Suggested Changes

[kennonlightfoot]

It looks like the game may need three adjustments but it is to soon to say they are needed to give balance since I don't have enough experience with the game yet. They just work in a questionable manner and highly favor the Union (or attacker) side.

1. The Repair feature allows the Union to repair railroads, both damage levels, in one turn and then use the railroads for strategic movement. I think they should have made it take two turns or at least not allow them to be used in the same turn of repair. It reduces Rebel raids to uselessness. The Union can usually afford the supply points to rebuild railroads as fast as they are destroyed.

2. The game allows the player to destroy infrastructure (RR, Factories, Resources) on the same move as entering the region. A defending force doesn't prevent this even it is much larger than the attacker. The only requirement is that the attacker have units with unused movement points. This allows even suicide attacks to destroy a region. For example I entered Richmond with two cavalry units and used their excess movement to destroy two factories there. They should require the region to be under player control before movement points can be expended to destroy.

3. The Overrun allows the moving player to test a region before committing. They can move a force in then check to see if it can overrun. If not they can move more and repeat until they find the overrun quantity needed or run out of troops. Then if it is requiring to many they can cancel all the moves and try somewhere else. Kind of defeats the idea of FOW. I think they should change the "button" to only indicate its possible to attempt but not whether it is going to work. If they click it then the forces used are committed and can't be undone. This will be a touchy one to change because on one hand small garrisons shouldn't block large armies but on the other hand small forces shouldn't be able to test 5-6 regions to see if they have enough to do the overrun in one of them.

[Joel Billings]

1. We might look into reducing capacity on the turn of repair more than we currently are (in WaW there was a slight decrease and I think we're doing the same in WBTS).

2. That sounds like a bug to me. At least we didn't intend it to work that way and players should refrain from doing that.

3. That would be a major balance change which we might look at when we look at making a major game change patch (not for at least a few months). Even then, I'm not sure if I like it or not and would want to hear from the community about this one.

[Doc o War]

All three are solid ideas, I agree that without more time in the damaged railroad box- the Union can repair rails with ease- a cost naturally- but it doesnt really phase them much.
    Grant in 1862 had to pull his entire army back away from Vicksburg because the Reb Cav destroyed his railheads behind th earmy at Holly Springs and it took months to repair the damage.
     I had no idea about the zip in and destroy infrastructure routine- that should certainly not be allowed if you do not control the region. That is a programming issue.
     And again another person seeing something amiss with the Overrun issue- I realize a major rules change isnt going to happen until after the Fall as the team is on a new project- but especially the overrun of neutral regions- seems to need something? - and as this player points out- while we have fog of war- it is defeated by this button that tells us if we have enough troops to overrun the region or not. A very handy thing to use if you want to check out a region for conquest. Better than scouting.

[IronWarrior]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

3. That would be a major balance change which we might look at when we look at making a major game change patch (not for at least a few months). Even then, I'm not sure if I like it or not and would want to hear from the community about this one.

Joel,

Can you expand on what you don't like about this?

I'll add a +1 to kwhitehead's suggestion from me. I would even advocate stronger rules on overruns tbh.

[kennonlightfoot]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

1. We might look into reducing capacity on the turn of repair more than we currently are (in WaW there was a slight decrease and I think we're doing the same in WBTS).

2. That sounds like a bug to me. At least we didn't intend it to work that way and players should refrain from doing that.

3. That would be a major balance change which we might look at when we look at making a major game change patch (not for at least a few months). Even then, I'm not sure if I like it or not and would want to hear from the community about this one.

I'll have to check on any capacity reduction on #1 but the rules don't indicate there is any. Since you can repair to 100% during your movement turn it allows you to repair and use the newly repaired railroads for transportation. I've used this to move units into an overrun region using strategic movement.

Glad to hear it's a bug. I am already becoming concerned that the balance in this game is off in favor of the Union and item 2 gives the Union a real plus.

I can see how #3 is going to be difficult to fix but I do think it needs fixing in some way. Right now a large group that gets initiative can almost take out a state in a single turn if they can gets past the first line of blockers. The CSA seldom has enough units to put two in every region that doesn't have militia generations. Sheridan just tests for them, overruns, and Union moves infantry to hold. A good example is what I did with Grant in an 1863 attack. Grant had a large army, some 100,000, plus Sheridan in Corinth. The main Rebel army was in Decatur with blocking groups in Steele Bayou, Grenada and Tupelo. Even though Tupelo had 10,000 men Grant just overran it. Then I used the remaining Leader groups not needed for that overrun to overrun Jackson and Meridan. Sheridan then charged in even deeper to take Natches. An amphibious attack was made against Vicksburg since it was now cut off. Almost all of Mississippi fell in one turn. What allowed this was that I could test the regions for overrun before I had to commit. This allowed me to find the paths of least resistance (and committment of my forces). It's a deadly tactic in areas with many regions that generate no or only one militia.

[herwin]

Wonderful... Soviet Military Doctrine applied to the American Civil War. Sheridan is assigned the OMG, and Grant manages the front attack, reinforcing success. The Soviets didn't have the command and control assets to make it work in the Cold War, so I doubt Grant had them in 1863.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: kwhitehead
I can see how #3 is going to be difficult to fix but I do think it needs fixing in some way. Right now a large group that gets initiative can almost take out a state in a single turn if they can gets past the first line of blockers. The CSA seldom has enough units to put two in every region that doesn't have militia generations. Sheridan just tests for them, overruns, and Union moves infantry to hold. A good example is what I did with Grant in an 1863 attack. Grant had a large army, some 100,000, plus Sheridan in Corinth. The main Rebel army was in Decatur with blocking groups in Steele Bayou, Grenada and Tupelo. Even though Tupelo had 10,000 men Grant just overran it. Then I used the remaining Leader groups not needed for that overrun to overrun Jackson and Meridan. Sheridan then charged in even deeper to take Natches. An amphibious attack was made against Vicksburg since it was now cut off. Almost all of Mississippi fell in one turn. What allowed this was that I could test the regions for overrun before I had to commit. This allowed me to find the paths of least resistance (and committment of my forces). It's a deadly tactic in areas with many regions that generate no or only one militia.

No insult to you or your opponent intended, but judging from your screenshots in the AAR, this is due to a lack of competence on the part of your opponent. Your opponent is not building forts in his front-line regions, and this makes them much more susceptible to being overrun. He's probably neglecting his production of supply and building too much artillery - a typical mistake by many new players. Using Admin 6, or Engineer leaders, you can build about 2.5 forts for every field artillery unit, and they will protect your forces better. If he's put any force into Steele Bayou, holding the line you explained, then those are units wasted, as it is barely traversable swamp (need a cavalry leader with initiative to move in, or out of it). In short, it is his litany of mistakes that are the problem here, and not the game engine.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
No insult to you or your opponent intended, but judging from your screenshots in the AAR, this is due to a lack of competence on the part of your opponent. Your opponent is not building forts in his front-line regions, and this makes them much more susceptible to being overrun. He's probably neglecting his production of supply and building too much artillery - a typical mistake by many new players. Using Admin 6, or Engineer leaders, you can build about 2.5 forts for every field artillery unit, and they will protect your forces better. If he's put any force into Steele Bayou, holding the line you explained, then those are units wasted, as it is barely traversable swamp (need a cavalry leader with initiative to move in, or out of it). In short, it is his litany of mistakes that are the problem here, and not the game engine.

I have to agree with this - in my experience, it's definitely possible for a Human Southern player to make this strategy effectively impossible for the North.

With that said, I do like the suggestions overall and I do think that making overruns harder and forts a bit more expensive would probably be a good thing, but all that remains to be seen and would certainly be a big change.

[kennonlightfoot]

While my opponent didn't use the best defense since it was the first time I had used the tactic I disagree as to how easy it is to defend against.  Granted fortification are the best defense against overruns but the South in 1863 seldom has excess supply to spend on making them nor sufficient Admin Leaders to use that as part of a mobile defense.
The power of the strategy is Grant with an army of 100,000+ in Corinth can treaten four regions with overrun and in Tupelo can treaten five.  The South is in no position to fortify so many or garrsion them sufficiently to stop such an army.  Since Grant can test each adjacent region to see if one can be overrun by his army all have to be defended.  If he find one he can overrun it then use a commander like Sheridan to go searching for an even deeper region to overrun and so on.  I have made three region penatration this way.  There is always one weak link in the initial chain.
I am not for major changes to the game and overrun itself unless the game actually need balancing.  What I am for is stopping the player from being able to test regions to find the weakest link before commiting their forces to the overrun.

[Erik Rutins]

You should try this against an experienced player like James. I believe he's looking for more PBEM opponents. If you can pull off this strategy against him, then I'll agree. With that said, I do think it wouldn't be a bad thing to make overruns a bit harder and have fewer forts, but my present opinion is that the game itself is generally fine balance-wise and that this strategy is not a successful one against an experienced CSA defender.

[herwin]

I have no difficulty fortifying the south in 1862-63, but I build some factories in Georgia, aim at 20-25 heavy artillery units, and limit my building of light artillery.

[kennonlightfoot]

ORIGINAL: herwin

I have no difficulty fortifying the south in 1862-63, but I build some factories in Georgia, aim at 20-25 heavy artillery units, and limit my building of light artillery.

Interesting idea on Factories. I haven't tried to see what the affect of building them would be. As to artillery I usually do the opposite. I haven't found the heavy artillery that effective except at river defense. Coastal defense takes to many and I lack leaders able to use them. Plus they are automatically lost if they have to retreat and can't move to react.

[kennonlightfoot]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

You should try this against an experienced player like James. I believe he's looking for more PBEM opponents. If you can pull off this strategy against him, then I'll agree. With that said, I do think it wouldn't be a bad thing to make overruns a bit harder and have fewer forts, but my present opinion is that the game itself is generally fine balance-wise and that this strategy is not a successful one against an experienced CSA defender.

I hope to try some other opponents here soon. First got to get some on going games finished so I have enough time. The only problem with testing the strategy is it only comes into play in mid game. 1861 seems to set the pace of the game and is very luck oriented.

[XLegion]

I would caution the designers on limiting Union rail repair. The Union railroad under Haupt was very efficient indeed. I have read cases where Confederate raiders destroyed track and Union repair crews had the line repaired in 3 hours!!!

With monthly turns, the confederates ability to destroy track to any appreciable degree was negligible. Burning up supplies that are needed for other things is the way to go and I support Gary's design decision here totally.

[kennonlightfoot]

There are good examples for both sides of the railroad question.  I have less of a problem with them being able to repair track destroyed by raids than with there ability to move into a new region, conquer it by overrun, and imitiately have the rail system back in operation if the South had destroyed it anticipating the invasion.  While the Union engineers were good, Southern railroads used a different gauge and weren't immediately available.
 
Also movements like Grant's original plan to take Vicksburg by following the railroad south to Jackson then taking from it the rear can't be stopped by a simple raid by Wheeler and Forrest (I believe) as was done.
 
However, it a change that probably should wait until the game balance is better understood.  If the Union is winning to much this would be a good place to adjust things.

[XLegion]

The rail repair capacity for the north brings up the subject of Southern Rails in general. As mentioned, Southern Rail roads were of a different gauge than the north and not only that, non standard sizes depending on the state.

This brings up the troop movement capacity for the south, which I think is grossly over rated. I think the board war game 'For the People' had it more in accordance with history. In that game in order for the south to move troops they had to use nearly all of their rail capacity to move very few units. Historically the Confederates were only able to move quantities of troops on only two occasions during the war. During the First Manassas Campaign where they only had to move brigade sized units and later on for the Chickamauga Campaign where they moved two divisions. But even the latter move was done at a prodigious amount of effort and was never repeated.

In the game however, I see units utilize Rail movement over huge distances and arrive in time for tactical battles. I'm an old Southerner at heart, but I still would like to see Southern Rail Capability reflect closer to what it actually was rather than the liberal interpretation in the game.