AGEOD Forums

This may have been discussed before and, if so, I apologize in advance. I'm curious what others think. It seems to me that the NM penalties v. benefits for Full Mobilization in 1861 and 1862 are too low to really make anyone no select them. In reality, I don't think either nation was ready for full mobilization in 1861 and the decision to do it would have had a HUGE NM impact.

In one PBEM game I'm playing now, the USA army is HUGE by October 1861. Just feels wrong to me. Seems the NM impact should make that a much riskier move.

Any thoughts?

Could/should Full Mobilization cost a lot more early in the game for both sides? Or is it currently properly balanced?

deleted

Gray_Lensman wrote:
<snip>

Totally agree, that it's definitely NOT Balanced and it's actually non-historic to have a draft in 1861 anyhow. Both sides had enough volunteers in 1861 to completely rule out an 1861 draft option, but it's removal/adjustment needs to be accompanied with accompanying historically accurate (volunteer/conscripts) numbers

+1

Gray_Lensman wrote:Totally agree, that it's definitely NOT Balanced and it's actually non-historic to have a draft in 1861 anyhow.

At the risk of repeating myself, Gray, I still think it will hurt the game as a historical simulation to disallow political options as "non-historic" before the time they were actually taken in the real war. Constitutionally it was absolutely possible to introduce conscription in 1862 or even 1861. It just was, as you say, unnecessary and I might add, would have been politically extremely imprudent.

Hence IMO the course should be what A. Kurtz suggests, namely raise the NM cost (drastically, if necessary) instead of disallowing the option altogether. That's afterall what the NM mechanism is for--simulate the political cost of an option.

And I fervently believe this game needs options to be worthwhile. Otherwise one might as well disallow the South to invade Pennsylvania before 1863, or Grant to fight in the east before 1864, for that, too, is "non-historic".

My € .02, no offence.

deleted

Gray_Lensman wrote: ... why don't we table this for now ...

Sure, we can both shut up about it.