SCENARIO: American Civil War - C3C only

Originally posted by Misfit_travel
Procifica was nice enough to supply me with a list of "filler" cities from ACW which didn't have any significant role within the Civil War. In the interests of historical relevance and reduced turn times, the following cities are being considered for removal in ACW C3C v4.0.

Please review them and indicate if you have a problem with any / all of them being taken out. (Please also note that we hadn't planned on adding any cities either).

Marion (in Illinois)
Johnstown (Pennsylvania)
Ridgway (Pennsylvania)
Platsburg (New York)
Rutland (Vermont)
Salisbury (Maryland)
Atlantic City (New Jersey)
Wausau (Wisconsin)


Hattiesburg (Mississippi)
Fort Lauderdale (Florida)
Georgetown (South Carolina)
Asheville (North Carolina)
Clarksville (Tennessee)
Dallas (Texas)
Corpus Christi (Texas)
Fort Myers (Florida)

Regards
Misfit

Sounds good, any cities taken out will improve game speed so its a very good idea.
 
I was thinking to change the city improvements of the following. In making these changes it should result in higher unhappiness in some larger cities and higher pollution in larger cities. This could potentially offset some of the later game Union production advantages. They will have to balance some city improvement with pure military production.


Church:
- from 3 happy faces to 2

Cathedral
- from 6 happy faces to 3

ADD:
P.O.W. Camp (TECH - Propaganda)
- make it the same price as a church
- make it produce 2 happy faces


City Dump
- from removes building AND population pollution to remove ONLY population pollution
- reduce cost of building it

ADD:
Industrial Waste Management (TECH - Pollution Controls)
- remove building pollution


ADD:
Manufacturing Plant (TECH - Advanced Production)
- increase production of shields by 50%
- no pollution
- upgrade from Factory


Let me know what you think.

Misfit
 
Originally posted by The Last Conformist
I think we better leave out the Heroic Epic equivalent. You tend to get quite large numbers of Elite units, so even with a 1/16 chance, you get MGLs quite frequently. (Procifica: Note that this is going to be even more pronounced in ACW2.) I think we should drop it from the Mil Acad too.

Surely it would be more logical for a National Newspaper to have global effects?

Southern Valour is one powerful wonder! I shall not be overly suprised if playtesting shows it to be unbalancing, but let's try it out.

Will the unit-spawning Wonders be Small or Great? Small would mean they can be rebuilt if captured (in which case I'd drop the city name and call them "Union Gunboat Yard" and so on), while a Great one would produce units for it's new owner. Or would it? If the unit in question is not available to the current owner, will it appear nonetheless? If yes, I think they should be Small Wonders, if no, rather Great ones, to underline the importance of these specific cities.


I agree that unit spawning wonders should be Small Wonders.

I was not sure about Heroic Epic, but think that Military Academy should keep both build CORPS and increased leader. You may not want / need to build CORPS, but having the higher likelihood of a leader is attractive. I've not had that many Great Leaders in games I have played (the most was 3 in one 250+ turn game). I don't think that is an unreasonable number, given that there are now 8+ wonders to rush build available.

In thinking about Southern Valour, I like the free training center idea, but think it should be pretty expensive to build it and / or available later (like maybe TECH - Army Organization or Conscription).

I was also thinking for balance we may want to add a Union only military small wonder, called Union Naval Transport which would spawn a transport every "x" turns. I'd make it available with TECH - Ironclads.

The National Newspaper idea was one that I floated before as a way of improving morale, but I don't quite know if it will work or not. It could be a "cure for cancer" type wonder which would have global effect, or a "shakespeare's theatre" type effect which would dramatically improve one city. If we opt for the one city approach then, we should rename it to something more appropriate.

Regards
Misfit
 
Originally posted by The Last Conformist
A POW Camp makes people happy? The rationalization of that being?

Fine, let's call it City Newspaper then.

P.O.W. Camps keep the prisoners out of sight and out of mind. The local population knows they are there, but don't have any impact on their daily lives.
 
Originally posted by Misfit_travel


Fine, let's call it City Newspaper then.

P.O.W. Camps keep the prisoners out of sight and out of mind. The local population knows they are there, but don't have any impact on their daily lives.

How about prisons to have a similar effect. Also some prisons could be named already----Andersonville---ect....
 
dreadknought:

There is already a JAILHOUSE city improvement enabled with TECH - Suspension of Habeas Corpus. This improvement acts to reduce corruption.

Misfit
 
Originally posted by Misfit_travel
dreadknought:

There is already a JAILHOUSE city improvement enabled with TECH - Suspension of Habeas Corpus. This improvement acts to reduce corruption.

Misfit

Ok, I see, well I tend to think of jailhouse and prisons as somewhat different in this time period. One for common criminals and the other for pows-war related crimes but thats fine.
 
Ok Ive been testing this in a scenario Im working on and here are a few more thoughts.

I have tried a compromise where field artillery is a powerfull but slower moving offensive unit (ai uses) and immobile (fortress) types still have ranged attacks. They are designed with better defensive stats-range- but hardly any attack stats.

This seems to allow the ai to use a offensive type and use the defensive set as true artillery and so far has worked out well.

In this scenario as to not promote the overuse of artillery though I wonder if all artillery units can be pre-placed on the map and then allow no more future building.

This would take having a good knowledge of what each side had and where they had it at the start of the war and you would have to be carefull not to lose what you started with.

This would limit artillery and you could place the slower moving offensive types on the map and not worry about the ai over-building them nor could the human player over-use them to beat the ai.
 
I disagree with the Union/Confederate Ironclad autobuild wonders being in at the start. These should maybe be changed to Blockcade Runners for CSA, and Frigates for Union? Most of the others look ok.

Communication Hubs, my suggestion:

Vicksburg for CSA
Chicago for USA

If you desire more than 1, then the following:

Vicksburg, Atlanta for CSA
Chicago, Pittsburgh (or Cleveland) for USA

I agree with TLC on the Great Leaders, there will be enough floating around with the base chance, and basically all wonders will be auto-built as it is probably.
 
City Dump
- from removes building AND population pollution to remove ONLY population pollution
- reduce cost of building it

This is how it originally was, must have been changed in V3.8 or V3.9.


ADD:
Industrial Waste Management (TECH - Pollution Controls)
- remove building pollution

Disagree with name for it.


ADD:
Manufacturing Plant (TECH - Advanced Production)
- increase production of shields by 50%
- no pollution
- upgrade from Factory

Not sure its appropriate for the scenario. Seems a bit too powerful. Name probably should be changed.


Not being able to build future artillery is historically inaccurate. The idea sounds ok, but I wonder how it can be kept from being just like another Infantry attack unit?
 
Originally posted by Procifica
<snip>

ADD:
Industrial Waste Management (TECH - Pollution Controls)
- remove building pollution

Disagree with name for it.


ADD:
Manufacturing Plant (TECH - Advanced Production)
- increase production of shields by 50%
- no pollution
- upgrade from Factory

Not sure its appropriate for the scenario. Seems a bit too powerful. Name probably should be changed.

Procifica, what names would you suggest for Industrial Waste Management and Manufacturing Plant. (BTW, you suggested a Manufacturing Plant type improvement in the late game in an earlier thread conversation, that's where I captured it from).

Regards,
Misfit
 
Originally posted by Procifica
I disagree with the Union/Confederate Ironclad autobuild wonders being in at the start. These should maybe be changed to Blockcade Runners for CSA, and Frigates for Union? Most of the others look ok.

<snip>

I agree with TLC on the Great Leaders, there will be enough floating around with the base chance, and basically all wonders will be auto-built as it is probably.

Blockade Runners and Frigates are fine with me. The ironclads just added a little something for variety, since I'm fairly certain that nobody will ever build one in ACW (at least against the AI).

I can see the prevailing opinion on the Great Leader spawn rate is such that extra help is not needed. I will amend the Military Academy accordingly.

Misfit
 
If you expect no-one will ever build ironclads (and I'd tend to believe you're right), the logical response would seem to make them better value, wouldn't it?

One could also consider making the Ironclad tech prereq for era advancement. If I had to research them, perhaps I'd find myself building a few.

While at it, I never understood the logic in having higher defense than attack values on them. Sending the Monitor to attack a traditional warship is a very risky business, and the others don't have fantastic attack values either. And ironclad-vs-ironclad fighting will only take place if one side is able to attack a redlined enemy unit with a full health warship. More traditional A/D ratios would, in my mind, have two good conesquences; i) make ironclad-vs-ironclad fighting more dynamic, and ii) make getting caught by an ironclad very bad news for a traditional warship, while we'd have more equal odds if the traditional ship was attacking. Of course, sending a frigate to attack an ironclad should still be a desperate business.
 
Monitors aren't meant to be offensive ships. That's why their attack value is very low. Though it maybe could use a slight improvement. The attack value on ships essentially is their ability to attack in close quarters (boarding, close-range gunnery, or ramming). A typical Monitor had a handful of men as crew (boarding is out), 2 360 degree turrets, and had no ability to ram a ship (these were small ships, without even a real deck, think of them as like a tin-can on water). The Confederate Ironclads though were equipped with iron "beaks", which gave them large ramming power. I probably should slightly increase their attack to illustrate this better come to think of it.

I would like to point out though, that Monitors sometimes WERE used as offensive ships for bombarding coastal cities/forts (Charleston being the best example), but they were very poor at doing so. However, they were VERY good at taking punishment (some ships took over 40 direct hits without sinking).

Ironclads were not per se an improvement in gunnery, they were an improvement in ship protection. A Ironclad should be able to knock out any wooden ship with relative ease, while being hard to knock out itself by a wooden ship.

For traditional ships, the attacker has a HUGE advantage, if the ships are comparable (say a Union Sloop vs. a Confederate Sloop for example). The attacker will almost always win.

If an Ironclad attacks a traditional ship, they still will almost always win (and with extra HP, have an even better chance). If defending, the extra HP combined with very high defense means they are hard to kill by any ship. Personally I see no reason not to at least build the Confederate versions. The Union Monitors though could use something to spice them up.


Kind of off-topic, but I liked how they increased the power of Ironclads in C3C, relative to Frigates. It was a good change. Though I disagree with their bombard being equal to a destroyer. That's a whole other topic though. The reason I brought this up though, is the Frigates in C3C are 1600's-1700's style, while Frigates in 1860 are more durable, faster, steam-powered, and equipped with larger more accurate guns. Ships of the Line, while not really used during this time period by any nation anymore, still would be capable of crushing a Frigate if given the chance (speed though is a HUGE factor in traditional ship combat). The PC game Imperialism I think very accurately portrayed the difference between Frigates, Ships of the Line, and Ironclads.
 
It may be different in MP, but in ACWN3.8/ACW C3C 3.9, where simply nothing to do with the Conf Ironclads; the traditional ships are fully enough to sink the US Navy and blast the North's coastal cities, and that without researching a single tech.

Of course ironclads where primarily an improvement in protection, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have increased attack factors! Don't fall into the "SMAC trap"; that only firepower matters on offense, and only protection on defense.

My chief complaint about the current ironclad stats is, beyond Monitors not being realistically able to sink Frigates on the attack, is that they will make ironclad-vs-ironclad combat very hesitant. While the attacker's advantage in traditional CivIII naval warfare may make less than total sense realistically, it is good for gameplay, because it rewards initiative and superior manoeuvring.
 
I'd rather see the transition from wooden to iron ships be as stark as it is in the EPIC CivIII game (ie from wooden frigates to destroyers). That would create a clear break between the two technology eras.

The problem with that is it won't be historically accurate. This is one of those issues where we have to balance game play against historical accuracy.

BTW Last Conformist, in V4.0, ironclads (actually all naval techs) are required for era advancement, so you will now have to research them, even if you don't intend to use them.

Against the AI, there is likely no way I would build an ironclad. I agree with TLC that the initial ships get the job done.

In PBEM however, human opponents are far more likely to pay attention to naval techs. In my current PBEM I know that my opponent has actually built additional naval units as the Union. (Might have something to do with the fact I've been raiding his cities, heh, heh......). If we leave it more or less as it is, it likely won't get used much outside of head to head human play.

I guess this is where ACW2 might be a better scenario with the different map.

Regards
Misfit
 
In removing some of the cities (see Post #101), I ran across some problems. As a result the following cities have been left in.

Union:

Marion, IL (taking it out would have screwed up the borders too much)

Platsburg, NY (couldn't find it, might only have been on the ACW2 map. There was another similar city, Elimira, which I left in).

CSA:

Asheville, NC (close to alternate iron, and could be part of a late game strategic railway line)

Clarksville, TN (taking it out would have screwed up the borders too much).


I have also adjusted the culture values of a number of cities to remove those annoying blank spots within Union and CSA territory. Since this is a C3C only scenario, culture flipping won't happen, so cultures only purpose is to adjust city boundaries.

I did this because it is possible for both the human and AI to exploit these blank spots to refit troops that are damaged rather than retreating them to friendly territory. I think this is far more a human advantage than an AI one.

Its also not historically accurate that foreign troops could reequip themselves deep in the heart of enemy territory.

Let me know how you feel about this.

Regards
Misfit
 
Platsburg is in the northern part of New York, near Burlington (Vermont).

Quote: Its also not historically accurate that foreign troops could reequip themselves deep in the heart of enemy territory.

It depends on how you consider an army reequipped, and at what stage in the process the "HP healing" is supposed to represent. If it represents reinforcements from natural refitting, then it is historically accurate. If it represents training and recruiting of new troops, then it is not.


Closed borders though might be a good idea.


Ships... The initial CSA navy shouldn't be able to wipe out the USA navy, without alot of luck and some shipbuilding. If it is possible, then the CSA navy is too strong. ACW2 is going to have smaller navies for both sides, with the Union having a slightly higher ratio of ships.

Proposed figures to fix the Ironclad problem (for ACW2):

Union Frigate (for comparison): 16/10 (A/D), 16/1/3 (B/R/RoF)
Union Monitor: 12/18, 16/1/2 (was 6/18, 14/1/2)
Confederate Ironclad: 16/18, 16/1/2 (was 14/18, 14/1/2)
Union Ironclad Warship: 18/20, 18/1/3 (was 16/20, 16/1/3)
Confederate Ironclad Warship: 20/20, 16/1/3 (was 18/20, 16/1/3)
Confederate Ram: 24/16, 0/0/0 (was 22/15, 0/0/0)


In ACW2, the strongest starting Confederate ship is the Confederate Sloop, with 10/5 for attack/defense. The Union Frigate has 16/10, plus an additional HP. I would say it will not be easy for the Confederacy to dominate without Ironclads.
 
Elmira, NY should be left in anyways. By 1870 its population was about 15,000.
 
Top Bottom