"Best" PBEM settings

[Jerzul]

Because I love controversy and I truly would like to hear the forum's opinion, I'd like to know what people feel are the "best" settings for PBEM. Your options are:

1. Activation: None, Standard, "High" (No movement)
2. Randomized Generals: Historical, Low, Medium, High
3. Naval Box Handling: Standard, 75%, 66%, 50%
4. Redeployment: None, 1, 3 (for players)
5. Delayed Commitment: None, Short, Medium, Long
6. Foreign Entry: Easy, Normal, Hard, Disabled
7. Historical Attrition: Standard, Historical

Let the opinions fly!

[GraniteStater]

1. Activation: None, Standard, "High" (No movement)

Standard, i. e., penalties only, no Locking. The most realistic, IMO. Locking is a bit too much, for two humans. I highly recommend trying Locks vs Athena, though, at least for a trial run, it teaches you stuff. It taught me to be much more patient as the Union and how to Hang On in NM, etc., until 1863, when the gravy train pulls in.

2. Randomized Generals: Historical, Low, Medium, High

Being a certified Historical Nutjob, well...One of these days, I'll put the blindfold on, someday, maybe...most of us love their Lees and Grants too much, I'm afraid. Let us know if you cobble a Random PbeM toggether, could be a good AAR.

3. Naval Box Handling: Standard, 75%, 66%, 50%

Standard - Real Guitar Players don't use capos (they're wicked convenient for accompanying a soprano, though, transposing on the fly can be a bit much at times). Standard, the only way to sail.

4. Redeployment: None, 1, 3 (for players)

I think you have to go with at least 1. Unsure/don't really care, don't use it.

5. Delayed Commitment: None, Short, Medium, Long

Some is good - I usually agree with whatever the opponent wants. Not a biggie, though the results can be, uh, interesting, shall we say.

6. Foreign Entry: Easy, Normal, Hard, Disabled

Normal is fair, I'm not against Easy, in principle. Will go along with the oppo here.

7. Historical Attrition: Standard, Historical

Historical, without hesitation. It makes Depots the important facilities they should be. The Union has to build 'em to keep deep thrusts going (Re-place-ments up front, not in Cincinnati), pretty much. The South needs to defend and keep (or build) them. Historical, all the way, dude. I'd accede to everything else, but Historical Attrition has become my Must Have. Once you play with them on, you'll never go back.

[Jerzul]

In my current game (which is my first and is also a PBEM), we are using Highly randomized generals with everything else standard (including attrition, which we felt would be too difficult to work with on the first go around). The highly randomized generals are interesting. I'm the union, and here is what I've seen so far:

Butler: 2-0-4
Halleck 3-1-4
McClellan: 4-1-4
Porter: 0-1-6

Etc...

[GraniteStater]

Some say that randomization produces too many klutzes. Dunno, never tried it.

The biggest diffrerence with Historical Attrition is that you can't get Replacements "in place", i. e., you must move to a Depot to get 'em. Hits can be recovered in place, but not Replacements. Much more 'realistic', in my view. A serious setback can bring offensive operations to a halt; being kicked out of a defensive position can trigger a reshuffle of the lines. Depots become truly important; as the Union, you'll probably build some in spots other than Towns or Cities, just to keep things going up front. As the South, you may build 'em 'cuz you don't want to move that lovely entrenched Corps.

[Stauffenberg]

Historical everything and I'll take the opportunity to again plug for long delay commitment and High (no movement) activation.

I find the no movement setting works out very well in terms of the historical feel of things, as well as adding considerable drama to the game. You get to think not just about what your opponent will do but of what he may be prevented from doing. Without this, there is too much perfection in the flow of things as you know that on the other settings some critical force will more than likely be able to move turn after turn.

In fact it was my first drubbings as the CSA that had me noticing that the advanced union player is able to develop a sort of "pawn-storm" approach early on in the game, forcing the pace and active locations at will. I saw some very effective take downs of Kentucky by the union that went like clock-work (against a newb opponent anyway--myself in this case). Advance take Paducah/Bowling Green/Donelson turn 1 of surprise KY invasion, and Island 10 and Nashville turn 2. You can set these "perfect game" sequences up because you know every stack can move every turn with radically higher probabilities than the Locked setting.

It also changes the entire complexion of the game as these wildly improbable amphibious invasions I was experiencing are not as likely to be attempted. I've seen the union land in the Gulf between Mobile and NO and using some harbour 1 as a base in '62, and immediately morph into 4 stacks heading out on all points of the compass, the deepest "heavy raid" penetrating to the Jackson/Vickburg area on Invasion +2. Every stack could move every turn, and the sense that this was in any way "historical" was out the window. You can still attempt to do it on the High setting (and succeed); however, either side will be far more cautious in attempting these feats with the threat of your force getting pinned for a turn or two deep in enemy territory.

In my latest pbem I attempted an early invasion of W. VA and almost reached Grafton and ended up pinned for two turns. My opponent had no way of knowing if I was pinned or was simply staging a feint so that I could whack Harper's Ferry having drawn off strength from there. The beauty of this (besides inadvertently replicating what actually happened historically) is that I didn't "know" either. This is precisely the position of a Davis or Lincoln/overall-commanding-general-like-Grant was in. Set on long delay commitment for the same reasons. These settings might be agreed to be lifted later on in the war as both sides presumably iron out much of the early command inertia.

Redeplyment: I opt for 3 with the following proviso. A 2* or 3* general can only teleport from the field to the capital or vice versa. Max one such type of redeployment per turn. Otherwoise no other restrictions--3 of anything able to go. This is to prevent Jackson as a Corps commander for example teleporting out West for a critical assault and then zipping back to Virginia 2 weeks later.

And finally, it's all a matter of personal taste, as to what you want out of the game.
Of course.

[Berge20]

Stauffenberg,

I always thought that was the most interesting setting (re: activation), but got frustrated you could not even retreat. I am no historian, and I understand that generals in history often chose not to attack/invade, but was it also the case that commanders "froze up" at some point after a major defeat?

If I were doing this one, I probably would have an option to have an inactive general not be able to move into an area without X% military control. This probably would replicate the caution exhibited by some generals in attacking, but still allow for a withdrawal after a huge defeat. Nothing like losing a battle badly and having to just sit there (or in an adjacent region) the next turn knowing you are outmatched if hit again.

[Jim-NC]

Stauffenberg,

I always thought that was the most interesting setting (re: activation), but got frustrated you could not even retreat. I am no historian, and I understand that generals in history often chose not to attack/invade, but was it also the case that commanders "froze up" at some point after a major defeat?

If I were doing this one, I probably would have an option to have an inactive general not be able to move into an area without X% military control. This probably would replicate the caution exhibited by some generals in attacking, but still allow for a withdrawal after a huge defeat. Nothing like losing a battle badly and having to just sit there (or in an adjacent region) the next turn knowing you are outmatched if hit again.

Or how about 4 turns or 5, when you have no MC, your army can't move, and you can't get any supplies? Your enemy sitting there, as he can't/won't attack your forces as they slowly starve to death. I had the AotP under McDowell sit in enemy territory until he started taking hits for no supply. Only at that point did he unlock.

[Stauffenberg]

Jim,
Really good points and I am going to have to test things out further to get myself into those sorts of frustrating cul de sacs. I am on my 3rd pbem in a row on this setting and while the frustration level has been high on either side at various times, the overall feeling has been that it makes for a richer and more dramatic game that feels generally more historical. I guess my response to your points for now would be--but the other guy has the same constraints as well. As well there is the possibility of house rules limiting the no-movement setting to all of 1861 to March 62, winter of 63-64, and then cancel it entirely.

I have been just as frustrated by some other totally mystifying combat results where your side under Lee, Jackson et.al. in a fairly equal battle, manages to lose 28,000 men while only inflicting 3,000 in return. Or an opponent who had Grant killed in one battle... which effectively prevented Sherman from ever appearing either....

[GraniteStater]

There was no one there to tell Uncle Billy not to go bonkers and resign, just when his country needed him.

[Captain_Orso]

It's a bug. If the script can't find Grant evaluates as false and fails. It should, when failing to find Grant, look for the largest stack and spawn Sherman there: Leader Appearance Events Depending On Other Leaders

[Jim-NC]

It's a bug. If the script can't find Grant evaluates as false and fails. It should, when failing to find Grant, look for the largest stack and spawn Sherman there: Leader Appearance Events Depending On Other Leaders

That was only corrected recently. Up through 1.15? Or maybe 1.15 rc 4 or so?, no Grant, no Sherman (and this happened with several other generals as well).

[Captain_Orso]

Follow the link to the thread above. The scripts (1.16a) are obviously trying to spawn Sherman regardless of Grant being in the game or not, but the format of the event only works if Grant is present (on-the-board).

The cause is that these two commands are in the wrong section (conditions), when they should be in the actions section:

Code: Select all

SelUnqUnit = Ulysses S. Grant
SelMostNumGroup = NoSelGroup


When they are in the Conditions Section, if Grant is not in the game, because killed, the conditions section fails and fails the entire event because of this.

If these two lines are in the Actions Section, the only conditions are the Min & Max date parameters.

'SelUnqUnit' will fail if Grant is dead, but this does not prevent the rest of the actions section to process.

'SelMostNumGroup = NoSelGroup' says, if there is no selection already (NoSelGroup), then select the group with the highest command point usage.

Which ever is selected, Grant or largest group, Sherman will spawn in that region.

You can easily test this by manually editing the USA events and running through them in game. I've done this, and my solution works.

[Jerzul]

Historical everything and I'll take the opportunity to again plug for long delay commitment and High (no movement) activation.

Not to bring the thread back on topic or anything, but Stauffenberg, can you go into the benefits of the "Long" delay option?

[lodilefty]

It's a bug. If the script can't find Grant evaluates as false and fails. It should, when failing to find Grant, look for the largest stack and spawn Sherman there: Leader Appearance Events Depending On Other Leaders

Actually, after some discussions with the Designer, it's WAD:

Most of the generals [Sherman for instance] that to appear must require another general to exist were "good friends, pals, cronies, etc" and so it is decided that the loss of Grant [etc] would have severely hindered the career of the "Pal" [Sherman].

For now, any changes to this are in the realm of Mods.....

[Stauffenberg]

Not to bring the thread back on topic or anything, but Stauffenberg, can you go into the benefits of the "Long" delay option?

I'll let players with more experience go into that in detail if they are moved to. Off the top of my head you can see this at work as the US ordering McDowell's Northeastern Virginia Army to attempt to take Manassas in the summer of 1861. When you enter a region (other than with irregulars like partisans or indians, etc.) where you have less than 25% Military Control (someone else can confirm that) you would normally go to offensive move automatically; however, long battle delay will usually ensure that the battle did not ensue on the turn of arrival in Fauquier, but the following turn, unless the CSA under Beauregard is set to attack. More than likely McDowell will move his army into Fauquier VA and have to wait until next turn to have his battle (before September in an attempt to not suffer the -10 NM penalty).

Combined with the hard-activation setting this makes for a doubly frustrating situation for the US as McDowell will be pinned in place off and on the entire time.

[GraniteStater]

In an effort to be clear, unless I'm totally out to lunch:

* The Delay Option can inhibit an immediate deployment and combat situation. The commander in question delays for a short, medium, or long time. I interpret Medium & Long as a propensity towards these, not as an absolute bar to an earlier commitment. I could be wrong here.

* The delay, even a long one, can still allow for a battle in the same Turn. I believe my first Long Delay game was a PbeM against P. Cleburne and I was more than a little aggressive, we had fightin' aplenty, but I don't recall a lot of Battle Next Turn situations. Long Delay produces more battles at Day 11, Day 12, etc., AFAIK.

* I also interpret Long Delay (or even Medium) as a commander waiting for fellow units and commanders to show up, i. e., some one he is expecting. Again, this coud be the merest of suppositions by me.

[Jerzul]

In an effort to be clear, unless I'm totally out to lunch:

* The Delay Option can inhibit an immediate deployment and combat situation. The commander in question delays for a short, medium, or long time. I interpret Medium & Long as a propensity towards these, not as an absolute bar to an earlier commitment. I could be wrong here.

* The delay, even a long one, can still allow for a battle in the same Turn. I believe my first Long Delay game was a PbeM against P. Cleburne and I was more than a little aggressive, we had fightin' aplenty, but I don't recall a lot of Battle Next Turn situations. Long Delay produces more battles at Day 11, Day 12, etc., AFAIK.

* I also interpret Long Delay (or even Medium) as a commander waiting for fellow units and commanders to show up, i. e., some one he is expecting. Again, this coud be the merest of suppositions by me.

I can see the benefits of that. The longer delay seems more realistic to be honest. It took time for the army to form and actually attack in most cases baring a raid or an especially organized general.

Plus, with the two week turn length we have trouble coordinating attack days as it is, it would make sense to have longer delays.