Impressions

[PhilipB]

Folks,

After playing this game for over a month, in my free time, IVe decided that this game still needs work. It is un historic.
I have a few problems with it.

1) The combat response phase. I've watch untis come from several states away to join a defense. In many cases the comabatants werent sure that there was going to be a battle until maybe two or three days before it took place. In Jacksons case he was two provices away , ( in game terms), and he barely got there in time for the battle. I would limit the response to units with two provices to reflect response time as wel as movement ability.

2) Lee. The main reason Lee got involved in the war was that Virginia withdrew from the union. He was a Virginian first. He was asked according to some to go to other places, particualrly Tenna., but refused. I think limiting Lee to Virginia, WVA, the Carolinas if VA falls , Maryland , Penna, New Jersey , and New York, might bettter represent this.

3) Demographics. There was a marked difference in the populations of the two parties. I think that Catton said that there was almost a 2-1 advantage in manpower the North had, subtracting the slave population in the South increased this advantage. The game seems to have the populations at about parity. The South can match manpower with the North at just about any place on the map.

4) Resources. The south seems to be able to match the northern cannon production. After losing Western Virginia there was'nt that much iron ore to be had in the south. They only had two to three heavy industrial forges in the whole "country".
Especially after the blockade kicked in the southerners were melting down whatever they could find to produce heavy goods.

5) Weather restrictions. Winter in Alabama isnt like winter in Indiana or New York. Enough Said. A weather line set up at the N. Carolina , Tenna.,Arkansas border, or some similar locations might represent this. Movement below this line would be normal all year round.

6) Leadership. Although I like the way initiative is handled in the game, I think the north might need another leader set, ( TC and ACs), in order to properly make landings and exploit operations in the deep south and far west. I'm not too strong on this point but it might be considered.

One last point, can the matrx guys please unlock my account and send the password to my current email address; NOVA538@cox.net , not the one you seems to have on file. I have tried several times to get the account reset to no avail.

Thanks and Regards
nova538
Fairfax, Va.

[Bo Rearguard]

I really agree with the weather line idea. An army in Texas should be virtually immune from increased winter attrition results. The idea of giving the Union a 5th Army Commander at some point in the game has been brought up before. It would help the Union in the Trans-Mississippi or on the coast.

[Toby42]

I agree with all of your comments. I, too have become disallusioned with this game. And it started out so promising. It's compexity is a little overpowering also. You forget to take care of some detail or move a leader and POW! disaster....

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: PhilipB
After playing this game for over a month, in my free time, IVe decided that this game still needs work. It is un historic.[
I have a few problems with it.

Well, I guess you had a good bit of fun with it though!

1) The combat response phase. I've watch untis come from several states away to join a defense. In many cases the comabatants werent sure that there was going to be a battle until maybe two or three days before it took place. In Jacksons case he was two provices away , ( in game terms), and he barely got there in time for the battle. I would limit the response to units with two provices to reflect response time as wel as movement ability.

Since the turns are a full month long, this reflects not just the immediate reaction, but a strategic reaction to force concentrations as well. Given the movement costs in the reaction phase, only the very best commanders on each side really have a long reaction range. The vast majority can only react one or two regions.

2) Lee. The main reason Lee got involved in the war was that Virginia withdrew from the union. He was a Virginian first. He was asked according to some to go to other places, particualrly Tenna., but refused. I think limiting Lee to Virginia, WVA, the Carolinas if VA falls , Maryland , Penna, New Jersey , and New York, might bettter represent this.

I can see your point. However, do you think if Lee had been told that the Confederacy absolutely needed him elsewhere and ordered to go, that he would have resigned or gone along with it?

3) Demographics. There was a marked difference in the populations of the two parties. I think that Catton said that there was almost a 2-1 advantage in manpower the North had, subtracting the slave population in the South increased this advantage. The game seems to have the populations at about parity. The South can match manpower with the North at just about any place on the map.

The North absolutely has a manpower advantage of about 2-1. I see this in every game I play. If you're always fighting at equal strength with the Confederacy, then with all due respect you're doing something wrong. Now, having 2:1 odds does not mean you are guaranteed to win a battle, but you can certainly achieve that as the Union.

4) Resources. The south seems to be able to match the northern cannon production. After losing Western Virginia there was'nt that much iron ore to be had in the south. They only had two to three heavy industrial forges in the whole "country".
Especially after the blockade kicked in the southerners were melting down whatever they could find to produce heavy goods.

We've been discussing this as well, there may be an adjustment in a future update, but it's still being considered.

5) Weather restrictions. Winter in Alabama isnt like winter in Indiana or New York. Enough Said. A weather line set up at the N. Carolina , Tenna.,Arkansas border, or some similar locations might represent this. Movement below this line would be normal all year round.

Might be worth doing this as well, not sure how much it would take to do so, it's up to Joel and Gary.

6) Leadership. Although I like the way initiative is handled in the game, I think the north might need another leader set, ( TC and ACs), in order to properly make landings and exploit operations in the deep south and far west. I'm not too strong on this point but it might be considered.

In my experience, the North has enough with the current set. You just need to plan carefully.

One last point, can the matrx guys please unlock my account and send the password to my current email address; NOVA538@cox.net , not the one you seems to have on file. I have tried several times to get the account reset to no avail.

I have no idea what account you're talking about here.

Regards,

- Erik

[heroldje]

3) Demographics. There was a marked difference in the populations of the two parties. I think that Catton said that there was almost a 2-1 advantage in manpower the North had, subtracting the slave population in the South increased this advantage. The game seems to have the populations at about parity. The South can match manpower with the North at just about any place on the map.

I thought this at first, too. If you click on the forces screen you will clearly see thats not the case. The computer does a very good job of holding you off with much lesser forces. Turn of FOW once and you will see this in action... or conversly, play as the confederacy.

4) Resources. The south seems to be able to match the northern cannon production. After losing Western Virginia there was'nt that much iron ore to be had in the south. They only had two to three heavy industrial forges in the whole "country".
Especially after the blockade kicked in the southerners were melting down whatever they could find to produce heavy goods.

I agree to a point... but its also worth considering that perhaps if they had spent more resources on making cannon and not heavy artillery for coastal fortifications, ironclads, etc they could have made more cannon? If you try to make a game too historical you take away the players ability to make decisions, which by their very nature are not historic.

5) Weather restrictions. Winter in Alabama isnt like winter in Indiana or New York. Enough Said. A weather line set up at the N. Carolina , Tenna.,Arkansas border, or some similar locations might represent this. Movement below this line would be normal all year round.

I wouldn't include tennessee. Historically, the winter weather in tennessee during this time period was terrible. Also, the rainy season created so much mud it effectively prevented movement.

6) Leadership. Although I like the way initiative is handled in the game, I think the north might need another leader set, ( TC and ACs), in order to properly make landings and exploit operations in the deep south and far west. I'm not too strong on this point but it might be considered.

if you play with experienced people, you will not think this. historically the unions naval operations were completely unable to exploit their landings.

[PhilipB]

Eric,
 
  Thanks for the response.
  Yes I have had fun with it.  I generally like the games you guys put out.  When I get these things though, I would like to at some point be able to accomplish roughly what was done historically, and see if I can do better , not devine the varagries of a rule book.
  The Lee point I probably won't back down on.  He was asked, and did'nt.  Check Allan Nevins and Bruce Catton.
  Have I been doing something wrong? Most definatly.  What the F*%# it is, dont have a clue.
  As for the last part, my nova538 forum ID still shows an old email address.    When I ask for a password reset I generally either dont get anything,( goes to the old email ?) or get a note saying theres nothing wrong with the account. 
 
Nova538

[PhilipB]

Heroldje,
 
Good points.  I usually try the "winning" side first to get the game down.  Since I havent won yet with the Union I havent tried as the Confederacy.
 
Nova538
 
 
 

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: PhilipB
Yes I have had fun with it.  I generally like the games you guys put out.  When I get these things though, I would like to at some point be able to accomplish roughly what was done historically, and see if I can do better , not devine the varagries of a rule book.

Hm, well I've been able to achieve this, so hopefully there's still just a little learning curve to climb for you.

The Lee point I probably won't back down on.  He was asked, and did'nt.  Check Allan Nevins and Bruce Catton.

Understood, anything like this would be up to Joel or Gary though.

Have I been doing something wrong? Most definatly.  What the F*%# it is, dont have a clue.

Well, for example when it comes to your manpower as the Union and your amphib strategy, what do you do? When do you draft and how often. How do you manage your political points to keep them high enough for manpower to keep coming? Do you declare the EP and get the black population on your side?

As for the last part, my nova538 forum ID still shows an old email address.    When I ask for a password reset I generally either dont get anything,( goes to the old email ?) or get a note saying theres nothing wrong with the account. 

Ok, I'll see what I can do.

Regards,

- Erik

[wargamer123]

I have been watching this game with enthusiasm. I have viewed the other 2 major Civil War Games right now and I was disappointed in their complexity. I like it complex but not mind numbing.

As for the things mentioned here several major things to mention:
1. I thought anyway, most CSA cannons were captured initially, also CSA production should be really meek.
2. Union forces would not be larger, attrition is about disease too, but their reinforcements and clumps of troops should be DOUBLE of CSA's
3. Lee would not likely have left Virginia unless he was told it would win the war!

as for game mechanics... I cannot really comment, from what I see you can adjust complexity and GG's games are rather simply from I've experienced before. Perhaps the automation features, or too many Commanders to appoint? Anyway the tutorials only say you can chop features you don't want.

[IronWarrior]

PhillipB, your whole problem is that you've been playing the wrong side [;)].

I really like this game, and feel bad that I haven't thanked the developers before. Not saying that your issues aren't valid, but at the same time I don't want an exact simulation of the war either. I guess it's a fine line to draw between gameplay and historical accuracy. I think there's enough of both to make it a great game. Sure, there are probably things that could be improved, but unhistorical might be a bit too strong of a criticism imo.

Just wanted to throw in my thanks for this game as I don't feel they get enough praise for it.

[Doc o War]

I think you guys did an admirable job here- like all things- it takes some adjustments to make right- that is normal in this process. But a very good game.

[IronWarrior]

ORIGINAL: PhilipB

2) Lee. The main reason Lee got involved in the war was that Virginia withdrew from the union. He was a Virginian first. He was asked according to some to go to other places, particualrly Tenna., but refused. I think limiting Lee to Virginia, WVA, the Carolinas if VA falls , Maryland , Penna, New Jersey , and New York, might bettter represent this.

Forgot that I wanted to comment on this one. True statement, but I would prefer more incentives for Lee to stay in Virginia rather than limiting the players' choices. This may be a side effect of the blitz in the west, which hopefully is the issue that gets looked at. There are so many good CC's in the east that Virginia can pretty much be safely defended with a different AC, whereas Lee in the West can really help to stop some bleeding against an aggressive Union blitz. Seems like there either needs to be more incentive for Union attacks in the east, or an answer for the blitz in the west (or both)... depending on how balance is affected.

Appreciate the discussion on the blitz issue, has anyone tried a game with house rules? Am wondering how it turns out, or if it penalizes the Union too much?

[Lanconic]

Well I will weigh in as well, but Pro-game.

First and foremost, what exactly do you think you will get for a lousy 50$?
THINK about what that is. Three months subscription to WoW for example.

We are not talking about AE edition of WitP.
We are talking about a simple simulation.

Some of the critique I read I must say would upset the programmer.

Compare the game to the other civil war game.

Leader lethargy IS modeled in WbtS. Is it enough?
Compared to Aegod's effort, I would say YES.

At least Cavalry is more than simply fast infantry.

Come on guys, lets ease up a little here, it isnt a lifes work.
Its a beer and pretzel GAME.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: IronWarrior
Forgot that I wanted to comment on this one. True statement, but I would prefer more incentives for Lee to stay in Virginia rather than limiting the players' choices. This may be a side effect of the blitz in the west, which hopefully is the issue that gets looked at. There are so many good CC's in the east that Virginia can pretty much be safely defended with a different AC, whereas Lee in the West can really help to stop some bleeding against an aggressive Union blitz. Seems like there either needs to be more incentive for Union attacks in the east, or an answer for the blitz in the west (or both)... depending on how balance is affected.

Interesting discussion - any specific suggestions on creating incentives for Lee to stay near/in Virginia? It seems to me that if the Union player masses a historically large AOP in the East and threatens to use it, the CSA may feel obliged to keep Lee there. If Virginia had not been under the level of threat it was historically, could Lee have been talked into helping elsewhere? This is where we get into the what-ifs. I agree that from a philosophical standpoint, it would be better to discourage Lee's use elsewhere than to prevent it. Keep in mind I'm just discussing now, no decision of any kind has been made on this and it wouldn't be mine to make in any case.

With that said, what about a minor PP penalty (perhaps 3 points) per turn that Lee spends outside of Virginia? Another option would be a very small (perhaps 1%) chance that Lee would resign every turn he is assigned outside of Virginia _and_ a region in Virginia is taken by the Union. A very small risk, but how many players would want to take it? Another idea would be to increase Lee's mortality rating if he is fighting outside of Virginia (or the Northeast) to reflect his age and health. He did well enough staying in Virginia for the war, but if he'd been crossing the continent, fighting in other less healthy areas or through worse weather with longer marches, there's no guarantee he would have fared as well. Perhaps a combination of these or something else?

As far as encouraging the Union to keep focus on the East, I do think that the game currently does reward that in terms of what it forces the CSA to do in response and how it frees the CSA's forces for the West if the Union simply leaves a "garrison" in the East. Another option would be to say that at the end of any year where the Union did _not_ fight a "Strategic" battle in the East, it loses a certain number of PPs. Alternately, sum up the Union Forces in PA, MD, DC, VA, WV and if they aren't above a certain "garrison" level, the Union could also get a PP penalty.

Just some ideas to toss around...

By the way, while I appreciate your intention to look out for us Lanconic, don't be concerned. Constructive criticism is always welcome here and each player has things to add to the discussion that are helpful to us in terms of feedback. We don't have thin skins and we don't mind criticism, in fact we read it, discuss it and often make improvements based on it. As I noted above, a couple of the points raised are things we've already been discussing. This doesn't change the fact that I think WBTS is a fantastic game and one of Gary's best in his long career, but I've yet to find a game that couldn't be improved in some way.

Regards,

- Erik

[von Beanie]

ORIGINAL: PhilipB

Heroldje,

Good points.  I usually try the "winning" side first to get the game down.  Since I havent won yet with the Union I havent tried as the Confederacy.

Nova538

This was my situation after playing for more than a week. The south seemed way too strong. Finally, after asking some questions in this forum I realized that the North should use the drafts as often as they are available, regardless of the point penalty. This changed the game dramatically for me.

I think this needs to be emphasized in the tutorial because a newbie isn't able to determine whether the 50 point penalty is cost effective. The game isn't really winnable as the North without using every possible draft.

I was able to advance as the North without the drafts, but it was very difficult. Now when I look back at it I was just honing my efficiency with limited resources.

That said, I don't believe this game is as good as AGEOD's game in simulating the early war (mainly MO and KY), but it does a better job simulating the strategies used in the middle and end. I think it might help to tone down the artillery production on both sides, since by 1863 I am able to build whole armies of cannon if I try, and there are sometimes battles where the South can have much more cannon than the North. Although important in battle outcomes, cannon were not abundant in any battles relative to the troop numbers, and the South had to protect theirs as if they were made of gold.

[PhilipB]

Folks,
 
Raising Lees mortality , and/or tacking on PP penalties for moving Lee out of Va seems a reasonable way of dealing with that.  The Strategic battle idea could get kind of tied down in semantics, but  sounds resonable.  There should be some sort of movement in at least two of the three theaters, East West, and Coastal.
 
Nova538 

[IronWarrior]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Interesting discussion - any specific suggestions on creating incentives for Lee to stay near/in Virginia? It seems to me that if the Union player masses a historically large AOP in the East and threatens to use it, the CSA may feel obliged to keep Lee there. If Virginia had not been under the level of threat it was historically, could Lee have been talked into helping elsewhere? This is where we get into the what-ifs. I agree that from a philosophical standpoint, it would be better to discourage Lee's use elsewhere than to prevent it.

I think this is the case, but the greater threat is usually in the west. I still don't like the idea of limiting a players' options and forcing predictablility. I can stomach a what-if of Lee going west more than having Lee sitting idle with a group of excellent CC's because he was forced there by game mechanics. I think that if the push in the west is slowed down to more historical levels, as being discussed in that thread, that in itself should give some incentive for Lee to stay put.

The tougher question is how to slow the blitz in the west without over-penalizing the Union player. There's some good suggestions in that thread, my suggestion would be to raise the pp cost and chance that Kentucky goes to the other side. I trust that those who know the math and numbers better than I do will figure it out though.

[Frido1207]

ORIGINAL: IronWarrior
I still don't like the idea of limiting a players' options and forcing predictablility.

I totally second that.
If there will be changes to a more historical "correctness", i would like prefer them as optional.

As a sidenote, not related to the discussion above:
Concerning the Random Leader Option:
I find this concept very interessting concerning "what if" scenarios & the replayability of the game.
But i want to ask, if it would be possible, not only to randomize the Leaders values, but also their names?
Tbh, if there is a Leader "called" Grant or Lee for example, then i expect good values, because of their historical performance, & i´m always a bit disappopinted, when they doesn´t fit my expectations. I know, this wouldn´t be the case, if they were called Smith or Jones for example.
I´m struggeling a bit to explain what i mean, due to my poor english, but i hope that there will be someone, who understand my thought.
Would be interessting for me, to know, what others are thinking about this.

-th-

[John Neal]

ORIGINAL: th1207

ORIGINAL: IronWarrior
I still don't like the idea of limiting a players' options and forcing predictablility.

I totally second that....

I'll third it.

[heroldje]

I'll fourth it.
 
I have always thought, however, there should be a PP penalty for not keeping a large number of troops in or around washington.  That was a non-negotiable handicap northern generals had imposed on them. 
 
I think the best way to prevent the blitzkrieg in the west would be to require a full turn of occupation of a territory before it can be used for supply (maybe two for more remote regions?).  Managing supply was a HUGE obstacle in the west, that I don't feel is modeled well at all.  Also, a successful raid would force the union player to redo this "supply management occupation".  That way if you try to advance to rapidly into kentucky, or beyond, your units will be extremely vulnerable and out of supply.  (although it would still be possible to launch an offensive leaving your wagons behind)