Victory and Capital Cities

[Normalguy]

I have completed a 'hot seat' game against myself. The CSA won in June 1862 by breaking through rather unexpectedly the USA front lines and 'blitzing' into and capturing a lightly defended Washington. I am now pondering the outcome.

Without going into all the detail it would be fair to say that prior to the attack on Washington the strategic balance was probably about to tip toward the USA. Casualties had been very high on both sides and the USA was better placed to cope than the CSA. The USA had also just cleared the Shenandoah and captured Fredricksburg and was thus threatening to either march on Richmond or better yet to cut off the CSA main force from its bases.

Be that as it may, Washington fell and the -50NM scored caused the immediate end of the war.

If this had been 'real life' I wonder if the USA would really have collapsed if Washington was lost. It had strong forces in good positions to cut off the CSA army. It had its main centres of population and industry untouched. Grant was starting to get victories in the West. Would the people of the North really collapse just because the White House got burned down (again)? I rather doubt it. Certainly the rebels did not surrender when His Majesty's forces captured the place in the American War of Independence! .

So why is Washington worth -50NM when Richmond is only -10NM. What makes Washington so special or the USA so fragile (in the game) that the loss of one city will end the war at a stroke? Equally, what makes the South so strong that losing Richmond is unlikely to end the war unless it is already virtually lost (much as happened in real life)?

I can see from a game balance point of view that the weighting towards Washington can help the CSA win more than it might otherwise but is the balance right?

Perhaps Washington should be worth less and/or Richmond more (say -40 and - 20NM respectively)?

Discuss!

PS Where can I change the values if I want to mod this?

[John Sedgwick]

I agree, it's very unlikely the Union would've capitulated under the circumstances you've described, though it was in some ways politically more fragile - for example, Lincoln fully expected to lose the 1864 election to the Peace Democrats absent a major victory, regardless of the overwhelming strategic advantages enjoyed by the Union at that time. -50 NM seems a bit steep, however I do believe Washington should be worth much more than Richmond in terms of morale, as it occupied an important place in the psyche of both North and South. Also, realistically, Washington should be a much, MUCH harder nut to crack for the South than Richmond is for the North (what were you thinking leaving it so lightly defended, anyway? ), so its loss should be politically very costly. Unfortunately it's relatively easy in game terms, but historically the likelihood of the Confederacy taking D.C. was about the same as Germany succesfully invading England in 1940 - that is to say, practically impossible.

Not sure how you'd go about modding this - check out http://www.ageod.net/aacwwiki/Modding_AACW or, failing that, ask around in the modding forums. A decrease in NM value for D.C. might be in order - perhaps its capture should also increase foreign intervention slightly, providing the slaves are not yet emancipated. I think -10 NM for the fall of Richmond is enough of a penalty, however, considering the concomitant economic consequences for the South.

[charlesonmission]

I feel like Richmond is already -30 NM? Perhaps the hit can change at different points in the game.

[Longshanks]

SInce the national capital was not evacuated to New York, one can assume that the entire infrastructure of government was captured - the President, Congress, the Secretary of War, the Chief of Staff of the Army etc etc. In such a case, it is extremely unlikely that the war would continue, imo. Remember, when Richmod fell, the capital had been evacuated already (barely). Even that effectively resulted in the CSA's surrender.

[charlesonmission]

That's a very good point!

Charles

SInce the national capital was not evacuated to New York, one can assume that the entire infrastructure of government was captured - the President, Congress, the Secretary of War, the Chief of Staff of the Army etc etc. In such a case, it is extremely unlikely that the war would continue, imo. Remember, when Richmod fell, the capital had been evacuated already (barely). Even that effectively resulted in the CSA's surrender.

[MarkCSA]

Please note that although Richmond is worth 10 NM points for the Yankee Invader, losing it as the Rebs costs you 50 NM.

[Philippe]

SInce the national capital was not evacuated to New York, one can assume that the entire infrastructure of government was captured - the President, Congress, the Secretary of War, the Chief of Staff of the Army etc etc. In such a case, it is extremely unlikely that the war would continue, imo. Remember, when Richmod fell, the capital had been evacuated already (barely). Even that effectively resulted in the CSA's surrender.

The concept of evacuating the Federal capital to New York during the Civil War leaves me scratching my head. In many ways it was almost as unfriendly to the Union as Baltimore. Far too many recent immigrants who weren't exactly thrilled by the notion of having to fight over issues that were probably unfamiliar to them. I just can't imagine the capital being moved to the epicenter of the draft riots.

[Citizen X]

The Union nearly caved after Bull Run. Now imagine that they had actually marched onto Washington - evacuated or not.

[Jim-NC]

Normalguy - welcome to the forums. You will find a lot of lively debates, friendly people, and a wealth of information.


To John Sedgewick - that's beacause the north was so afraid of losing it again. That is why there is the "Defend Washington with units of lose 10NM" event in 1862. I believe that in real life, the union garrison of Washington was much stronger than most players make it.
I know for example, that when I stick 2-3 divisions there guarding it, the chances are very remote I'll lose it, but I hate having those divisions doing nothing. So I'll think about risking Washington, and use those divisions elsewhere.

[Longshanks]

Actually, it's "General War Order #2 – keep 50 units adjacent to DC for 2 months or -50VP" which is a pretty minor penalty. Does anyone ACTUALLY comply solely for the purpose of avoiding a 50 vp loss?

[John Sedgwick]

@charlesonmission: You're right, on second thought I realized -10NM wasn't the right figure for Richmond - I believe it's worth 30 VPs to Washington's 50, but -50NM if it falls before the Rebs can move their capital somewhere else.

@Jim-NC: Good point. I can't imagine the Union giving up D.C. without a fight. You could say they were paranoid about losing the capital. They continued constructing fortifications right up to the end of the war - it was probably the most well-defended city on earth in 1865. If I recall correctly, by 1863 if not earlier, the garrison had as many artillery pieces as the Armies of the Potomac and Northern Virginia combined - it was certainly a bit of overkill not likely to be reproduced by human players.

@Citizen X: I was under the impression that First Bull Run, while dealing a blow to public morale, actually steeled the resolve of the government to prepare for a lengthy campaign. They may have panicked, but they certainly weren't about to cave in. If the Rebs had marched on Washington in 1861, that may've been their best chance to take the capital, but it still wouldn't have worked - both sides were inexperienced and exhausted at that point, so I imagine they would've dissolved into a mob nearly as disorganized as the routed Union troops they pursued, whereas the Union could still muster fresh, if green, recruits to defend D.C.

[Normalguy]

Normalguy - welcome to the forums. You will find a lot of lively debates, friendly people, and a wealth of information.


To John Sedgewick - that's beacause the north was so afraid of losing it again. That is why there is the "Defend Washington with units of lose 10NM" event in 1862. I believe that in real life, the union garrison of Washington was much stronger than most players make it.
I know for example, that when I stick 2-3 divisions there guarding it, the chances are very remote I'll lose it, but I hate having those divisions doing nothing. So I'll think about risking Washington, and use those divisions elsewhere.

Thank you kindly for the welcome.

Exactly my feelings too about having troops hanging around doing nothing, which is why I lost Washington...hmmmm may be old Abe was right to worry after all .

PS Wish I had found this game earlier!

[Coldsteel]

Hey Normalguy,

I love the fact that you are just discovering it (And I re-discovering it).
I like seeing new messages in this forum (which I try to check on daily). . . makes it more fun to come and see new stuff being posted.
Reading up on everyones different opinions and strategies is a FUN time killer for me while at work!

[W.Barksdale]

If a Union player made the error of letting a strong rebel army between them and Washington they totally deserve to lose. The game allows you to move the capital if you believe it will fall. As mentiomed above the heavy hit you take when losing the capital is also the resulting loss of government officials and maybe even the capture of Abe. Why exactly was Washington undefended? You know your generals are poor. You know the rebel generals are strong. It seems that the Federals were overstretched in the first place. Use your greater manpower to your advantage.

As a matter of fact this is exactly how I won my previous pbem as the rebels. The Federals were totally overstretched and made the same mistake you did by attempting to control the valley which leads nowhere important. It goes southwest AWAY from Richmod. A definate strategic mistake that I am positve you will not repeat. Good luck and good see all the AACW postings!

[Jim-NC]

Thank you kindly for the welcome.

Exactly my feelings too about having troops hanging around doing nothing, which is why I lost Washington...hmmmm may be old Abe was right to worry after all .

PS Wish I had found this game earlier!

Your welcome. Now you know the risks involved with a weak defense of Washington. That's what I love about this game, after 2 years, I still am sometimes surprised, still learning.

[Jim-NC]

Actually, it's "General War Order #2 – keep 50 units adjacent to DC for 2 months or -50VP" which is a pretty minor penalty. Does anyone ACTUALLY comply solely for the purpose of avoiding a 50 vp loss?

That'll teach me to go by memory. Thanks for the correction.

[Normalguy]

If a Union player made the error of letting a strong rebel army between them and Washington they totally deserve to lose. The game allows you to move the capital if you believe it will fall. As mentiomed above the heavy hit you take when losing the capital is also the resulting loss of government officials and maybe even the capture of Abe. Why exactly was Washington undefended? You know your generals are poor. You know the rebel generals are strong. It seems that the Federals were overstretched in the first place. Use your greater manpower to your advantage.

As a matter of fact this is exactly how I won my previous pbem as the rebels. The Federals were totally overstretched and made the same mistake you did by attempting to control the valley which leads nowhere important. It goes southwest AWAY from Richmod. A definate strategic mistake that I am positve you will not repeat. Good luck and good see all the AACW postings!

You write as if I lost.....I didn't, I won I played both sides tee hee!

[Ethan]

Sorry for my belated welcome, Normalguy... Ahem, welcome to the Forums!

Hope you enjoy here with us and if you have any question don't hesitate to ask for help. Anyway, you can use the search function to find out any doubt that you have. Most of the time, these possible doubts have been raised previously.

Greetings!

[John Sedgwick]

You write as if I lost.....I didn't, I won I played both sides tee hee!

Heh, that's one way of looking at it! You win some, you lose some, so technically, isn't it a tied game?

The fact that your breakthrough was unexpected suggests to me that it was a bit of a fluke, but also a valuable learning experience. Now, if you can formulate and execute a plan that succeeds even against your best attempts to counter it, then I might be more impressed with your victory!

Hmm, that gives me an idea... I think I might try a singleplayer hotseat game to test some ideas for an RUS White campaign using deep battle doctrine. I've never played against myself before - I always thought it would be boring, but I guess you must have had fun or you wouldn't have finished your campaign...?

PS - Guess I'll jump on the welcome wagon too - always good to see new faces on the forums, discovering the game for the first time! AACW got me hooked on AGE games this last summer.

[Stauffenberg]

I think a future build might allow for Washington fortifications to be built to level 4 or whatever; in fact, have the war supplies and cannons withdrawn as time goes by to make this an automatic feature. Raise the level once every year of the war. Historically, it's as much a given in the game as the south bombarding Sumter.

[lodilefty]

Interesting idea...

...why not Richmond too?

[Longshanks]

That'll teach me to go by memory. Thanks for the correction.

Well, I looked it up and STILL got it wrong myself, so you're not alone: it's keep 12 brigades adjacent to DC" ... which leads to my questions:

Do the garrison brigades IN Washington and in Alexandria count toward the 12?

A "brigade" means any artillery unit is excluded from the count, right?

[Stauffenberg]

Interesting idea...

...why not Richmond too?

Well yes why not?
This raises this other issue about moving capitals. I have been toying with this "Mississippi First" strategy for the CSA which sees the south building a large riverine fleet on the Miss with a designated admiral running it. Essentially defend the Miss at all costs and keep the line open to the West. This involves placing Virginia at greater risk (depending upon how aggressive your union opponent is). And so the big issue becomes: how big will the penalty be to move the southern capital to New Orleans? Would this really be so damaging to southern morale? After all, most of their best generals and troops would still be fighting tooth and nail in Virginia. I wonder if a move to a capital in the deep south would really be so damaging to morale.

And so, in this case, I would prefer not to have Richmond's fortifications increased automatically. I guess I would argue that Washington is far more important to retain as capital for northern morale, than Richmond is for the south.

[Normalguy]

Heh, that's one way of looking at it! You win some, you lose some, so technically, isn't it a tied game?

The fact that your breakthrough was unexpected suggests to me that it was a bit of a fluke, but also a valuable learning experience. Now, if you can formulate and execute a plan that succeeds even against your best attempts to counter it, then I might be more impressed with your victory!

Hmm, that gives me an idea... I think I might try a singleplayer hotseat game to test some ideas for an RUS White campaign using deep battle doctrine. I've never played against myself before - I always thought it would be boring, but I guess you must have had fun or you wouldn't have finished your campaign...?

PS - Guess I'll jump on the welcome wagon too - always good to see new faces on the forums, discovering the game for the first time! AACW got me hooked on AGE games this last summer.

Thanks for the welcome and to Ethan too.

Yes, do try playing both sides, it actually works rather well and a good way to try out different strategies.

Cheers all!

[Normalguy]

Well yes why not?
..... And so the big issue becomes: how big will the penalty be to move the southern capital to New Orleans? Would this really be so damaging to southern morale? After all, most of their best generals and troops would still be fighting tooth and nail in Virginia. I wonder if a move to a capital in the deep south would really be so damaging to morale........
.

That kind of talks to part of what I was thinking in the OP - does it matter all that much whether one place or the other is the Capital? Of course the Government needs to be functioning as does industry. The armed forces need to able to compete too. Above all, the National Will needs to be high enough to maintain the fight. The city chosen is not all that important.

In other words.....the circumstances are what count, not where the politicans stick their fat a@@@s

[Stauffenberg]

PS - Guess I'll jump on the welcome wagon too - always good to see new faces on the forums, discovering the game for the first time! AACW got me hooked on AGE games this last summer.

Hi John from a fellow Canuck, recently arrived. "Hooked" is the word for it alright. I might even try my hand as a bluebelly some day; for now, the South is challenge enough. All sorts of arcane nooks and crannies in this one to explore:there's more chrome on this than in a vintage 50s used car lot.

[Stauffenberg]

That kind of talks to part of what I was thinking in the OP - does it matter all that much whether one place or the other is the Capital? Of course the Government needs to be functioning as does industry. The armed forces need to able to compete too. Above all, the National Will needs to be high enough to maintain the fight. The city chosen is not all that important.

In other words.....the circumstances are what count, not where the politicans stick their fat a@@@s

Well in particular for the South I think--New Orleans has to rank high as a great symbolic capital for them. And everyone would know that Lee, the consummate Virginian, would fight as hard to hang onto Richmond whether it is the confederate capital or not.

[John Sedgwick]

@Normalguy: I will try playing with myself soon! Eh, that came out wrong...

@Stauffenberg: greetings from Newfoundland! I'm a proud Ontarian myself, but I gotta hand it to Quebec - Montreal is my favourite city in Canada

I think an automatic fortification of Washington makes a lot of sense - I'd say leave it up to the player if they want to fortify it to the nines, but an historical event to start it off wouldn't go amiss.

And I heartily endorse a Mississippi first strategy, it worked well for me in my first AACW PBEM campaign. I don't recall the precise penalties for moving your capital, but I do recall them being high enough that I could only justify it as an emergency measure, which never proved necessary. However, if you're worried that a Union player could take Richmond a turn or two down the road, don't hesitate to pack up and leave.

[Normalguy]

Interesting comments about the 'Missssiiiisssssipppppiiiiii first' strategy (lol too many damned letters for one river!).

I was thinking I might try that idea after my latest game