Recapture of CSA capitals loss of will

[Moltke71]

The CSA besieged no major city.  Early in the war, they besieged small towns such as Lexington, MO for a few days.

I concur that the Union should be penalized more for losing a captured capitol.  Let's get inside of a Northern reader's head:

Headlines:April 1, 1863.  Baton Rouge is captured!
Reader:  Hooray, we may be making real progress here.  Finally, we may have built a fighting army.

Headlines: April 30 1863.  Confederates recapture Baton Rouge!
Reader:  Here we go again.  Those clods can't keep what they take.  They probably got lucky in the first place.  Be darned if I buy anymore war bonds.

[ericbabe]

What if we increase the loss of losing northern cities (and capitals) to US NW even higher than they are now?

[General Quarters]

ORIGINAL: Paper Tiger

I counter your Nashville with the following.
1. In this game the amount of resources available to each side are not at historical levels. Hence it is easier for the CSA to detach a force to counter an attack against the coastal capitals than was historicaly the case.
2. In the early war had the US taken and burned a CSA capital and then withdrawn faced with a larger CSA force being brought up within a couple of weeks would that be regarded as a victory or a defeat? Both sides performed raids in strength at various times.
3. The Union loses 2 Will for ANY capital and Nothing for a normal city. Sorry makes no sense would the loss of St Louis be of no interest while loss of Talahassee would devestate US will?

OK so at the moment the CSA can ignore the need to garrison coastal capitals in the secure knowledge that if the Union makes a landing with anything less than a full army then the CSA can push the US out and mess up US will, The US on the other hand will never be able to create an effective beachead as the areas will never fall even when the cities do, so the supply costs for the US will be prohibitive for anything more than a division.

Sorry but at the moment it makes no sense to me on a number of levels. Can you at least make this an optional setting so those of us who think it is stupid can turn it off?

1. I don't see military levels has making it unduly easy for the CSA to retake a capital.

2. Burning a city rather than taking and holding it is not what we are talking about here.

3. Whether there should be NW plus and minuses for other cities is a separate question that does not bear on whether the North was more sensitive to reverses than the South was.

4. On your last point, it does not seem to be that the current rules make it inadvisable for the CSA to garrison coastal capitals (Tallahassee?). I wouldn't want to lose them just to hope to regain them.

These points don't speak to the main issue -- the historical reality that the North was VERY susceptible to discouragement and willingness to throw in the towel. Simply NOT taking Southern cities FAST ENOUGH was enough to get anti-war politicians elected.

[General Quarters]

ORIGINAL: Gray_Lensman

 
IMHO, only cities that originally belong to the USA/CSA should have their corresponding national will affected by loss/recapture, with the possible exception of the "neutral at start" states and maybe national capitols. In other words loss/recapture of original southern cities should only affect CSA national will, and loss/recapture of Northern cities should only affect USA national will. The main reason Nashville and other southern cities were garrisoned so well after capture was to prevent their usage as sources of supplies and weaponry to the remaining southern armies.

This doesn't seem historically realistic to me. The North was trying to conquer the South, not the other way around. The South did not have to take a single Northern city in order to win the war; it needed only to repel invasion. The North HAD to take AND HOLD Southern cities or it would lose the war.

[General Quarters]

ORIGINAL: Bismarck


I concur that the Union should be penalized more for losing a captured capitol.  Let's get inside of a Northern reader's head:

Headlines:April 1, 1863.  Baton Rouge is captured!
Reader:  Hooray, we may be making real progress here.  Finally, we may have built a fighting army.

Headlines: April 30 1863.  Confederates recapture Baton Rouge!
Reader:  Here we go again.  Those clods can't keep what they take.  They probably got lucky in the first place.  Be darned if I buy anymore war bonds.

This seems exactly historical to me.

[Paper Tiger]

OK so compare the capture and loss of Baton Rouge to the loss of the capital of a northern state.
Equally what effect would the capture or loss of New Orleans have? Non as at present?
 
I think this has become a question of more than just capital cities here it is more a matter of getting the effects on national will correct across the board.
 
I think to be fair that gain loss should in some way represent the size of the city, with a capital being a bonus in some way.
I think in addition the loss of an entire Division/Corps/Army should affect will and/or victory points. It was after all the eventual destruction of the ANV which finally saw an end to the war not the capture of Richmond nor the loss of a series of battles by the south.
 
If in that way we make the point that Northern will is much more fragile than for the south, while the souths main problem is always going to be lack of men and resources.

[dude]

Part of the problem here is the lack of any factual meterial to back up either claim.  It was extreamly rare for the USA to lose a "major" city once it captured it.  So it's hard to claim what Northern will would or would not do without some historical cases to back up either claim.  There are plenty of case of the USA losing battles and Northern will dropping.  I'm just very hard pressed to find the same wealth of information on the lose of southern cities let alone capitals. 
 
By the time the USA was taking southern cities it had the force to back them up and hold them in most cases.  When it couldn't it, it pillaged and left.  Grant did this a few times out west.  So if anything the modified NW rules will force the USA player to only take cities once he knows he can hold them.   Is this a good thing? bad? Historical?  I don't know but would love to hear the comments.
 
You shouldn't be taking cities and expecting to garrison them with only one brigade.  One of the things I recall reading about were the large number of troops Grant had to use as he moved forward to garrison his rear.
 
Dude

[Twotribes]

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

ORIGINAL: Paper Tiger

I counter your Nashville with the following.
1. In this game the amount of resources available to each side are not at historical levels. Hence it is easier for the CSA to detach a force to counter an attack against the coastal capitals than was historicaly the case.
2. In the early war had the US taken and burned a CSA capital and then withdrawn faced with a larger CSA force being brought up within a couple of weeks would that be regarded as a victory or a defeat? Both sides performed raids in strength at various times.
3. The Union loses 2 Will for ANY capital and Nothing for a normal city. Sorry makes no sense would the loss of St Louis be of no interest while loss of Talahassee would devestate US will?

OK so at the moment the CSA can ignore the need to garrison coastal capitals in the secure knowledge that if the Union makes a landing with anything less than a full army then the CSA can push the US out and mess up US will, The US on the other hand will never be able to create an effective beachead as the areas will never fall even when the cities do, so the supply costs for the US will be prohibitive for anything more than a division.

Sorry but at the moment it makes no sense to me on a number of levels. Can you at least make this an optional setting so those of us who think it is stupid can turn it off?

1. I don't see military levels has making it unduly easy for the CSA to retake a capital.

2. Burning a city rather than taking and holding it is not what we are talking about here.

3. Whether there should be NW plus and minuses for other cities is a separate question that does not bear on whether the North was more sensitive to reverses than the South was.

4. On your last point, it does not seem to be that the current rules make it inadvisable for the CSA to garrison coastal capitals (Tallahassee?). I wouldn't want to lose them just to hope to regain them.

These points don't speak to the main issue -- the historical reality that the North was VERY susceptible to discouragement and willingness to throw in the towel. Simply NOT taking Southern cities FAST ENOUGH was enough to get anti-war politicians elected.

Well except the Union NEVER did throw in the towel.

[General Quarters]

The Union never threw in the towel BECAUSE they kept taking cities and not losing them. Every time their armies slowed down in the taking of Southern cities northern support for the war weakened. Lincoln thought that he was going to lose in 1864. The taking of Atlanta, he believed, saved him.

[General Quarters]

ORIGINAL: dude

Part of the problem here is the lack of any factual meterial to back up either claim.  It was extreamly rare for the USA to lose a "major" city once it captured it.  So it's hard to claim what Northern will would or would not do without some historical cases to back up either claim.  There are plenty of case of the USA losing battles and Northern will dropping.  I'm just very hard pressed to find the same wealth of information on the lose of southern cities let alone capitals. 

By the time the USA was taking southern cities it had the force to back them up and hold them in most cases.  When it couldn't it, it pillaged and left.  Grant did this a few times out west.  So if anything the modified NW rules will force the USA player to only take cities once he knows he can hold them.   Is this a good thing? bad? Historical?  I don't know but would love to hear the comments.

You shouldn't be taking cities and expecting to garrison them with only one brigade.  One of the things I recall reading about were the large number of troops Grant had to use as he moved forward to garrison his rear.

Dude

Yes, you are right to want evidence. In fact, it is hard to come up with cases of the CSA's retaking cities, but there are lots of examples of the South's losing cities. It was still fighting, without there being a strong Southern peace movement, even after losing Nashville, Memphis, New Orleans, Wilmington, the list goes on ... even Atlanta and Savannah and, if it just had the means, after the fall of Richmond.

While we do not have a parallel case in the North to compare, we do know a lot about the Northern anti-war movement, which won many elections in 62 and threatened to win the presidency in 64, and how it rose each time the Union suffered a setback or just seemed bogged down. It is not hard to imagine the effect if, 1864, the CSA had WON BACK all the cities listd above. That situation cannot be represented by -1 to CSA when the Union takes them, -1 to USA when they are taken back. The CSA well survived the loss of them. In light of Northern skittishness about the war, it is hard to see how support for the war would have survived the South's taking them back.

[dude]

Willpower is a tough thing to pin down for either side.  As pointed out ealier in the thread I doubt the south's Will was really going to break unitl their armies started surrendering.  As to the North... they were rather fickle.  Grant lost a number of battles early in the east but I don't recall the Will of the north waning at these times.  Generally as long as the Northern armies were "precieved" to be moving "forward", which Grant did even though he lost, Northern Will held.  Antietam was a draw but was percieved as a boost to Northern Will.  So how do you model these?
 
My only feeling is that mass surrenders should impact greatly on both sides and that the loss of a confederate capital by the North should be no worse or greater than any other city.  A nothern city though, captured by the South should have great impact on the Northern Will.
 
Perhaps the north just isn't given enough troops to use for garrisons is part of the problem.  Just a thought (don't shoot me...)  I know I frequently run into problems trying to find enough troops to leave behind and still move my armies forward... I build plenty of units to build decent armies but I always seem to be short of troops for garrison duty.
 
Dude

[dude]

ORIGINAL: Paper Tiger


I send off a medium sized raiding force and take a CSA capital city hurrah, loss of 1 will to the CSA and they detach a large force from another theatre and send it off to retake the lost city. OK all going to plan here until I am forced out by the weight of numbers and the CSA recapture the capital, at which point the USA loses 2 will!
Excuse me but this is still enemy territory it is an enemy state, not like it is Ohio or something, how come the USA loses national will for this, I could understand the CSA regaining the 1 it lost but as it stands the CSA is almost better off leaving it's capitals as open cities and attempting to retake them repeatedly.

Just my two cents....
The problem, going back to the original post, is that a "raiding" force was used to take a city. I assume this means a small force of some (division size?). You probably shouldn't be "taking" cities with raiding forces. Unless you plan to take and hold a city with a sizable force then you had better plan on losing it. The North needed to take and hold ground for their Will to stay up. If you want to "raid" some place then just pillage it... don't take it.

You always look for those "Opportunities" to take something and when one presents itself you have a tendency to "go for it". The problem is, would a city taken by a "raiding" force then retaken by the owner, really affect the raiding forces's Will that much?

It's almost like you need a way to take a city... without really taking it? does that make sense? You need a means where a raiding type force can take a city but not be overly penalized for losing it. Or else just don't "take" the city. Perhaps there should only be a major penalty for losing a city after you've held it for a certain time period. If you've only had it for a month or two tops would losing so soon just be considered the back and forth of the ongoing battle?

I don't know... there are just so many factor's that play into something like this. Was the city a primary objective? was it a target of opportunity? was the force taking a main army or just a raiding force? In the end... it's what the Media bills it as... [;)]

In a game like this somethings just have to be generalized.

Dude

[Paper Tiger]

I'm guessing I was having a somewhat tougher time as the result of playing the "Standard" campaign, having just looked at "Southern Steel" I was kind of expecting an up rated south and a more even match on resources. Hello what I got was I suspect the Census level resources as described above. Now on these resources I can see why the North should be expected to never lose a city once it is taken, nor does the occasional loss of a bit of National Will cause so much consternation when you can afford to actively purchase most of your troops instead of mustering and conscripting.
On the Standard scenario I was mostly facing similar sized armies opposite my US armies and the rebs were better trained and early on better equiped. I was attempting to use small forces to raid, either amphibiously or on land and grab cities or if necessary pillage. With the resources in Southern Steel that isn't necessary, and the response to my posting makes more sense.

[Erik Rutins]

Paper Tiger,

That's correct - the "standard" campaign is balanced to be more challenging for the North in both force and economic balance. The "Southern Steel" campaign is the purely historical one as far as economic balance (and in the next public beta release, force OOBs too, per the pinned thread in this form). Coming Fury is also historical and the next release will also have a version of it with the Southern Steel economic balance.

For the standard scenario though, you can change the economic balance by changing the power ratings. This was the intended way to customize the default balance to match your preference. If you want more of a Southern Steel experience with the Standard campaign, for example, try Union Power +2, CSA Power -1, Greater Population, Richer Economy as options.

Regards,

- Erik

[Paper Tiger]

Just wonder if we could have a switch for Northern Will, that way if you want a game with the CSA having an improved economy and the US being toned down you can also moderate the effect of the Northern public pressure, effectively a game where ebb and flow of victories and capture of cities is more expected.