Victory by VP

[Gray Fox]

I beleive that it is possible for the Union to take several easy regions like Tucson, El Paso, HF, etc. so that the VP difference per turn with the CSA is zero. The Union player could then entrench his forces and play RDC to win the game. The Union has many more "Develop region" and "Build Telegraph" cards for 5 VP's each than the CSA and can accumulate several hundred more VP with these by 1866 than the CSA player. So the CSA would have to become the aggressor and attack entrenched Union stacks to redress the growing VP difference or the Union would simply coast to a victory. Perhaps we should discuss this.

[minipol]

Hmm true, the Unions should really have to go for real gains to be in front with VP's.
If it's that easy to get ahead, then we might need a solution.
Then again, maybe the CSA can take some easy target at the start to get ahead even more?

[Gray Fox]

The Union can get almost 100 VP's per year more than the CSA from RDCs. That's three more Develop cards every 6 turns and three more Telegraph cards per 9 turns.

[GraniteStater]

Twenty cards a year? In the beginning, the costs are not enormous, but often, there's something else you want to do, like build units. The cash doesn't start to roll in for quite a while, well over a year. I think people overlook Strat Cities at times. They're worth VPs. We focus on Objectives a lot, but SCs are not unimportant. Among other things, they trigger Loyalty checks.

By mid-63 against havi, I had everything in VA except Richmond. Winchester, C-ville, Norfolk. In KY, there's L-ville, Lexington & BG. Springfield in MO, St Loo, of course; Leavenworth. Island #10 is an SC, too. Chattanooga, Fayetteville in AR, IIRC...some of the Union catch up is due to these. Still, I was behind in VPs for a long, long time against havi, as much as 600 mid-game; I really just nipped him at the tape.

From what I understand, the South has a little bit of a Loyalty issue that it doesn't have a couple of cards for. This is fair, I believe - asking people to forswear allegiances long held is not a light or transient thing. I check Loyalty across the board semi-regularly - if the Union is doing half-decent, Loyalty sways to it to some degree.

[Gray Fox]

The cards cost $5k each. Twenty cards would cost $100k spread over 26 turns per year. That would require 3847 saved per turn to purchase the cards. The Union has a per turn income of $300+, and would have to ear-mark less than 1.5% of this to the cards (not taking into account taxes, bonds, etc.).

The Union would not have to attack much to get the VP difference down to zero. Tucson and El Paso are only defended by two rangers, a militia and a cav element, unless the CSA wants to spend a lot of money on building a supply system to Arizona. That's 4 VP's for these alone. The Union can also rush HF while the CSA is defending Manassas. By snipping off a few VP cities the Union can zero out any CSA per turn accumulation before it becomes overwhelming.

The reason the CSA builds up a big VP lead is that they are defending Startegic Objectives and the Union is attacking entrenched positions. Mounting losses convert to VP. In AACW, the Union must attack to win. However, now the Union can defend entrenched positions and literally buy VP's so as to coast to an eventual victory.

[GraniteStater]

Tucson and El Paso are only defended by two rangers, a militia and a cav element, unless the CSA wants to spend a lot of money on building a supply system to Arizona.

The Far West is locked for a while and the Union needs to address Supplies there, also, afaics and have experienced. Your reminder about 'Build Depot' cards is useful. Still, four (4) VPs? That's not a lot.

The Union can also rush HF while the CSA is defending Manassas.

I think many experienced players have considered this and tried it. Some of these players were playing the CSA, too. This guy called Jackson just won't co-operate sometimes. Just FYI, havi was kinda stubborn about the whole HF thing and it wasn't until I started to change some aspects of the larger picture in VA that he finally yielded HF & then the Valley - in 1863, IIRC. Funny how things just work out that way sometimes.

By snipping off a few VP cities the Union can zero out any CSA per turn accumulation before it becomes overwhelming.

Just a few VP cities and we're golden. Just a few, mind you: three, maybe four. And play every VP++ Card I can find. OK, I get it, that's how I make up a -350 deficit.

You're not going to make up a serious raw deficit until you are leading on net VP gain per Turn, trust me. In two PbeMs now, one was quicker than the other. And the net difference per Turn has to get to at least twenty or more, otherwise, it's just too slow. This, of course, depends highly on particular circumstances.

Your last statement seems to me to amount to, "Hold on to Louisville and St. Louis and buy Cards." Is that right? Am I understanding this correctly?

Silly me, I thought I needed to do something as the Union. I will grant you, the fire under the posterior ain't what it was in AACW, but, from what I have seen, in both AI & PbeM, it's all too easy for the Union to be down by 200+ VPs by the winter of 61-62. I will also grant that it seems a little too easy for the Union to take Tennessee, some other places, and start to get back in the ballgame, if not win it.

But I think there is a certain onus on the Union, imperfect as it may be. And I think that the overall VP situation needs some fine tuning. So far, though, the game seems competitive.