AGEOD Forums

One thing I don't understand is why McClellan is so scripted in this game. There was nothing inevitable about his rise to prominence, as it happened through a series of events that no one could have predicted. And yet the game forces him onto the player in a way that creates what can be viewed as totally out of nowhere events.

Historically McClellan actually proved himself by his actions commanding troops in West Virginia. That brought him to national attention in the north and made him a popular choice to be brought east. But in the game he starts out at a high command and is almost treated as if were one of the political appointments like Fremont and Butler.

So why doesn't McClellan start at a lower rank with decent stats? Why are we forced to watch him become prominent even if all we do is leave him in Cincinnati or some outpost? Why do we pay a political price for passing him over if he doesn't ever do anything to justify his prominence in the first place?

I'd think this would have been covered before, but I wasn't able to find anything so sorry if this is a topic already talked to death.

Personally, I like the fact that the Union is stuck with McClellan. It's the only thing that gives the CSA a fighting chance.

Major Tom wrote:Personally, I like the fact that the Union is stuck with McClellan. It's the only thing that gives the CSA a fighting chance.

+1. As was the case historically. I have some reservations about some of the criticism McClellan received during the war (His tendency toward siege warfare lacked the sizzle but IMHO was quite a bit ahead of his time),

but in general i am fully convinced that just about ANYONE besides McClellan could probably have either taken Richmond from the Penninsula in early 1862 or at least tied down so many Confederate troops there that an advance from the north would have likely gone completely unchecked.

McClellan essentially defeated Lee in almost every one of the Seven Days Battles, but opted to fall back regardless. Something which still confuses alot of people.

point being...McClellan was the best thing that ever happened to the CSA. Without this represented in the game...the southern player doesn't have much of a shot.

EDIT: I suppose you could probably throw Helleck in there as well. His advance on Corinth was as slow and counter productive as it gets.

McClellan essentially defeated Lee in almost every one of the Seven Days Battles, but opted to fall back regardless. Something which still confuses alot of people.

My fallible memory recalls something a chess champion (Philidor?) once said: The best move to play in chess is not necessarily the most accurate move on the board, but the one that is most disagreeable to one's opponent. Could be that Lee was trying to unnerve McClellan more than anything, and the win/lose outcome of that series of battles was not the primary thing to Lee.

Disclaimer: None of these thoughts are original to me.

The same could be said for Lee.

deleted

Gray_Lensman wrote:You said it all. Without McClellan, the game would be a cakewalk inside of 2 years. A quick way to have the game shelved because of it becoming boring.

To me that sounds like a cop-out. I've played quite a few computer and board games over the years that managed to make a good game without forcing McClellan on the player. And it's not like it's that hard to avoid using him, though there are some consequences. I'm just not that happy with having to pay a VP and morale cost for bypassing someone that historically might not have mattered if he had not gotten national attention in West Virginia. So if you are going to allow me to start the game prior to that campaign I don't see why I should be stuck with the guy. As I noted above, he is not a political appointment like some others.

deleted

Sarkus wrote:To me that sounds like a cop-out. I've played quite a few computer and board games over the years that managed to make a good game without forcing McClellan on the player. And it's not like it's that hard to avoid using him, though there are some consequences. I'm just not that happy with having to pay a VP and morale cost for bypassing someone that historically might not have mattered if he had not gotten national attention in West Virginia. So if you are going to allow me to start the game prior to that campaign I don't see why I should be stuck with the guy. As I noted above, he is not a political appointment like some others.

I disagree. It's a game, and part of it is making a decision as to whether or not to have McClellan vs a major VP hit. I suppose multiple scenarios might add freshness like the MO event that sometimes removes Lyons, but agree that the South needs every ounce of help it can get in this game. As is they can be beaten by 1863 almost invariably if two evenly matched players are PBEMing. I have high hopes that delaying the conscription option for the Union player might fix that.

deleted

Darn, I kind of liked the scripted events.

deleted

Oh, ok good.