House Rules?

[Doc o War]

Sorry - Had not been on the board for several days.

The House rule we are working with has several elements- mostly this effects the South- after numerous plays PBEM it seemed the Union could not make near the traction against the south as the original forces were able too- I looked at it and realized the South could always match the North Army Commander to Army Commander- yet in reality the South really only fielded three real armies,  Against steady pounding by four or five Northern Armies through the first few years of the war- eventually when the Mississippi was cut the South made a de facto army in the Trans Miss-
   By the end of the war the North was fielding 7 armies plus a large corps command that was nearly another-  By then the south was down to three shells- maybe four.
    Many forces got called armies in that war- but the true ability to supply and command control the force operationally is what we mean in this game. Most of the so called armies of the war were corps in size-  but commanding multy corps formations was a tricker thing.
    The South also was plauged with a very rigid political/ governmental command control doctrinaire issue To much micro managing from Richmond,- Once the two Theaters - East and West - were created- they did not work well together- or in unison of purpose.  And commanders did not leave their theaters- so the South has two commands- West and East- this happens as of Dec 61- Once a Theater commander is in place  he may not leave that theater to go to the other Theater. Further- each theater has one army commander assigned to it each turn- that commander must stay in that theater only- that means one other army commander is free to move to either theater- The most important part of this is  the Fourth Army commander goes permenantly to Bowie Texas in dec 61( he is free to move about pre Dec 61)- and can only be released when the Mississippi is cut- or Bowie Tx itself is attacked-
here is the cut and paste of the agreement set: So far the game is still playing out good and the Union, while given an edge- is not by any means getting to walk over the South- The South is tough.


[blockquote]
[ol][*]CSA: an AC is placed in Trans-Mississippi(in Bowie Texas) after Dec 61 shakeup, there to remaining until released. Release is by either the Trans Miss being cut/ or directly attacked in the Bowie Tx region. Release is immediate and once done is not undone. Trans Mississippi army may not cross the Mississippi. Ever,  
[*] if J Johnston is AC in Virginia when Lee arrives in Feb, Johnston would have to either be promoted TC in the East or West or relieved of command, this would more accurately reflect what happened. 
[*]1 AC is to stay in Bowie TX  The TCs stay permanently in East/ and West and each have one AC permanently attached - and that leaves one field army that can move back and forth
[*]Lee does not leave Virginia period  To Include West Virginia ( which in Southern Eyes was still part of Virginia) and any neutral or northern region north of VA
[*]Grant only comes East when he reaches 20 Command Points, he had to have significant success out West to even come East, let alone to have the freedom of command he was given.
[/ol][/blockquote]

[Doc o War]

AS too what to do about supply and builds?- I am not sure- The overall amount of supply seems a little rich- and can if played right- actually pile up to be quiet large amounts on the Northern Side-  But then again didnt the Northern Economy outproduce the South by over two to one in volume of war material produced anyway- maybe five to one in Clothing given the Mills of New England.
  The North was much more industrialized. The Infrastructure was more developed. There was three times the rail capacity- maybe more. So the Union being rich in Supply doesnt win the war- thus I dont know that a fix on the Northern Supply seems like a real big issue- though it is a bit rich.
 
The South on the other hand- can easily attain a level of self sufficiency that will be strong through the war- so that no real shortages ever happen- yet we know the Southern Armies were badly effected by supply problems. 
   But how to alter the game  regarding the supply. maybe increase the costs of building units?  Or the cost of supplying them? This is something that should be done delicately though as the game seems pretty well balanced already- even if the south never has hungry shoeless soldiers.
   Feeding the southern troops was a major problem several times during the war.

[Doc o War]

There is one change I think needs to happen- The 1000 points needed to keep Lincoln elected and the North in the war is too much.  In three recent games I came within 100 points of 1000 by Nov 1864 as the Union in head to head play- but the ability to gain the final points in time just was not possible- I think if the actual points needed were lowered to 950 or even 975 that it would make this more possible-

[GShock]

Problem of supply in itself doesn't stand... what I mean is that with those supplies not the North but the South causes problems with spawning too many soldiers AND being able to fortify every single border region which, in turn, negates the overrun capability of the North. I think your rules are outstanding and the limit to 3 CSA AC is the work of a genius mind. There's only one way to limit supply production and that happens by limiting the ability to build factories. However... rather than trying that, I would focus on limiting the actual usage of production points since this also helps tuning down the number of artillery units that is too overpowering for the North. Ultimately this also helps CSA keep some chance of actually breaking the blockade since PP are vastly used to produce ships but it has to be counterbalanced by an increased transport capacity for the North side.

Obviously, balancing these factors together requires a big effort. It's likely it will take more than a couple of games. PLEASE when you play this game post an AAR. [:)]

[Capt Cliff]

Ok ... here goes ...

1) Theater Commander must stay in there theater!! The south needs a Trans Mississippi commander, one for the Mississippi, one for Atlanta and one for the east. That's 4 ... what we got now but they just can't move from Peterburg to Memphis in the same turn. For the North I'd say one or two more, one most likely which reflects the larger army the Union fielded.
2) The South must invade Kentucky by October 61, aka historical. It prevents the South from using Kentuckey as a wall.
3) Introduce field fortification for all areas that do not have a major city. Right now you fortifiy Manassas is the same as fortifying Petersburg. No way.
4) Why is moving from Washington to Manassas a river crossing assault? The CSA never had control up to the river!
5) Some how make running past forts on a river possible, in one turn. Leader ability or what ever. Allows for capturing New Orleans historically.
6) Allow for overrun displacement. In other words a large army moves into an area with a smaller enmey force there, like Lee moving through Harpers Ferry on his way to Gettysburg. The smaller force is automatically retreated, they aren't suicidial. This simulates an explotation type move.
7) Balloons ... why not! Was going to ask for paratroops ... [8D]

Ok ... end of round one!

[Qwixt]

Excuse me for asking a newbie question, I was thinking of getting this game. Are all these house rules needed to balance an overpowered South with the North? I have been reading up on the game, and it seems like the North is never allowed to use their numerical superiority due to game mechanics hamstringing activation, movement, and overrun.

[Erik Rutins]

I think half of what you read above are design suggestions and experimental house rules rather than tested ones. It seems like a lot of PBEM players are in agreement that some additional limitations on the South may be worthwhile. I can only say that in my own PBEM experience so far, things seem pretty well balanced to the historical.

[Joel Billings]

In the one serious PBEM game I played (it's in the AAR section tm.asp?m=1731304 ), as the south I managed to barely win on points in June 1865, after Lincoln was reelected by the thinnest of margins in 1864. IIRC, I was able to hold Atlanta and keep a rail line open from Mobile to Richmond, which kept Richmond supplied and able to hold out the entire war. The game could have easily gone either way, and if you look at the map you'll see the south was a shell of it's original self. As the developer of the game, I had some advantages in terms of knowing the game system, although Jon was a very worthy opponent. I'd say that between two good players, the game may be slightly balanced towards the south, but not by much. A lot depends on the start the Union gets in the first year to 15 months of the war. A key victory in a close early battle may make all the difference, but then again, there are usually plenty of opportunities for both sides to screw things up or make things better for themselves.

[Treefrog]

To Qwixt,

My personal opinion is that the game remains playable as is, with no house rules.

These discussions would not dissuade me from buying and playing the game. I have in fact purchased the game twice for my own account (long story, I'll spare you) and I have been actively playing it to the exclusion of all others since summer 2008.

The players involved in this discussion are mostly former playtesters and, IMHO, are certainly very experienced players and bring a very high level of sophisticated analysis, both historical and simulation based, to the topic.

However, at an earlier phase of development of GGWBTS some of the commentators here developed some house rules regarding production limitation and Kentucky invasion that were ultimately incorporated in the game as a patch. This suggests that house rules may, I say only may, lead to improvements of the game.

[Qwixt]

That's a great endorsement. Been waffling back and forth between this and FoF, or just saying the heck with it and get both [:D] But I don't really want to spend that much. Read all the comparisons, so I understand the differences between the two. It's simply me deciding which I prefer, a more tactical + civ type (FoF), or a more realistic strategic simplified UI (WBTS). What I don't like about FoF, from what I have read, is that it seems a bit too ahistorical.