CSA complaint about the game system based on a recent PBEM

[Rod Smart]

Bear in mind as well that rarely do you find CSA players behaving in a scripted historical sense, so you have to be careful putting a straight-jacket on the North. In our game, a cautious Northern strategy made sense to me given that a very aggressive opponent was carrying out simultaneous invasions of New Mexico/Colorado and Kansas/Missouri, (the former led by Bedford Forrest) plus the early appearance of Jackson (followed by Lee) out West. Raiders were all over the North, with a brief cavalry siege of Chicago and at end game one rebel raider was rattling around Northern Pennsylvania not far from the Canadian border. My opponent also had an intensive fort building program that turned much of the South into a close approximation of 18th century Flanders (and required Marlborough-style strategies to overcome). All these sorts of things are welcome and present fascinating challenges. But if you, on the one hand, allow the CSA player to try anything creative they can manage, it becomes problematic to demand the Union player do X, Y or Z by date certain or suffer the consequences. The current "On to Richmond" rules show the pitfalls, as any CSA player worth their salt packs Manassas to ensure the North has near-zero chance of winning 1st Bull Run (and adding needlessly to the near-certain 10 NM hit the North takes from that event).

In essence, the cautious approach taken by many Union players is a natural reaction to the myriad creative things many CSA players can attempt in the game. While some may demand as proof of Northern prowess that they take New Orleans or Memphis by the historical date or suffer the consequences, in the game the Union player is unlikely to have either of these cities surrender simply when the Union Navy pulls up to the dock (which is what happened historically, more or less, in both cases).

Right


If the South is besieging Chicago and marching east from Harrisburg PA - why would real life northern papers be screaming to conquer Memphis and march on Richmond?

[Captain_Orso]

'61 in the East is suicide
8<

Common Merlin, this is not a very useful statement.

If the Union tries to take Richmond in '61, he's not going to do it. He's not going to do a lot of anything very well, but he can--and must--try to do something.

How about something like this:
By Sep. 30th, '61, one of the following:
- Must hold: Alexandria, Manassas
- Must hold: Alexandria, Leesburg, Harpers Ferry
- Must hold: Alexandria, Harpers Ferry, Winchester
- Must hold: Alexandria, Fredericksburg
- Must hold: Alexandria, Harpers Ferry, Williamsburg, Jamestown


By Dec. 31th, '61, one of the following:
- As above, +: The entire B&O Rail Line between Washington and Wheeling and Parkersburg must be under Union control at least enough for them to use it.

The question is, 'how much is enough', and 'how can we measure it'.

[ohms_law]

2- The North moved South right away. That is false. South Carolina seceded December 20th of 1860. McDowell first moved south and engaged the Rebel army on July 20th 1861. That is SEVEN MONTHS. If an obscure law of 1793 came out a little different (that was the 90 day enlistment thing), McDowell could have stalled till the fall, probably lost anyway, and the Union would have sat out the winter. Which means that in real life there would have been a single movement towards Richmond from December of 1860 until May of 1862.

This is selective in the extreme. The war didn't start until after Ft. Sumter. South Carolina's secession was what got the ball rolling, obviously, but it most certainly didn't cause the war to start immediately. James Buchanan was still President until March 4, 1861, fer cryin out loud!

We're really talking about 1862 here, more than any other time period. The Union took nearly all of the Confederacy's ports (aside from Wilmington and Charleston, IIRC), and most of the Mississippi, by the end of the summer in real life. That doesn't happen very often, at all, in CW2 (especially in PBEM games, as far as I can tell).

[ohms_law]

The question is, 'how much is enough', and 'how can we measure it'.

"Dynamic" (meaning scripted, with events) objectives?
Something akin to the War Plans in EAW comes to mind, here.

[Captain_Orso]

Right


If the South is besieging Chicago and marching east from Harrisburg PA - why would real life northern papers be screaming to conquer Memphis and march on Richmond?

True. But if in RL A.J.Johnston were besieging Chicago or Joe Johnston Harrisburg, the Union deserves to take the 10 NM hit. The wording of the event would be wrong, but it would still be justified.

Besides, I can't say how many times I've seen Joe Johnston abandon Manassas for an end-run on Pittsburgh. Once he's gone, a quick drop on Manassas bags it for you. Drop a medium sized garrison on it and take the rest on a train ride to the ugly city to visit Johnston.

[Merlin]

Common Merlin, this is not a very useful statement.

If the Union tries to take Richmond in '61, he's not going to do it. He's not going to do a lot of anything very well, but he can--and must--try to do something.

How about something like this:
By Sep. 30th, '61, one of the following:
- Must hold: Alexandria, Manassas
- Must hold: Alexandria, Leesburg, Harpers Ferry
- Must hold: Alexandria, Harpers Ferry, Winchester
- Must hold: Alexandria, Fredericksburg
- Must hold: Alexandria, Harpers Ferry, Williamsburg, Jamestown


By Dec. 31th, '61, one of the following:
- As above, +: The entire B&O Rail Line between Washington and Wheeling and Parkersburg must be under Union control at least enough for them to use it.

The question is, 'how much is enough', and 'how can we measure it'.

If you're playing a person, Manassas is suicide in '61. I generally don't try it anymore, unless Johnny Reb falls for one of my devious schemes, which isn't often.

I rather have something which tracks the conquest of X number of towns in Virginia, because flexibility is definitely going to make any changes work. Having set objectives just makes it into another Manassas event.

[Captain_Orso]

I agree that the current Manassas event is practically not winnable, that's why I'm suggesting multiple targets. This way the Union player can threaten in different directions and the CS player cannot just guard one knowing that it's the only one worth guarding.

I'm not sure how having control of X of a set number of towns would play out. I suppose that could be done too, but it would depend. If it were just any Virginia towns the Union player could pick out X of the most unimportant towns, take them once and then withdraw. That would feel like a pointless alibi action. The goals should have some actual logical meaning.

[Merlin]

The problem with fixed objectives is going to be the same no matter what they are. Currently the Rebs can just sit in Winchester and Manassas and there's not much the Union can, or even should, do to prevent it from becoming a year-long stalemate. You could buy a lot of brigades, hold them back out of sight, and then try to bulldoze your way in with Hooker instead of McDowell, but the strategy is going to be the same no matter how many fixed objectives there are. More fixed objectives just means a more spread-out stalemate.

Having a fixed number of conquests instead would get the AotP moving and that's what we want. Moving armies are opportunities and targets, and with both main armies on the march you have a battle or two in the East in '61.

[elxaime]

...the Southern man was more motivated because defending his own soil and for fighting with leaders who he loved and who inspired him to go that last measure for his leaders, his fellow soldiers, his family, his state and his land, and the Northern men were not able nor willing to compensate for the shortcomings of their leaders through spilling their own blood. Once the Southern leadership in battle had the Union soldiers hard pressed to hold his ground, because most Norther generals had no good-idea and generally did not inspire his men to fight on, fight harder, the Northern men said to hell with it and saved their hides...

While the South did benefit from the home field advantage, I think we are straying abit into Lost Cause mythology here. The South did have it's stalwarts, but so did the North. To judge from historical accounts of the time backed up by later empiral research, the Southern armies suffered quite a bit from desertions and southern woods were filled with quite a number of southern draft dodgers. It was largely CSA propaganda that Northern armies were composed mainly of compelled men, riff raff from factories and duped foreigners just off the boat who would run home if the threat of courts martial didn't stop them. In fact, Northern troops support for war to the end strengthened as they moved south and saw the realities of the slave economy first hand. Many Yankees who had not considered themselves Abolitionists or who in 1862 would have denied they were fighting to abolish slavery as opposed to simply maintaining the Union, by 1863-1864 had become committed to finishing what they started.

[Captain_Orso]

So, how about 6 towns/cities in Virgina. I'll capture/hold Alexandria, Leesburg, Falmouth, Warsaw, Tappahannock and Hampton Roads.

Or I could take/hold Alexandria, Manassas, Harpers Ferry, Winchester and Stasburg ... oh dang!!, that's only 5.

Just any number of any towns/cities won't do it. They are not the same and should not be counted the same.

[elxaime]

oops double post

[Merlin]

So, how about 6 towns/cities in Virgina. I'll capture/hold Alexandria, Leesburg, Falmouth, Warsaw, Tappahannock and Hampton Roads.

Or I could take/hold Alexandria, Manassas, Harpers Ferry, Winchester and Stasburg ... oh dang!!, that's only 5.

Just any number of any towns/cities won't do it. They are not the same and should not be counted the same.

But in a way they are the same. I think it's entirely fair to allow the Union to develop a plan radically different from Manassas/Manassas/Manassas every time and watch the Confederates play fire brigade. Having set points to hold just allows the Rebs to sit behind so many Petersburg-style works and watch the Union get flustered trying to move them out for an even chance.

[elxaime]

It may make sense to have, at the start of the game, each side secretly choose year-by-year objectives who possession yield a one-time haul of VP and/or morale. That would keep people guessing and forestall stereotypical play. Before each year, each side chooses what it wants to accomplish that year, perhaps differing by each of three theatres (East, West and Far West). Then they judge themselves against accomplishing their own goals, while trying to guess those of the other side. I agree this is more gaming than history, but it seems that is what a lot of people would like.

[Rod Smart]

I agree that the current Manassas event is practically not winnable, that's why I'm suggesting multiple targets. This way the Union player can threaten in different directions and the CS player cannot just guard one knowing that it's the only one worth guarding.

I'm not sure how having control of X of a set number of towns would play out. I suppose that could be done too, but it would depend. If it were just any Virginia towns the Union player could pick out X of the most unimportant towns, take them once and then withdraw. That would feel like a pointless alibi action. The goals should have some actual logical meaning.

Pointless alibi action is a concern if you are talking about how real life northern newspapers would really react to events in 1861.

Minor victories in West Virginia, and small inconsequential captures of coastal nonentities in the Outer Banks COULD and DID keep "WHY LINKOLN NO MARCH ON RICHMOND?!?" stories off the front pages of newspapers.

[Z74]

The problem really is, as I said many times, that the only way CSA can win is not by military but by achieving political objectives that, unfortunately, the game is missing as well as all a series of logistical, production and manpower issues the Union had to face but the Union player doesn't have to. Lacking this, it's basically impossible for CSA to actually even move out of VA, much less take an offensive initiative which would grant the political pressure and much needed VP/NM points. As it stands, CSA is basically relying mostly on entrenchment levels and hoping the Union takes a beating but that beating is taken back in any case by the sheer power it can bring wherever CSA is unable to defend.

One turn you may lose a battle, next turn you gain an objective somewhere else and CSA can't counterattack or lose entrenchment.

[NormanMeek]

I believe these issues need to viewed from the CSA perspective in a PBEM game. In my opinion playing the CSA is a thankless job, and as Z74 mentions, currently without real objectives other than to block the Union. That is easier done early in the game than later. If the Union chooses to build very strong armies without national morale penalties (but rather significant NM benefits), playing the CSA is also a hopeless endeavor in a long game.

If the developers want people to volunteer to play the CSA in PBEM games, they must do something to penalize the timid or very conservative Union player that doesn't want to take any real risks in 1862. Otherwise I suspect that few will agree to play the CSA in a PBEM--especially if after 30 or 40 turns the Union hasn't taken or tried to take a significant objective city. In addition to being a simulation, this is also a game, and right now the incentives are not operating in a way that induces action in 1862. Moreover, the system needs to give the CSA some real objectives in the game (other than survival) that rewards them for taking some risks too.

[Captain_Orso]

Back in Post #66 I suggested 5 parallel alternative goals the Union could go for, just off the top of my head. Only one of them included Manassas. If the current Manassas event allowed you to fulfill just one of those goals, how is the CS player going to know in advance exactly what the Union player is planing to do and be prepared for only that one plan?

[Merlin]

Back in Post #66 I suggested 5 parallel alternative goals the Union could go for, just off the top of my head. Only one of them included Manassas. If the current Manassas event allowed you to fulfill just one of those goals, how is the CS player going to know in advance exactly what the Union player is planing to do and be prepared for only that one plan?

I'm confused. Were you suggesting there would be five events in play simultaneously and achieving any one would fulfill Union offensive requirements, or that one of those would replace the current event?

[Skibear]

I disagree that folks will not want to play CSA, the game in its two versions has been around for years and is not too disimilar in this strategic and NM problem, yet each PBEM a CSA player has showed up. People play for different reasons. Same as other wargames with similar disparities in forces then its a matter of trying to put up a solid fight and trying to outperform history. If you play Japan in War in the Pacific, you get a good run for a while but eventually you are more than likely to get crushed. But if I can frustrate and surprise along the way then it can be an enjoyable game. Its not chess, the deck is stacked and the Union, with the benefit of foresight knows he will get stronger and need not take big risks early on. Its part of the historic game thats tough to get around without compromising the historical simulation angle.

That said, the VP system should offer enough rewards to the Union moving south faster than history and a slow player might crush the CSA by 65, but should end up with significantly fewer VPs accumulated. This should be the gauge by which a performance is judged. Also by moving slowly then he is effectively handing the CSA more money, recruits and resources for longer and make the final task harder. Thats why personally I try as the Union to do as much damage early on as possible, while of course trying not to go suicidal and open the door to Washington. But if the Union turtles then Lee and Jackson should use their mobility to punish the Union wherever possible, thats what is fun as the CSA. To quote Ronald Spiers 'the only hope you have is to accept the fact that you're already dead', as CSA you will likely 'lose' in the traditional sense of the word but by thor you will go down in a blaze of glory.

As to the potential to collapse of NM triggered by multiple surrenders of fixed militia garrisons. Yes, its needs changing. 1VP for the lost regiment should be all thats gained. The 1NM gain should only trigger if at least 2 or even 3+ regiments defending. I think if that was patched a large part of the original post is solved in a simple way.

As to the Union needing more carrot & stick incentives to move, I don't feel its needed. The VP system, while maybe not perfectly calibrated to balance the two sides at least should give some indication of progress. This would be interesting to track in a thread. I.e. whats the VP spread end of 61/62/63/64/65 in peoples experience. Then we can gauge that if at end of 62 for example if CSA has 300vp more than USA they currently have a tactical/strategic victory or if by end of 64 the CSA has 1000vp less than USA then that might still count as a marginal victory or a draw. I'd like to see that spread line graphed in the ledger to see the crossover point which could be posted in a 'hall of fame' AAR thread. Even better if a short gif video could be generated flicking though the months showing a small territorial control map (ok, I know this might be a be tougher to code easily...but they had it in the original Civilisation game for example, its not off the charts hard to do). This might shame the Union into being more active better than any abstract NM schedule to channel him to have to do the same thing each time. As Sid Meier said i think the secret to a good replayable game is giving the player choices. Scripting is not the way forward.

[Captain_Orso]

I'm confused. Were you suggesting there would be five events in play simultaneously and achieving any one would fulfill Union offensive requirements, or that one of those would replace the current event?

Yes, if you fulfill any one of the goal you win the event.

BTW those are just some off-the-cuff suggestions. I'm sure there are many more possibilities, including those similar to the On To Richmond event, which counts the number of elements the Union has within 2 regions of Richmond for 2 consecutive turns.

[Ace]

Why not insteaf one event, let's have 3-4 events, each giving temporary objective to the Union and a penalty if not fulfilled. Btw, I love Manassas event. It seems to me people don't value activation McDowell bonus that comes along with it. You can do wonders with active general.

[Captain_Orso]

Pointless alibi action is a concern if you are talking about how real life northern newspapers would really react to events in 1861.

Minor victories in West Virginia, and small inconsequential captures of coastal nonentities in the Outer Banks COULD and DID keep "WHY LINKOLN NO MARCH ON RICHMOND?!?" stories off the front pages of newspapers.

Certainly advances in western Virginia and on the Outer Banks were welcomed by the press--and don't underestimate the importance of the OB's.

But Johnston was still sitting in northern Virginia and snubbing his nose at McDowell with his presence. The press and many in the North thought there would be one big battle, which the Union would win, and then the Fire Breathers of the South would concede and go back home and play nicely with the big boy up north.

So the longer McDowell did not march his army away from the Mommy-Skirts of Washington the more the press in the South could sneer at the North and its Duty to Union, which it wouldn't even defend.

No, I believe the press would sooner or later chide the government and the military until they took some decisive steps to actually persecute the conflict towards an immediate resolution, and that means working aggressively for some important locations.

[Captain_Orso]

Why not insteaf one event, let's have 3-4 events, each giving temporary objective to the Union and a penalty if not fulfilled. Btw, I love Manassas event. It seems to me people don't value activation McDowell bonus that comes along with it. You can do wonders with active general.

I would say, because you can't expect the Union player to fulfill 3-4 objectives at the same time. Besides, the public and the press wanted the government to do something decisive. They thought the secession would be over as soon as the Union "whipped" the Southern army in one big battle. The economy was suffering through the conflict. Trade with Southern states had ceased and as long as nobody knew what the future would bring investments were not being made.

I don't think anybody is underestimating McDowell being activated. Everybody who has played the Union knows this. Still it is only through a stroke of massive luck if McDowell wins at Manassas. Otherwise this debate would not even be taking place.

[Captain_Orso]

While the South did benefit from the home field advantage, I think we are straying abit into Lost Cause mythology here. The South did have it's stalwarts, but so did the North. To judge from historical accounts of the time backed up by later empiral research, the Southern armies suffered quite a bit from desertions and southern woods were filled with quite a number of southern draft dodgers. It was largely CSA propaganda that Northern armies were composed mainly of compelled men, riff raff from factories and duped foreigners just off the boat who would run home if the threat of courts martial didn't stop them. In fact, Northern troops support for war to the end strengthened as they moved south and saw the realities of the slave economy first hand. Many Yankees who had not considered themselves Abolitionists or who in 1862 would have denied they were fighting to abolish slavery as opposed to simply maintaining the Union, by 1863-1864 had become committed to finishing what they started.

I agree with all you have stated. It however says nothing of the differences the men in the field on each side were experiencing in '61 and '62. The Union soldiers knew their leaders were not as competent as the Southern leaders, they felt it on their own bodies and complained about it naming it directly for being the reason they were not going to fight as hard as they might as long as they were not being lead by competent leaders.

[ajarnlance]

I agree with all you have stated. It however says nothing of the differences the men in the field on each side were experiencing in '61 and '62. The Union soldiers knew their leaders were not as competent as the Southern leaders, they felt it on their own bodies and complained about it naming it directly for being the reason they were not going to fight as hard as they might as long as they were not being lead by competent leaders.

That's true. I just read about a battle that Jackson won where the Union troops actually said "We wouldn't have lost if we had a general like Jackson in command". Interesting to think about why they worshipped McClellan?? Little Mac was a superb organiser and trainer but I don't think he deserved the comparisons people made of him with Napoleon!!

[Captain_Orso]

McClellan stroked their egos. He told them they were as good as the Southern man, even better, because the Northern cause was just.

[ajarnlance]

McClellan stroked their egos. He told them they were as good as the Southern man, even better, because the Northern cause was just.

He was definitely good for northern morale... how he got them to adore him without giving them victories though still puzzles me. There has been some speculation that he had his eye on the presidency in 1864 and therefore he didn't want too much blood on his hands. He was thinking of votes instead of victory... a political opportunist doesn't make for a good general...

[ajarnlance]

McClellan stroked their egos. He told them they were as good as the Southern man, even better, because the Northern cause was just.

He was definitely good for northern morale... how he got them to adore him without giving them victories though still puzzles me. There has been some speculation that he had his eye on the presidency in 1864 and therefore he didn't want too much blood on his hands. He was thinking of votes instead of victory... a political opportunist doesn't make for a good general...

[minipol]

Why would we need fixed objectives?

We want to Union to attack, it doesn't really matter where.
The VP for important and strategic cities is already there so you can measure the progress of the Union by VP.
You know the starting VP so you could work on a percentile or fixed amount the Union would have to gain
to not get certain events fired or certain penalties raised or whatever.

If you couple that with a VP lead for the South (they are not the one's needing to go on the offensive), you have a comfortable way
to deal with Union turtles and avoid having preset locations for the South were they can turtle.
The Union will have to be more active or he will be behind to much in VP.
The South won't know where they will attack exactely because you don't use the 5 or 6 predetermined targets but the targets are
the usual ones, the strategic/VP cities.

I think is the least intrusive code wise.

Bonus would be if the %VP or other penalty and the VP lead could be set in the interface.

[Merlin]

Yes, if you fulfill any one of the goal you win the event.

BTW those are just some off-the-cuff suggestions. I'm sure there are many more possibilities, including those similar to the On To Richmond event, which counts the number of elements the Union has within 2 regions of Richmond for 2 consecutive turns.

That would work then.

McClellan stroked their egos. He told them they were as good as the Southern man, even better, because the Northern cause was just.

He was definitely good for northern morale... how he got them to adore him without giving them victories though still puzzles me. There has been some speculation that he had his eye on the presidency in 1864 and therefore he didn't want too much blood on his hands. He was thinking of votes instead of victory... a political opportunist doesn't make for a good general...

McClellan lost one battle during the Seven Days, that's it. All the rest were Union victories or stalemates, and the army loved him because he made them an army. One of the things I'd love to do would be to overhaul a good number of the leaders both North and South with brand new abilities to individualize them much more than they are. McClellan would get some stat boosts as well as department-level negative abilities which would hinder his corps commanders and account for his rather unimaginative command decisions and over-reliance on the Worst Spymaster in History.