Roger B wrote:
Right now I have something like 168 NM and over 3000 VPs (I earn 80+VPs to the Rebs 4+- a turn, don't know the exact totals). Its Sept. '64 and I own everything east, north and west of Texas except Tallahassee.
Given what you know from above, how much longer do you think this game will go on?
This situation is common unfortunately. In '64 war weariness starts taking NM from both sides, but gets negated by morale resiliency that adds +1NM/turn for the side who has <100 NM, so the losing side (rebs in this example) will stay or even increase NM while the winning side gets whittled down and doesnt get a chance to claim a NM victory.
I would argue that defeat thresholds should be tweaked(continuously increase) starting in '65, so as to force losing sides to action to stem a NM defeat. The threshold could be increased +1/turn to a max of 60-70 for example so an even match/slugfest could and should goto the end with a VP decision.
Another option is to dispose of morale resiliency if your side doesnt have a certain amount of objective/stategic cities. My thinking is that holding few obj/strat cities (or capital) should impact whether they get a resiliency boost, or else what is their resiliency really based on?? In this example, Lee holed-up and Texas alone continues to 'inspire the CSA cause'??
There is room for improvement on this issue somewhere,
John