AGEOD Forums

I am playing a game vs. Jagger, and I know he was puzzled by this event. I am not 100% familiar either, can someone shed light on how you avoid the 10 NM penalty as the Union?

Do you have to attack a CSA army? Or move troops toward Richmond? Or what else do you have to do?

Thanks in advance.

Its extremely hard to not pay this NM penalty: you have to move within 2 turns a strong force adjacent to Richmond. Good luck.

He did move a force adjacent to Richmond, I wouldn't call it "strong" though, a 3-element brigade, and 1 art unit.

What is the definition of "Strong" for purposes of that event?

Provided I'm reading the event correctly, it means at least 10 units.

Right idea, wrong execution then. As the US, best way to avoid that penalty is probably load 10 militia on a transport and drop them on the James Peninsula, then pick them up and get the hell out of there. That, or a giant cavalry raid.

How about...

1. Delay the event a few turns.
2. Require a direct line of US control from either Fort Monroe, or Washington to a space outside of Richmond. (this way you avoid the cavalry raid, or militia rush).

This way, you are given time to attack (you have to start on turn 1, to get there on time), and you have to 'march' to Richmond (either Butler or McDowell).

Makes sense. I am all for eliminating gimmicks.

The "On to Richmond" event is not a gimmick. It accurately represents the enormous political pressure the Northern press put on Lincoln to begin an offensive. The fact that it is all but impossible doesn't detract from its historical accuracy. BTW, after Bull Run many of these same papers turned abjectly defeatist. Its part of what Lincoln had to put up with.

Levis wrote:The "On to Richmond" event is not a gimmick. It accurately represents the enormous political pressure the Northern press put on Lincoln to begin an offensive. The fact that it is all but impossible doesn't detract from its historical accuracy. BTW, after Bull Run many of these same papers turned abjectly defeatist. Its part of what Lincoln had to put up with.

I don't think he said the event is a gimmick, but, the ways to 'abuse the event' (Cavalry raid, Militia stack, etc.) to succeed without really devoting your forces were the gimmicks to circumvent the spirit of the event.

That is correct.

Levis wrote:The "On to Richmond" event is not a gimmick. It accurately represents the enormous political pressure the Northern press put on Lincoln to begin an offensive. The fact that it is all but impossible doesn't detract from its historical accuracy. BTW, after Bull Run many of these same papers turned abjectly defeatist. Its part of what Lincoln had to put up with.

The more things change...

I am playing Kilcavalry in this particular situation. And it has been a very good game as was the first one.

I am curious about the "spirit" of the "on to Richmond" event especially as the event guidance as how to meet the event conditions is non-existent.

Historically, McDowell was pushed by Lincoln to move on to Richmond before the army was ready. McDowell responded by advancing on Manassas and narrowly lost the battle. Lincoln was satisfied to see McDowell advance on Manassas. If McDowell had won, he would have been very happy and the war possibly over. As it was, McDowell lost and the North was shocked and disappointed. I believe a reduction in national morale is a good reflection of the McDowell's defeat at Manassas.

So I suspect most Union players initially assume an advance on Manassas is an advance "onwards to Richmond" as those were the historical actions of McDowell. I know I did originally. Unfortunately it doesn't result in meeting the conditions of the event whether the US captures Manassas or not.

I would guesstimate the Union has 0% chance of advancing 10 units from Washington to within one hex of Richmond against a good CSA player whether the US captures Manassas or not. The only realistic option is to move from Fort Monroe to Richmond. It is actually doable. Unfortunately I think it is very unwise to remove 10 brigades, now that I realize 10 units are required, from Washington to Fort Monroe at the very beginning of the game. And does it meet the historic "spirit" of Lincoln's on to Richmond orders?

I suspect most US players simply ignore the event, assuming they understand the event conditions. Just accept the loss of national morale as they realize the event is practically impossible to meet. So now that I fully understand the event conditions, I know I will simply ignore it in the future and just accept the 10 NM loss. The event, as structured now, will not cause me, as the Union, to take any sort of action in the future.

I think a better reflection of Lincoln's "march to Richmond" orders would require the Union to capture Manassas. With Manassas as the condition, the event would actually spur Union action as capturing Manassas is a possibility. Dependent on CSA player decisions, I would guesstimate the Union has about a 40% chance of capturing Manassas. As it is, whether the Union wins or loses at Manassas, the Union loses 10 national morale. Historically if McDowell had won at Manassas, I doubt union morale would have plummeted even if ultimate capture of Richmond did not occur.

Now perhaps, the intent of the event is to deduct 10 national morale points from the Union regardless of their actions. Maybe a loss of 10 Union national morale is needed for game balance purposes. I know I have never been able to meet the demands of the event. And I don't have a problem with the event if a 10 point NM loss by the Union is necessary for game balance.

However if a near certain loss of 10 NM is not the intent of the event, I would suggest changing the demands to "capture Manassas". Capturing Manassas is doable if not probable. Moving adjacent to Richmond with 10 units is very, very unlikely.

After this event fired, my national morale is 31 points less than the CSA. Which means I will be very careful about any sort of offensive actions in the East particularly. Basically, I will play defense unless I can find a very favorable situation. If that is the intent of the event, great. If not, I would change the requirements of the event.

Jagger wrote:I am playing Kilcavalry in this particular situation. And it has been a very good game as was the first one.

I am curious about the "spirit" of the "on to Richmond" event especially as the event guidance as how to meet the event conditions is non-existent.

Historically, McDowell was pushed by Lincoln to move on to Richmond before the army was ready. McDowell responded by advancing on Manassas and narrowly lost the battle. Lincoln was satisfied to see McDowell advance on Manassas. If McDowell had won, he would have been very happy and the war possibly over. As it was, McDowell lost and the North was shocked and disappointed. I believe a reduction in national morale is a good reflection of the McDowell's defeat at Manassas...

Well, the event isn't in there to simulate the pressure from Lincoln to the generals, it's to simulate the public pressure on the government to break up the rebellion before the Confederate Congress could meet in Richmond. Therefore, if you don't do this, you should fail. There was immense pressure on Lincoln from congress and the public to get the army moving so they could run over, beat up on the rebs, and get this over with already.

The public will most definitely not be satisfied by a simple capture of Manassas. Unrealistic as it is to accomplish, expectations were seriously unrealistic at the time. They want to see you crush the rebellion immediately, and anything less will bring headlines and complaints pretty much just like they got at the time.

The NM difference is about right I think. After Manassas, the CSA was sky high, while the Union was simply shocked. It took some fairly important victories to turn things around.

Spharv2 wrote:The public will most definitely not be satisfied by a simple capture of Manassas. Unrealistic as it is to accomplish, expectations were seriously unrealistic at the time. They want to see you crush the rebellion immediately, and anything less will bring headlines and complaints pretty much just like they got at the time.

The NM difference is about right I think. After Manassas, the CSA was sky high, while the Union was simply shocked. It took some fairly important victories to turn things around.

I believe northern morale suffered for two reasons after Manassas. Not only was it a defeat but it was also a disasterous rout. A major shock to the northern populace which is accurately reflected by the equally severe 10 NM loss within the game.

I think northern morale would have gone up or remained the same if the Union army had defeated the Rebs at Manassas-even if the Union army, like the CSA army, had been too disorganized to immediately advance and capture Richmond. Newspapers and politicians would have focused on the victory while ignoring that Richmond had not fallen yet.

And to me, it is not capturing Manassas that is the point. The point is defeating the rebs at Manassas. If an event existed with a 10 NM loss if the Union did not capture Manassas at a certain timeframe, I guarantee you the rebs would defend Manassas very strongly and a major battle would occur at Manassas. If the rebs win, the Union loses their 10 NM. If not, the Union keeps their 10 NM.

I seriously doubt if Northern morale would have suffered if they had won the battle of Manassas regardless of whether Richmond fell or not. And especially not 10 NM which is a very severe loss.

Spharv2 wrote:The public will most definitely not be satisfied by a simple capture of Manassas. Unrealistic as it is to accomplish, expectations were seriously unrealistic at the time. They want to see you crush the rebellion immediately, and anything less will bring headlines and complaints pretty much just like they got at the time.

Yes, in truth I tend to think that's always the way major wars start - "if we do this right, we can get it done quickly". Human nature, methinks. I think it's an important event but I'd like to see it be 'possible' to accomplish, if not extremely difficult. I somewhat like McNaughton's approach, but whatever works.

The public will most definitely not be satisfied by a simple capture of Manassas. Unrealistic as it is to accomplish, expectations were seriously unrealistic at the time. They want to see you crush the rebellion immediately, and anything less will bring headlines and complaints pretty much just like they got at the time.

The biggest problem with the event, as it is now structured, is that the Union player will simply ignore the event as the conditions are practically impossible to meet. I know I will. I will just plan that I am losing 10 NM and go pure defense or carry out whatever action I feel is best. It will be a non-event outside of the loss of 10 NM.

Although I strongly suspect human nature would be satisfied with a defeat of the reb army even if Richmond does not fall. Showing clear cut progress towards a goal, defeating the reb army, usually satisfies people.

Spharv2 wrote:Well, the event isn't in there to simulate the pressure from Lincoln to the generals, it's to simulate the public pressure on the government to break up the rebellion before the Confederate Congress could meet in Richmond. Therefore, if you don't do this, you should fail. There was immense pressure on Lincoln from congress and the public to get the army moving so they could run over, beat up on the rebs, and get this over with already.

Was the move on to Richmond driven primarily by public pressure or due to the expiration of the 90 day volunteers terms of enlistment?

Jagger wrote:Was the move on to Richmond driven primarily by public pressure or due to the expiration of the 90 day volunteers terms of enlistment?

Both. They're a bit interrelated in fact. Those 90 day enlistments were supposed to be all that was needed, so if no move was made, and that group disbanded without a fight, public opinion would have castigated the government for not using the force available to it to end the rebellion. Those troops could have been reenlisted or replaced without too much problem, but the screams in the papers and from congress would have been deafening.

The idea behind the "On to Richmond" drive was overly ambitious, but made sense in a way. If the Federals could break up the meeting of the confederate congress before they could meet, the legitimacy of the whole enterprise is called into question. Once that body met and began their duties, the war immediately became twice as difficult. It gave legitimacy to the South and gave both sides a bit of a sense of the reality of the situation.

Jagger wrote:The biggest problem with the event, as it is now structured, is that the Union player will simply ignore the event as the conditions are practically impossible to meet. I know I will. I will just plan that I am losing 10 NM and go pure defense or carry out whatever action I feel is best. It will be a non-event outside of the loss of 10 NM.

Although I strongly suspect human nature would be satisfied with a defeat of the reb army even if Richmond does not fall. Showing clear cut progress towards a goal, defeating the reb army, usually satisfies people.

Why is that a propblem?

AndrewKurtz wrote:Why is that a propblem?

I think the only problem with the event is 10 morale might be just enough for a USA player to use gamey tactics to circumvent the spirit of the event.

The provisional congress for the CSA had already held and completed two sessions by the time of 1st Bull Run, albeit in Montgomery. What difference would it have made if a third session was held in Richmond? IIRC the third session was held at the same time as the battle.