AGEOD Forums

Here's an exchange between Longshanks and me:

GS: Hey here's an idea for another Tourney - 1862 start that ends with the fall election in 1864. Whaddaya think?


LS: I think if you'll run it, I'll play in it! However, the CSA starts in a truly woeful position ... much worse than any player, even a novice, is likely to see by then in an 1861 game. You'll have to do something special to get folks to want to play the CSA!

And then, due to updating and such, I lost my next reply. It amounted to:

I dunno, can't say I agree with the assesment. The position isn't awful - the North has Nashville, H&D, and a beachhead in SC (the FL Union force - why pour more into that, where can you go that you wouldn't try from SC or a closer spot?). All Corps and Armies can coordinate ("Culpeper line" in VA with the magical Longstreet teleporting Corps); Lee is in command and the CSA has fighting chances in TN and KY.

A House Rule stating that McClellan must, at all times, be the AoP commander until mid-Sept 62 could be a good rule.

Now...

I would not want to be the tourney director, I would want to play. I have often played '62, it's my favorite start, largely because the messing around with loose stacks is over and Corps can MTSG (the single most awesome feature of AACW, IMHO; HoI2 has "Support Attack", which is a similar idea but different mechanic). Versus the AI, playing the Union with the AI goosed up to Just About as Hard as You Can ain't a bad game. I have a CSA 62 game currently against the AI and it's been far from discouraging and a good challenge.

So, what does the community think? March 1862 until Lincoln gets re-elected or not?

One of the problems is that the CSA's rail and riverine capacity is in absolutely awful shape - it will take 6 months to fix it. In nearly all games that start in Apr 61, the CSA's transporation network is in MUCH better shape by Mar 62 than it is in the scenario.

While that's not a "show-stopper" it IS an significant impediment to this scenario being one in which each side has a shot at success.

You might fix this by simply tweaking the victory conditions somehow.

But overall, I think it'd be a blast!

...or we could boost the starting Rail & Riverine values

I could assemble a "Tournament Special" if you tell me what should be changed...

Thank you, kind sir. I would hope we wouldn't have to do this. I really do think that the table isn't tilted that badly. Yes, it's 2-0, Union, in the second inning, but far from a foregone conclusion.

In my 62 CSA game, I have not experienced the RR&R problems that Longshanks mentioned, but it could be play style. One thing that my very modest experience with the CSA taught me was I tended to invest too much, sometimes much too much, in RR&R as the Union. My CSA experience has been one of threadbare budgets and just getting by, but I haven't seen or felt colossal problems.

ADDENDUM

In my PBEM as the South against Longshanks (a 62, IIRC), the big problem after 18 game months was manpower, by far and away.

The other issue with the 1862 start is the entrenchments (and lack thereof). In a typical game, both sides are dug in to level 4 or 5 by Jan 1862.

It could be very interesting, and a real challenge having no entrenchments.

I'd be okay with dialing back entrenchments a notch ... but NO entrenchments? We might as well play War of the Rings! Seriously, any Civil War history battle description begins with digging the entrenchments.

Perhaps you could post a poll specifying the different options, to include Lodi's "tournament special" package. A thoughtfully designed poll would give you an idea of how many people might play, what options would be preferred by those who would play, whether "no entrenchments' is a deal breaker, etc.

Here's a link to the FAQ page about Polls.

Thank you, ma'am. See what I can do.

Seriously, any Civil War history battle description begins with digging the entrenchments.

I know, even when I write a user's manual, the first thing I do is dig entrenchments in my cube.

Damn editors, won't leave ya alone.