Manassas

[FelixZ]

Manassas event is a carry over from AACW where it was contested by both factions.

CW2 moved main CSA Army to Manassas but did not change the requirement for USA to capture Manassas or lose 10 NM.

If a CSA player just keeps the main army in Manassas, there is just about no way for a USA player to avoid the 10 NM penalty.

There has been quite a lot of discussion centered on the failure of USA players to advance until 1863. Could this be partially caused by the NM difference brought about by the Manassas event - around 81/82 USA vs 109/110 CSA in Early Oct 61.

How about modifying the event - possibilities:

1) multiple locations to be taken to avoid the penalty

2) lessen the NM loss

3) can someone come up with another possibility?

[pgr]

How about "spreading out" the 10 point penalty? In the general forum discussioni made a suggestion of having a periodic 1NM hit for 10 cities. As each city is taken, the effect lessens.

I tend to like these cities, all strategic I believe, as candidates:

Richmond
Charleston
Atlanta
Mobile
New Orleans
Vicksburg
Chattanooga
Nashville
Memphis
Little Rock

I like the idea of a NM hit to provide some pressure, but by spreading it out...it gives the Union a lot of flexibility in working around it.

[Merlin]

I hate the NM hits with a passion. I'd rather have pgr's city list with loyalty hits every so often.

[Merlin]

Just so everyone knows what I'm aiming at, loyalty hits would reduce Union production and interfere with the play of Draft and Requisition cards, but leave NM intact for combat. If people are worried about Union turtle tactics, dropping Union NM is counterproductive, since a Union with lower NM will just wait out the events as currently happens.

Here's what I think the events should look like:

1861: Hold one region within 3 regions of Richmond for two turns or lose 20% loyalty across the board.

1862: Hold one region within 2 regions of Richmond for two turns or lose 20% loyalty across the board.

Those will definitely get the attention of Union players and create a response. The NM events as they are, are almost impossible to fulfill and create an atmosphere of caution in Union play. NM should function mostly as a public response to battlefield losses, not some general litmus of public support of the war; we have other mechanics for that.

[ohms_law]

I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I really don't pay attention to anything other than National Morale.
I understand what you're getting at about NM hits being counterproductive, but... loyalty is an (extremely) poor substitute. Victory points probably even more so.

[Merlin]

Loyalty management is huge for the Union. Lose 20% loyalty and your production will drop like a rock. So much so, you could get the same effect by dropping it by 5%.

Maybe that's why people seem to think the South doesn't have enough VPs? They don't play Habeas Jailus or the other VP-reducing cards? Try keeping loyalty high in every region with any real production and watch what happens to your income. It's possible to get well over $600 a turn of you work relentlessly on loyalty.

[tripax]

I agree with Merlin. Watching the VP debate, I feel like I'm playing a different game in that I'm always way behind on VP largely due to HB, Unionists, and other VP cards. In my current Union game against Athena, I have 1755 VP and Athena has 3222 VP (Late Jun 1863 where I've given myself the rule not to take Richmond so that the game doesn't end early, but I'm up in NM 154 to 43).

I know this is the wrong thread, but I'd support a November 1862 event where Democrats wins the election in any state (or at least Western state) where the CSA holds major border cities in the state for 2 months before November-ish cutting cutting loyalty in those states (to 50-50 or 40-60 in support of the CSA or worse - I think this is actually fairly realistic, actually).

[FelixZ]

I do have concerned that the game is straying from historical accuracy to provide a more balanced war-game.

Getting back to Manassas, to simulate history we need a Manassas event. The problem with the current event is the chance that existed in AAWC for the Union to take Manassas has been effectively taken away by having the Main CSA Army begin in Manassas. This of course does follow history.

I would like to keep a Manassas Event (only for structure of Manassas) with modification.

Here are two possibilities to encourage Union aggression:

1 - If the Union attacks Manassas the NM penalty is reduced or eliminated.

2 - Offer a new Regional Card which can cause an epidemic in Manassas - allowing the Union a chance to capture Manassas.

[elxaime]

The Manassas and On to Richmond events in 1861 and 1862 are a 1-2 punch that contribute towards convincing Union players to be cautious. Given how pointless it is to attack Manassas in 1861 against a competent CSA player, most Union players just factor in taking a 10 NM hit. In 1862, to satisfy the On to Richmond event you basically either have to sweep south 1864-style or divide your armies into two parts. The former is unlikely given the probable poor leaders you still have and a numerical disparity that's isn't all that great. The latter of course puts you teetering on the brink if the CSA manages to defeat one or the other of your divided forces. Usually what happens is that the Union turtles around DC while sending the minimum needed to avoid the NM hit down to the Peninsula, where they camp within the required distance of Richmond. Yes, people can and will be more aggressive - your mileage may vary due to respective player skill. But between two veteran players, 1861-1862 are the years the Union is most likely to outright lose the war. And aside from an auto-loss if DC falls, big Union NM hits early on can create a NM "death spiral" that is hard to recover from.

[pgr]

The Manassas and On to Richmond events in 1861 and 1862 are a 1-2 punch that contribute towards convincing Union players to be cautious.... Yes, people can and will be more aggressive - your mileage may vary due to respective player skill. But between two veteran players, 1861-1862 are the years the Union is most likely to outright lose the war. And aside from an auto-loss if DC falls, big Union NM hits early on can create a NM "death spiral" that is hard to recover from.

I think this is the main value of the event. I agree, it's silly arbitrary to attach its effects to Manassas and scripted regions around Richmond, but I think it is better than nothing. If a way could be come up with for an event that largely achieves the same NM pressure in a more elegant way, I would be all for it.

[PJL]

As far the 1861 event is concerned, perhaps the situation should be flipped around. Instead of losing 10 points if the Union fails to get Manassas, they should get 10 points if the DO get it. Union NM would have to be 10 points lower at the start to compensate.

[tripax]

As far the 1861 event is concerned, perhaps the situation should be flipped around. Instead of losing 10 points if the Union fails to get Manassas, they should get 10 points if the DO get it. Union NM would have to be 10 points lower at the start to compensate.

Starting with 10 fewer NM would make it even harder for the Union to win this first battle.

[Captain_Orso]

One solution could be:

• The Union starts at their current NM.
• If the Union doesn't move n number of elements into Fauquier (Manassas) by date x[SUP]1[/SUP], they lose 10 NM.
• If the Union captures Manassas by date y[SUP]1[/SUP] they gain z NM. I think gaining 10 NM would be too much.

--

I still think there are possibilities to find different targets for Union aggression which would be logical and not be just Manassas. Why restrict everything to Manassas? The northern press and the public wanted to see results. I'm sure nobody in the North cared a rat's ass about Manassas itself, if they even knew it existed. Besides the current Manassas-centric event--even my suggestion above--limits the player's possibilities to develop other strategies.

[ohms_law]

Yea, it had nothing to do with Manassas itself. People just wanted to see Mcclelland and the Army of the Potomac do something. Richmond was always the goal, really.

[Jagger2013]

Wasn't the actual battle of Manassas a toss-up. Either side could have won that battle considering the armies were composed of inexperienced troops and a newly formed command structure. Just a coin flip as to who actually won that battle in 1861. It seems to me that the eastern CSA armies may be too strong, too soon if the Union has no possibility of beating the NVA on the battlefield in 1861.

[elxaime]

Wasn't the actual battle of Manassas a toss-up. Either side could have won that battle considering the armies were composed of inexperienced troops and a newly formed command structure. Just a coin flip as to who actually won that battle in 1861. It seems to me that the eastern CSA armies may be too strong, too soon if the Union has no possibility of beating the NVA on the battlefield in 1861.

In EAW, some of the various War Plans create incentives to attack in certain regions by applying enhanced fatigue recovery there or, in the case of Liege, a one-time "Bombardment" RGD that starts already deployed (in the historical version) atop the Liege forts to allow the Germans to conduct their historical first turn attacks in Belgium.

What one might do is, when the Manassas event triggers, is have a one-time "On to Richmond!" RGD that is deployed atop Manassass which can impact that first battle. You'd have to carefully playtest, but it would make a Union assault have a greater probability of success than currently. Right now, the battle is a near-certain major CSA victory (assuming Manassas is defended by a competent player) with a Union morale hit above and beyond the 10 NM. Thus very few attempt the historical attack. Even increasing the chances of success to 25 percent from the current near-zero would be an improvement.

Taking a page from EAW might be an answer here.

[ohms_law]

I started thinking about how EAW's War Plans could work with CW2 as soon as I saw them, myself.

[Merlin]

I started thinking about how EAW's War Plans could work with CW2 as soon as I saw them, myself.

Like yearly objectives? I'd be very happy with that as long as they allowed for flexibility and awarded NM/Loyalty/VP at the end of the year, not immediately as EAW does.

[Gray Fox]

IIRC, the historical pressure was about attacking the Confederacy. Actually taking Manassas wasn't really considered an objective that would end the war. Why not have an event that required the Union player to attack a large Confederate force somewhere of X number of elements or lose an agreeable amount of NM by date so and so. If the CSA player split all of his forces up into groups smaller than X to prevent this being possible, that would be a recipe for disaster, as would only having one huge force. So the Union player would no doubt have several choices for stacks to attack to fulfill the event.