Unhistorical USA iron will to combate ... after lose 4/5 of territory (last turn).

[xmas2]

In the USA the civil war was a Mr. Lincoln war.

In the CSA the civil war was a people war.


A cause of that situation alerady in 1863, ONE THIRD (1/3) OF USA ARMY DON´T SPEAK ENGLISH !!!!!!! (Poor polacks, italians, germany, irish etc. people, ... blood vs citizenship or a dream of less miserable existence ...)


Well in my last game, all this don´t exist ...

look the pictures

[fredrikvollan]

In the USA the civil war was a Mr. Lincoln war.

In the CSA the civil war was a people war.


A cause of that situation alerady in 1863, ONE THIRD (1/3) OF USA ARMY DON´T SPEAK ENGLISH !!!!!!! (Poor polacks, italians, germany, irish etc. people, ... blood vs citizenship or a dream of less miserable existence ...)


Well in my last game, all this don´t exist ...

look the pictures

Maybe you ought to up the difficulty a little. I smell chicken here. Try playing on Colonel level with activation bonus and detect bonuses for the AI.

[Jim-NC]

I think the problem is that the CSA victories have been too spread out. Unfortunately for us (as arm-chair generals), NM tends to revert towards the mean. This means that the Union's war resiliance, and CSA's war weariness have kicked in, and thus, the union is still willing to fight, and the CSA isn't ready to declare victory. If you take Washington (I assume it's still the capital), the union will lose like 50 NM, and probably surrender.

Another issue is that there are very few NM cities in the north, and thus you can take most union territory away from them, and they suffer no NM losses. It is WAD, and you will probably still win a minor victory, but not a major one.

[xmas2]

I think the problem is that the CSA victories have been too spread out. Unfortunately for us (as arm-chair generals), NM tends to revert towards the mean. This means that the Union's war resiliance, and CSA's war weariness have kicked in, and thus, the union is still willing to fight, and the CSA isn't ready to declare victory. If you take Washington (I assume it's still the capital), the union will lose like 50 NM, and probably surrender.

Another issue is that there are very few NM cities in the north, and thus you can take most union territory away from them, and they suffer no NM losses. It is WAD, and you will probably still win a minor victory, but not a major one.

Surely, your observation is corect.

I think so the game not work as historically.

My claim was in the history, if USA doesn´t take Atlanta e Mobile in autumn 1864, probably Lincoln lose elections (was very impopular in north, riots borning everywhere in the north), and democratic candidate deal peace with CSA. To say need only a little shot to destroy "the big USA building and all conquest untill now".

You think now, the situation in my game ... historically splitting Union to know armistice.

[caranorn]

It's also pretty ahistorical to launch an unrestricted invasion of the Union. Historically that never was an option for the Confederates. For instance, the Antietam campaign was not considered an invasion of the Union by at least some Confederates (note large number of desertions, or rather men going Awol once Lee crossed Virginia-Maryland border) for the simple reason that they believed public opinion in Maryland was pro secession. The Gettysburgh campaign was largely an attempt to outmanoeuver the Union Army, but not to occupy territory. Later a few limited invasions or raids were launched in the west, but their goal was to undermine Union morale or gain resources. One more thing to consider is that the game cannot currently correctly model the effect on Union morale and mobilisation (CS raids in the west led to massive mobilisations of militia, the same would certainly have happened in the east had an invasion gone beyond the immediate border regions)...

In short, while I agree that at some point invasion should lead to morale loss and probable capitulation, I think invading is currently too easy...

[veji1]

It's also pretty ahistorical to launch an unrestricted invasion of the Union. Historically that never was an option for the Confederates. For instance, the Antietam campaign was not considered an invasion of the Union by at least some Confederates (note large number of desertions, or rather men going Awol once Lee crossed Virginia-Maryland border) for the simple reason that they believed public opinion in Maryland was pro secession. The Gettysburgh campaign was largely an attempt to outmanoeuver the Union Army, but not to occupy territory. Later a few limited invasions or raids were launched in the west, but their goal was to undermine Union morale or gain resources. One more thing to consider is that the game cannot currently correctly model the effect on Union morale and mobilisation (CS raids in the west led to massive mobilisations of militia, the same would certainly have happened in the east had an invasion gone beyond the immediate border regions)...

In short, while I agree that at some point invasion should lead to morale loss and probable capitulation, I think invading is currently too easy...

For sure, there should be events leading to a "levée en masse" in the Union if the CSA invaded beyond a few places. Maryland and Delaware should be excluded of this, and probably border provinces. But clearly a CSA army marching on Philadelphia or Chicago should lead to massive forces coming to arms.

[xmas2]

It's also pretty ahistorical to launch an unrestricted invasion of the Union. Historically that never was an option for the Confederates. For instance, the Antietam campaign was not considered an invasion of the Union by at least some Confederates (note large number of desertions, or rather men going Awol once Lee crossed Virginia-Maryland border) for the simple reason that they believed public opinion in Maryland was pro secession. The Gettysburgh campaign was largely an attempt to outmanoeuver the Union Army, but not to occupy territory. Later a few limited invasions or raids were launched in the west, but their goal was to undermine Union morale or gain resources. One more thing to consider is that the game cannot currently correctly model the effect on Union morale and mobilisation (CS raids in the west led to massive mobilisations of militia, the same would certainly have happened in the east had an invasion gone beyond the immediate border regions)...

In short, while I agree that at some point invasion should lead to morale loss and probable capitulation, I think invading is currently too easy...

Your observation it´s correct too, but ...

... in my game I had not planned to invade the north, I only did attack Cairo and S.Luis to recall enemy far from MA theatre ...

... but the SA (stupidity artificial), didn´t send nobody !!! USA forces were weak so I winned easy, in the meanwhile in MA theatre, the USA was defeat in any battle with enormous casuality by USA.

My action/raid turn invasion (not planned). No really strong force make me stop, untill I toke Chicago, and the Union was split.


So if the AI take a bit more care the political effects, after to lose S.Luis, should attack me with 70.000/80.000 men in the west, suspending attack on Manassas ... but AI is AI.