Gentlemen- I have been playing this game against one of your playtesters for the last month and a half- and have , as a serious student of the Civ War- some unsettling reservations about the ability of the Union to launch Bltizkreig like attacks in 1861-
In the last two games I have played- as the Confederate- the union has Blitzed across Kentucky in one turn, taking it all. in Aug 61- then in Sept 61- with really good initiitive rolls-Invaded directly into Tennessee, and Blitzed out my fortified lines in Northern Tennessee with an overwhelming force that the Confeds cannot stop. With enough command control and a major effort- <the Union in this last game also got extremely lucky in Inititive. Getting total inititive where he needed it, But he had most of his Army leaders there> He was able to fling nearly 100,000 men into action and took most of Central Tennessee. Also made landings on the Eastern coast that were very successful. I tried to react into the conflicted regions- and lost five of five reaction battles.
Right now- Sept 61 Confed turn- all of central Tennessee has fallen- the confeds have suffered enormas casualties and have to try to hold on at Humbolt and Memphis, but it looks hopeless. They are seriously overmatched manpower wise. And its Sept 61. Playing a human instead of the AI is much more difficult.
I am no novice at wargaming, and have one of your playtesters to interpret the rules- I believe I understand all the concepts. But I do not understand how the union side can mobilize that much strength and operational organization this early in the war. Right now the Union, in Sept 61, is on the line the Union was historically on in Jan 1863 after Stones River.
All my readings in the Civil War- I have a very complete library- and have also published articles on the Civ War in my lifetime, and have been considered quite a good reasource regarding that conflict- and have helped several authors to reaserch in the era, which is to say I know whereof I speak. The source material out there all state that the Union, and the Confeds- had huge organizational issues in terms of supply and control early in the war.
Playing with CSC that kicks in in Dec/Jan means little as the Union even without that level of organization can launch a very good Blitzkrieg right from the start.
So here are huge Union forces Blitzing into the core of the Confederacy in the first three war months of 1861. The inititative allowances just seem too far off the actual abilities of the time. I played the old board games these games are designed after when they first came out- I knew many of the playtesters for SST and other companies. - I'm an old Grognard. Movement in the early war in those original games was very very limited in 1861. Not here- it would seem.
After much discussion my opponent and I have decided that we are instituting a House Rule regarding an invasion of Kentucky. No invasion allowed until September 61 turn< historic month it happened- this was a political decision of vast impact>, and then only Three regions bordering your territory may be entered on the first turn. By whichever side does it- probably the Union, but maybe the confeds. Afterwards its business as usual. Though with winter coming on it argues against the lightening strikes we have seen so far.
This allows a slower buildup to take place, and slows down the seeming Union Blitzkreig that they can fully achieve with the rules as they are now. . We know the Kentucky invasion situation is a problem that the 2x3 team is going to address eventually, and that you intend to put out a major fix later in the year to address this- but for now that is the best fix we can come up with.
I understand that the Design team is basically focused on WW2 games, but being able to craft a Civ War Blitzkrieg with huge Union forces moving on land, river and sea in the early war period is the equivilent in my mind of the 1942 Americans landing a DDay size force on the Continent instead of doing the Torch landings and then driving to the Rhine in time for Christmas 1942. It just wasnt historically possible.
Thoughts... I imagine there will be a series of them.
CW Blitzkrieg
Moderators: Joel Billings, PyleDriver
CW Blitzkrieg
Tell me the story of the common foot soldier, and I will tell you the story of all wars.
... Heroditus.
... Heroditus.
RE: CW Blitzkrieg
If I may suggest a different set of house rules...
While Kentucky is neutral, that is, neither aligned with either side, nor a permanent state, the following restrictions apply to both sides:
1. No rail movement allowed into any Kentucky region on the first player turn that the region is attacked. Only tactical movement, or amphibious invasion.
2. No tactical movement, nor amphibious invasion, is allowed into a Kentucky region unless it will contain enough units to ensure that it is "pacified" at the end of the player turn.
3. You may not conduct an overrun of a region, until there are enough units in it to ensure that the region is "pacified" at the end of the turn. All overrunning units and leaders must remain in the newly "pacified" region until the start of the next player turn.
4. You may not move through a region until enough units have ended their movement within it, to ensure that it will be "pacified"
5. "Pacified" is to be defined as having a number of friendly Infantry, Militia, Cavalry, or Mounted Brigades remain in the region through the end of the player turn in which it is first attacked, that is equal to, or greater than, the sum of two times the number of Population in the region, plus the number of Resources in the region, plus one.
6. On subsequent turns, a player may reduce the number of friendly units in a previously pacified region, voluntarily, or involuntarily, without concern for movement restrictions under these house rules. Note that this is at his own risk of inviting partisan activity in the region.
7. These movement restrictions expire immediately when Kentucky aligns with either side, or becomes a permanent state of either side. Note that the latter case is checked at the end of the first player turn in which Kentucky is invaded, when the file to be sent to your opponent is being saved.
Obviously, these are "honor" rules and not enforceable by the engine, as it currently exists. Any comments are welcome.
While Kentucky is neutral, that is, neither aligned with either side, nor a permanent state, the following restrictions apply to both sides:
1. No rail movement allowed into any Kentucky region on the first player turn that the region is attacked. Only tactical movement, or amphibious invasion.
2. No tactical movement, nor amphibious invasion, is allowed into a Kentucky region unless it will contain enough units to ensure that it is "pacified" at the end of the player turn.
3. You may not conduct an overrun of a region, until there are enough units in it to ensure that the region is "pacified" at the end of the turn. All overrunning units and leaders must remain in the newly "pacified" region until the start of the next player turn.
4. You may not move through a region until enough units have ended their movement within it, to ensure that it will be "pacified"
5. "Pacified" is to be defined as having a number of friendly Infantry, Militia, Cavalry, or Mounted Brigades remain in the region through the end of the player turn in which it is first attacked, that is equal to, or greater than, the sum of two times the number of Population in the region, plus the number of Resources in the region, plus one.
6. On subsequent turns, a player may reduce the number of friendly units in a previously pacified region, voluntarily, or involuntarily, without concern for movement restrictions under these house rules. Note that this is at his own risk of inviting partisan activity in the region.
7. These movement restrictions expire immediately when Kentucky aligns with either side, or becomes a permanent state of either side. Note that the latter case is checked at the end of the first player turn in which Kentucky is invaded, when the file to be sent to your opponent is being saved.
Obviously, these are "honor" rules and not enforceable by the engine, as it currently exists. Any comments are welcome.
RE: CW Blitzkrieg
Although I am not experienced enough to have an informed opinion about the Kentucky question, in response to JAMIAN 's question I'd like to observe that I like the idea of house rules, albeit unenforceable by the engine.
"Honor" rules exemplify the best of this hobby. Friends playing for enjoyment only, all the while respecting that their opponent is an adversary, not an enemy.
"Honor" rules exemplify the best of this hobby. Friends playing for enjoyment only, all the while respecting that their opponent is an adversary, not an enemy.
"L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace."
RE: CW Blitzkrieg
Doc -
The game doesn't simulate Kentucky well, or 1861.
The political cost for invading Kentucky so early should be much higher, I would think from a historical perspective. The way it works might be for play balance reasons, so the South can't get a jump on regions adjacent to the Ohio river and put their heavy guns along it. That would be a nightmare for the Union.
One rule I was wrong about until just a couple days ago, I was thinking the militia couldn't move in order to train. I was moving leaders around to the units and attaching them in order to train . (duh!)
Except for overruns like Kentucky and early amphibs, I generally didn't use militia moving or attacking, waiting for the regulars to come on line. Playing that way I was still beating the computer at challenger level, using the mass on Tennessee strategy. (with semi-historical leaders)
So, one way to slow the Union down in 1861 would be to make it so militia doesn't train if it moves. It is a pain to move the leaders around to the units like i was doing. Maybe if the leader doesn't move, so one moves the militia to the 'training centers'. This makes more sense historically, and addresses a reason why the armies didn't campaign much early in the war. Of course this would significantly change play balance, because the defender doesn't need to move around as much.
As far as the overall play balance, try switching sides. I'm not so sure. Playing against an experienced Union player is a challenge. Playing the Union for the first time against a human can be a learning experience. There are options available to tweak the balance if one thinks it's unbalanced. (The leader and partisan help seems appropriate)
The game doesn't simulate Kentucky well, or 1861.
The political cost for invading Kentucky so early should be much higher, I would think from a historical perspective. The way it works might be for play balance reasons, so the South can't get a jump on regions adjacent to the Ohio river and put their heavy guns along it. That would be a nightmare for the Union.
One rule I was wrong about until just a couple days ago, I was thinking the militia couldn't move in order to train. I was moving leaders around to the units and attaching them in order to train . (duh!)
Except for overruns like Kentucky and early amphibs, I generally didn't use militia moving or attacking, waiting for the regulars to come on line. Playing that way I was still beating the computer at challenger level, using the mass on Tennessee strategy. (with semi-historical leaders)
So, one way to slow the Union down in 1861 would be to make it so militia doesn't train if it moves. It is a pain to move the leaders around to the units like i was doing. Maybe if the leader doesn't move, so one moves the militia to the 'training centers'. This makes more sense historically, and addresses a reason why the armies didn't campaign much early in the war. Of course this would significantly change play balance, because the defender doesn't need to move around as much.
As far as the overall play balance, try switching sides. I'm not so sure. Playing against an experienced Union player is a challenge. Playing the Union for the first time against a human can be a learning experience. There are options available to tweak the balance if one thinks it's unbalanced. (The leader and partisan help seems appropriate)
RE: CW Blitzkrieg
John,
I concur; playing Union the first time against a living, breathing reb is tough. I had played only one game as Union for about a year or so and never as the CSA (computer or human opponent) when I started my present game. Very steep learning curve.
I'm at January 1863 now and am still struggling with understanding the rules and still waiting for my esteemed adversary to "school" me further [X(] on the price to be paid for invading the south.
I concur; playing Union the first time against a living, breathing reb is tough. I had played only one game as Union for about a year or so and never as the CSA (computer or human opponent) when I started my present game. Very steep learning curve.
I'm at January 1863 now and am still struggling with understanding the rules and still waiting for my esteemed adversary to "school" me further [X(] on the price to be paid for invading the south.
"L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace."
RE: CW Blitzkrieg
My opponent and I have been discussing Jamiams Kentucky Invasion pacified area concept all day. We decided that it would not really slow down the Union much, perhaps one or two unimportant areas- but done right and with enough manpower Kentucky would still fall to the Union in August 61 pretty easy and open NorthernTennessee up to a pounding Blitzkrieg in Sept 61. Just two months after the historic Bull Run- when most of either sides armys were still learning the basic drills. Just didnt seem to have any slowdown to it. Our main concern in this early game.
Historically Neither side wanted to invade Kentuck. At first anyway. There was this slim hope still alive in many hearts that sanity and reason would prevail- and Kentucky seemed to be a shinning example of it at that moment. At least to outside observers. Actually it was just as politically torn and conflicted as Missouri or Maryland- but the people of the state seemed serious about its neutrality. If you invaded it, the entire region it was thought would probably go to the other side enmass, that was the real fear at the time.
Also the world<Europe> was looking at the US seriously for the first time in many years. There were European powers who made no bones about wanting a split and seperated and commercially weaker American continent. There began to be a fear on the Union Side- that the Euros might actively enter the war- on the Southern side. Kentucky seemed a lightening rod for attention. LIncoln was positively rabid about the Kentucky subject- and was not allowing his generals to sway him- at first.
IN the end- in September 61 the Rebs moved in and took Paduca and Bowling Green and Loudon, but was then stopped moving North. Lincoln was free to liberate Kentucky back, and abismally Poor Confed Generalship at Island No 10 gave away the strategic gain of holding the Paduca region, and Grant's taking Fort Donelson and Henry set in motion the collapse, leading to the retreat from Central Tenn in early 62..
WE discussed allowing the rebs to move in in August first- giving them an absolute right to the first jump- as they did historically- in moving into Kentucky, This was something Lincoln just couldn't bring himself to do. But we decided the only time that would be right- would be the August 61 confed turn. That seemed just too much for the Union player- as IT would then be too easy for the South to take Paduca and put a huge fortified force there, and at Donaldson/Henry, and basically shut down the Unions ability to move by river in the region.
Modern Gamers- unlike the real men making decisions in 1861, would make it a Gibralter of the west- and would take a lot to retake. So while I liked it as a southern player- it was not a good mix for the Union. WE were looking for a milder result that wouldnt unhinge things one way or the other too early on, and still be within the realm of the historic capabilities of this early war army.
WE decided that no matter what- a limited September invasion of Kentucky by either side seemed best, and felt like it would be the most historically slow- just like that period was. It would mean the Union would most likely take the shot- as they moved first. So be it. It costs political points. The re election of Lincoln in 64 could be effected.
And rather than doing the complex numbers thing to pacify each region- we just said- three adjacent regions is all the invader gets first turn. Not too suprisingly- the areas closest to the northern states were pretty much pro union anyway, and the parts nearest the southern borders- were hotbeds of seccesh.
It means the state doesnt fall all at once. It backs up the union Bltizkrieg a few turns, giving the South more time to organize. And leaves just one month of good weather before winter sort of locks things down. Once 62 opens its business as usual- plus the CSC rules kick in.
Finally as Treefrog pointed out- it's House Rules amoung gentlemen gamers. I would hope we are all men of honor, though I have seen many poor sports and win at any price types through the years- they tend to be pointed out and exposed and usually loose their opponets. But if agreed by both parties- it becomes an honor rule to uphold.
House rules- agreed from the start, that is an old tradition in the gaming circles I have engaged with in the last 44 years, since I played my first Board Game- Tactics 2 by Avalon Hill- in 1964. Simple rules are best- and ones with the most transperancy. We dont need to question the other players honesty if it is simple- three regions are yours if you are the Invader of Kentucky- no more.
If your opponent- lets say the Union, had to have deployed X amount of brigades to "pacify" an area- how would the Confed - or the non invading palyer for that matter, If the union chose not to invade, Really know the other player was counting right? There is fog of war on. With a simple rule- only three areas allowed. It's three ares- and that is it. You can see them- once Kentuclky goes thru its first invasion phase with which ever side does it- three regions are clearly now the other players- and everything is wide open. This would mean the next moving player could move into as many regions as he normally could- all rules would revert back to standard.
And on with the war.
A Gentleman's bloody sport- war.
Historically Neither side wanted to invade Kentuck. At first anyway. There was this slim hope still alive in many hearts that sanity and reason would prevail- and Kentucky seemed to be a shinning example of it at that moment. At least to outside observers. Actually it was just as politically torn and conflicted as Missouri or Maryland- but the people of the state seemed serious about its neutrality. If you invaded it, the entire region it was thought would probably go to the other side enmass, that was the real fear at the time.
Also the world<Europe> was looking at the US seriously for the first time in many years. There were European powers who made no bones about wanting a split and seperated and commercially weaker American continent. There began to be a fear on the Union Side- that the Euros might actively enter the war- on the Southern side. Kentucky seemed a lightening rod for attention. LIncoln was positively rabid about the Kentucky subject- and was not allowing his generals to sway him- at first.
IN the end- in September 61 the Rebs moved in and took Paduca and Bowling Green and Loudon, but was then stopped moving North. Lincoln was free to liberate Kentucky back, and abismally Poor Confed Generalship at Island No 10 gave away the strategic gain of holding the Paduca region, and Grant's taking Fort Donelson and Henry set in motion the collapse, leading to the retreat from Central Tenn in early 62..
WE discussed allowing the rebs to move in in August first- giving them an absolute right to the first jump- as they did historically- in moving into Kentucky, This was something Lincoln just couldn't bring himself to do. But we decided the only time that would be right- would be the August 61 confed turn. That seemed just too much for the Union player- as IT would then be too easy for the South to take Paduca and put a huge fortified force there, and at Donaldson/Henry, and basically shut down the Unions ability to move by river in the region.
Modern Gamers- unlike the real men making decisions in 1861, would make it a Gibralter of the west- and would take a lot to retake. So while I liked it as a southern player- it was not a good mix for the Union. WE were looking for a milder result that wouldnt unhinge things one way or the other too early on, and still be within the realm of the historic capabilities of this early war army.
WE decided that no matter what- a limited September invasion of Kentucky by either side seemed best, and felt like it would be the most historically slow- just like that period was. It would mean the Union would most likely take the shot- as they moved first. So be it. It costs political points. The re election of Lincoln in 64 could be effected.
And rather than doing the complex numbers thing to pacify each region- we just said- three adjacent regions is all the invader gets first turn. Not too suprisingly- the areas closest to the northern states were pretty much pro union anyway, and the parts nearest the southern borders- were hotbeds of seccesh.
It means the state doesnt fall all at once. It backs up the union Bltizkrieg a few turns, giving the South more time to organize. And leaves just one month of good weather before winter sort of locks things down. Once 62 opens its business as usual- plus the CSC rules kick in.
Finally as Treefrog pointed out- it's House Rules amoung gentlemen gamers. I would hope we are all men of honor, though I have seen many poor sports and win at any price types through the years- they tend to be pointed out and exposed and usually loose their opponets. But if agreed by both parties- it becomes an honor rule to uphold.
House rules- agreed from the start, that is an old tradition in the gaming circles I have engaged with in the last 44 years, since I played my first Board Game- Tactics 2 by Avalon Hill- in 1964. Simple rules are best- and ones with the most transperancy. We dont need to question the other players honesty if it is simple- three regions are yours if you are the Invader of Kentucky- no more.
If your opponent- lets say the Union, had to have deployed X amount of brigades to "pacify" an area- how would the Confed - or the non invading palyer for that matter, If the union chose not to invade, Really know the other player was counting right? There is fog of war on. With a simple rule- only three areas allowed. It's three ares- and that is it. You can see them- once Kentuclky goes thru its first invasion phase with which ever side does it- three regions are clearly now the other players- and everything is wide open. This would mean the next moving player could move into as many regions as he normally could- all rules would revert back to standard.
And on with the war.
A Gentleman's bloody sport- war.
Tell me the story of the common foot soldier, and I will tell you the story of all wars.
... Heroditus.
... Heroditus.
RE: CW Blitzkrieg
I hadn't read Jamiam's suggestion carefully before. Very well thought out! And something that could be implemented in the code without to much difficulty. Basically just upping the overrun requirement in Kentucky and cutting off rail for that 1st turn of invasion would come close to achiveing the same result.
RE: CW Blitzkrieg
Doc,
I started with Avalon Hill's Battle of the Bulge circa '68.
Delaying the invasion of Kentucky is certainly historical.
How about this for a rule change?
No overruns in Kentucky on 1st turn, but Armies can react into Kentucky!
edited to add: shoot, just no overruns! it can be an honor rule!
That would discourage people from invading, especially if the political cost is high.
If they get good initiative, maybe they might want to try?
It just seems like it would simulate the situation better.
I started with Avalon Hill's Battle of the Bulge circa '68.
Delaying the invasion of Kentucky is certainly historical.
How about this for a rule change?
No overruns in Kentucky on 1st turn, but Armies can react into Kentucky!
edited to add: shoot, just no overruns! it can be an honor rule!
That would discourage people from invading, especially if the political cost is high.
If they get good initiative, maybe they might want to try?
It just seems like it would simulate the situation better.
RE: CW Blitzkrieg
I tested my above. Paducha gets 'automatically' resolved, as one can see in the following display from the Union production phase after invading. So, no interception will be allowed. I guess this was done so a U.S. amphib will still take Paducha in August if the Union army in Cairo doesn't get initiative? A cludge. Screws up my idea of having 'em fight over it.
edited to add: same thing happens when the Confederates invade. Paducha is resolved in the production phase, so interception is not allowed even if overrun is not selected.
edited to add: same thing happens when the Confederates invade. Paducha is resolved in the production phase, so interception is not allowed even if overrun is not selected.
- Attachments
-
- AutoPaducha.jpg (45.84 KiB) Viewed 305 times
RE: CW Blitzkrieg
Doc,
I agree that a three region limit could be written into the code and might be a good optional rule.
I'm not sure about the three being contiguous. The Union is well advised to prevent CSA occupation of Paducah at all costs. So if the USA occupies Paducah, the three contiguous region rule prevents them from seizing the bridge at Louisville, which doesn't make much sense. If you're gonna invade a neutral state, in for a penny, in for a pound.
Based on your observation that some areas of a state (in this case Kentucky) favor the CSA or favor the USA, the garrison/partisan rule should reflect this. Presently that rule is universal; both sides have the same requirement. Maybe pro USA areas should have no garrison requirements for the USA, same for the CSA.
Anyway, the three region honor rule does have its attractions.
I agree that a three region limit could be written into the code and might be a good optional rule.
I'm not sure about the three being contiguous. The Union is well advised to prevent CSA occupation of Paducah at all costs. So if the USA occupies Paducah, the three contiguous region rule prevents them from seizing the bridge at Louisville, which doesn't make much sense. If you're gonna invade a neutral state, in for a penny, in for a pound.
Based on your observation that some areas of a state (in this case Kentucky) favor the CSA or favor the USA, the garrison/partisan rule should reflect this. Presently that rule is universal; both sides have the same requirement. Maybe pro USA areas should have no garrison requirements for the USA, same for the CSA.
Anyway, the three region honor rule does have its attractions.
"L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace."
RE: CW Blitzkrieg
Do you really think it would have been so difficult for the union to "blitzkreig" kentucky? The south had a token force in the region. I certainly think they could have advanced as far as bowling green in the summer of '61 had they been proactively led.
Horrible leadership is what stalled any advance
Horrible leadership is what stalled any advance
RE: CW Blitzkrieg
ORIGINAL: Treefrog
I'm not sure about the three being contiguous.
I took Doc's reference to adjacent to mean either adjacent to the Union or adjacent to the Confederacy, not adjacent to each other. I like that rule.
Doc - seems like we must be the same vintage - also began with Tactics II in 1964.
RE: CW Blitzkrieg
Wow- [8D] 1958- that puts you in the first order indeed. The first 25 years of the board game hobby- pre the computer age in the late 80s- was such an inovative time. This CW game is just an amalgamation and nice update of the old board games.
Computers are useful, as the open boards were always subject to destruction, by cats and ex girlfriends- ahh those were the days- Now Without having a cat about that cpuld destroy a team game of a big game- like Drang Noche Osten that 8 of us had been playing for 6 months. damned cat. Now we have easy access and security. with computers at least we can see what is in our stacks and not worry about messing something up in an adjacent hex.
I miss looking at all the counters lined up while you did the math- "ok- ahh looks like 4 to 1- dang- I need 3 more points for a 5 to 1" ... those were the days.
We should do a battle sometime. While I'm still getting the hang of this thing- I think I can drive it well enough now. Would have to agree to a Sept 61 Kentucky invasion though. Just me- I kind of think that it changes the data stream . Anyway if that sounds interesting- let me know.
Hey somebody put some cover fire on that tree- I think I saw a sniper.
Computers are useful, as the open boards were always subject to destruction, by cats and ex girlfriends- ahh those were the days- Now Without having a cat about that cpuld destroy a team game of a big game- like Drang Noche Osten that 8 of us had been playing for 6 months. damned cat. Now we have easy access and security. with computers at least we can see what is in our stacks and not worry about messing something up in an adjacent hex.
I miss looking at all the counters lined up while you did the math- "ok- ahh looks like 4 to 1- dang- I need 3 more points for a 5 to 1" ... those were the days.
We should do a battle sometime. While I'm still getting the hang of this thing- I think I can drive it well enough now. Would have to agree to a Sept 61 Kentucky invasion though. Just me- I kind of think that it changes the data stream . Anyway if that sounds interesting- let me know.
Hey somebody put some cover fire on that tree- I think I saw a sniper.
Tell me the story of the common foot soldier, and I will tell you the story of all wars.
... Heroditus.
... Heroditus.
RE: CW Blitzkrieg
ORIGINAL: Doc o War
....
I miss looking at all the counters lined up while you did the math- "ok- ahh looks like 4 to 1- dang- I need 3 more points for a 5 to 1" ... those were the days...
It did help me in learning math. Main reason I like computer games is no rules arguments, and the FOW thing. I played games with a judge to determine when forces spotted each other (Jutland for example), but it was a pain.
RE: CW Blitzkrieg
Don't forget Unentschieden. All while we were waiting for Stalingrad II that was never made. By the way, in 1958, was that Tactics II or just the original Tactics?