Balance in the 1861 Scenario

[Taxman66]

As a pure observer, the problem may be one of political pressures on strategy, or rather the lack of said pressure.

If I remember my history, most of the early confederate victories were from being on the defensive (or at least getting to the better terrain first... which I would equate to being on the defensive in this game).

If the Union is allowed to sit back and defend (excluding western theaters and amphib attacks) and just build up without consequences it will be a forgone conclusion.

The CW was not WW1 or WW2. The South was effectively on the strategic defensive for the whole war. The push to Gettysburg being perhaps the sole (major) exception and it could be argued as a bit of a desperate option to release pressure elsewhere and as an attempt to seize the initiative.

[Patrat]

I forgot if this has already been mentioned.

But it would probably help the CSA if the Richmond area was fortified by an event rather than using engineers.

To be fair, the Washington area should also be fortified by an event. However, since the Confederates are mostly on the defensive, this change would most likely benefit them more.

[PvtBenjamin]

I'll be sticking with the AI game for now. There are just too many vacant cities and too few troops (militia??) especially in the west where its harder to send units. PBEM players will send cavalry troops ridiculously all over the map, just resigned a game where I had two cavalry chasing one north as he took city after city going north, not for me. The Northern PBEM player will also manipulate amphibious units to a level I'd find annoying. Enjoy the game.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

As a pure observer, the problem may be one of political pressures on strategy, or rather the lack of said pressure.

If I remember my history, most of the early confederate victories were from being on the defensive (or at least getting to the better terrain first... which I would equate to being on the defensive in this game).

If the Union is allowed to sit back and defend (excluding western theaters and amphib attacks) and just build up without consequences it will be a forgone conclusion.

The CW was not WW1 or WW2. The South was effectively on the strategic defensive for the whole war. The push to Gettysburg being perhaps the sole (major) exception and it could be argued as a bit of a desperate option to release pressure elsewhere and as an attempt to seize the initiative.

This is an accurate assessment of the CSA's position in MP...and victory can be achieved this way (Strategic Defensive) by winning battles until the Union's FS goes in a death spiral.

It isn't easy but is achievable.

[battlevonwar]

Unique issue though is in Multiplayer the Union opponent knows this and can stalemate every front till she picks and chooses where he/she wants to make pushes. I wonder if that's the difference here. I didn't push till I had a 3 to 1 Ratio in Troops and superior leadership and technology. The South can't protect everything the North can more or less. Unless I haven't seen an expert CSA player make his moves. This would be interesting to see!

As a pure observer, the problem may be one of political pressures on strategy, or rather the lack of said pressure.

If I remember my history, most of the early confederate victories were from being on the defensive (or at least getting to the better terrain first... which I would equate to being on the defensive in this game).

If the Union is allowed to sit back and defend (excluding western theaters and amphib attacks) and just build up without consequences it will be a forgone conclusion.

The CW was not WW1 or WW2. The South was effectively on the strategic defensive for the whole war. The push to Gettysburg being perhaps the sole (major) exception and it could be argued as a bit of a desperate option to release pressure elsewhere and as an attempt to seize the initiative.

This is an accurate assessment of the CSA's position in MP...and victory can be achieved this way (Strategic Defensive) by winning battles until the Union's FS goes in a death spiral.

It isn't easy but is achievable.

[Taxman66]

Like I said a lack of political (or game mechanic other than having to be near Richmond) reason to force the North to push/attack.

[Beriand]

I didn't push till I had a 3 to 1 Ratio in Troops and superior leadership and technology.

Erm, even with total ship&marines blockade of runners (which is a small 'push' already) Union in 62' has considerably less than 2:1 industrial advantage, so adjusting for early stages, tech and navy costs... if Union sits and does nothing, while CSA also does nothing (although they should...), you will have like 1.5:1 in forces in early 1863.

[Platoonist]

Like I said a lack of political (or game mechanic other than having to be near Richmond) reason to force the North to push/attack.

WBTS had a political point system that put pressure on the Union to keep moving forward. Every turn the Union would automatically lose 27 political points.(The Confederacy 9) As the North you also lost points for drafts and announcing the Emancipation Proclamation would automatically gift the South 100 points. Victory was achieved by driving your opponent's political status to zero.

To make up for the slow bleeding of points you basically had to gain territory and win strategic victories. The larger the population/factory number of the area you captured (it was an area based game) the bigger the political points scored. So given the imbalance in point loss, time was on the Confederate side. The clock was ticking for the Union and it couldn't just afford to sit back and build out its army.

[battlevonwar]

AGEOD's Civil War 2 follows a similar path of which you can exploit, if you do not have units within a certain distance of Richmond by a certain point during 1861(Bull Run) You take a 10 point hit(many would just take the hit or casualties as the hit was pretty bad some would just weather it). . . Emancipation should really require a little more of a loss as that was a huge deal for Lincoln to make that move. Every PBEM game it's META to take it immediately. Events scripted it to force the offensive and objectives would be nice. PVP 1861 will have to be changed IMHO just how, how much, where... and when? I still am hoping to see that CSA Hotshot !

Like I said a lack of political (or game mechanic other than having to be near Richmond) reason to force the North to push/attack.

WBTS had a political point system that put pressure on the Union to keep moving forward. Every turn the Union would automatically lose 27 political points.(The Confederacy 9) As the North you also lost points for drafts and announcing the Emancipation Proclamation would automatically gift the South 100 points. Victory was achieved by driving your opponent's political status to zero.

To make up for the slow bleeding of points you basically had to gain territory and win strategic victories. The larger the population/factory number of the area you captured (it was an area based game) the bigger the political points scored. So given the imbalance in point loss, time was on the Confederate side. The clock was ticking for the Union and it couldn't just afford to sit back and build out its army.

[*Lava*]

Like I said a lack of political (or game mechanic other than having to be near Richmond) reason to force the North to push/attack.

Yep... sounds about right.

One should also consider that many of the early battles hardened the confederates into veterans (including their officer corps) and the amount of equipment, from rifles to cannon, that they recovered made up for much of their lack of industry.

Are these factors included in the game?

If playing PBEM sees a Union player form a static line and wait until they can have a massive advantage in tech, its not the kind of game I would play.

[*Lava*]

PBEM players will send cavalry troops ridiculously all over the map

In true fact, the Union should be limited in its ability to create cavalry until at least 1863. When it became apparent that the war would be a long one, they had to set up horse breeding farms, to bred suitable horses for cavalry. Up until that point the Confederates had far superior cavalry, but once the Union started pumping out quality cavalry with excellent mounts and well equipped troopers, the edge moved fairly quickly to the Union.

[Platoonist]

Like I said a lack of political (or game mechanic other than having to be near Richmond) reason to force the North to push/attack.

One should also consider that many of the early battles hardened the confederates into veterans (including their officer corps) and the amount of equipment, from rifles to cannon, that they recovered made up for much of their lack of industry.

Are these factors included in the game?

Sadly no at this point.

That was another feature of WTBS I enjoyed. The Confederate player could send out cavalry raids to capture supplies. Plus, if they won a battle that resulted in a Union retreat, there was a small chance they would get a free artillery unit from all the captured Yankee artillery left on the field.

(Actually both side could send out cavalry raids but the Confederates were better at it.)

[Platoonist]

PBEM players will send cavalry troops ridiculously all over the map

In true fact, the Union should be limited in its ability to create cavalry until at least 1863. When it became apparent that the war would be a long one, they had to set up horse breeding farms, to bred suitable horses for cavalry. Up until that point the Confederates had far superior cavalry, but once the Union started pumping out quality cavalry with excellent mounts and well equipped troopers, the edge moved fairly quickly to the Union.

I think it would be a nice nod to history if at least some Confederate cavalry units started the game with one experience pip.

[PvtBenjamin]

PBEM players will send cavalry troops ridiculously all over the map

In true fact, the Union should be limited in its ability to create cavalry until at least 1863. When it became apparent that the war would be a long one, they had to set up horse breeding farms, to bred suitable horses for cavalry. Up until that point the Confederates had far superior cavalry, but once the Union started pumping out quality cavalry with excellent mounts and well equipped troopers, the edge moved fairly quickly to the Union.

The South does start with level 2 Cavalry tactics research to reflect the superiority. That gives them 2 extra builds and 20% morale I think. Still not enough I think though.

My issue was the cavalry just captured one city after another. I'd attack and recapture and he'd just take the next city supply never went down, horses cant run forever and bullets run out. So the game just becomes game of blocking, once they get behind you you just chase them on and on.

[*Lava*]

Someone also mentioned "skirmishing tech.

As the war advanced and it became pretty obvious that waves of regiments attacking a point was catastrophic, but sides began to employ skirmishers in large amounts in battle. This is something that each side "learned" from experience.

I would say that "skirmishing tech" should be locked until there has been sufficient battles for the participants to realize that. I'm not sure how to do that but perhaps it could be based on the amount of casualties taken on the battlefield. I don't remember when the armies started using large amounts of skirmishers for battle, but I would say you are looking at 1863/1864.

[*Lava*]

The South does start with level 2 Cavalry tactics research to reflect the superiority. That gives them 2 extra builds and 20% morale I think. Still not enough I think though.

The dominance of Confederate Cavalry has nothing to do with tactics in the early phase of the war. The South was an agrarian culture which leaned heavily on having good horses. The North simply did not have adequate numbers of war horses to put together much cavalry. That is why they made huge breeding farms to make up for this deficit. If the Union is allowed to make unlimited amount of cavalry from day one, this is totally lacking in any historic basis.

As you enter into the 1863, the South began to have a shortage of good horse stock and had to use mules to move wagons. So as the South was depleting its stock of horses, the Union was gaining in predominance each day.

If I was making a Civil War game, horses would be a commodity one would have to buy, just like weapons. The difference being the investment doesn't start to pay off for one or 2 years.

And may I also add, that if the Union had not invested in breeding good horses, they wouldn't have had the ability to field the amount of artillery they had and which would soon dominate the battlefield or the logistical chain. So there are lots of reasons why horses should be looked at as a commodity to be invested in, because without that investment, even with all the high tech of the Union in 1863, without plenty of horses, they wouldn't have been able to mount any really serious offensive operations.

[Platoonist]

And may I also add, that if the Union had not invested in breeding good horses, they wouldn't have had the ability to field the amount of artillery they had and which would soon dominate the battlefield or the logistical chain. So there are lots of reasons why horses should be looked at as a commodity to be invested in, because without that investment, even with all the high tech of the Union in 1863, without plenty of horses, they wouldn't have been able to mount any really serious offensive operations.

Excellent points all. But then the only type of land artillery currently represented in the game as a singular unit is either siege or rail. No field artillery. I'm assuming at this scale along with infantry it's just part of what makes up the Corps, Divisions and Brigades.

[*Lava*]

Excellent points all. But then the only type of land artillery currently represented in the game as a singular unit is either siege or rail. No field artillery. I'm assuming at this scale along with infantry it's just part of what makes up the Corps, Divisions and Brigades.

Abstracted, of course.

Perhaps it could be added to the tech tree. With each step up, a greater amount of cavalry can be fielded. The Union put a lot of effort here, while the South made do with what they had.

As far as infantry goes, you would have a lot of horse stock to pull guns and wagons. To be honest, I don't remember if draft horses were also bred. But cavalry horses are most definitely a breed apart and bred in the thousands if not tens of thousands. My memory doesn't serve me well anymore.

[pz501]

I'll be sticking with the AI game for now. There are just too many vacant cities and too few troops (militia??) especially in the west where its harder to send units. PBEM players will send cavalry troops ridiculously all over the map, just resigned a game where I had two cavalry chasing one north as he took city after city going north, not for me. The Northern PBEM player will also manipulate amphibious units to a level I'd find annoying. Enjoy the game.

I've experienced the same type things playing other games, especially the Tiller Civil War and Napoleonic ones.

Seems to me that many people put winning at all costs rather than having fun or learning more about history above all.

I think it's a shame really, since if one is smart enough to game a system just to win, then one certainly can play "fair" (maybe a poor choice of words) and win without resorting to tricks and bending of rules.

To each their own, but I think it's better to play with people you know from the past and trust, or as you say, stick with the AI.

[Yogol]

I'll be sticking with the AI game for now. There are just too many vacant cities and too few troops (militia??) especially in the west where its harder to send units. PBEM players will send cavalry troops ridiculously all over the map, just resigned a game where I had two cavalry chasing one north as he took city after city going north, not for me. The Northern PBEM player will also manipulate amphibious units to a level I'd find annoying. Enjoy the game.

I agree 100%. You would need a lot of house rules (e.g. don't let units further than 4 hexes from a HQ, no long-range amphibian attacks, not more than 5 Union gunboats,...) before multi-player would be enjoyable for me.