoying the game

Generals in ACW are already the most influential they've ever been in the SC series, with a much wider range of skill levels (2 for McDowell all the way up to 10 for a fully upgraded Sherman), and the particularly skilled HQs extend a stronger prepared attack bonus to units under their command.

Armoured Trains are in the game because they've been a popular part of previous SC games, and seeing as they saw some use in the ACW, I thought it would be a shame to leave them out altogether. Confederate ironclads, Union submarines, and ships of the line were all quite realistic possibilities had different people been in charge of the US or CS navy departments (or had the war lasted a bit longer so CSS Stonewall could be delivered), so they're worthy of inclusion as an interesting alternate history option that players can try out.

Engineers can be used to build fortifications - move them to a hex that does not have a town or other resource in it, then right click on the unit and choose Fortify. As the game progresses, you will see the Confederate AI order its engineers to build fortifications around Richmond and Petersburg in this manner.

If you want to play without Europe having any influence on the game, when you set up your game go to Advanced -> Scripts -> Decisions and turn off DE 1000 (it will be at the top of the list). This will disable every event relating to Europe, giving you a pure battle between the Blue and the Gray.

- BNC

[BruceAZ]

2. Eliminate the CSA seagoing ironclads and monitors as they never had them and eliminate the USN from submarines or at least make this decision as part of a script to include or exclude in the game.

The Confederacy has monitors in this game? Those Rebs are more innovative than I thought.

LOL. Well, mine does. Iron clad riverboats etc but no ocean going "Monitors or Ironclads." Is there another update or something I missed? The obvious stuff is generally fixed by this time. USA Engineers and the sea jump spaces going north from the bottom of Florida end up never arriving near New York. I assume there is a function, right? Well thanks for the great game!

[BruceAZ]

G'day Bruce,

Glad to hear you're enjoying the game

Generals in ACW are already the most influential they've ever been in the SC series, with a much wider range of skill levels (2 for McDowell all the way up to 10 for a fully upgraded Sherman), and the particularly skilled HQs extend a stronger prepared attack bonus to units under their command.

Armoured Trains are in the game because they've been a popular part of previous SC games, and seeing as they saw some use in the ACW, I thought it would be a shame to leave them out altogether. Confederate ironclads, Union submarines, and ships of the line were all quite realistic possibilities had different people been in charge of the US or CS navy departments (or had the war lasted a bit longer so CSS Stonewall could be delivered), so they're worthy of inclusion as an interesting alternate history option that players can try out.

Engineers can be used to build fortifications - move them to a hex that does not have a town or other resource in it, then right click on the unit and choose Fortify. As the game progresses, you will see the Confederate AI order its engineers to build fortifications around Richmond and Petersburg in this manner.

If you want to play without Europe having any influence on the game, when you set up your game go to Advanced -> Scripts -> Decisions and turn off DE 1000 (it will be at the top of the list). This will disable every event relating to Europe, giving you a pure battle between the Blue and the Gray.

- BNC

Thanks for responding.

[Platoonist]

USA Engineers and the sea jump spaces going north from the bottom of Florida end up never arriving near New York.

There are two sets of naval loops due south of Florida. The ones on the left will deposit units in the Atlantic off Jacksonville. The ones on the right take you further up north to New Jersey.

loops.jpg (155.44 KiB) Viewed 1595 times

[kevin2267]

I play the computer and it seems the logic for troop placement by the computer could improve. Not a designer so I defer to you! I find the AI loads troops to western Texas for confederates and they just bounce against Mexican border even if North is advancing. It also seems to not take advantage of generals and places them well away from troops (often grouped in Arkansas or away from frontline troops). enjoying the game but two minor tweaks I think could be made.

[BruceAZ]

USA Engineers and the sea jump spaces going north from the bottom of Florida end up never arriving near New York.

There are two sets of naval loops due south of Florida. The ones on the left will deposit units in the Atlantic off Jacksonville. The ones on the right take you further up north to New Jersey.

Why don't you state this on the map rather than me asking Huh?
loops.jpg

[BruceAZ]

G'day Bruce,

Glad to hear you're enjoying the game

Generals in ACW are already the most influential they've ever been in the SC series, with a much wider range of skill levels (2 for McDowell all the way up to 10 for a fully upgraded Sherman), and the particularly skilled HQs extend a stronger prepared attack bonus to units under their command.

Armoured Trains are in the game because they've been a popular part of previous SC games, and seeing as they saw some use in the ACW, I thought it would be a shame to leave them out altogether. Confederate ironclads, Union submarines, and ships of the line were all quite realistic possibilities had different people been in charge of the US or CS navy departments (or had the war lasted a bit longer so CSS Stonewall could be delivered), so they're worthy of inclusion as an interesting alternate history option that players can try out.

Engineers can be used to build fortifications - move them to a hex that does not have a town or other resource in it, then right click on the unit and choose Fortify. As the game progresses, you will see the Confederate AI order its engineers to build fortifications around Richmond and Petersburg in this manner.

If you want to play without Europe having any influence on the game, when you set up your game go to Advanced -> Scripts -> Decisions and turn off DE 1000 (it will be at the top of the list). This will disable every event relating to Europe, giving you a pure battle between the Blue and the Gray.

- BNC

Thanks for responding.

Are you sure they play a significant role in the game? I know their numbers but they don't seem that important in the scheme of things.

[Platoonist]

Why don't you state this on the map rather than me asking Huh?

The destination is stated on the map...if you hover your mouse over the loop.

[sokulsky]

For now, something should be done to make Blue & Gray campaign more balanced as -200 NM hits to Union morale every turn forces Union player on very strict timer when he is constantly underpowered in offensive moves (CSA player can just comfy-sit on high-def terrain, pack troops under Longstreet, Lee or Jackson since pretty much early 62 and counter-punch most of the attacks Union player does with strong prepped attacks.

As CSA I have managed to comfortably win 6 consecutive games.

I usually win as Union, too but game changes into WWI grinder against similar skill player where you are doing attacks all the time - it requires chess-alike attention and counting pretty much every hex paying attention to terrain values (mud, no mud) not to mention hoping that weather will not screw you up as every turn when you do not move forward is turn for CSA - also, until Grant reaches 8 leadership offensive moves against well positioned CSA require almost always siege artillery or significantly superior numbers.

For example - if rain shall hit you on T2 of major offensive move since 63 onward and consecutive CSA turn is all about sunny skies, you are pretty much mopped as Union needs next several turns to lick wounds because T1 strike is usually just begining of offensive mid-62 onwards and counter attack is usually about 50% stronger than what you do on T1 attack move (therefore not only your units are significantly "outperformed" by defenders - 1-3, 1-4 2-4 scores in move&attack for Union Division vs CSA Division is common sight if both parties go head-to-head in various LT techs) but also you get very strong response after which CSA can just disengage by few hexes if necessary.

This made me throw the glove today after:
- capturing Wilmington, Savannah, Richmond (temporarily), Nashville and entering Georgia

I decided to go after Richmond in 63' as I was already NM <50% in mid-63 due to losses and -200NM/turn handicap.

As - even after capturing Richmond - my NM was below 47% while CSA around 87% when I dropped the gloves in Oct 63'.

I think game was good before 1.06 when it comes to NM mechanism and this should not be tinkered with because some players dont know how to handle AI or experienced players as CSA.

That change forcing US player to run on timer against CSA makes contest rather uneven as 64' is usually very brutal and NM from losses is going down the drain easily (Union has really only 90 000 NM to spend, as reaching 10 000 makes you KO'ed anyway), which makes current Victory Coditions for Blue & Gray scenario for Union very difficult to achieve in similar skill level-opponents mp game.

[Shellshock]

I usually win as Union, too but game changes into WWI grinder against similar skill player where you are doing attacks all the time - it requires chess-alike attention and counting pretty much every hex paying attention to terrain values (mud, no mud) not to mention hoping that weather will not screw you up as every turn when you do not move forward is turn for CSA - also, until Grant reaches 8 leadership offensive moves against well positioned CSA require almost always siege artillery or significantly superior numbers.

Boom. This is where I parted ways with the game. The east to west deadlock that sets in. Lee could never hope to side-step Hooker to get into Pennsylvania in this game. Or Hood get his army past Sherman into Tennessee. Or Jubal Early hope to raid Washington in 1864. The thick Blue line makes those and other maneuvers of the time impossible to replicate.

[BiteNibbleChomp]

@sokulsky

I find it very interesting that you have raised this as an issue. Prior to the 1.08 update, the game didn't have the war weariness FS hits for the Union, and the consensus opinion was very much that the Union was favoured, because a Union player can just wait until 1864, at which point they would have an overwhelming force (thanks to having a significant MPP advantage for the entire game) and then just crush the CS, and once they do this and get a significant breakthrough somewhere the CS is never going to be able to recover.

What you've described as the ideal CS play is indeed what happened historically - the Seven Days, Fredericksburg, the Wilderness &c were all cases of the CS army benefiting from fortifications to inflict heavier losses on the Union, the first two being a large part of why the CS held on in Virginia until 1865 despite being outnumbered 2:1 for most of the war, and the last being a Union success largely because Grant was willing to press the fight despite the heavy losses, and their impact on the Union's Fighting Spirit at a time when it had already fallen. And there's many times throughout the ACW when the weather spoiled what had previously looked to be a promising offensive.

The locations that you've listed, if we swap out Richmond for the Mississippi River (which is approximately equal in FS value ingame), are pretty close to the historical positions held by the Union in October 1863. If you're at that point, and the Union has a proper blockade in place, then very likely the Union has 2x or even more the MPPs of the Confederacy each turn, and probably a growing research advantage by this point too. 47% FS is starting to get low, but it's hardly terminal, and indeed would be similar to the historical position (remember that Lincoln was fretting about defeat all the way until the fall of Atlanta). With their production advantage by this point, the Union should be able to embark on a major offensive in most theatres, and a breakthrough somewhere will soon put the CS in a position where they simply cannot cover everything adequately.

So if anything, it sounds like this mechanic is working exactly as intended. I do think it is worth noting that this is the first time I've heard someone having an issue with the game balance since the update, now four months past, when before it was something mentioned fairly frequently. In the absence of any other comments about this, I have to assume that on the whole people are happy with the balance of the game, or at least moreso than with the previous versions. (Of course, if that's not the case, please comment below and add to the discussion!)

"In every battle there comes a time when both sides consider themselves beaten. Then he who continues the attack wins." - Ulysses S. Grant

- BNC

[sokulsky]

Theoretically, you are right.
Practically playing Union is no fun anymore IMO.

Practically, now we have a WWI game set in ACW period and mechanism was tinkered to somehow force Union player to act offensively to make it look like ACW (yet CSA player can play "Petersburg-siege!" card or "Defensive-battle!" card pretty much everywhere he wishes and +500NM for Richmond adding -200 NM for Union makes 700 NM difference each turn (capturing some locations for Union gives Union player only 1000NM).

ACW was mostly war of marching armies - for now I can easily stop Union army at Nashville for 1-2 years just by pumping well entrenched divisions there or building fortresses.

There is not much of a reason to play Union right now as you need to do most of the strategical work (plan naval invasions, plan scouting - most of scounting is done by Union player, plan offensive moves, pick the place cuz' that numerical historical disparity in CSA is most of the time non-existant or unimportant, also CSA - aside of going preemptive in KY or trying to stop the gold rush income, has pretty much no incentive to go on offensive unless to break the Union offensive move elsewhere). There is also this spike of defensive effectiveness of CSA armies around 63' when your units you send to attack can be hit just by two units and die while CSA just goes one hex back which may easily turn the tide no matter how well your attack was prepared therefore you are forced to indirect-attack moves all the time (except pace is nowhere near history level so you end running around some FS-5 points towns losing summer turns in the process).

Also, due to disparity in prepped attack damage, Union troops are much more often destroyed in the consecutive turns (Union troops hits are weaker, you need often 3 or even 4 attacks therefore 80% of the time CSA units fall back and are ready for combat after a turn).

If you will pursue, it will be rinse and repeat (and you have hardly resources Union army had IRL) unless you...will wait to 64' and amass tons of troops hoping to break the line somewhere.

Except, is it worth playing almost hundred of turns in MP game to wait for breakthrough move in 64'? Does not sound like my cup of tea.

(Of course, if that's not the case, please comment below and add to the discussion!)

"In every battle there comes a time when both sides consider themselves beaten. Then he who continues the attack wins." - Ulysses S. Grant

- BNC

Not want to brag, but I can show you what the issue is about by playing the game with you - I am pretty sure you will not achieve any (or equal) historic result as Union.

[sokulsky]

No devs up for test of 1.08 issues as Union?

Damn. I heard it was balanced enough (just a bit snarky ).

[Tanaka]

Theoretically, you are right.
Practically playing Union is no fun anymore IMO.

Practically, now we have a WWI game set in ACW period and mechanism was tinkered to somehow force Union player to act offensively to make it look like ACW (yet CSA player can play "Petersburg-siege!" card or "Defensive-battle!" card pretty much everywhere he wishes and +500NM for Richmond adding -200 NM for Union makes 700 NM difference each turn (capturing some locations for Union gives Union player only 1000NM).

ACW was mostly war of marching armies - for now I can easily stop Union army at Nashville for 1-2 years just by pumping well entrenched divisions there or building fortresses.

There is not much of a reason to play Union right now as you need to do most of the strategical work (plan naval invasions, plan scouting - most of scounting is done by Union player, plan offensive moves, pick the place cuz' that numerical historical disparity in CSA is most of the time non-existant or unimportant, also CSA - aside of going preemptive in KY or trying to stop the gold rush income, has pretty much no incentive to go on offensive unless to break the Union offensive move elsewhere). There is also this spike of defensive effectiveness of CSA armies around 63' when your units you send to attack can be hit just by two units and die while CSA just goes one hex back which may easily turn the tide no matter how well your attack was prepared therefore you are forced to indirect-attack moves all the time (except pace is nowhere near history level so you end running around some FS-5 points towns losing summer turns in the process).

Also, due to disparity in prepped attack damage, Union troops are much more often destroyed in the consecutive turns (Union troops hits are weaker, you need often 3 or even 4 attacks therefore 80% of the time CSA units fall back and are ready for combat after a turn).

If you will pursue, it will be rinse and repeat (and you have hardly resources Union army had IRL) unless you...will wait to 64' and amass tons of troops hoping to break the line somewhere.

Except, is it worth playing almost hundred of turns in MP game to wait for breakthrough move in 64'? Does not sound like my cup of tea.

(Of course, if that's not the case, please comment below and add to the discussion!)

"In every battle there comes a time when both sides consider themselves beaten. Then he who continues the attack wins." - Ulysses S. Grant

- BNC

Not want to brag, but I can show you what the issue is about by playing the game with you - I am pretty sure you will not achieve any (or equal) historic result as Union.

You don't want to play as the Union because it takes strategical work? You don't like playing as the Union because they have to be on the offensive? But this is the ACW? I'm playing as CSA in my PBEM game against GamingwiththeColonel and having a really hard time. It is so difficult to defend every objective on the map and he is landing everywhere. Yes you can defend Nashville but you will pay somewhere else if your opponent is any good. Are you playing against AI or human? Instead of taunting the Dev you should hit up one of the YouTube players and put your theory on live display. Then I'm sure the Devs would be willing to consider making any changes if necessary. I do try to take a few offensive moves as CSA but as in history CSA must mostly be on the defensive. Breakthrough move in 1864? Breakthrough move in 1944? Sounds like history to me...

[sokulsky]

You don't want to play as the Union because it takes strategical work? You don't like playing as the Union because they have to be on the offensive? But this is the ACW? I'm playing as CSA in my PBEM game against GamingwiththeColonel and having a really hard time. It is so difficult to defend every objective on the map and he is landing everywhere. Yes you can defend Nashville but you will pay somewhere else if your opponent is any good. Are you playing against AI or human? Instead of taunting the Dev you should hit up one of the YouTube players and put your theory on live display. Then I'm sure the Devs would be willing to consider making any changes if necessary. I do try to take a few offensive moves as CSA but as in history CSA must mostly be on the defensive. Breakthrough move in 1864? Breakthrough move in 1944? Sounds like history to me...

I am currently playing as Union against technically strong player (AEMIL), my last game with him (played as Union) gave me the taste I usually give others playing as CSA (which is also my preferred side in this game). Exept now I do not feel that my victories were all that deserved, because I perceive CSA as easier side to play now (tbh should be the other way around).

I am not saying that I should be able to defeat every player I encounter on sight, however there is currently a disparity of strategical-thinking requirement for both parties - as well as necessity for tactical acumen (I am good at it, good enough to deal with most of the players at least on par, but matching against other strong player showed me that:
- it is incredibly hard to push as Union since mid-62 onward (as when CSA player that knows what he is doing can just prep-counterattack, move back, regroup, sit on high def terrain etc.) while Union player needs to be uber-careful with his offensive moves (it is really easy to screw up if your action points for ex. drop from 4/4 to 3/4 on some units).

I am saying that currently, games played as Union require much more careful play from Union player than from CSA player (as CSA player almost does not need to scout and pre-attack really hits like a train when CSA well equipped divisions and corps are sitting on high def terrain and wait for Union to come).

The thing is - you do not need really a knockout type of victory in battles against Union - it is enough to hurt offensive capability - dropping numerical advantage down to force parity usually means that Union offensive move was broken and it is really (I mean, REALLY) easy to do it since 63' onwards (because suddenly numbers on units attack change to 4inf-2taken rather than 2-1 or smthng). It means that CSA player can cherry pick Union units for destruction, regroup (if needed) and then again wait - even if Union army is not broken, it can be hurt just enough to break offensive move.

I am bit provoking dev, sure - I am ready to play to prove that it is not just my point of view but an actual issue - currently as USA you are almost forced to go Garibaldi (& accept NM drop which is vast) because he seems to be the only way to go past Jackson or Lee in this game with acceptable losses when it matters (i.e. when you need to keep the pace in early to mid war period) also your best option to open offensives in 62 and 63 until other heavy-hitters for Union will come (one needs to remember that Grant is in this game on par with Longstreet, not Jackson and Lee).

@CSA and offensives - historically, CSA launched several major offensives, some made significant progress towards Union controlled territory but ended with strategical defeats (for ex. Antientam, Gettysburg). I do not think that those rapid moves can be well recreated with current game mechanism - probably it cannot be changed at this point, but perhaps at least some historical balance could be achieved again (I do not think that both sides should have equal chance to win, CSA never really had equal chance to win, not to mention chance to really throw USA on its knees - like it happens in some MP games now).

[Tanaka]

You don't want to play as the Union because it takes strategical work? You don't like playing as the Union because they have to be on the offensive? But this is the ACW? I'm playing as CSA in my PBEM game against GamingwiththeColonel and having a really hard time. It is so difficult to defend every objective on the map and he is landing everywhere. Yes you can defend Nashville but you will pay somewhere else if your opponent is any good. Are you playing against AI or human? Instead of taunting the Dev you should hit up one of the YouTube players and put your theory on live display. Then I'm sure the Devs would be willing to consider making any changes if necessary. I do try to take a few offensive moves as CSA but as in history CSA must mostly be on the defensive. Breakthrough move in 1864? Breakthrough move in 1944? Sounds like history to me...

I am currently playing as Union against technically strong player (AEMIL), my last game with him (played as Union) gave me the taste I usually give others playing as CSA (which is also my preferred side in this game). Exept now I do not feel that my victories were all that deserved, because I perceive CSA as easier side to play now (tbh should be the other way around).

I am not saying that I should be able to defeat every player I encounter on sight, however there is currently a disparity of strategical-thinking requirement for both parties - as well as necessity for tactical acumen (I am good at it, good enough to deal with most of the players at least on par, but matching against other strong player showed me that:
- it is incredibly hard to push as Union since mid-62 onward (as when CSA player that knows what he is doing can just prep-counterattack, move back, regroup, sit on high def terrain etc.) while Union player needs to be uber-careful with his offensive moves (it is really easy to screw up if your action points for ex. drop from 4/4 to 3/4 on some units).

I am saying that currently, games played as Union require much more careful play from Union player than from CSA player (as CSA player almost does not need to scout and pre-attack really hits like a train when CSA well equipped divisions and corps are sitting on high def terrain and wait for Union to come).

The thing is - you do not need really a knockout type of victory in battles against Union - it is enough to hurt offensive capability - dropping numerical advantage down to force parity usually means that Union offensive move was broken and it is really (I mean, REALLY) easy to do it since 63' onwards (because suddenly numbers on units attack change to 4inf-2taken rather than 2-1 or smthng). It means that CSA player can cherry pick Union units for destruction, regroup (if needed) and then again wait - even if Union army is not broken, it can be hurt just enough to break offensive move.

I am bit provoking dev, sure - I am ready to play to prove that it is not just my point of view but an actual issue - currently as USA you are almost forced to go Garibaldi (& accept NM drop which is vast) because he seems to be the only way to go past Jackson or Lee in this game with acceptable losses when it matters (i.e. when you need to keep the pace in early to mid war period) also your best option to open offensives in 62 and 63 until other heavy-hitters for Union will come (one needs to remember that Grant is in this game on par with Longstreet, not Jackson and Lee).

@CSA and offensives - historically, CSA launched several major offensives, some made significant progress towards Union controlled territory but ended with strategical defeats (for ex. Antientam, Gettysburg). I do not think that those rapid moves can be well recreated with current game mechanism - probably it cannot be changed at this point, but perhaps at least some historical balance could be achieved again (I do not think that both sides should have equal chance to win, CSA never really had equal chance to win, not to mention chance to really throw USA on its knees - like it happens in some MP games now).

I don't disagree with you that the Union has to be more careful on the offensive but I would say that is historically accurate. I also do not disagree that you don't really need a knockout type of victory against the Union as CSA. You just need to hold all of your objectives. This is also historical as Lincoln had to have big victories to continue the war. I'm not disagreeing with you on the timing of the offensives either.

CSA can make a few small offensives if they choose to but yes these will probably eventually fail as they historically did. I see them as the same as more of a way to distract.

So I really do not disagree with you but I do think the game simulates the Civil War well historically. Of course it is not perfect and there is always room for improvement so please do post your thoughts in the main forum!

[sokulsky]

In my last game as CSA I was able to capture Washington in early June 62' (played against good player that went bit too much into navy too early) so it was hardly a minor offensive.

CSA has a lot of hitting/offensive power at least for 2 full years if played correctly.