Ahistorical Operations

[cptcav]

A buddy and I have each ordered the game and are patiently waiting for it to be delivered. In the meantime, we have been reading all we can on this forum.

One of the issues raised has been on the South using ahistorical operations in the beginning of the campaign, such as sending raids/forces into northern states screwing up rail lines and supply depots. While I am not an expert on the War Between the States, I have read my fair share of the history. I know that there were political reasons for not attacking the northern states such as, (1) being able to claim the moral high ground of being the defender in a war versus the aggressor; (2) the desire to get the European nations to be sympathetic to them; and, most important, (3) having the non-succeded slave states either (a) join them, or (b) stay neutral at a minimum. It was felt that if the South remained defensive, those non-succeded slave states would not be willing to send forces against them. In fact, Virginia did not succeed until Lincoln called for mobilization of forces to invade the South.

I am sure that you all know this, but I am stating the obvious to make the point that there should be some sort of penalty (ala the North's requirement to move into the Richmond zone penalty) to hurt the southern player that choses to move forces into the northern states. This penalty could be in the form of a National Morale penalty of 10-20 points if the South moves forces into a northern state before a specific date (something corresponding to the Maryland invasion of 1862).

My concern is that I like simulations more than games and a game that encourages ahistorical tactics/operations/strategies is not my cup of tea. Everything that I have read about the game has gotten me very excited, but the comments on ahistorical strategy gave me pause. So, I hope that the designer(s) continue to improve the game and look at this particular situation.

Thank you for your time.

Mark

[Banks6060]

I would say the appropriate fix for this is a house rule. Between you and your opponent. Just using the honor code. If the house rule is broken....then you will agree to terms on concequences.

I don't really think there needs to be a fix for this despite the face you are correct in your assertion that it would have been political suicide to invade the north with anything so much as a raiding force.

[dagleya]

Me and Paul Roberts have been using this as kind of a house rule.

We put it out like this - no large Confederate forces operating north of the border states until Spring 1862. Until then raiders, cavalry pulling up rails and blowing depots was allowed and it's worked fairly historically as Roberts never went too intense - just a few cavalry units at any one time.

[cptcav]

I would say the appropriate fix for this is a house rule...

Using that same logic, it could be said that a house rule should have been done regarding the north being required to, at a minimum, move into the Richmond zone before some specified date instead of coding a penalty into the game. So, even though my opponent and I will agree on a house rule, I still would like to see something more formal incorporated so that house rules are not required. Considering all of the work that I have read so far put into the game, I do not believe that this is an unreasonable request to simulate the political realities. Still, I realize that the designer has the final say and I am looking forward to playing this game regardless of whether or not this change is incorporated.

Regards,
Mark

[denisonh]

There was some discussion on this topic in another thread. One of the ideas was a Foreign Intervention Penalty for "invading" the Northern states.

I would like to see this one explored. In 1861/1862 this would make sense for significant forces(say something 4 CPs or more for example) going into non-border northern states. It should also negatively impact the prospect of Kentucky seccession as well if that issue is in doubt.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Redeemer]

Another appropriate penalty would be desertions, which where rampant in both campaigns. The deserters then dribbled back with the army returned to VA.

[cptcav]

There would be no historical basis to penalize the CSA's NM for moving into the North. On the contrary, there were quite a few of the firebrands that actually wanted an invasion of the North, so in that case NM would go up. What stopped them from northern invasion/raiding was Jefferson Davis attempts at gathering support for Foreign Intervention overseas, so the more appropriate penalty would be against Foreign Intervention itself.

Gary,

I have no problem with your argument. My whole point is that the South has to be penalized for doing something that would be counter-productive to their cause and right now it does not exist. So, if it is decided to penalize the Foreign Intervention, I am all for it.

Regards,
Mark

[Gray_Lensman]

Two simple words. "Next patch". Details are already being discussed by the beta team. (and it will have something to do with Foreign Intervention not NM)

Next patch = Mid to Late March however.

I might release something in a pre-patch for public beta testing purposes. First I have to figure out the Inno Setup program since the (fast install) .zip format has limitations for those unfamiliar with its uses.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[77NY]

Hi all, I am new to AACW and new to this forum, but have been wargaming for 30 years. (Tactics II anyone? :thumbsup

Using helpful info from the forum, I have used the Union's river gunboat advantage to guard strategic crossings in the border areas. The AI just sent a lone division to Pittsburgh in spring '62, but I can forgive that b/c it was the unsupplied remnants of a group that retreated into the WV mountains from my successful defense of Harper's Ferry in late '61.

I am very impressed with this game so far. ACW sims have been thin on the ground.

So far that has been the only "ahistorical" incursion by CSA. But I have maintained an extensive defensive line from Alexandria, VA to Cairo with at least 2 regiments of militia entrenched behind river lines. I provide them with supply trains so they don't dissolve in the winter and then add artillery as it comes online.

As other commentors have pointed out, if the Union concentrates all forces into divisions too early in the war, neglects rear garrisons, the AI would be stupid NOT to take advantage of the openings!

[soloswolf]

Glad you are enjoying it!

While having men from Alexandria to Cairo is commendable (in a sense), it is a bit overkill. If you just deploy those men to important cities/rr junctions/river crossings, you will have a lot more manpower to lead offensives with.

Also, if you are in a province with a structure, there is no need to send supply trains to all those points. The winter will not bother them there. They need not even be in the structure, just in the same province. I point this out due to the prohibitive cost of supply trains, as well as their ease of capture if only defended by two regiments of infantry and possibly some arty.

[77NY]

I wish it was overkill. I must have a bad case of McClellan-itis as the Union because I don't feel anything near ready to go on the offensive as of spring '62. Not enough cavalry to spot the rebs, not enough supply wagons, not enough river ships to really take it to the CSA at this point. Not enough Army/Corps organization. Union leaders can only form divisions every other turn or so.

But I don't want to make this a AAR thread. My original point was only an opinion that simulating the conservative/defensive stance of Union commanders early in the war along a front from the Potomac to the Ohio river valley seems to cut down on CSA "ahistorical" incursions in my campaign so far.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Redeemer]

Thanks Gray!