My first PBEM game was an eye opener!

[denisonh]

I'd buy into these ideas big time. Having said that (again playing devils advocate) when you provide 'what ifs' as is the way particularly with campaign games there is almost a certain inevitability that the result will be ahistorical as players push the 'what ifs' to the limit

I like to think that the historical political pressures need to be present, as the ACW was the most political of wars the US has ever fought. ACTING historically is one thing, but being subject to the same historical political pressures and potential consequences is another I think.

Sound military objectives and political neccesity can often be at odds. Can't have a good game without representing the trade offs between the two.

[soundoff]

I like to think that the historical political pressures need to be present, as the ACW was the most political of wars the US has ever fought. ACTING historically is one thing, but being subject to the same historical political pressures and potential consequences is another I think.

Sound military objectives and political neccesity can often be at odds. Can't have a good game without representing the trade offs between the two.

Then for the North in 61 in the game the trade off of adopting 'sound military objectives' over the ' political necessities' need to be far more severe than they currently are.

EDIT for the reality was that in 61 the 'political necessities' were uppermost and thats not currently reflected in the game. Its too easy for a player to ignore them

[Redeemer]

When I first saw this event, I thought it was a good idea and I was all for launching an attack "towards" Richmond, especially if I had the historical 2-1 manpower advantage (but that is another debate and sore subject).

However, now you are saying you have to get to within 2 regions of Richmond, which means you have to cross the Rappahannock. That is pretty far fetched unless you try something gamey. I was wondering why my attacks on the AoV at Manassas, even if successfull, never fulfilled the requirements. Attacking and winning the battle of Manassas should fulfill the requirement imo.

If you launch the penninsula campaign early and take or move to williamsburg, will that fulfill the event?

[denisonh]

Then for the North in 61 in the game the trade off of adopting 'sound military objectives' over the ' political necessities' need to be far more severe than they currently are.

EDIT for the reality was that in 61 the 'political necessities' were uppermost and thats not currently reflected in the game. Its too easy for a player to ignore them

Agreed. The issue with the current event is that if you attack and lose, you can lose the 10 NM plus whatever you lose from the battle as well. Hardly an incentive to attack. I have simply taken risk and been somewhat creative in my games to fulfill the event in the past.

My agreement with the event is the need for the event, but am a proponent for changing it as it does not provide the correct pressure/consequence as intended.

To be honest, many Union players are passive early, which goes against the whole political situation of the time. This is a subset of a larger problem representing the political pressures in the game IMO.

[Maqver]

I like to think that the historical political pressures need to be present, as the ACW was the most political of wars the US has ever fought. ACTING historically is one thing, but being subject to the same historical political pressures and potential consequences is another I think.

Sound military objectives and political neccesity can often be at odds. Can't have a good game without representing the trade offs between the two.

This makes a lot of sense. (I hope for the same kind of wisdom for historical political pressures for the developers of Nap II). In fact a lot of what is in the last posts makes good sense. Believe me, I am one of those who would love to make a move into Virginia. You know I got these huge stacks in front of me with generals I just know will be activated and...well I can just imagine what the papers will say when Jackson's spurs are cutting up the rugs in the White House.

What were the historical political pressures for the south? Looking like the defenders for one. Another would be inflation and its affect on the morale on the populace (but that is another discussion).

[soundoff]

This makes a lot of sense. (I hope for the same kind of wisdom for historical political pressures for the developers of Nap II). In fact a lot of what is in the last posts makes good sense. Believe me, I am one of those who would love to make a move into Virginia. You know I got these huge stacks in front of me with generals I just know will be activated and...well I can just imagine what the papers will say when Jackson's spurs are cutting up the rugs in the White House.

What were the historical political pressures for the south? Looking like the defenders for one. Another would be inflation and its affect on the morale on the populace (but that is another discussion).

I actually think the whole issue can be overcome in the following way.

It seems to me that no-one is saying that the North should not try to attack the South in 61....just that the odds, lines of communication, exposure of Washington etc, make it totally foolhardy.

Well in the same way as the pressure was on the North to end the war quickly it can similarly be said that the South was fighting a defensive war and that the taking of Washington (at least in 61) was not an option.

Now if the conditions are alterable to 'force' the North to attack or get close to Richmond in 61 or 62 why cant conditions be introduced to make it impossible for the South to take Washington during the same period?

EDIT in a nutshell if you are forcing the North to attack then force the South to defend.

[Maqver]

Then for the North in 61 in the game the trade off of adopting 'sound military objectives' over the ' political necessities' need to be far more severe than they currently are.

If this is the case then there needs to be a reasonable chance to make it happen. If there are large southern armies full of militia turned line ready to pounce on Washington and a move by the Union to fulfill the Threaten Virginia imperative would make it even easier for them, what would a reasonable player do? Sure, I know, it all hangs on reasonable but one should not have to be "creative" in the sense that I think denisonh means it.

Edit LOL your above post beat me to it.

[denisonh]

When I first saw this event, I thought it was a good idea and I was all for launching an attack "towards" Richmond, especially if I had the historical 2-1 manpower advantage (but that is another debate and sore subject).

However, now you are saying you have to get to within 2 regions of Richmond, which means you have to cross the Rappahannock. That is pretty far fetched unless you try something gamey. I was wondering why my attacks on the AoV at Manassas, even if successfull, never fulfilled the requirements. Attacking and winning the battle of Manassas should fulfill the requirement imo.

If you launch the penninsula campaign early and take or move to williamsburg, will that fulfill the event?

Attacking Manassas is exactly the wrong thing to do with the event as currently implemented, as it is a foregone conlcusion. Hence the standard stay inactive and take the 10 NM hit. None of the times I avoided the 10 NM hit involved attacking Manassas.

[denisonh]

If this is the case then there needs to be a reasonable chance to make it happen. If there are large southern armies full of militia turned line ready to pounce on Washington and a move by the Union to fulfill the Threaten Virginia imperative would make it even easier for them, what would a reasonable player do? Sure, I know, it all hangs on reasonable but one should not have to be "creative" in the sense that I think denisonh means it.

Edit LOL your above post beat me to it.

I do not think that simply having the Union attack Manassas be the objective, but that being inactive be discouraged. I think creative solutions are good as long as the player has flexibility (and they are not "gamey"). Having too many forces locked and then popping a requirement on the player as soon as they become active forces the inactivity and interferes with alternative solutions.

[Banks6060]

I agree that if you attack Manassas...it counts as "Moving toward Richmond". I realize programming this particular event can be tough...considering all of the ways to exploit it. But what it is meant to simulate is the political desire of the U.S. people for it's army (i.e. The Northeastern Virginia Army under McDowell)...to MOVE FORWARD toward Richmond and show that they are taking the offensive.

I think the simple fix to this...if it's possible...is to create a rule that a Union force...of 500 power or more must move into a region that's near Richmond or a few regions away.

Problem solved.

[Jarkko]

Would be great to have two events for the NM loss (in different years).

For an example lets take 61:

1st event exactly as now, but Union loses 5 NM if failing to get within 2 spaces of Richmond.

2nd event: Union loses 5 more NM if it does not fulifll 1st event *and* haven't even attacked beyond Manassass.


EDIT: I know trying is not doing, but you should be hit more if not even trying

[Redeemer]

I have started my 3rd PBEM game and I am going to do my best to avoid this NM hit if I can. I'll let you know if I succeed.

[Redeemer]

Doh! I just messed up, I forgot and moved the whole way to Richmond and still lost the 10NM.

[denisonh]

Take I-95 south from Alexandria and you know you are getting there when you cross the Rappahannock, works every time.......

[Redeemer]

The -10 NM for lack of Northern Offensive is in several threads now, but I might as use mine. I've been experimenting with trying to avoid this hit, and have yet to succeed. Can anyone tell me why this one failed?

[Rafiki]

How many *units* do you have there? Doesn't look like you have more than 3 to me; 2 under Hamilton (don't think supply units count, but far from sure) + Shurz. You need 10 to fulfill the event's requirement.

[Redeemer]

You mean they have to be seperate individual regiments, they can't be in divisions? I have 3 full divisions there under Hamilton.

[Rafiki]

(Heh, didn't notice Heintzelman's division there; right you are)

It's a significant weakness in that event's mechanism, IMHO, that it counts units rather then elements; a single element militia brigade counts as much as a full 18-element division (or one can say that the latter counts as little as the former)

[Redeemer]

Well, yeah, I would call that a weakness. I didn't mind this event before, I just wanted to figure out how to do it. But now, not only do I have to get there through the CSA units, which are better quality with better leaders, but I have to do it at a disadvantage because my units have to be outside of divisions, thus taking the CP hit.

[Rafiki]

My hope is that it can be adjusted to take elements into account rather than units, given the huge range in size differences between units and because it just doesn't seem right to me that breaking up your divisions should make you better able to suit the requirements

[Maqver]

My hope is that it can be adjusted to take elements into account rather than units, given the huge range in size differences between units and because it just doesn't seem right to me that breaking up your divisions should make you better able to suit the requirements

Will the 1862 Threaten Richmond event be based on units or elements?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Maqver]

Hopefully it will be based on units. Trying to fulfill that objective will be hard enough with negative 35 due to activation in addition to the negatives compiled by CP penalties.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Inside686]

Redeemer, it seems you improved very much as you didn't make all the errors Mickey3D found during our PBEM.

[Redeemer]

Heh, I still lost

[Inside686]

Yes but you almost took Richmond and I was defeated in the West.

[Redeemer]

Thanks, let me know when you are ready for a rematch!

PS: I am looking for a game if anyone reads this and is interested.