Carreer point balance discussion and suggestions

[Sandermatt]

I have played this game a little, and while I am sure others are better at it I thought I would like to share my opinion about the balance of the career points and my ideas on how to improve it.

1. Politics

+2.5% gold and manpower per level

Gold is spent on 5 things: Equipment, veterans, commanders, new divisions/corps, supplies. The vast majority on the first two in the list. To me this skill appears to be strictly better than training and economy and has a huge overlap with medicine. My suggestion on how to change it:

+5% reputation gain,-5 % reputation loss per level

This makes sense with the name of the skill and reduces the overlap with other skills.

2. Economy

2.5% discount per level

This skill appears to be rather weak, as it only impacts one way of spending money. Politics offers the same bonus (having more gold or spending less is approximately the same) as well as further bonuses. My suggestion on how to change it:

2.5% discount per level and 5% more weapons available in the shop per level

3. Medicine

2% losses restored per level

A rather strong skill, it saves equipment, money and manpower, I would leave it as it is.

4. Training

2.5% cheaper veterans per level

It suffers the same problem as economy, it offers a money benefit in a limited application. My suggestion on how to change it:

2.5% cheaper veterans per level, +X more experience for fresh recruits

5. Army Organization

This skill is absolutely necessary to be brought to some level (5-7) and weak above this level. But I am unsure on how to change it

6. Logistics

5% additional ammo per level

This skill is considered rather weak, since in many battles you have enough ammo, and the supply cart takes care of the rest. My suggestion on how to change it:

5% additional ammo per level, +X% more weapons recovered from casualties (on both sides).

Alternatively one could also apply the buff I suggested to economy here, since it would maybe fit better thematically.

7. Reconnaissance

This skill is considered rather weak. Every second level does nothing. I have no experience with this skill above 4. My suggestion.

Additionally +X% spotting range per level

This would make very much sense given the name of the skill,

Alternatively or additionally: +1% bonus to speed of cavalry and skirmishers per level

Given that skirmishers and cavalry are the main reconnaissance unit.

Edited December 16, 2016 by Sandermatt

[GS_Guderian]

I add some ideas:

army org: Some levels could allow certain amounts of ranks. Right now you level all your majors to 2 star generals with ease (if they stay alive). 

First it doesn't make sense to have 2 star generals serving und lower ranks - which is possible - second the army might use them elsewhere.

So in order to have more generals paid by Washington / Richmond you need to invest into army organization.

Right now you never lose an officer - exception: death. I feel you should have a limit of certain generals, according to your inner organization.

Recon: As mentioned elsewhere recon could also simply add better deployment possibilities.

No recon: You get the default deployment box. 

Reasonable recon: You get a bigger deployment box or a second one.

Mr. Recon: You get a deluxe set of deployment boxes, maybe even 1-2 brigades more to start with, rather then those 1-2 joining the battle later. You just knew some hours earlier that they will be needed.

 

 

[Hitorishizuka]

I still maintain:

Army Organization should probably be removed and its traits automatically given after set Grand Battles. With AI auto-scaling, you're punished anyway for having more troops above the minimum but you need a certain minimum amount to hit requirements, so it's nothing more than a Career tax.

Reconnaissance feels like a basic trait that all generals really should have, though its usefulness is actually weighted towards inexperienced/unknowledgeable players and so it's a bit of a trap. I would remove it also and just provide the benefits normally from the get go.

Either come up with 2 more skills to replace these two or just remove them and lower future skill point gains to compensate. A manpower monofocused Recruitment skill, for example, that gave 5% increased Manpower gains per level.

Logistics is also useless unless you went heavy in AO, at which points its a double tax since you now need Logistics to not run out of ammo in large battles due to all the more shooting combined with normal Supply being hardcapped.

Training and Economy are a little weak compared to Politics, with their only saving grace being for very good players who never lose and cap out on Reputation and take additional money from Reputation consistently (which doesn't appear to get a Politics bonus).

[Andre Bolkonsky]

3 hours ago, Hitorishizuka said:

I still maintain:

Army Organization should probably be removed and its traits automatically given after set Grand Battles. With AI auto-scaling, you're punished anyway for having more troops above the minimum but you need a certain minimum amount to hit requirements, so it's nothing more than a Career tax.

Reconnaissance feels like a basic trait that all generals really should have, though its usefulness is actually weighted towards inexperienced/unknowledgeable players and so it's a bit of a trap. I would remove it also and just provide the benefits normally from the get go.

Either come up with 2 more skills to replace these two or just remove them and lower future skill point gains to compensate. A manpower monofocused Recruitment skill, for example, that gave 5% increased Manpower gains per level.

Logistics is also useless unless you went heavy in AO, at which points its a double tax since you now need Logistics to not run out of ammo in large battles due to all the more shooting combined with normal Supply being hardcapped.

Training and Economy are a little weak compared to Politics, with their only saving grace being for very good players who never lose and cap out on Reputation and take additional money from Reputation consistently (which doesn't appear to get a Politics bonus).

I agree about Org for the most part. You should get a command bonus based on your ability to handle troops in the field. It doesn't feel right in that other mix specifically becaue of the scaling issues you hit on the head time and again. 

Recon, however, I disagree. Recon is more a measure of a commander to process data about his opponent and is crucial for command. There are far too many political generals in the game who can outfit and field a unit, and then flee the field and turn over all that hard earned equipment to the enemy. Stonewall's Foot Cavalry foraging time and again off Commissary Banks being a prime example.

Logistics makes sense in this mix, that takes skill, preparation and timing. And the old saw is true; amateurs (of which I am one) study tactics and provessionals study logistics. 

Politics, too. A politician can finagle a commission for himself and equip it, but can he field it. Burnside is a perfect example; universally loved, great guy, impressive facial hair, but not a fine field commander by any measure. 

Personally, I like training; it's crucial to a veteran army early. 

Business, to me, would be better used to allow a wider variety of arms in addition to a better price. These guys know how the back channels work, and have access to a wider inventory than most. 

There needs to be more than one path to command, knowing that all commanders are going to need a few points of everything before it's all over with; imho. Would dramatically enhance replay and allow the gamer to tailor the experience to his own whims. 

 

 

Edited December 17, 2016 by Andre Bolkonsky

[Hitorishizuka]

34 minutes ago, Andre Bolkonsky said:

There needs to be more than one path to command, knowing that all commanders are going to need a few points of everything before it's all over with; imho. Would dramatically enhance replay and allow the gamer to tailor the experience to his own whims. 

I agree, but that's my point about Army Org and Recon. Army Org you only need points at set times and it's detrimental above that. Recon you only need to 4 and really if and only if you care about doing the minimum to avoid scaling and you don't have an external resource to refer to and the in-battle bar is more useful for someone on their first playthrough.

[Andre Bolkonsky]

1 minute ago, Hitorishizuka said:

I agree, but that's my point about Army Org and Recon. Army Org you only need points at set times and it's detrimental above that. Recon you only need to 4 and really if and only if you care about doing the minimum to avoid scaling and you don't have an external resource to refer to and the in-battle bar is more useful for someone on their first playthrough.

Fair enough. 

When everything else is all nice and balanced, I'll look forward to a nice long discussion about this. 

[Lif]

+1 to OP. Career points are unbalanced imo. But surely devs will work on it.

[RobWheat61]

I would welcome more complexity in the career point categories, and there are some good suggestions in the original post, but the current proposal of the OP, as it stands just adds more benefits to each category, which in effect would make the game easier to play and why are career points unbalanced right now, anyway?

I would like to keep Army Organisation as it is. It is a logical and easy way to emulate the developing organizational army structures early in the civil war. An military force without proper organization and dicipline is not an army, just a mob. You have more than 20 career points to spend with the current battles, given that you win all of them. And you really only have to put a couple of them in AO to successfully play the campaign.

[Sandermatt]

I thought about the army organization part. It could be abandoned as skill, and just be determined by your campaign progression. This might also allow to abandon the scaling concept as your army size will be limited anyway.

[Jamesk2]

Actually Economic offers more dollar efficiency the longer you went into the tree. 100% cost and 125% income mean you can buy 25% more stuff. 75% cost and 100% income mean you can buy 33% more stuffs.

[Koro]

2 hours ago, Jamesk2 said:

Actually Economic offers more dollar efficiency the longer you went into the tree. 100% cost and 125% income mean you can buy 25% more stuff. 75% cost and 100% income mean you can buy 33% more stuffs.

That's true and also includes all of the officers. 

Politics also gives more men so the question is if it's worth it to have more stuff with out the men to give it to. 

[Alavaria]

Cheaper veterans sold seperately.