More importance on territory and key locations

[1stvermont]

I think the game would be better off if it put more emphasis on holding key locations rather than winning battles in the field. Both are important but maybe less loss of morale from battles, but more loss of morale from losing/gaining key locations. Same with production, i feel it is to much based on taxes etc and not enough on production of key cities.

[kc87]

True, as parts of the South were occupied soldiers deserted, out of state troops in the Army of Northern Virginia later in the war were more prone to desertion for obvious reasons. It would be a good feature if desertion rates could reflect this and make state recruitment more meaningful. Units formed would have a higher chance of deserting if their state was occupied if they were too far away from their homestate theater?

I have to disagree with you on the morale loss for lost battles, I think it is not severe enough for major battles. I think these victories kept southern morale high and did much to make up for the negative effects that came with large areas of the south being captured and occupied.

Production on the other hand is somewhat balanced I guess, although not totally realistic. Hundreds of thousands of weapons were captured by the Confederacy and refurbished and re-issued throughout the war closer to the front lines and were more vital to the war effort than say a city like New Orleans or Little Rock. Maybe the city's industries could be re-balanced more historically to their capacity at the time, which would probably be detriment to the CSA, but might also add more focus on strategic concentration.

[Rod Smart]

Disagree


Destroying the Army of the Tennessee is infinitely more important than capturing Memphis and Nashville.

[1stvermont]

Disagree


Destroying the Army of the Tennessee is infinitely more important than capturing Memphis and Nashville.

Sure a total loss of a army. But a few minor battles pushing back a army vs losing a state capital and important production centers?. Losing your state will effect your morale, if others say in the south see state after state being occupied, morale will drop, even if still fielding large armies. If anything they will say why are the armies not defending our country?.

[kc87]

Until late in the war this seemed to have the reverse effect, the soldiers wanted revenge and knew the best way to get this was on the battlefield, at least in one instance I recall one mentioned in Rebel private front and rear. The CSA government had major difficulties in organizing supplies and managing production for the war effort in the long term, a system which Robert E Lee noted as a major concern should the war drag on, this faulty system would later come to haunt Lee for the rest of the war.

New Orleans and Nashville fell in 62, and the state's were never totally abandoned. Battles continued across Tennessee. The Confederacy also continued to win land battles in Louisiana into 1864 despite the state capitol falling relatively early in the war. So i'm not sure how much effect this had on the war effort, supplies were always short in demand and resupplying was always a major difficulty, there was no solid system in place to get every state to contribute to their maximum efficiency to start with, the entire system of supply in the Confederate government was organized with a short decisive war in mind.

I think in most cases this hurt the localized war effort more than the overall effort, because the AONV was supplied through the Carolinas into Richmond and there were railroads from Atlanta into Miss and TN. Also victories on the battlefield and foraging the countrysides dry were a vital source of survival for the Confederates. There are some pretty vivid first person accounts of soldiers stealing chickens, eggs, crops, and fence pickets in foraging parties which were popular throughout the war. There were also some clear indicators of the marching route of the AONV when only undeveloped foraged corn was on the menu that day.

[Rod Smart]

Remember the Revolutionary war?


The British didn't capture Philadelphia: Philadelphia captured the British.

[1stvermont]

Good posts.

[ArmChairGeneral]

I think that as it stands there is a lot of emphasis on key locations, but the emphasis is tactical rather than strategic. It is common for me to give up a starred city in order to hold a key depot. Take Northern Virginia: As either side I would gladly sacrifice Harper's Ferry in order to hold Manassas. It is easily more important to the outcome of the game than any CSA city except Richmond or New Orleans.

There is a lot of cognitive dissonance about the importance of holding territory introduced by the game's presentation. The ledger and the scenario descriptions make it sound like the path to victory is to hold objective cities, and in some ways it is: this could get you a VP win, but you have to grind it out through 100+ turns and still only get a "Minor" victory if you go that route. In the long scenarios (April 61, July 61, and 1863) NM wins are definitely achievable and should be the focus rather than VPs. Capturing important cities barely affects NM, though, making them way less important to the outcome than they look. Whether this is historical or not, or even whether this is a good design decision, I don't know, but the game sure does imply that taking strategic/objective cities is the key to victory when it isn't.

In shorter scenarios taking strategic cities is a much bigger deal. In the 62 West scenario (best scenario in the game IMO) the 50 NM for taking the capital is not on the table, so NM victories are pretty much impossible. The VPs are balanced on a knife edge, and possession of Springfield, El Paso or Knoxville will definitely affect the outcome.

Side note:
Athena is very interested in VP producing cities (not all of which are Strategic/Objective cites) in all scenarios. Even though starred cities may not be important to getting a NM victory, they are very important for predicting AI behavior.