Am I the only one....

[jimkehn]

....who thinks the North is ahistorically overpowered?? I can't back it up with numbers, but it feels like the manpower is way too high, and the leader ratings are higher than they should be at least early in the war. Has anyone been able to pull off a Gettysburg or Antietam incursion agains the Normal AI? I sure haven't, and don't see how it could be done

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: JimKehn

....who thinks the North is ahistorically overpowered?? I can't back it up with numbers, but it feels like the manpower is way too high, and the leader ratings are higher than they should be at least early in the war. Has anyone been able to pull off a Gettysburg or Antietam incursion agains the Normal AI? I sure haven't, and don't see how it could be done

Playing the Confederacy, I haven't been able to succeed in anything aggressive against the AI.

[paullus99]

I've been able to goad the AI into certain traps (Nashville makes an excellent pocket - then cut the attackers from a more heavily defended Clarksville) - but my offensives have been few and far between. Especially in the East, there is very little to be gained from advancing past Harpers Ferry or Frederick, as the AI is able to marshall plenty of reserves to make further progress very cost prohibitive (and always having to keep an eye over my shoulder at Ft. Monroe ties down plenty of reserves).

As the Confederacy, you can't afford to undertake the kind of Grant-style grinding assaults that result in 10,000+ losses (even if you win).

[wargamer123]

AI you can beat up all day long if you just watch where he's coming. He is predictable. As far as I can tell the AI is made to only attack where it has a certain percentage to win and that is rare good for you!

A human opponent requires that the CSA does not make the first move, rather reacts to the Union move and then perhaps follows it up with a KO blow. That is the best you can usually do, that or attack weakly defended pockets because the Union is overstretched taking too much at once.

[Erik Rutins]

In my experience, the game's overall balance is about right. The main divergences come from differences in play rather than problems in the game model, from what I've seen.

[Capt Cliff]

ORIGINAL: wargamer123

AI you can beat up all day long if you just watch where he's coming. He is predictable. As far as I can tell the AI is made to only attack where it has a certain percentage to win and that is rare good for you!

A human opponent requires that the CSA does not make the first move, rather reacts to the Union move and then perhaps follows it up with a KO blow. That is the best you can usually do, that or attack weakly defended pockets because the Union is overstretched taking too much at once.

Then your playing a strict defensive campaign!? That goes against the best defense is an offense philosophy, the Napoleonic philosophy, that the the officer corp on both sides were taught at West Point. If Lee had not gone to Gettysburg perhaps McCellan would have ebeen elected president. With the extra troops maybe Lee would have done to Grant in the Wilderness what he did to Hooker. Both sides were aggressive.

[Doc o War]

Human opponets are unpredictable- it really changes the dynamics.

[wargamer123]

that's true Cliff,

there are instances where taking the initiative ends well, and there instances, i.e. Waterloo when it goes real sour real fast. Even the entire Russian Campaign for Napoleonic Wars, just let the opponent in, wait till he wins a few victories, surround him then spring and trap and cut of his head which should've happened to Lee at Gettysburg

or many other cases like Santa Ana or Germans at Stalingrad...conceding in face of a Tiger when you're a Bobcat isn't bad if you you can stick him in the butt with a knife

[Jutland13]

The game plays well as is. I think the biggest remaining issues to resolve are overrruns Kentucky situation and 1st turn Union Naval restrictions. There may be a few others, but those ones come most to mind. When house rules to deal with these are used, the game become very balanced and challenging for both sides.

[GShock]

Be patient, i said. [:)]

[jimkehn]

So....as initiator of this thread, I now have a comment after having played up to Mar 1863. Having learned lots of things about this game during this scenario, I have to say that I was wrong about one thing. I don't think the North has an ahistorical numerical advantage. In looking at the national troops page, they do have a big advantage, but this is not ahistorical. What gave me this notion, was my improper use of Cavalry, and throwing all my strength in the front lines (as CSA) to defend. What I have learned is, that Scouting is of utmost importance. As is the use of reserves. High quality reserves. Jackson, Early, Ewell, Beauregard, Kirby Smith, etc., led by AC Joe Johnston, has time and again thrown back the onslaught of the likes of W.T. Sherman in the east, simply by keeping hidden and moved forward at the appropriate times to reinforce. (Isn't this what they really did in the real war? Shenendoah Valley comes to mind) Same with Van Dorn, Pemberton, etc., led by AC James Longstreet. It is now Mar 1863, and even after making serious, even very serious errors in 1861, the North's VP's are under 700 and mine are over 900. I know that come spring, the North will regain mobility and go on the offensive. My supply situation is horrible at present, but he has a lot of VP's to catch up on. While this game may not be as "pretty" as a couple other games on the subject I own, It definitely has the right feel to it, and takes into account proper tactics.

Thanks to 2by3 and Matrix for a game that I will enjoy for years to come.

[Doc o War]

[:D]more and better things are on the horizon- stay tuned, many questions will be answered.
 
sorry for being obtuse but the folks who make this game are busy making it even better- they are listening to the players and are players themselves- things are brewing that are likely to please us all. This is going to be one very good game to be part of in the future- I imagine by this time next year this will be a pretty clear masterpiece. Just an opinion but this game has a lot going on and the potential is has demonstrated and the changes it may envoke will be really interesting.

[tran505]

Can you attach as the South -- yes you can! While two or three assualts on Washington all ended in failure, I did take all of the rest of Maryland (including Baltimore), Gettysburg, Pittsburg and parts of West Virginia. I had a shot at cutting the North in two by pushing to the Great Lakes, but didn't think it was worth the risk of getting cut off. This was against the AI on the Normal setting.

If I understand things right, the next patch will include some incentive for being more aggressive as the South. Success as I mentioned above should be a quick game-ender. No need to drag it out until '65.

- P

[Adam Parker]

ORIGINAL: JimKehn

Thanks to 2by3 and Matrix for a game that I will enjoy for years to come.

Jim great post and a very convincing one towards finally buying a PC wargame.

Tell me honestly: For a guy who is finding Forge of Freedom to complex to bother with and no longer has the paitience to learn his War in the Pacific or even Advanced Squad Leader (again), I've even found World at War 2 too fiddly to grasp, how easy is this game to get under the belt?

Thanks,
Adam.

[jimkehn]

  Adam Parker. Now, there is a name that goes back a ways!!!! HPS and Panzer Campaigns???  Battle of the Bulge guy??
 
  Adam, the game is not that hard if you put some effort into learning it. It is probably on a par with World at War......maybe a little tougher. It sure seems to be worth the effort, though. This is not "A House Divided"....if you remember that board game. And it is definitely not Axis and Allies-Civil War Edition. I like the feel of this game compared to FoF. I also like the feel of the game compared to AGEOD's AACW. AGEOD's game is good and the graphics are gorgeous.......but this game gives the right feel for operational areas and unit scales. Plus the tactical aspects of the game. The scouting rules, the army commanders, the way the Corps command works, the commander activation plus the unit Attack and Defense modifiers given by the commanders all seem to work in harmony to make a playable, yet plausible recreation of history. It is a good combination of small, yet detailed simulation of the American Civil War. Adam, this is not WitP. But if you thought WaW was too much......then I dunno what to tell you. This game is much like WaW, but set in the American Civil War. I also think it is  a lot more realistic than WaW. If you have the change to spend, it is definitely worth it. It will take some time to learn the nuances of it, but if you do.....you will find it gratifying. I promise. 

[Adam Parker]

[:D] And my gaming tastes have refined (aka grown grey hairs out of frustration!) a little too since those heady days of the 90's and 00's!
 
Thanks for that feedback Jim. Just what I was looking for.
 
Kind regards,
Adam.

[GShock]

Adam...wbts is a great game. It's very easy to learn but very very complex to master..i think it's the game that is most likely tricking people into thinking it's easy while it's not. [:)]

 Like all the games you already have it's flawed, but i think we've worked hard enough to show improvement in this field. If you checked the changelog you would see most of the fixes are coming from user-related issues and proposals. [:)]

FoF is complex, i agree, but not that complex and i judge the 2 on the same scale of complexity while AACW is just a bit more micromanagement with STILL the same complexity (so u know what my vision of the word complexity is).