Mickey3D wrote:A mod, even if not historical, might be interesting indeed as a "what if".
NM will improve/diminish performance of your soldiers. CSA is starting with a better moral and will keep it higher for some times due to several events (Manassas, push for offensive).
vicberg wrote: A historical game? Yes. Playable? No, unless you like to lose as the south or at best case, fight for a draw or "morale" victory.
Mickey3D wrote:Yes, it's something that always strikes me : even if you want to stay historical you can expect more elite troops on the CSA side.
Durk wrote:I simply have to add my take. The American Civil War is a favorite topic of mine. I probable own every simulation of this war. CW2 is the only one to get it right across the board. It is a marvelous game. The CSA is not doomed to recreate history by only ever achieving glory, but never victory. The CSA is a real challenge to play to win, but victory is possible. Like Mickey3D, I only strive to do better than the historical, but that does mean there are not paths to Southern independence.
What the game models really well is Lee's offensive - defensive, I do not know of another game with the subtle interaction of command and engagement which allows realistic portrayal of this gifted commander. If the CSA player builds well and organizes well, then the 'marginally' better leader become decisive. I have engaged in pbem since the games publication and continue to do so. I really enjoy playing as the South.
vicberg wrote:I agree. IMO, very historical. Very difficult for the CSA to even achieve historical results. Definitely a challenge to play the CSA. But IMO, from a game perspective, too lopsided. Very historical and very lopsided. Again, expert play (and you seem like an expert) will offset. But for average players or players looking to have a fun, balanced game while investing enormous time into it, not going to fly very far.
vicberg wrote:Orso, your point is well taken. Khbynum (would LOVE to know what your user name means), yes, most people play vs. AI but is that because PBEM is so difficult for the CSA.
I've already start doing something with this. The first thing I do is break up all the .sct files into individual events so I can sort and figure out what I'm working with. Then I copy individual events I want to customize into another folder, so it's clear what I'm customizing. Same with models. I use a program to do this. I already have it for WON. Simple changes for CW2. So in truth, I'm already halfway there.
NM and VP are the equalizing factors in this game. Orso, your points are well taken and that's where I'm going to start. CSA will start at 115 and the Union at 85. The penalties for lack of Union offensives will be steeper,which I believe is much more historically accurate. From 2 PBEM games now (I know, not a lot, but enough to have experienced the problem), the Union doesn't have to go on the offensive. They can sit back and wait for the overwhelming force. Losing 15 NM for no offensives, forces the union to play a bit more historically. It will force the Union to attack more with their inferior leadership and before their "big gun" leaders are ready for prime time.
This happens in WITP also as the Allied player has the foreknowledge that they will have overwhelming firepower by 1944, whereas the commanders IRL did not and knew it was not politically feasible to sit back and wait. Midway was a perfect example of this thinking as the Allies were outgunned, but yet couldn't take the political hit of doing nothing when Midway, itself, wasn't strategically critical to the war. Yet they sortied and fought and got unbelievably lucky combined with indecisive Japanese leadership.
The second area will be the elite models. Union will have ONE, the iron brigade. The rest will spawn as is without the strong morale/sharpshooter attributes. The third area will be to look at the spawned CSA units and add strong morale/Sharpshooter to quite a few of those or at least strong morale. This will create more CSA divisions with the strong morale. The fourth area will be sharpshooters. CSA should have a preponderance of them over the Union. That will be an adjustment of the # of builds that each side may have. CSA will stay the same. Union will be reduced. Finally, for this first version, I'll adjust fort strength. Forts will be adjusted based on another thread that discuss them in detail.
I won't adjust production to start with. I'll want to see what affects these have. The difference in NM should make it difficult for the Union to simply push down Virginia at will (or anywhere else). The steeper NM losses for lack of offensives will force the Union to act more historically. More CSA divisions will be tougher, as they were historically. Forts will pack more of a punch, forcing the Union to spend money on ships if they want to invade.
DrPostman wrote:I've already modified my game by removing the event that takes Cooper
out of the game so that he can train up militias throughout the game. In
my current game VS Athena she attacked Richmond several times and
freed him up. I'm still keeping him put though.
vicberg wrote:I've been away from the game for a bit. Coming back to it. I'm wondering if playing the CSA is much like playing Japan in War in the Pacific? Japan has no hope. The game designers beefed Japan up seriously in order to make it into a game at all. Japan has a chance but usually only if the Allied player screws up totally OR if Japan attacks constantly. Those are the only two strategies that work and one of them isn't really a strategy.
I'm starting to believe the only real chance for CSA to do anything is to take Washington early in the game. The hold them strategy doesn't work at all.
What I've noticed:
1- CSA leadership "advantage" isn't really true at all. At least not until Longstreet/Jackson/Lee come fully into play. CSA has a few marginally better leaders, only 2 3-star leaders and 1 2 star leader to begin the game. Johnston (in the west) isn't really very good either. Union starts getting better leaders in 1862, so this "advantage" goes away quickly.
2- Defensive strategies require lots of militia everywhere building up trenches. But that of course means less divisions.
3- CSA production is pitiful. Hardly enough to build up divisions/replace let alone keep rail/river etc up to par
4- Union has much better strong morale troops that affect full divisions. I'm seeing one or two brigades for the CSA. So more elite divisions in addition to huge manpower/production ability
5- Too much to defend.
6- Forts don't do much, see different thread.
Strikes me that this game comes down to one strategy and one only. Attack and take Washington or die trying. Shame if I'm right. A single strategy game isn't worth playing.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests