I don't get the VP situation.
In the full April '61 campaign, the Union cities are worth more than the Confederate cities. Thus, the Union gains 5 or 6 VPs per turn on the Confederate player, simply for doing nothing.
This doesn't even account for the free VPs that the Union side earns for the Emancipation Proclamation and the like. That's gravy on top.
In fact, if you disable the AI and just run through the game, the Union side will be a few hundred points ahead of the Confederacy by the middle of 1863, even though they haven't taken an inch of ground. I tried it.
This seems exactly wrong. The Confederacy should win by just exsisting. The burden is on the Union to destroy the Confederacy. Three years of inactivity and non-advancement as in my run-through above should have destroyed the Union morale and ended the game. It doesn't.
It would seem that inactivity would be the quickest way to lose VPs and morale as the Union side, but I haven't found that to be the case. There don't seem to be many events which cost the Union side points or morale for doing nothing. In fact, the way the game is currently set up, playing defense as the Union player would seem to be a perfectly legitimate way to win the game!
Foreign intervention is also impossible, because the CSA player cannot stay ahead in VPs long enough to sway the intervention value. The VP total swings to the USA some time in 1861, and would then be very hard to lose after that given the 5 points per turn edge the Union has.
Generally speaking, I don't understand why the bulk of the VPs are located on the Union side of the map. Washington is worth 50 points itself, while Richmond is only 10. I would reverse that, perhaps.
Putting the VPs in the South must be the spur to action for the Union player. Otherwise, there is no need to advance, or to do it in any speedy manner. Also, if the CSA started with the VP edge, VP accumulation by the Confederate player early in the game would make a CSA victory possible by not being totally destroyed by 1866 (i.e. doing better than history) and earning enough VPs to stay ahead for the game. That's the way I would design it.
The VP design seems horribly flawed. What am I missing?
-
pasternakski
- Colonel
- Posts: 341
- Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 6:50 pm
I disagree completely. The burden is, as it ought to be, on the CSA player to carry the war to the North and raise Confederate morale (not to mention VP totals) by creative campaigning in 1862 and 1863.
The Union side's morale situation is bad, worsens after it proves impossible to fulfill the "On to Richmond" mandate, and disintegrates entirely with a series of Confederate successes. Kentucky and Missouri cannot be allowed to succumb and add their resources to the Confederate cause (while subtracting them from the Union side of the ledger).
Lee realized this in 1862. He could feel the weight of the Union buildup, could see the sharpening of the Union army and its leadership, and undertook to strike after he and his command predecessors had fended off the early Union offensive efforts above and along the Rappahannock while he had advantages in leadership and morale and a rough parity in materiel and manpower.
Events proved him right, even though his campaigns eventually failed. The North met with success in other vital theaters Lee could not control, and the juggernaut was slowly beginning to gather momentum by 1863. Better Union leadership and combat effectiveness were starting to take their toll. Gettysburg sealed the deal, but what if ... what if ... ain't that why we're all here?
In the game, I find that a defensive stance by the CSA is a recipe for failure. The North just has too many resources, as an eventual matter, and too many places to apply them, for such a strategy to succeed. The South was an impossible proposition on the defense. There were just too many vulnerabilities that an even decently aggressive and competent Union war effort could exploit. Crucial cities with short, easily accessible avenues of attack. Dependency on multiple seaports on a long coastline in the face of near-total command of the sea by an enemy with sufficient force and expertise to blockade and even seize them. A country "slicable" into several pieces not capable of sustaining themselves separately.
Add to this incipient and mounting manpower, transportation, and industrial shortcomings, and the recipe for even a chance of victory becomes one in which the few ingredients available had to be mixed together judiciously and baked in such a souffle as would rise quickly, brown evenly, and emerge successfully from the oven before that mean ole Uncle Abe came stompin' through the kitchen, ranting about divided houses not standing, followed by a marching chorus bellering, "Glory, glory hallelujah," perforce flattening that stars and bars souffle into a sad, fit-only-to-feed-to-the-dogs burnt weenie sandwich.
Neither side can sit in this game. You win through the genius of your aggression, or you lose. I would pull out a knife and shoot myself if I ever played so poorly I let Little Mac and the peace party prevail in the 1864 elections ... and any Union player who takes a cautious approach against me as Jefferson Davis is going to smell Southern gunpowder and feel Southern steel.
The Union side's morale situation is bad, worsens after it proves impossible to fulfill the "On to Richmond" mandate, and disintegrates entirely with a series of Confederate successes. Kentucky and Missouri cannot be allowed to succumb and add their resources to the Confederate cause (while subtracting them from the Union side of the ledger).
Lee realized this in 1862. He could feel the weight of the Union buildup, could see the sharpening of the Union army and its leadership, and undertook to strike after he and his command predecessors had fended off the early Union offensive efforts above and along the Rappahannock while he had advantages in leadership and morale and a rough parity in materiel and manpower.
Events proved him right, even though his campaigns eventually failed. The North met with success in other vital theaters Lee could not control, and the juggernaut was slowly beginning to gather momentum by 1863. Better Union leadership and combat effectiveness were starting to take their toll. Gettysburg sealed the deal, but what if ... what if ... ain't that why we're all here?
In the game, I find that a defensive stance by the CSA is a recipe for failure. The North just has too many resources, as an eventual matter, and too many places to apply them, for such a strategy to succeed. The South was an impossible proposition on the defense. There were just too many vulnerabilities that an even decently aggressive and competent Union war effort could exploit. Crucial cities with short, easily accessible avenues of attack. Dependency on multiple seaports on a long coastline in the face of near-total command of the sea by an enemy with sufficient force and expertise to blockade and even seize them. A country "slicable" into several pieces not capable of sustaining themselves separately.
Add to this incipient and mounting manpower, transportation, and industrial shortcomings, and the recipe for even a chance of victory becomes one in which the few ingredients available had to be mixed together judiciously and baked in such a souffle as would rise quickly, brown evenly, and emerge successfully from the oven before that mean ole Uncle Abe came stompin' through the kitchen, ranting about divided houses not standing, followed by a marching chorus bellering, "Glory, glory hallelujah," perforce flattening that stars and bars souffle into a sad, fit-only-to-feed-to-the-dogs burnt weenie sandwich.
Neither side can sit in this game. You win through the genius of your aggression, or you lose. I would pull out a knife and shoot myself if I ever played so poorly I let Little Mac and the peace party prevail in the 1864 elections ... and any Union player who takes a cautious approach against me as Jefferson Davis is going to smell Southern gunpowder and feel Southern steel.
pasternakski wrote:The burden is, as it ought to be, on the CSA player to carry the war to the North and raise Confederate morale (not to mention VP totals) by creative campaigning in 1862 and 1863.
Are you for real?
Are you really saying that a proper strategic level ACW game should force the Confederate side to conquer Missouri, Kentucky, and Washington to win the game?
That's totally at odds with the historical situation. Jeff Davis' objective was 'simply to be let alone', not to conquer the North.
It was Lincoln's burden to destroy the Confederacy. Not the other way around.
-
jimwinsor
- General of the Army
- Posts: 631
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 7:07 am
- Location: San Diego, CA USA
Um, yeah I have to agree with Runyan. With all the material advantages of the North, to add to that the onus of going on the offensive, into the North...doesn't make sense to structure the victory system that way.
It's the Union that should be compelled to come south.
Not saying the carry the war to the north is a bad strategy necessarily...but a VP system that forces such a risky strategy on the CSA every game....???
It's the Union that should be compelled to come south.
Not saying the carry the war to the north is a bad strategy necessarily...but a VP system that forces such a risky strategy on the CSA every game....???
-
pasternakski
- Colonel
- Posts: 341
- Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 6:50 pm
I didn't say "force," and didn't say "conquer." What I am saying is that the South could not win historically by sitting around the campfire making up songs extolling the virtues of whatever was virtuous to them.
You have to carry the fight to the enemy if you expect to win. This game correctly rewards those who carry their flag forward, not the ones who sit in the kitchen admiring it as an embroidered sampler set among patriotic sayings and images.
The Union has severe disadvantages at the outset that need to be exploited, or you soon find yourself playing a losing hand.
But, I guess we disagree.
You have to carry the fight to the enemy if you expect to win. This game correctly rewards those who carry their flag forward, not the ones who sit in the kitchen admiring it as an embroidered sampler set among patriotic sayings and images.
The Union has severe disadvantages at the outset that need to be exploited, or you soon find yourself playing a losing hand.
But, I guess we disagree.
Specifically:
On turn 1 of the April campaign, the Union gains 46 points from objectives, and the CSA gains 42, giving the USA a 4 point advantage.
Louisville starts contested. Assuming the Union occupies Louisville before the CSA, that's another point, so 47 to 42.
Norfolk starts Union, but is easily captured so that swings the total back to 46-42 quickly.
How to get back to even as the CSA player?
Capturing Louisville and St. Louis would be worth 3 points.
Philadelphia and New York are USA objective cities too far north to realistically be captured. Each worth 1 point.
The only other objective listed is Washington. So, I guess to get ahead in VPs per turn, the CSA has to capture Washington. That's the only way I can see.
Totally broken in my opinion.
By the way, I don't really understand the totals, because the 'Points accumulated per turn from Cities' does not equal the values shown on the Objectives list. The Union objectives at start are 50+2+1+1+1 which does not equal the 46 points shown. On the CSA side 10+2+3+3+3+1+2+1+1 does not equal the 42 points shown. So, i have no idea where the VP totals are actually coming from.
On turn 1 of the April campaign, the Union gains 46 points from objectives, and the CSA gains 42, giving the USA a 4 point advantage.
Louisville starts contested. Assuming the Union occupies Louisville before the CSA, that's another point, so 47 to 42.
Norfolk starts Union, but is easily captured so that swings the total back to 46-42 quickly.
How to get back to even as the CSA player?
Capturing Louisville and St. Louis would be worth 3 points.
Philadelphia and New York are USA objective cities too far north to realistically be captured. Each worth 1 point.
The only other objective listed is Washington. So, I guess to get ahead in VPs per turn, the CSA has to capture Washington. That's the only way I can see.
Totally broken in my opinion.
By the way, I don't really understand the totals, because the 'Points accumulated per turn from Cities' does not equal the values shown on the Objectives list. The Union objectives at start are 50+2+1+1+1 which does not equal the 46 points shown. On the CSA side 10+2+3+3+3+1+2+1+1 does not equal the 42 points shown. So, i have no idea where the VP totals are actually coming from.
don't mistake VP and NM. Union get more VP than the CSA, but just by a little margin and this is because their territory is bigger. For NM, CSA is in a better shape, starting higher while the Union will lose 10 points for not closing to Richmond. This means that even if the Union VP is higher than the CSA one, the Foreign Entry will stay basically the same, which is normal if the CSA don't appears to win (there is a roll for the side who has more VP and another roll for the side who has more NM, each turn).
Morale wise, the CSA is the winner. Basically the 'leave us alone' strategy, but if nothing happen, the CSA waste his early leader advantage while the Union can outproduce it. I'm not saying that the CSA ought to take Washington here, I'm just describing a reality about CSA leaders and Union industry. To you the conclusion of what the CSA should do. Do you stay on your position or do you try to go on the offensive. Compare your train of thoughts with what the CSA did in history also ...
VP is a money also, so it is normal to get a montly accrual each turn. You don't win with a VP level in the game, you win with morale. VP is spend to activate options, so this is normal that each side get some every turn.
All things being equal, in the end game the Union NM will fall faster than the CSA one, because of war weariness. But it is true that for now the Union has perhaps not enough incentive to attack the CSA. We already discussed that in the beta forum and perhaps we will add more events like the 'Forward to Richmond' one to push a bit the Union into acting. This is still open to debate.
To conclude: the CSA is designed fine, and the 'leave us alone' strategy is not realistic. He must attacks, as historically if he want to have a chance to win.
the USA designed position can get some improvement, the Union having not enough incentives to attack. We will reactivate the subject in the beta forum, something can be done there.
Morale wise, the CSA is the winner. Basically the 'leave us alone' strategy, but if nothing happen, the CSA waste his early leader advantage while the Union can outproduce it. I'm not saying that the CSA ought to take Washington here, I'm just describing a reality about CSA leaders and Union industry. To you the conclusion of what the CSA should do. Do you stay on your position or do you try to go on the offensive. Compare your train of thoughts with what the CSA did in history also ...
VP is a money also, so it is normal to get a montly accrual each turn. You don't win with a VP level in the game, you win with morale. VP is spend to activate options, so this is normal that each side get some every turn.
All things being equal, in the end game the Union NM will fall faster than the CSA one, because of war weariness. But it is true that for now the Union has perhaps not enough incentive to attack the CSA. We already discussed that in the beta forum and perhaps we will add more events like the 'Forward to Richmond' one to push a bit the Union into acting. This is still open to debate.
To conclude: the CSA is designed fine, and the 'leave us alone' strategy is not realistic. He must attacks, as historically if he want to have a chance to win.
the USA designed position can get some improvement, the Union having not enough incentives to attack. We will reactivate the subject in the beta forum, something can be done there.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
-
pasternakski
- Colonel
- Posts: 341
- Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 6:50 pm
runyan99 wrote:How to get back to even as the CSA player?
The game is not won or lost here. By 1865, each side will be, depending on how it has fared earlier, approaching 2,000 VPs.
You will have spent far more VPs recruiting troops and raising money than you will have gained or lost through control of these cities.
You argue against yourself here. If you think the Confederacy ought to be encouraged just to sit back and play "zone defense," the "broken" VP system as you describe it does just that. You want points for capturing Walla Walla?
No, the onus is on the Union player. Every time you turn around, you have got to scramble not only to maintain or increase your national morale (which I think is a far bigger problem), you've got to keep that narrow margin of accumulating VPs going - and growing.
The VP system as it is, I think, creates an excellent, historically-based framework that presents the players with a finely balanced contest that challenges them not only to defend their holdings but to find creative ways, within their various limitations, to enhance their positions in ways that will further a well-thought-out plan for achieving ultimate victory.
Nothing broken here.
doggone it, Pocus posted while I was composing my brilliant riposte.
In any event, so far, I like things the way they are, and 1861 campaign games I am playing against other humans seem terrifically competitive on the VP front - I am the Union in one (early Oct 63) and CSA (early Jan 64) in another, and you could throw a cavalry saddle blanket over the difference in VPs.
Pocus wrote:To conclude: the CSA is designed fine, and the 'leave us alone' strategy is not realistic. He must attacks, as historically if he want to have a chance to win.
Attack what? As I've pointed out, nothing short of the capture of Washington will gain a VP advantage for the CSA. Louisville and all of Kentucky is worth a grand total of one point, as best I can tell.
Allowing the USA player to simply defend Washington and win by VPs seems to totally miss the historical situation of the Civil War. I couldn't disagree more.
As for your comment about war weariness, when does it kick in? What drops the morale? I haven't discovered it yet. There are a number of events that raise the USA morale from '61 to '63, but hardly any which lower it. At the end of simply clicking next turn until June '63 the Union morale is 122. Hardly weary after two years of doing nothing. Why doesn't it drop by a point or two each turn? If NM is lowered primarily by losing battles, then simply playing defense as the Union and fighting no battles avoids the NM drop. Best to do nothing.
pasternakski wrote:
You will have spent far more VPs recruiting troops and raising money than you will have gained or lost through control of these cities.
[/I]
Aren't both sides likely to spend VPs in this way?
Assuming both sides spend more or less the same amount of VPs on recruitment and such, doesn't that just bring us right back to the issue of the VP differential derived from objectives? It seems to me it does.
Pocus wrote:To conclude: the CSA is designed fine, and the 'leave us alone' strategy is not realistic. He must attacks, as historically if he want to have a chance to win.
Au contraire, mes ami. I recently finished off my first Campaign as the CSA (See the Help to Improve AACW forum, "Campaign Results" thread), and my strategy from the get-go was built around Jeff Davis' "we just want to be left alone" missive.
I won the game in Jan 1864 --- not by superior VP accumulation, or by invading the North --- but by wearing down the USA National Morale. The only states I invaded were Missouri and Kentucky --- which were technically part of the CSA. I sat on my ass as the CSA --- used Lee and the ANV as glorified border guards --- and still won the game.
End totals:
VP: CSA 3103 / USA 2217
NM: CSA 148 / USA 55
The plural of anecdote is not data
IMO VPs are not a problem in 1861 scenarios, but they are in 1863 and 1864 in PBEM, you can always use those scenarios as difficult settings against the AI, but against a human player there is no way you can win on points, as every turn the Union player adds 20-30 more points than the CSA player. I have posted on the subject in the improvement suggestions forum.
-
pasternakski
- Colonel
- Posts: 341
- Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 6:50 pm
tc237 wrote:Instead of yelling at each other, let's find the file that controls VP's, make some changes and test it.
(I'm talking about us here, not Pocus or Ageod, they got other things to work on.)
Easy, now. Nobody's yelling here. I think runyan99's points are, in many respects, well taken, and Pocus has indicated a willingness to "light a fire" under the Union.
As far as the CSA "leave us alone" strategy, I'm sure it works fine against the AI, but, as "she" improves, I wouldn't count on continuing success that way. I know I would like nothing better as the North player to have an opponent try that against me...
In any event, I still think the game forces both players to accomplish things in order to win, and I am happy with it. Modding may be the answer for some, but I suggest that the AI may not handle such victory condition changes very well.
But, 'nuff said from my end. I'm not here to antagonize anyone.
Pocus would the best one to answer you, but from what I understand from the AI, I think she will adapt fairly well. Athena has been designed to be an all purpose AI. She can play indifferently CSA, Union, American Colonists, Redcoats or Montcalm French troops...
The only thing that really bothers her (and thus Pocus) is when you begin to trigger the supply or retranchment values. Because it affects the way she has to assess the situation. If you make retranchment tougher for example, then Pocus will have to modify how easily she will assault entranched positions.
But changing the VP value of some Cities should affect the way she analyses the map, it should not affect only the strategy she would come up with.
Eg: The AI is the same for small scenarios and for all grand campaigns. However the VP value of the objective cities are different.
The only thing that really bothers her (and thus Pocus) is when you begin to trigger the supply or retranchment values. Because it affects the way she has to assess the situation. If you make retranchment tougher for example, then Pocus will have to modify how easily she will assault entranched positions.
But changing the VP value of some Cities should affect the way she analyses the map, it should not affect only the strategy she would come up with.
Eg: The AI is the same for small scenarios and for all grand campaigns. However the VP value of the objective cities are different.
"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." Mark Twain
Well, if NM morale is the thing, then give the CSA 5 Morale for each turn after August 1861 that no Union attack larger than two divisions (28 elements) occurs in the South.
---------------
The mandate by Abraham Lincoln that raised the Armies and the Militia was for the purpose of securing Federal Property and later to conquer those errant States and incorporate them back into the Union.
I don't know how one would do this without taking enemy Cities and significant Geography; VP Sites.
---------------
The mandate by Abraham Lincoln that raised the Armies and the Militia was for the purpose of securing Federal Property and later to conquer those errant States and incorporate them back into the Union.
I don't know how one would do this without taking enemy Cities and significant Geography; VP Sites.
VP's only effect is as "currency" to recruit soldiers (volunteers and draft are dependant on VP level) and make money (taxes and bonds are delepdant on VP's to make more money). In this respect, I have no problem with the Union having an advantage. Its amusing to me that when I begin an April 1861 game and call for volunteers, I get almost the same amount of troops for both north and south. One would think that the north would get more, but it does not. Taxation and bond issuance is almost indistinguishable as well. If any change is to be made to VP's, the north should get much much more than it does now.
After a second look at the manual, I have a better understanding of the VPs. Page 10 says:
VP Accumulation
Strategic Cities - 1 VP/turn
Objective Cities - 1-3VP/turn depending on the city and the scenario.
Okay, I didn't realize that every strategic city was worth a point. I also now see that the numbers on the Objectives screen is the NM lost if the city is taken by the enemy, not the VP value of the city.
I have a better understanding of the system.
Still, I think there is a problem with too many Northern strategic cities, which leads to the VP edge the North has. I would eliminate a number of strategic cities like Albany, NY which are not going to come into play without a British invasion from Canada, and which only serve to give the Northern player free and secure VPs.
Or, I would simply increase the VP value of some of the Southern Objective cities, until the South has an edge. Or both.
A big change perhaps is not needed. I would simply swing the initial advantage from around +5 to the Union to +5 for the Confederacy.
VP Accumulation
Strategic Cities - 1 VP/turn
Objective Cities - 1-3VP/turn depending on the city and the scenario.
Okay, I didn't realize that every strategic city was worth a point. I also now see that the numbers on the Objectives screen is the NM lost if the city is taken by the enemy, not the VP value of the city.
I have a better understanding of the system.
Still, I think there is a problem with too many Northern strategic cities, which leads to the VP edge the North has. I would eliminate a number of strategic cities like Albany, NY which are not going to come into play without a British invasion from Canada, and which only serve to give the Northern player free and secure VPs.
Or, I would simply increase the VP value of some of the Southern Objective cities, until the South has an edge. Or both.
A big change perhaps is not needed. I would simply swing the initial advantage from around +5 to the Union to +5 for the Confederacy.
you are missing one major source of VP income: winning battles. This is why the South don't have to take Wasghinton to win (but it would helps 
): simply trouncing USA on several occasion can do the trick.
When Davis said 'leave us alone', this was not the strategy that he thought should be used by the CSA (on contrary, see how Lee acted), this was what he wanted from the USA, that's two different things.
Th war weariness triggers in late 64, must be in an event file.
): simply trouncing USA on several occasion can do the trick.When Davis said 'leave us alone', this was not the strategy that he thought should be used by the CSA (on contrary, see how Lee acted), this was what he wanted from the USA, that's two different things.
Th war weariness triggers in late 64, must be in an event file.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
I don't have the same feeling as you Runyan 
I am actually playing CSA on a PBEM (April 61), and by beginning october 1861:
NM: CSA - 109 / USA - 87
VP: about +50 difference for CSA
Foreign intervention: + 26 - with the first total embargo negative for CSA (ie going to non intervention despite the probability rules (65-35 if I remember well)..
And it could have been better but I voluntarily "loose" some NM Points by political actions.
I simply won some little battles in the West (never more than 4000-5000 men lost by battle).
I occupy (is this correct?) Laredo, Tucson and Cairo (about 8-10 US regiments destroyed vs 3 for CSA since the beginning), but I am virtually out of Kentucky since only Bowling green and Paducah remains on CSA's hands.
--> This figures could greatly be improved I think...
The key as the CSA is to be aggressive sometimes especially on the beginning, and to "punish" union each time you can; not to sit and wait that union will crush you by its superior war machine and far more numerous armies later.
I am actually playing CSA on a PBEM (April 61), and by beginning october 1861:
NM: CSA - 109 / USA - 87
VP: about +50 difference for CSA
Foreign intervention: + 26 - with the first total embargo negative for CSA (ie going to non intervention despite the probability rules (65-35 if I remember well)..
And it could have been better but I voluntarily "loose" some NM Points by political actions.
I simply won some little battles in the West (never more than 4000-5000 men lost by battle).
I occupy (is this correct?) Laredo, Tucson and Cairo (about 8-10 US regiments destroyed vs 3 for CSA since the beginning), but I am virtually out of Kentucky since only Bowling green and Paducah remains on CSA's hands.
--> This figures could greatly be improved I think...
The key as the CSA is to be aggressive sometimes especially on the beginning, and to "punish" union each time you can; not to sit and wait that union will crush you by its superior war machine and far more numerous armies later.
sval06 wrote:The key as the CSA is to be aggressive sometimes especially on the beginning, and to "punish" union each time you can; not to sit and wait that union will crush you by its superior war machine and far more numerous armies later.
That's the way the game is currently set up, yes, but again I don't think it reflects the historical situation.
Lincoln was under tremendous pressure to get the war moving and prosecute the war. That's why he was contantly pressuring generals like McC and Buell to move south. Every week spent in delay eroded the Northern morale, and brought foreign recognition of the CSA closer. Doing nothing was not an option for Lincoln or the Union.
That pressure is missing from the game when the North gains more VPs from the start. There is no pressure to move south, or to initiate large scale battles that might alter the VP total. If AGEOD is looking for ways to 'get the North moving' then putting them at a VP disadvantage until they can take 3-5 strategic cities would be the simple and elegant way to go.
You mentioned your PBEM, I'll describe mine.
I'm playing the CSA PBEM. The current situation is that it is Feb '62, and the Union is ahead in VPs by 50 points. There has been one major battle in the east in 1861, but few units have been lost on either side. The CSA is still wholly intact except for the loss of eastern KY.
Given the current situation, as we head into 1862, I don't see any reason why the Northern player should attempt to advance southward and risk a battle at all. The Northern player might as well sit tight and defend until 1864, when the weariness kicks in, and suck up VPs for the next two years.
The North is apparently under no obligation to prosecute the war, and that seems nonsensical.
If the northern player does sit tight, and I am able to maintain the territorial integrity of all of the South through the year of 1862, that would be much better than the historical result, and should be a big win for me, but it's not. Doing better than the history books as the CSA will just put me deeper into the hole VP-wise unless a northern army gets destroyed.
runyan99 wrote:If the northern player does sit tight, and I am able to maintain the territorial integrity of all of the South through the year of 1862, that would be much better than the historical result, and should be a big win for me, but it's not. Doing better than the history books as the CSA will just put me deeper into the hole VP-wise unless a northern army gets destroyed.
That's right for Vps, what about NM?
I guess the NM will decrease in 63 or 64 at the latest because of the duration of the war.
I can imagine (but I can be wrong as I never ended a campaign so far) that Union Side will suffer more about this rule than CSA, especially if the Union did nothing before to win the war.
And as the level of loss by NM is higher for the Union than for the CSA, it should force the union to move forward (no matter what VPs are, if NM reach 40 for the Union, it is a loss...)
Moreover, don't you think an "intact" CSA between 61 and end 63 could lead the CSA to a victory as it will have 2 1/2 years to organize its defense, and only 2 years to suffer (with 2 winters which drastically slows the operations)...
I have no answer yet, it's just my feeling so far.
You both may be right concerning Union inactivity in '62 and '63 leading to a NM caused loss of the game in '64 and '65. I don't have the game experience to comment yet.
If that's the case, that's well and good, but there is still the matter of foreign intervention. I believe that inactivity in '62 and '63, or a successful CSA defense in '62 and '63 should be sufficient to cause foreign recognition and aid by the end of '63.
The way the game is set up, that can only happen if both the VP and the NM are in favor of the CSA for a long period of time, in order to swing the intervention value all the way up to 100, where it triggers.
So, I think one more reason for the CSA to have a slight edge in VP accumulation from the start is to put pressure on the USA to take some objectives in '61 and '62 in order to regain the VP lead, and thus halt the progression of the foreign intervention value.
If that's the case, that's well and good, but there is still the matter of foreign intervention. I believe that inactivity in '62 and '63, or a successful CSA defense in '62 and '63 should be sufficient to cause foreign recognition and aid by the end of '63.
The way the game is set up, that can only happen if both the VP and the NM are in favor of the CSA for a long period of time, in order to swing the intervention value all the way up to 100, where it triggers.
So, I think one more reason for the CSA to have a slight edge in VP accumulation from the start is to put pressure on the USA to take some objectives in '61 and '62 in order to regain the VP lead, and thus halt the progression of the foreign intervention value.
One more thing. If a CSA player is effective in his "Leave us alone strategy" (defends his territory with fewer losses, successfully industrialise the country etc.) for a prolonged period, each month should bring him closer to foreign recognition/intervention. Imagine CSA in 1865 holding the same territory as in 1861 (maybe without Kentucky/Missouri) and with economy in good shape e. Why would there be a reason not to recognise such a state? Leave us alone stretegy implies that CSA will became an internationally recognised country alongside USA. One capitol in Richmond, one in Washington.
Now, why would CSA need to take Washington to achieve that? Their only role is to become a state recognised internationally. Good defense of the territory for a prolonged period i.e 5 years, should do.
Now, why would CSA need to take Washington to achieve that? Their only role is to become a state recognised internationally. Good defense of the territory for a prolonged period i.e 5 years, should do.
-
Doomwalker
- Brigadier General
- Posts: 449
- Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 4:36 am
- Location: Confederate held territory in Afghanistan.
This sounds like the questions that were asked about the ACW scenario someone created for Civilizations 3. All VP's were in the South in that scenario, and if the Union sat around for too long the CSA gets its freedom. I think the earliest I saw for a Union lose was September 1862. Basically having all VP in the South, made the Union HAVE to come after you.
hm, something should be done to rework the emancipation event.
In my game in 62 Lincoln emancipates. The CSA is doing pretty good. I'm fighting the USA over Missouri and Kentucky. No Yankees yet to be seen in Tenessee nor Virginia. My VP and NM are ahead of the Union, I'm at +48 FE, and I'm pretty confident.
and then Lincoln emancipates slaves. The result is that my FE figure is trashed. Why is that figure trashed ? I'm doing pretty well as the CSA and why should the foreign powers believe Lincoln if he's merely a paper tiger ?
IIRC Lincoln did some speeches about emancipation after they achieved strategical victories against the CSA- so the word from the Federal goverment had some power to be heard across the Ocean.
This event shouldn't fire - de facto. Perhaps it should only fire if the Union NM is higher then the Confederacy NM ...
In my game in 62 Lincoln emancipates. The CSA is doing pretty good. I'm fighting the USA over Missouri and Kentucky. No Yankees yet to be seen in Tenessee nor Virginia. My VP and NM are ahead of the Union, I'm at +48 FE, and I'm pretty confident.
and then Lincoln emancipates slaves. The result is that my FE figure is trashed. Why is that figure trashed ? I'm doing pretty well as the CSA and why should the foreign powers believe Lincoln if he's merely a paper tiger ?
IIRC Lincoln did some speeches about emancipation after they achieved strategical victories against the CSA- so the word from the Federal goverment had some power to be heard across the Ocean.
This event shouldn't fire - de facto. Perhaps it should only fire if the Union NM is higher then the Confederacy NM ...
-
Doomwalker
- Brigadier General
- Posts: 449
- Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 4:36 am
- Location: Confederate held territory in Afghanistan.
Return to “AGEod's American Civil War”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests