Some questions for Union players

[Micah Goodman]

I played AACW extensively but I have only played ACW II a little. I have some questions for Union players who primarily play against the AI. First, what is the most effective force for capturing shore forts. Is there any use in using siege artillery for capturing shore forts? Second, is paying for additional industrialization worth it? How aggressive is the AI when coastal forts are captured? I know in earlier versions of AACW the AI was insanely aggressive against retaking coastal fortifications. And lastly, any and all suggestions that you can think to pass on are most welcome.

[Captain_Orso]

I played AACW extensively but I have only played ACW II a little. I have some questions for Union players who primarily play against the AI. First, what is the most effective force for capturing shore forts.

Depending on how much of a hurry I am, about a good division size is minimum. More might be better, but might also be more useful elsewhere. A leader with Siege Expert, a Siege Artillery and a Mortarboat will all help in besieging a fort and getting breeches, and may actually help getting the fort to surrender. IF you can isolate a fort for long enough so that supply is running low there is a much greater chance of a fort surrendering. Hits caused be besieging will also cause supply loss.

Is there any use in using siege artillery for capturing shore forts?

OF COURSE! That's what they're there for

Second, is paying for additional industrialization worth it?

From my limited experience with getting a game completed I would say you absolutely have to build Powder Mills and probably Arsenals and Armories, because these will produce Ammo. If you do not build these you will starve for Ammo.

I build most of the Ironworks up until '62 and have more that 2000 WSU which I will never use. 50 of this will get traded for $50 every turn, but I'm producing nearly 300 WSU(!!) per turn, plus about 20-30 from shipping and I'll never use it all.

How aggressive is the AI when coastal forts are captured? I know in earlier versions of AACW the AI was insanely aggressive against retaking coastal fortifications.

I don't know, I'm usually too slow to hit the coastal forts. By the time I do the South is so weakened and busy with corps massing along the front that Athena often lets me take them without resistance. Of course I'm not talking about those around Wilmington, Charleston and Savannah. There she will generally fight tooth-n-nail to get you back out.

And lastly, any and all suggestions that you can think to pass on are most welcome.

Put you good leaders to work! Up until mid-62 any leader with better than 1-1 Offensive-Defensive quality is good. Any leader with better than 3 strategic rating is good, because it will be activated more than 50% of the time.

Fight them wisely. Attack with at least 2-1 odd or only against stacks that have been weakened from fighting with your other stacks. They will get promoted and be able to lead a larger force effectively.

Lyon is your best leader early in the game. I once promoted him to Lt.Gen. and put him in charge of an eastern army (although he does drop from strategic 5 to 4, but compared to all the other Lt.Gen. you have at that time he's at least 33% more active and can pass it on to his corps.

Grant and Sherman are a deadly duo when used correctly and will advance in rank quickly.

Whether you put your main effort into the eastern campaign and go for a quick kill in taking Richmond or put some power in the west, going for splitting the Confederacy and controlling the Mississippi is a mater of taste.

Declare a full blockade to get those free blockade flotillas. Keep the blockade running by keeping it supplied with transports. It's work, but I think it's worth it.

Take New Orleans. It's the largest single economic factor the South has.

Harass the enemies supply lines, especially when you are starting a campaign season. Stacks without supply are targets, not forces.

Keep your lines of communication open and guarded.

Use your transportation advantage every chance you can. While the South is marching back and forth wearing their forces down, you can ride into battle with far less cohesion loss.

Go!

[GraniteStater]

As usual, Da Bear is a good source. Let me add this (Union):

Industrialize. To the Max.

The first six or seven games, I just did enough Industry. Then, especially in PbeM, started seeing that I was hurting for $$. One way to get more $$ is to build lotsa TPs and put 'em in the Shipping Box - you can get 80+ $$ a Turn from the SB.

Or you can build Industry. Or both.

I'm a huge Industry fan, now, I build everything. But:

* You ain't gonna do it overnight. 1861 lets you do only so much, anyway.

* Only do what your budget allows. Don't go nutty here. I usually build one item at a time, maybe two, as the Big Crunch starts to let up in late '62.

* I've usually built everything by mid-63. However, a prudent and consistent Industrialization pays dividends. It helps alleviate the Big Crunch earlier than otherwise, for one thing. It's not really the WS, imo, it's the $$. If I go with everything, then an 'off' Turn in late 63 or 64 is usually about 650 $$. That's an 'off' Turn, without raising money.

It's worth it to me.

Oh - play the Loyalty game in your producing cities - keep Loyalty up there, use the Cards.

And take New Orleans, it produces for you, and they're pretty darn Loyal, surprisingly so. In a PbeM, NO was my third biggest producer of $$ and WS.

[Gray Fox]

FYI, as this pic shows, an iron works costs $100 and 25 WS, while an armory costs either $25 or $33 and 6 to 9 WS each. So an iron work won't start making money for you until 100 turns have passed, whereas an armoury will start earning cash over and above its initial cost after about a year. You're better off building Ocean Transports and using them in the Atlantic sealane box to boost imports.

[ATTACH]28605[/ATTACH]

[GraniteStater]

You are confusing amortization with getting a return.

Lemme put it in the vernacular - I don't care if the Iron Works never pays off the note - in 81 Days, whatever, it's built and starts producing $$.

This is a war game, not Railroad Tycoon. I don't care if the government crushes the peasants under a debt Louis XVI woud be ashamed of, as long as I win the war. Then Treasury can figure it out.

I want the money now - get it? The stockholders don't get a vote and the management team are chained to their desks. I want to raise troops, period. The only other thing that $$ is good for is paying for Industry (or Replacements). We went through this on a thread about raising $$ - yes, one should be aware of what Inflation is, but I don't care a flyin' fig if I'm at 15% and I'm crushing the oppo with more warm bodies than they can handle. Similar argument about Industry expenses - I want structures pumping out $$, I want Loyalty up as much as I can force it, even at the pointy end of an overgrown pigsticker, and I want it NOW. Personally, in my playstyle as the Union, I don't fight 'on the cheap' - last PbeM I built a Big Navy, I'm always buying Wagons, I want all the Support & Specialists and I want all of them - NOW.

Whether the Czar wants to buy my bonds is immaterial to me.

[GlobalExplorer]

FYI, as this pic shows, an iron works costs $100 and 25 WS, while an armory costs either $25 or $33 and 6 to 9 WS each. So an iron work won't start making money for you until 100 turns have passed, whereas an armoury will start earning cash over and above its initial cost after about a year. You're better off building Ocean Transports and using them in the Atlantic sealane box to boost imports.
[ATTACH]28605[/ATTACH]

I have never felt the need to industrialize as the Union, but with the CSA and though I haven't done real calculations I can confirm the same impressions.
While I never figure out if industrialization is a gamble on the future or not (do the effects actually stack up or is the payback purely a random roll per turn?). But brigs are an instant payback, and I spammed the boxes with them until I feel there is a certain saturation effect. I don't think Pocus implemented it in a way that the effect is linear (or did he?) otherwise I'd just pump brigs (or transports for the union) into the shipping boxes.

Just last turn (10/1861): 18 money, 12 WS came in from blockade runners (12 brigs and 3 more are on their way to the blockade zone).
Or ca 15-25% extra income from blockade runners.

[Gray Fox]

GS-I have some Blockbuster stock I'd like to sell you.

Before the 15-25% additional income from blockade runners you build becomes "extra", the brig has to pay for itself. Normally, a brig brings in $1 and 1 WS per turn so we can all figure out the break even point. You'll also probably need to build at least one transport to keep your brig force supplied, which is an additional expense that your brig income must pay for before making a profit. If the brig occasionally gets fired on and takes hits, repairing it is an another expense. The free brigs you get make an instant profit after they pay for a transport and any repairs. Additional brigs seldom do. Math is a real sweetheart!

[GlobalExplorer]

Your calculation makes sense. Yes it will take ca 15-20 turns before brigs start to pay back.

But my brigs hardly ever get fired on, I have them on passive / passive / evade combat, and always in individual stacks
As to supplying them with a transport ship I never thought of that, I always move my brigs to a big harbor like Charleston/Norfolk. The idea is good, actually. But if I build a transport the resources are not wasted, they can be used for other things. A great thing about them is that they can navigate rivers, and I find them very useful to bring troops inland, they can reach most of Texas and Arkansas, where movement is usually very difficult, places like Dallas, Malvern, or even Ft.Smith.

[GraniteStater]

In case you guys didn't read the thread title, the OP was inquiring about the Union.

And when I play the CSA I have to watch my budget much more - and what I want to build & why.

Even so, you guys are prattling on about amortization. It's nugatory. Whether a Brig ever pays for itself (aw, gee, it got sunk, guess I'll have to take the USN to court) is completely immaterial.

"Hey, my opponent has taken every single village on my side of the map - but I've got a nice balance sheet!"

That's called "shortsighted". You're trying to win a war, not make a profit. Capiche?

[Jim-NC]

In AACW, the relationship to Brigs in boxes and money brought in was not linear. I think it's the same in CWII. I believe the analysis on AACW brigs was by Major Tom. The more brigs, the less per brig you brought in. He even had charts!

[GraniteStater]

Yes, the marginal return leveled off. Same for TPs for Union Shipping.

[GraniteStater]

I would like to enter a plea, if I may.

When new friends enter this forum and want to ask questions about the game, may we make an especial effort to answer the poster's questions and stick to that as much as we can? Further commentary and exposition can be helpful, indeed, but please try to bear in mind that our new friends are probably trying to learn the game and we should make an extra effort to be germane and not wander too far into the thickets of expert play and subtle interpolation.

IOW, when someone asks you what time it is, please try to remember it's not the place to launch into a history of chronometers. As we tech writers like to say, "Let's try to help the user."

[Gray Fox]

And lastly, any and all suggestions that you can think to pass on are most welcome.

Don't build industry as the Union. An event in the game occasionally sells 50 WS for $50. Factoring this into a purchase of 5 Iron Works for $500 and 125 WS reveals a much shorter break even point than 100 turns. The 5 IW produce a combined 40 WS per turn. They would produce 520 WS in 13 turns which might be sold along the way for $500 and 20 WS left over. Three turns after this another 120 WS would be produced so that the investment paid for itself with $16 and 15 WS left over. However, $500 and 300 WS would buy 25 Transports that would bring in at least $50 and 50 WS per turn. If 50 of this WS were sold for cash twice, then this investment would pay for itself in only 8 turns.

[GlobalExplorer]

Yes he asked about the Union, but in order to understand the game you need to understand the game mechanics of both sides. It would be extremely narrow-minded to concentrate on 1 particular faction.

And GrayStater I tell it in your face, I am not very interested in your constant judging of other people's post. You must think you are some kind of Juror here.

[GlobalExplorer]

I played AACW extensively but I have only played ACW II a little. I have some questions for Union players who primarily play against the AI. First, what is the most effective force for capturing shore forts. Is there any use in using siege artillery for capturing shore forts? Second, is paying for additional industrialization worth it? How aggressive is the AI when coastal forts are captured? I know in earlier versions of AACW the AI was insanely aggressive against retaking coastal fortifications. And lastly, any and all suggestions that you can think to pass on are most welcome.

I don't know the most effective force, but I can tell you how I take forts.
A stack from 750-1000 strength, no command penalty, one unit of Marines, supply wagon, and a lot of artillery.
Siege artillery is extremely useful, since it adds an additional siege bonus.
Some union Generals are Siege Experts, you might add one to the stack (the bonus may however cancel out if you already have siege artillery, it will not hurt though).
If you can, include one element of Sharpshooters and Elite inf, because they further increase your iniative and cohesion bonus.
Then of course ferry them with a well protected convoy of transports and land them, wait until there is at least a minor breach and then attack.

The biggest mistake imo is to attack with a too small force. Usually there is ca 250 strong and I would say a 3:1 superiority is needed to take a fort.
Another mistake would be to attack when cohesion is too low.

Also including 1 or two extra generals can be a good idea. If one is deactivated, you may have another one to lead the assault.

In AACW, the relationship to Brigs in boxes and money brought in was not linear. I think it's the same in CWII. I believe the analysis on AACW brigs was by Major Tom. The more brigs, the less per brig you brought in. He even had charts!

Yes, my feeling was that 7-10 ships/brigs per box is enough, from then it would become less useful. I am sure pocus has thought of spamming tactics and added a non-linear factor
the charts by Major Tom would be interesting though, do you have a link to that thread?

[elxaime]

Don't build industry as the Union. An event in the game occasionally sells 50 WS for $50. Factoring this into a purchase of 5 Iron Works for $500 and 125 WS reveals a much shorter break even point than 100 turns. The 5 IW produce a combined 40 WS per turn. They would produce 520 WS in 13 turns which might be sold along the way for $500 and 20 WS left over. Three turns after this another 120 WS would be produced so that the investment paid for itself with $16 and 15 WS left over. However, $500 and 300 WS would buy 25 Transports that would bring in at least $50 and 50 WS per turn. If 50 of this WS were sold for cash twice, then this investment would pay for itself in only 8 turns.

Interesting math. However I am wondering if this leaves out the benefit of the added WS. I am thinking a Union player in mid-1862 who wants/needs to outfit his armies and fleets with as much artillery and ships as needed will want that extra WS. Someone elsewhere also posted that you will need those powder mills if you don't want to run short of ammo.

[Skibear]

You are confusing amortization with getting a return.

Lemme put it in the vernacular - I don't care if the Iron Works never pays off the note - in 81 Days, whatever, it's built and starts producing $$.

This is a war game, not Railroad Tycoon. I don't care if the government crushes the peasants under a debt Louis XVI woud be ashamed of, as long as I win the war. Then Treasury can figure it out.

I want the money now - get it? The stockholders don't get a vote and the management team are chained to their desks. I want to raise troops, period. The only other thing that $$ is good for is paying for Industry (or Replacements). We went through this on a thread about raising $$ - yes, one should be aware of what Inflation is, but I don't care a flyin' fig if I'm at 15% and I'm crushing the oppo with more warm bodies than they can handle. Similar argument about Industry expenses - I want structures pumping out $$, I want Loyalty up as much as I can force it, even at the pointy end of an overgrown pigsticker, and I want it NOW. Personally, in my playstyle as the Union, I don't fight 'on the cheap' - last PbeM I built a Big Navy, I'm always buying Wagons, I want all the Support & Specialists and I want all of them - NOW.

Whether the Czar wants to buy my bonds is immaterial to me.

You do realise these options to build industry cost money and WSU right? If you want the money 'now' don't build the industry, keep the cash. If you want an overall return on investment over time then build your socks off. But I'm sorry your answer is totally contradictory.

Usually as the Union I personally find a couple of industry build options is enough to a) not hurt your ability to build in 61 b) get a reasonably WSU stock by late 62 when you need to get a bit more serious about building heavy corps artillery. After 63 either way you are unlikely to be hurting for much vis a vis the CSA's ability to build. However spend too much on industry in 61 against a human and you might well not build a big enough early army to protect Washington.

As to naval Ops. fort busting is generally too easy IMHO, at a minimum 2 x 1 star in a stack will mean no penalty, a marine or sailor reduces the amphib penalty, and 3 x art & overall 600 av from the rest of the infantry will almost always assault and capture an un-reinforced (garrion btln + 2 art bty) fort right off the boat. More is better obviously but its not hard enough and doesnt need much. The better the commander the more chance they are activated and can assault obviously. Plus consider the terrain. There is no point having 4 art per division if the fort is in a swamp, they just won't all fire.

[GlobalExplorer]

From my playthroughs (ca 15, most CSA) WS is not that important though. Most important was always 1st manpower and (close) 2nd money
And with the Union, well you can hardly lose even without extra income.

[Skibear]

For sure, but the csa economics is different to USA. The union will also max out of one of the 3 before the others but at a level much less restrictive than the CSA which will get tight to the point of being a problem. USA is bucket chemistry by 63, you will still have to make choices, but never be poor.

[Captain_Orso]

Although the dollar-for-dollar deal with investing in heavy industry will not payout for a long time, the additional Ammo will. With larger and larger forces on the field and more fighting further into the war, if you do not at least invest in Powder Mills you will start find that although your armies have lots of food and warm blankets, they will start to lack on cartridges and cannon balls, even when they are sitting on depots.

Also, don't forget, every turn you have a more than 500 WSU after expenditures, 50 of those will be traded for $50.

I'm in Early January '63 in my current game and been trading WSU for $ for many months. That means that the fat expenditure of $500 plus WSU paid for itself after 10 turns.

I haven't gotten a game into '64 in CW2 yet (too many break-off to install new betas), but from AACW experience, if you haven't invested in industrialization, by that time you will start experiencing hiccups in GS too, which isn't pretty when your armies need to march now.

[Micah Goodman]

Thank you everyone for the input and insight. Your thoughts have given me a better idea on what to do at the start. So here are some more questions, is it a good idea to build telegraph lines in places like Chicago, New York, Pittsburgh, and Boston from the start? Or is it more effective to build them in places that aren't developed like Golden Colorado? If I develop territories like Golden via road building, telegraph lines, ect. how much more effective does it make those territories, specifically gold mines? Does it increase the amount of money produced each turn or does territory development have more of an effect on industry? I've been playing some of the new mini campaigns that were included with the latest patch to get a better feel on how the AI moves it's forces and it seems that the AI is still more agressive for the Confederates than they were historically but not nearly as bad as it was in AACW's early versions. I am definitely enjoying the game so far.

[Gray Fox]

Although the dollar-for-dollar deal with investing in heavy industry will not payout for a long time, the additional Ammo will. With larger and larger forces on the field and more fighting further into the war, if you do not at least invest in Powder Mills you will start find that although your armies have lots of food and warm blankets, they will start to lack on cartridges and cannon balls, even when they are sitting on depots.

Also, don't forget, every turn you have a more than 500 WSU after expenditures, 50 of those will be traded for $50.

I'm in Early January '63 in my current game and been trading WSU for $ for many months. That means that the fat expenditure of $500 plus WSU paid for itself after 10 turns.

I haven't gotten a game into '64 in CW2 yet (too many break-off to install new betas), but from AACW experience, if you haven't invested in industrialization, by that time you will start experiencing hiccups in GS too, which isn't pretty when your armies need to march now.

Build 5 Ironworks and after 16 turns you break even and get $5+40WS per turn thereafter.

Build 25 Transport for the shipping lanes and you break even after 8 turns and get $50+50 WS per turn thereafter.

Of course, you could build both, but you should build every transport you have first.

In my Union PbeM game it is May ’62 and I did not build any industry. The east coast alone produces over 500 ammo per turn without adding powder mills. That’s enough for an army of 12 Divisions with 24 batteries of heavy artillery to use every turn continuously for the entire duration. The east coast depots also have over 5000 ammo in storage. So any ammo shortage seems to me to be a problem of transporting the ammo where it is needed. On the east coast, this really isn’t difficult with the rail network and sea supply. That is yet another reason to concentrate on the east coast and not somewhere else where you might run out of ammo.

Micah, the telegragh and land development cards increase your VPs but don't do much else. Supposedly if you get loyalty in a region to 100% then you get a +50% production bonus, but I have not seen this work in tests I've done.

[Micah Goodman]

Micah, the telegragh and land development cards increase your VPs but don't do much else. Supposedly if you get loyalty in a region to 100% then you get a +50% production bonus, but I have not seen this work in tests I've done.

So, these cards aren't very useful then. What cards are? If any?

[Micah Goodman]

In regards to the transport ships in the shipping lanes debate, I am assuming that you have the auto supply feature turned off and have to micromanage all shipping for the numbers people are quoting to be accurate? (I hate to micromanage the fleet like that but, I guess I might have too.)

[tripax]

Micah, the telegragh and land development cards increase your VPs but don't do much else. Supposedly if you get loyalty in a region to 100% then you get a +50% production bonus, but I have not seen this work in tests I've done.

I think Pocus said that development (which telegraphs give) affect production, but I am not sure. I didn't see it work in my experiments. Development can increase speed moving through a region, I sometimes use development to help improve supply movement during in Arizona, but if you build a depots well before winter in Tuscon and the region south of Tuscon, you can get enough supplies stored there to support a largish column on its way to El Paso through the winter.

Also, I use develop region to get some loyalty in my goldmine regions and will use telegraph so that I can build a road in those regions for more loyalty because I feel bad using too much Habeus Corpus. The reason I care about loyalty so much is that production does follow the equation Gray Fox mentions (the equation is in the manual, too). NM affects production, too (roughly, my guess is that an increase of 1 in loyalty increases production by 1, increase of 1 in NM increases production by 1/2, discussed here). The reason it is hard to see the changes in experiments is rounding is done at the region level, so a small change in NM or loyalty doesn't affect a region's production most of the time. In most games with Athena, your NM will get about 110 soon enough, and the increase in production after rounding starts kicking in.

Finallly, loyalty matters in regions with depots or productive buildings because if loyalty is too low, your opponent can recruit irregulars there who could destroy the building (I think this is true, right?).

[Captain_Orso]

Yes, If you are only looking to increase money income, the shipping lanes are the way to go. They will even bring you WSU. But they will not bring you any Ammo nor any GS.

Although Ammo productions in total may be as high as 500 per turn, it will be spread over the entire map even to regions were no troops are. The tendency will of course be toward regions where there is the greatest need, but it will still bleed out to other areas too.

Supplies will "decay". I have no idea exactly how this works or if GS and Ammo have different rate of decay, but I know that some stockpiles will lose some amount over time. So even those locations with supplies that never have units on or near them will eventually start requesting more supplies that will not reach your forces that need them.

Each player can use RGD's to put partisans and loyalists onto the map.

Loyalists are militia and about the same as militia units you can buy. The Union loyalists are called Unionists, Confederate loyalists are called Copperheads. To use the loyalist RGD you need to have a region with between 50 and 90% loyalty, development level between 20 and 80% and a city between size 1 and 4 inclusively. It doesn't matter who controls the town.

Partisans are much smaller units with the raider attribute. To use the partisan RGD you need a region where you have =<90% MC (city is not necessary, so it can also be in the wild), between 50 and 100% loyalty inclusively, development level between 0 and 80%, and if there is a city present, it must be level 5 or smaller.

Loyalists could only attack a depot if the depot were unguarded, in which case they would actually capture it first, unless they were set to Avoid Combat and just passing through.

Partisans can use the Partisan Raid RGD to attempt to destroy a depot, but the larger the force guarding the depot the less likely of them having any success. The exact probabilities are not published so I don't know.

Since nobody ever leaves a depot unguarded, I'm sure , there is a small threat to them successfully attacking a depot, but maybe a larger threat to them using their raiding attribute in blocking supplies from moving through a region. The terrain way out west is very harsh with only a few paths the supply can viably follow. Of course they may well starve in the process, but to each his own.

[Gray Fox]

In regards to the transport ships in the shipping lanes debate, I am assuming that you have the auto supply feature turned off and have to micromanage all shipping for the numbers people are quoting to be accurate? (I hate to micromanage the fleet like that but, I guess I might have too.)

Yes, I always have auto-off. Transport ships in the shipping lanes don't lose cohesion if you leave them on Green/Green. In fact the blockade fleets should also be on G/G and don't require much supply to retain cohesion for long periods of time.

P.S.-I started a thread "Playing your cards right", with some advice on the RDC.

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?34981-Playing-your-cards-right

[elxaime]

This is a very useful thread, another question for Union players:

1. How do you deal with all the Confederate demonstrations? The CSA seems to have more of these than the Union has Counter Intelligence. And a successful counterintelligence costs 35k. Do you just let the CSA demonstrations drop loyalty and take the hit? Or spend the money to counter them?

2. A related question - does the Union spend the 35k for the Counterintelligence action only if it is successful? Or does it cost 35k regardless?

3. I have the same question as to the Indian influencing cards, whether the cost is only paid if they work.

4. The siege modifiers: if you have a leader with offensive siege ability, a siege gun, a pontoonier and a mortar boat, do all four modifiers apply? Only some? Is there a maximum limit?

5. The Land Mine card doesn't seem to work with coastal forts. I tried applying it to besieged Fort Morgan and Fort Clark off North Carolina and it wouldn't apply. It seems to apply fine elsewhere inland.

6. Finally, how can Union hold Santa Fe? It seems if you build any Union troops there beyond the starting forces, and even after developing the lands as much as you can using cards and placing a depot in Santa Fe, once you get around a full division of forces they begin to starve. Meanwhile, you are outnumbered by Confederates coming up from Texas who seem to have more supply.

Thanks in advance.

[minipol]

The telegraph card is usefull in regions with development of 75. If you build a telegraph line, you boost the development to 80 (Rich).
This increase the production ($) of the region. I tried it. Basically, I search a 75 town I can defend and already has nice production stats,
and play a telegraph line RGD on it.
As for the CSA, use the demonstration cards to hit the big Union production centers. It's definitely worthwhile

[Merlin]

You're five points off what you need.

The telegraph RGD boosts the region to 80 which is all that is needed to make that region rich.

Also, the demonstration RGDs hit the Union hard and you have little else to play during that time, so they do make a difference. I generally don't play them all at once against another person, but that's my personal bias against what I see as a lack of Union counter-play which might be as effective.