Please fix these

[Gray Fox]

This addresses the complaint that the Union player can set back and do nothing until 1863/64.

The normalizing effect of NM allows the Union to get to 100 early in '62 without doing anything to earn it.

Events like Indians attacking in the west and sink the Alabama grant another +10 NM in that year.

RGD's like the 4 "use sea mines" or the 3 each "partisan raids" on troops and depots each give +1 to NM. The cards can be played over and over until they eventually work. So that is another +10 NM. These are available in '62 and '63.

Tucson for some reason is worth as much NM as NO. The Union has pretty much a Division available to take it from a CSA militia unit and can use RGD's to raise a second Division of eight militia with four sailors and two 12-lbers from RGD's if the CSA tries to defend it. RGD's also allow the building of a line of depots to Tucson so that the CSA cannot possibly withstand a Union onslaught. Another +5 NM to the bluecoats.

By basically defending what he starts with, the synergism of these game mechanics give the Union player a NM of around 135, two thirds of the way to victory, by the spring of '63.

I propose that the normalizing effect be eliminated or at least reduced to +10 NM per year. The two events mentioned should only grant +5 NM if the Indian units are aggressively hunted to elimination and the Alabama is actually sunk. The sea mines and partisan raids should give some VPs but not NM. Tucson should only be worth 1 NM. Otherwise, the Union player can coast to a victory.

[Skibear]

Absolutely. Although as the CSA it is possible, and desirable to invest a little to defend Tuscon. All points valid though.

Plus the other reason its possible for the USA to hunker down in the east with a network chain of heavily entrenched corps that despite being often inactive due to rubbish commanders will still invariably MTSG successfully making it suicide for the CSA to take the offensive with its smaller armies and conduct anything like the relatively fluid campaigns of 62 & 63 without bleeding to death. MTSG should face increased penalties for inactive corps to makes these fortress chains less effective and allow more chance that the CSA (or indeed the Union) can catch an isolated stack alone without the rest of the army arriving to almost always save the day.

At the very least this early entrenchment should be reconsidered to be slower to build fortresses everywhere so quickly and to be so difficult to dislodge. Seems to be very few of the earlier battles involved attacking heavily entrenched positions, yet that is what it very quickly comes to by necessity. Specific forts/redoubts like Donelson, Vicksburg etc.. should feature but not be the norm and maybe take investment/cards to build past a low level of simple trenches.

But right now the Union can move forward on a several province front, almost guaranteeing MTSG between each and dig in rapidly in a single turn making it impossible to dislodge except by a costly banzai by the CSA. That can happen from as soon as corps happen and I'm surprised any union player feels the need to wait to 63.

[loki100]

But right now the Union can move forward on a several province front, almost guaranteeing MTSG between each and dig in rapidly in a single turn making it impossible to dislodge except by a costly banzai by the CSA. That can happen from as soon as corps happen and I'm surprised any union player feels the need to wait to 63.

you can mod these rules a bit. In gamelogic (in cw2/settings) there are two related lines:

resBaseChanceDef = 90 // Base chance if in Defensive posture
resCostPerDay = 10 // -10% for each day of marching

since an inactive unit is by definition in defensive mode (at best) reduce the 90, that will make the chance of reaction less. If you then increase the cost per day that will reduce it again (especially as inactive units are moving much more slowly).

But overall, there is a risk of distorting the game to eliminate the various perfect plans that exist. If one side just concentrates in the east and the other plays a balanced game they will win.

[Captain_Orso]

There was recently already a big thread dealing with the Manassas--61 Papers Push for Offensive--event here in the Help improve CW2 forum: Manassas.

[Gray Fox]

My post really has nothing to do with the Manassas event or perfect plans. It's about a perfectly obvious plan that any Union player would use to be passive until 1863 because these events unbalance the game...unless they are fixed.

[Pocus]

CS should probably earns more VP per turn at start to force the Union into action. This is somehow planned in a next public beta patch for CW2, although I'm unsure there is a wide consensus on the issue.

[Mickey3D]

...or lower the number of VPs earned from the cities in the North.

[havi]

...or lower the number of VPs earned from the cities in the North.

oh im with swiss one with this +1

[minipol]

Which ever option makes Athena a tougher opponent

[AndrewKurtz]

Which ever option makes Athena a tougher opponent

+1