Victory points

[1stvermont]

Does the south ever win on vp's? I am in a game and held all the vp's the first 3 years. Yet by the end he will catch up. Does anyone else think vp's are sided to the union? should not the south start with a few extra hundred vp's at the beginning?.

[Orphan_kentuckian]

I had just had a similar game as the CSA. Held a sizable lead until late 63' then it was a snowball effect. Basically the majority of the VP's are held by the south early on, but where it gets to be hard to handle is that the south really doesn't have the capacity in a PBEM to TAKE any VP's from the union. You might grab a region or two early on, but once the steamroller is moving south he gobbles up ton's of VP's, while his will really never be in jeopardy.

I did last until the end of the game as the south, and to be honest if you are playing against a vet USA player, I always consider that a silent victory.

[1stvermont]

I was just thinking, maybe keep the vp's the same, yet end the game early april around the time of final csa surrender. The only thing I dont like about that is it would end the war early and I feel for fighting the entire civil war it is to short already. Right know in game I have done far better than historical in territory gain. I have around a 1,000 vp lead its early July 64. But he will catch up by the steamroll through my country and i cant stop. Only Virginia am i well defended.

[1stvermont]

I just want to say i like the historical accuracy with the north dominating in manpower at the end 64-65. But simply think the south should start with more vp to give them a chance at winning on vps.

[Rod Smart]

Its not unrealistic, and is open for your own interpretation.



My personal interpretation of VPs, and end of game positioning:
If the South makes it to the end of '65, congratulations, you are now a country!
If you've done that, but gotten killed on VPs, then consider Kentucky and Missouri and Maryland and Eastern Tennessee lost, and your economy in shambles.
So you're an independent country, but a really shitty one.

[Durk]

I kind of agree that VP are not the marker of how well a player has done. NM is probably a better indicator; however, I personally like the current VP system. It reflects good play, sure, but it also reflects the reality simulated in this war. I rarely look at VP during play as they are simply a marker, but not the most important marker of play. As Rod Smart says, no matter the VP difference, if the South is alive at the end of '65, this player has won.
CSA to win by VP does require a real effort and more than a tad bit of luck. There are potential lines of play to retard the Union steamroller. It is tough to do so, but if one is to play with higher VP as a goal, then maximizing means to gather VP should be the focus of play.

[ArmChairGeneral]

I ground it out to win on VPs as the CSA against the AI once, it is totally doable, but most games I win the April 61 scenario sometime in the first three years with a major victory and a substantial VP lead. With proper play against the Union AI VP balance is a non-issue. I think it is pretty reasonable that the Union's many advantages finally kick in at the end of the war if the CSA can't force a win by that point.

Against a human opponent, surviving to the end of the game should be at least a minor victory for the CSA. Adjusting VPs would barely affect the single player experience (either you are killing the AI, or it is killing you) but might well serve to balance multiplayer games.

On the other hand, no matter what the points say, if you did better than history did haven't you won? The weird abstraction of the victory conditions de-accentuates score-based interpretation of outcomes anyway, inviting you to overlay your own criteria to your performance in a particulate game.

Other scenarios are more finely balanced; the Civ 2 tournament heavily utilized the 1862 West Scenario (they also used it because it plays quickly).

[1stvermont]

How about a chance for the south to win in the 64 elections? If they are doing well enough or north morale low enough the south can win by Lincoln not being reelected, as this almost happened had not Hood attacked in Atlanta.

[Ace]

I argued that VP are imbalanced long time ago. Having Union morale under 60 points in 64 elections is quite impossible because of NM resilience (it tends to recover to 100). So, VP balance is off by far. If he does better than history, CSA player is the winner IMO.

[Mickey3D]

I argued that VP are imbalanced long time ago. Having Union morale under 60 points in 64 elections is quite impossible because of NM resilience (it tends to recover to 100). So, VP balance is off by far. If he does better than history, CSA player is the winner IMO.

+1

[Rod Smart]

How about a chance for the south to win in the 64 elections? If they are doing well enough or north morale low enough the south can win by Lincoln not being reelected, as this almost happened had not Hood attacked in Atlanta.

This happens.

The defeat floor gets raised.