Civil War 2 Tournament, Round 2---Elimination Tournament

[pgr]

It takes me far too long to get back to my own thread!
We play through turn 24, so final scores are collected start of turn 25.... And don't worry about me being in the lead.....I am being pressed...

[pgr]

Late Oct 61. Moni Kerr USA (NM 87 VP 259) vs PGR CSA (NM 103 VP 273)

Much jockeying for position and some small skirmishes but no objectives change hands yet. USA making progress in MO and Virginia while KY is for the Rebels with Louisville besieged & breached by AS Johnson but still withholding against assault.

And for the future Ski, please put in the causality figures and vp gain rates...

[Lindi]

Small Report

Round 2 Citizen X CSA vs Seraphim USA turn 6

Citizen X try a fast attack on Washington DC, not attack the city but small figh and small win for Citizen. Savannah in georgia is attacked by Seraphim, the siege continue. No major event for now.

[FelixZ]

L Oct 61 Liberty Bell(USA) vs Jim-NC(CSA)

USA VP 204(42) - NM 82 - Losses 10,937
CSA VP 350(50) - NM 115 - Losses 7,095

USA has taken Jefferson City.

[Guru94]

any news from the pgr - Moni Kerr match? Havi and me are currently at turn 18 so there will be a report next turn

[Ace]

18 turns played out in Guru - Havi match.

The fighting is intense with both sides trying to outmaneuver each other. There are no hiding behind trenches here. This is a men's fight. In Virginia, CSA had allowed US to take Fredericksburg only to strike heavily against its supply route. McDowell is in Fredericksburg, with Beauregard, Jackson and Longstreet north of Rappahannock. Lee is still locked in Richmond, guarding the capital against possible assault. Ky has decided to go with the Federals, and Forrest tried a swift raid there, only to be stopped by Buell. Fremont and Grant have tried Missouri campaign, but CSA has responded aggressively, with another blood battle. Here are the screenshots of this turn battles:
[ATTACH]28744[/ATTACH][ATTACH]28745[/ATTACH][ATTACH]28746[/ATTACH]

Overall standings L Apr 62:

CSA 128 NM, 970VP (+51/trn), 70.000 casualties

USA 91 NM, 701VP (+41/trn), 86.000 casualties

[havi]

That Mcdowell is totally f'cking useless!

[Ace]

Most of your troops MTSG and did not participate in round 1 of combat. That is the reason for overwhelming CSA victory.

[FelixZ]

L Jan 62 Liberty Bell(USA) vs Jim-NC(CSA)

USA VP 515(47) NM 92 Losses 12,063
CSA VP 612(45) NM 117 Losses 10,628

USA holds Jefferson City, Rolla, Memphis, Donelson, Winchester and Harpers Ferry

[Ace]

It seems Liberty Bell is doing quite well. Who would tell after his big loss in the opening match. I wonder how Seraphim CitizenX match is going.

[Lindi]

now turn 11 I wait turn 12 for new rapport .

but many strang event in this game. (do by playeur)

[Guru94]

But keep in mind that you have to do the report after 12 turns played out, not in turn 12 but 13.

[Skibear]

Late Jan62. Moni Kerr USA (NM 99 VP 559 +46 19k) vs PGR CSA (NM 97 VP 505 +46 34k)

tuscon, all kentucky in Union hands, Dover TN besiged by Grant, the valley completely union + manasas and culpeper. A series of scraps in Falmouth saw the CSA come off much worse with McDowell fighting a tactical defence. Overall the Rebs have been outmaneuvered and outfought, but not overwhelmed..

[Ace]

We are past the half way line on most game, so I would like to spur a discussion about possible HR for the next round. Better early than late.
There are couple of things I would like to ask. If anyone has any other proposition, we would welcome it as well. So here are the questions that some players have asked me in a PM:

1) Would you be interested in playing with hidden activation?
2) Would you like the Partisan Raid Rgd restricted (in the number of uses and the loyalty of the region)?
3) Would you like the Sea mine Rgd restricted (either completely or limit number of uses, or maybe even mode it to lessen its effects)?
4) Would you like to limit raids by Texan rangers to restrict them from Nevada and Dakotas?
5) Would you like to limit Marines and sailors owerpowering abilities either in forbiding their use, or modding their ability?
6) Would you like to limit NM resilience by reducing or removing its effects?
...

Any new proposition is welcome as well!

[pgr]

We are past the half way line on most game, so I would like to spur a discussion about possible HR for the next round. Better early than late.
There are couple of things I would like to ask. If anyone has any other proposition, we would welcome it as well. So here are the questions that some players have asked me in a PM:

1) Would you be interested in playing with hidden activation?
2) Would you like the Partisan Raid Rgd restricted (in the number of uses and the loyalty of the region)?
3) Would you like the Sea mine Rgd restricted (either completely or limit number of uses, or maybe even mode it to lessen its effects)?
4) Would you like to limit raids by Texan rangers to restrict them from Nevada and Dakotas?
5) Would you like to limit Marines and sailors owerpowering abilities either in forbiding their use, or modding their ability?
6) Would you like to limit NM resilience by reducing or removing its effects?
...

Any new proposition is welcome as well!

And feel free to open up the discussion concerning the best campaign for the next round!

[Skibear]

1 Is quite frustrating I think from when I have used it. Attacked when inactive comes with a decent penalty and not knowing that leads to disasters. Early on for the Union this means with so many rubbish commanders you have to bank on most being inactive all the time. Knowing they are inactive makes planning difficult. Not knowing which are inactive makes planning impossible. Obviously more realistic from a high command perspective in an age of limited communication. But from a game perspective I am not sure it adds more fun that it takes away.
2 I don't think it really needs adjusting, but i am sure plenty have a stronger opinion
3 is going to be fixed on the public beta I believe. i.e. can only be used adjacent to friendly harbours. That rule could be adopted even if beta not used.
4 Possibly yes
5 Sailors are cheap and overpowered probably. Marines at least are more expensive and longer to build. However Union landing parties are a useful card sometimes and be a shame to lose them.
6 Again the new beta mods this I think. It would be nice to tone it down a little maybe.

other favoured HR i think worth considering:

7 Riverine movement should start and end in friendly harbours. I.e. no magic rafts appearing from nowhere to launch assaults. Thats what river transport units are there for. I think its a very important restricting and definately a pet hate
8 Troop transports cannot run past batteries. Too easy to do otherwise, forts should to taken before proceeding. NO was an isolated exception. Maybe Faragut could be allowed to pull that trick once.

[Guru94]

1) I think it would be quite interesting and should make the game a bit harder for Union players. I disagree with Skibear that it makes planning impossible just because operating with Generals that have low strategic rating is more difficult. Planning where to use your best Generals becomes much more important similar to playing with the hard activation rule.

2) The Partisan Raid Rgd needs to be removed from the game or really be limited in use. It is a way too strong card because you do not even need to plan a raid on an enemy Depot carefully. In the old AACW it was a difficult task to gather a cavalry/partisan force and surprise the enemy, deal with the garrison and get out savely. Now it is just: play partisan card, move near enemy Depot, play RDC and hope that you have luck. If successful, yay you just got one 1NM and destroyed an enemy Depot for the cost of almost nothing and you did not even risk anything. (I don´t consider moving partisans near a Depot a risk)

3) If it gets fixed with next patch then it is ok, right now as it is not. Maybe the Damage should be reduced or the card should be more limited and only played on harbors.

4) Doesn´t matter for me. I would be ok with an house rule and can live without.

5) I would prefer modding their ability over forbidding marines.

6) Yes please, that is what annoys me the most in CW2.

7) Good rule, I am for it.

8) I also agree

[Jim-NC]

We are past the half way line on most game, so I would like to spur a discussion about possible HR for the next round. Better early than late.
There are couple of things I would like to ask. If anyone has any other proposition, we would welcome it as well. So here are the questions that some players have asked me in a PM:

1) Would you be interested in playing with hidden activation?
2) Would you like the Partisan Raid Rgd restricted (in the number of uses and the loyalty of the region)?
3) Would you like the Sea mine Rgd restricted (either completely or limit number of uses, or maybe even mode it to lessen its effects)?
4) Would you like to limit raids by Texan rangers to restrict them from Nevada and Dakotas?
5) Would you like to limit Marines and sailors owerpowering abilities either in forbiding their use, or modding their ability?
6) Would you like to limit NM resilience by reducing or removing its effects?
...

Any new proposition is welcome as well!

My thoughts:

1. no
2. no (if we remove, what/how do we replace? The union historically had a very tough time keeping supply lines open, how do we simulate that?)
3. I would be for making Sea Mine only next to friendly harbors or other territories (placed in rivers next to territories you own for example).
4. no
5. Forbid use.
6. limit NM. It's too easy as the Union to ignore NM problems/decisions.
7. I would be OK with that rule
8. no (if you want to move your ships past a fort, and take some damage, you can).

[Lindi]

Small Report

Round 2 Citizen X CSA vs Seraphim USA turn 12

Citizen X take Saint-Louis and stop troop of USA when he try to come back here. USA finish by take Savannah, after many very small come back of CSA for defence area. Washington DC is now save, but not after a small victory for South in Area. The South protect springfield in fight.

[ATTACH]29146[/ATTACH]

[Lindi]

1) if play with that I prefer blocked unit when officer is not active, because I prefer know but the South need help, so that my prefer.
2) for me not limite because win by vp and the Partisan have pv cost so for me is a chose.
3) the south need that plz don't remove, south not have fleet
4) me use Texan for help other region but not for raid so I prefer limite only in ennemy area and also not for go to ally area.
5) For me no opinion.
6) not remove but when use if that can remove pv for this side if he win NM or take pv if he lose NM can be very good.

Edit : other pts for final or when the match is pv score all campagne South vs North give a gift pv score for playeur play South because if I good see, the South can't win in pv in PBM except if the North is bad. Only my opinion I have after a very good pbm turn 59 for all campagne only small lose and many good win in fight and I am lose in pv.

[Ace]

Felix, Moni Kerr, Liberty Bell, Seraphim and CitizenX, you still haven't publicly voted about HR for the 2nd round.

[Seraphim]

1) No. I agree with Skibear : this could lead to unjustified disasters.

2) Maybe yes. However the cost in PV or NM is already a limitation.

3) I'm for using them only next to friendly harbours (sea or river).

4) No. I think that if you want to use them outside of Texas, you can.

5) Not sure what "owerpowering abilities" the sailor or marines have. So far I haven't seen them in great number nor with great effect... So I don't think we need to do anything.

6) Maybe it would be nice to tone it down a little : Union don't seems to have as much problems with NM than in CW1 in early game.

7) No. It's an interesting suggestion but if a boat can carry troops it can unload them. After all, we use railroad without limitations (not only from a city to a city).

8) No. The capture of New Orleans showed that Forts where not impassable. If you want to take the risk of serious damage, you can.


For the next round, I humbly suggest a longer campaign. Short scenarios tend to encourage aggressive and daring move. If audacity and attack where the keys, the civil war would have been over shortly...

[Ace]

I was thinking along 2 years of April Campaign for the next round. Is it long enough?

[Liberty Bell]

Ace, thanks for asking. Here is my votes ...

1) No
2) No
3) No
4) No
5) No
6) No
7) No
8) No

I don't want to be negative, but I'm still learning and have problems with the game rules, so for the moment I voted no to all house rules.
So take my votes for what they are and let's the more experienced and intelligent players descide, not me

[Seraphim]

Classic but I think it would be a good campaign.

I was thinking along 2 years of April Campaign for the next round. Is it long enough?

[moni kerr]

1) No, not at this time.

2) No. Players need to use garrisons just like in real life.

3) Yes. Adjacent to controlled harbours is a good idea.

4) No.

5) Yes. Keep marines, lose the sailors. Just because they know how to sail boats doesn't make them experts in amphibious assaults or opposed river crossings.

6) Yes. But is it possible?

7) Yes.

8) No.

[Ace]

Guru-Havi, trn 25, final score:
Guru 1306 VP
Havi 884 VP
[ATTACH]29283[/ATTACH]

Frontlines:
[ATTACH]29284[/ATTACH][ATTACH]29285[/ATTACH][ATTACH]29286[/ATTACH]

Union tried for a final push to Richmond, but fell short of it. The flanker is now flanked, with Union in rather poor situation. 1306 VP is good score, Guru is the favorite to advance to match vs Lindi.

[FelixZ]

LB Liberty Bell(USA) vs Jim-NC(CSA) L Apr 62

USA - VP 841(52) - NM 108 - Losses 27,783

CSA - VP 866(39) - NM 125 - Losses 23,357

Union holds Tucson, Mobile, Jefferson City, Rolla, Island #10, Henry, Donelson, Nashville, Memphis, Winchester and Harpers Ferry.

Confederates hold Valencia.

Kentucky is neutral.

[FelixZ]

[quote="Ace"]We are past the half way line on most game, so I would like to spur a discussion about possible HR for the next round. Better early than late.
There are couple of things I would like to ask. If anyone has any other proposition, we would welcome it as well. So here are the questions that some players have asked me in a PM:

1) Would you be interested in playing with hidden activation?

No - not for the tournament.

2) Would you like the Partisan Raid Rgd restricted (in the number of uses and the loyalty of the region)?

Okay with current rules - but what are you proposing?

3) Would you like the Sea mine Rgd restricted (either completely or limit number of uses, or maybe even mode it to lessen its effects)?

Restricted to Rivers and certain Coastal Cities - Richmond, Wilmington, Charleston, Savannah and Mobile.

4) Would you like to limit raids by Texan rangers to restrict them from Nevada and Dakotas?

No Ranger Raids in Nevada and Dakota's for the tournament.

5) Would you like to limit Marines and sailors owerpowering abilities either in forbiding their use, or modding their ability?

Okay with existing rules.

6) Would you like to limit NM resilience by reducing or removing its effects?

Okay with existing NM resilience. Seems we need a thorough explanation of existing game rule in both RC4 AND RC5.

7) Okay with existing riverine movement rules.

8) Okay with troop transports running past batteries.

9) Victory Determination (who moves on for next round) - Rather than only competing against your Draw side, USA contestants should be playing against all USA players with the two best VP achievers moving on - Same for CSA players.

10) Scenario selection for the next round - if all players have Bloody Road South, every round could use a different scenario. April start should be 30 turns - all others 24.

11) Is there any reason to upgrade to RC5? Would someone explain the changes?

[Ace]

If I interpreted your answers well, here are the votes from 9 players:
[ATTACH]29291[/ATTACH]

It seems the majority is not in favor of implementing HR-s. We have only narrow vote for toning down NM autobalance.
I would be reluctant to enforce HR which at least 2/3 players haven't agreed with, so no HR until we get at least one more vote for toned down NM autobalance.

A quick overview how NM autobalance works. Every turn, Union gets 4 rolls for increase in NM. The probability for increase in NM is equal to 100-(current NM). So, if for example Union, has 80 NM. It will have 4 rolls with 20% probability to increase 1 NM. In theory, it can gain as much as 4 NM/turn this way. I would reduce it using my mod which limits it to only 1 roll per turn.