Michael CSA vs Kamil USA

[KamilS]

At the beginning of September there was 30000 men under Scott in Washington and 20000 under McDowell in Alexandria. Overall 2000cv (no divisions yet). Plus 118 pwr strong brigade and 2 balloons on the way.

[TulliusDetritus]

Ah, there you have the forces. You scared me [:D]

[KamilS]

September/October '62

Maryland


While I was assembling mighty counter-attacking force at York Michael was busy elsewhere. He managed to clear Valley plus made unexpected raid on Harrisburg. This is good news indeed. I have opportunity to trap Jackson there.

[KamilS]

October '62


Maryland


Forces: 50000 men in Alexandria and Washington, 25000 under Grand rushing into action and 33000 converging around Harrisburg.



Unfortunately it was our last turn. We both decided, that Union is far too strong and game will probably end in '63 (or so).

[Ol Choctaw]

Could you expound on that just a bit?

Balance is important.

Many players only play as the Union and they often think they should win easily.

Keeping that balance and making it a challenge on several levels.

[veji1]

gne ? I have a hard time reconciling your statement regarding the Union's excessive strength with what I see on the map.. could you please illustrate ?

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: veji1

gne ? I have a hard time reconciling your statement regarding the Union's excessive strength with what I see on the map.. could you please illustrate ?

Same here [&:]

1) [CSA] going for the kill (Washington)
2) failing = game over? [;)]

[veji1]

Are you playing with historical attrition ? It does slow the Union down quite a bit once all the war takes place on southern ground.

[KamilS]

I asked Micheal if he can write his own assessment of situation what will give all of us better insight into balance issues.

This is screen-shot of our set-up.

[KamilS]

As far as understood Michael wasn't happy with both game design and balance and I think both factors contributed to sudden conclusion to our game.

[Ace1_slith]

I see large CSA force in danger of being cut off because Michael was little overaggressive aggainst larger force.
Can he pop up here and tell us in his own words how he felt about your clash?

[Michael T]

I am taking a break from CW2. I feel the game is heavily in favour of the USA, as much as it was in favour of the CSA in the previous version. I won easily in the game I played Kamil where I was USA. In Richmond in 1862.

As CSA I figure the only chance they have is to break the USA players morale thru a bold and risky opening charge up the east coast. They have no chance in a long game. The USA is just too strong too quickly IMO.

In this last game with Kamil I am not cut off. I could easily get back to a position south of Washington. But to what end? A slow death by 1863/64. So best to concede and move on.

There are other aspects of the game that I am not happy with. But I leave the scene gracefully so others can form there own opinions about what if anything should be done.

For me its back to WITE when the next patch comes out and perhaps some WITW testing.

Good luck all and I hope you enjoy the game [:)]

[veji1]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I am taking a break from CW2. I feel the game is heavily in favour of the USA, as much as it was in favour of the CSA in the previous version. I won easily in the game I played Kamil where I was USA. In Richmond in 1862.

As CSA I figure the only chance they have is to break the USA players morale thru a bold and risky opening charge up the east coast. They have no chance in a long game. The USA is just too strong too quickly IMO.

In this last game with Kamil I am not cut off. I could easily get back to a position south of Washington. But to what end? A slow death by 1863/64. So best to concede and move on.

There are other aspects of the game that I am not happy with. But I leave the scene gracefully so others can form there own opinions about what if anything should be done.

For me its back to WITE when the next patch comes out and perhaps some WITW testing.

Good luck all and I hope you enjoy the game [:)]

Thanks for your view Michael, don't hesitate to elaborate on the balance issues you see though, it can be useful. The way I see it, the game seems a bit skewed in favor of the USA if one uses moderate settings in terms of activation and attrittion. It does feel balanced with the harshest settings in terms of activation and historical attrition, because then the Union must slowdown to build its supply network and recover, which allows a more historical time table, but really I appreciate your input.