Garibaldi in 1.03

[BiteNibbleChomp]

G'day everyone,
A while back (1.01 or 1.02, not sure?) the general feeling around the Garibaldi event was that the Union should always accept the offer of support from our Italian friend.
I'm starting to look at potential changes to make in 1.04, and Garibaldi is something I definitely want to take another look at, so I figured now is a good time to raise this topic again.
How is everyone finding Garibaldi in 1.03 - too strong, not enough? Please share your thoughts below

- BNC

[Beriand]

Well, the only reason to hold back from Italian terminator would be increased risk of European intervention I was not employing Garibaldi in recent games because was not sure about CSA garrisoning ports and trying to get Europe into the war, with this recent 1.03 possibility to disband forts... but after examining events, it looks meh. I think that it is still always safe to make him an army general, and if CSA do not have France as sponsor, even commanding general. European mobilisation should be at most around 50%, and this is without getting any port by amphibs, in the mid 1862 (after denouncing)? Then Union still have options for making amphibious landing at any of multiple locations, and also emergency diplomatic mission.

One problem is that emancipation proclamation resets to 0 initial support from not selling cotton, so they lose this starting 10+%... the other is this unnecessary Italian convoy, 25-60 MPPs for rich Union, ouh. And there is still March on Rome events, which are absurdly RNG-heavy, who likes that

Obviously it is better now than before, as Garibaldi has less starting experience, and immediate hyper-offensive potential of Union is not so great (diminished MPPs disparity), so when Union should start rolling with offensives, it is anyway close to better generals from production queue, even to Sherman.

So, I think if one gets Garibaldi, but has no idea how to manage Europeans mobilisation, there is some risk of intervention in late 1862, and thus losing the game. But if a player knows what he is doing, doubt it is even close.

[Soulcollector]

I think the choice to take Garibaldi should be riskier (?) for the Union. Maybe some other events (Trent incident) can now push british mobilization 10-15% and others 5-8%. Or when the Union takes Garibaldi then the CSA chances for diplo are pushed from 3 to 5% per chit investetd.

[Edorf]

I’m not really sure why this Garibaldi is even in the game or why it is important? *



* as he never fought in the war

[Soulcollector]

I’m not really sure why this Garibaldi is even in the game or why it is important? *



* as he never fought in the war

This is one of that nice "what if" scenarios. Like spain in WW2. I really like the idea, but like all these things there should be consequences.

[YueJin]

He's absolutely an auto take for me in multiplayer at the moment and in my opinion it's worth making him commanding general and backing the march on Rome as well. The benefits are massive and unique whilst the downsides can largely by negated by just raiding a weak target at Norfolk, Pensacola, Jacksonville, Elizabeth City, Georgetown, Wilmington ect. Maybe reducing the amount of European mobilization lost at the fall of these easy targets would make backing Garibaldi all the way a riskier proposition.

[petrosian]

I don't believe he should be in the game. Perhaps as an optional scenario. Like having a WWII game and giving the Germans Jet aircraft at the beginning.

[Pocus]

Too much, systematic impact for me, from a what-if event. It's abnormal to get a general better than Grant as routinely as it happens.

As for the actual implementation, my belief was that if you accepted him, even as a 'mere' general, you lost a lot in FS and foreign intervention, but it seems that this is too mild. There should be a large reward for saying no.
Overall, not sure why the Union gets this freebie in the end. I would have preferred a chain of what-if to the benefit of the South, not North.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

Just out of pure sportsmanship I wouldn't chose Garibaldi in a MP match if playing Union.
I like 'what ifs' also but the benefits to having him even with the latest patch nerf seem to out weigh any negatives ...at least as things stand now.

Just my humble opinion..but perhaps for balance reasons more tweaking is needed.

I personally don't have any ideas. I like 'fair is fair', and having the Italian Stallion in command of the Union army doesn't seem fair as the ramifications and risks of choosing to have him still seems weak.

Anyways...was he really that brilliant of a general?
Heck he was fighting low rent Austrian and Neopolitan forces for gosh sakes. Or was his genius in whipping up low-rent Sardinian and other Italian factions into something resembling an Army...which the Union would need in the beginning of this war I guess.
Well...since the Garibaldi DEC is in the game... I'm glad this topic was brought up again. I think it needs some fixingz

[Soulcollector]

Anyways...was he really that brilliant of a general?
Heck he was fighting low rent Austrian and Neopolitan forces for gosh sakes. Or was his genius in whipping up low-rent Sardinian and other Italian factions into something resembling an Army...which the Union would need in the beginning of this war I guess.
Well...since the Garibaldi DEC is in the game... I'm glad this topic was brought up again. I think it needs some fixingz

Well, at least he was very erperienced. He faught in multiple wars so he probably was ahead compared to most (especially Union) generals in the US. Maybe he should be nerved by 1 or even 2 points (so he would be as good as Grant and not that op) but then maybe with 1 more experience point?
The ACW was a totally different to older wars, maybe the first "modern" war in history, so even an experienced general had to learn new tactics.

[eightroomofelixir]

Well, at least he was very erperienced. He faught in multiple wars so he probably was ahead compared to most (especially Union) generals in the US. Maybe he should be nerved by 1 or even 2 points (so he would be as good as Grant and not that op) but then maybe with 1 more experience point?
The ACW was a totally different to older wars, maybe the first "modern" war in history, so even an experienced general had to learn new tactics.

Garibaldi was indeed an experienced fighter at the time, but he had never commanded more than 20000-25000 men in his entire life, either before or after ACW. This means he would be a decent Division/Corps-level commander, but he did not have any experience as an Army-level commander similar to the "Commander"/"Leader" units in the game. Not to say that a Corps-level commander and an Army-level commander requires different skillsets.

Basically by allowing him to show up as a Commander unit, the game offers Garibaldi a generous promotion. The only other general who received such a generous promotion in the game is Grant, but unlike Garibaldi, Grant later proved to be a decent Army commander.

I would suggest that the event should only provide the Union with a couple of experienced Divisions that bore the name of Garibaldi.

[Soulcollector]

Well he may never commanded more than 25000 men. But neither did any of the US generals before the war! They all had to evolve in skill during the war. These number of troops were not seen since Napoleon about 50 years ago on another continent.

So I would agree that he may not be commanding general. But a commander like others, lets say Reynolds or Hancock? I think that sounds plausible.

I think the biggest problem with Garibaldi is, he evens out the only real weakness of the Union, the lack of good leaders. So there should be something to give the CSA a little push. Imho the one thing that now is more ore less useless in the game is diplomacy. Maybe there is a solution to bring those things together.

[Mithrilotter]

In alpha, I choose him once and realized that it immediately cost me Kentucky. Kentucky is very valuable to me as Union. I felt that losing Kentucky was a terrible mistake and not worth any good general. I reloaded my game and didn't choose him.

President Lincoln recognized the importance of Kentucky when, in a September 1861 letter to Orville Browning, he had written:
I think to lose Kentucky is nearly the same as to lose the whole game. Kentucky gone, we cannot hold Missouri, nor Maryland. These all against us, and the job on our hands is too large for us. We would as well consent to separation at once, including the surrender of this capitol.

So what I am missing?

[OldCrowBalthazor]

I remember in Beta folks were using Garibaldi to steam roll over Virginia, at least in MP tests. Your right about the chances of losing Kentucky was a possibility but the Ohio River is a barrier and the CSA just couldn't exploit the situation early on while getting clobbered. At least that was then. It had turned into the 'default' choice for a lot of folks when playing Union.

[YueJin]

Losing Kentucky is pretty unlucky in most cases requiring a very high roll on the 5-30% shift. Most of the time it will also need a CSA diplo chit to hit, a very rare occurrence. If you don't invade Missouri it will never happen so you can just avoid that if you're worried about it, opening up that front early isn't really that beneficial to the Union anyway unless you really want to get a division to New Mexico quickly.

Even if Kentucky does flip CSA it doesn't make too much of a difference as long as you take St. Louis and Frankfurt quickly. The worse supply can be annoying but it's not a dealbreaker.

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

Legend here, just awoke from surgery, made it.
Eating my 20th popsicle (takes act Congress to get more). *the secret, ask anyone who walks in or by for 3 of them.

Now I'm in the Forum. Here's my take. I have no clue who this Garibaldi is, *%^& Garibaldi. Far as I know he's a European Grand Prix racer or a flavor of sherbert (that I'd take). I don't like Euros in our Family fight.

The Euros did not help anybody. One shipyard or few trades are meaningless. The Murmansk (reverse) Convoy wasn't happening & was needed. Europeans were BLUFFING, all b.s.

Think, before you type...use your own military brain . Europe was bluffing.
First, how could Euros support significant ground across the Atlantic in 1863. Impossible to feed them. Okay, then you say Naval Support. The British sure wasn't supporting D.C, who they lost to, twice. By supporting the South, that's even dumber. The South is losing, why go in with a Loser. Resources need in Europe. Even more importantly, by supporting Rebels, that sends red flag to all their other conquests, that rebellion is good. Dumb. They would be supporting Negroe Slavery. That's bad. Since Euros were getting out of the slave business.

The Europeans had their own problems (read books). Risk/Reward factor not worth it. The Globe was wide open for trade, better investments to be had. And easy pickings of weak nations that could be judged for being backwards.

Use your brain, how is Garibaldi an automatic 7 or 8 in military General. If he was some Julius Caesar, i would have heard of him. Maybe he was good, in Europe, but like UFC upcomers, they fight alot of bums. The Germans were overrated, blitzkrieg against sleeping farmers not impressive. RAF ate their lunch in BoB. Overrated. Dont even know Mr. Spaghetti, but did he have the Meat-Balls for Pittsburgh landing. You think there might be some discord with Yankees being led by Euro or other (upcoming) Leaders. I do. Italians hadn't even come to the Land of the Free until industrial revolution they were seen as a lower class of Euro. WASPs were in charge of the early thinking, not Catholics.

For those who like hypotheticals, get real. If your Aunt had a ..........

Conclusion: change the victory conditions to a point system, get rid of Euros and Fighting Spirit. Fighting Spirit dumb. The South fought even better when they were down & out. Point system shows margin of victory. Good grief, make an Army Counter !!!!! The South is helpless in the Super Walmart Costco parking lot battle of Virginia.

My favorite casino game, poker. Bluff the Bluffer is a power move. Next, sports parlays. Just need to get hot for 3 games, and toss in underdogs on the ML. Dice, Craps, it has 6% vigor, which is not good. Press 3 times, only. Try to break even and score comps.

-Legend

[BiteNibbleChomp]

Thanks everyone. I've got a few event ideas in the works that should address the concerns you've all raised

For those wondering, Garibaldi is in the game because I like what-if events, and Garibaldi's offer to join the fight is one of the more interesting Civil War stories I've come across. Nothing more to it than that.

- BNC

[mdsmall]

Opinions seem to vary sharply on whether this what-if event should be in the game. What about adding "include Garibaldi?" to the list of decision events (DE 1000 - 1005) that players can decide to enable or disable at the beginning of the game. That way players in MP can decide at the beginning whether this is an option the Union should be able to explore in the game.

I like what-ifs too, but it does seem odd to have this one hard-wired into the standard game, but not to have included any what-ifs around the Election of 1864 - given that the election actually happened, while Garibaldi stayed in Italy.

[GraftMalt]

Remove Garibaldi and add the Siamese Battle Elephants for the Union instead (yes they were offered to Lincoln)

[go_rascals]

Remove Garibaldi and add the Siamese Battle Elephants for the Union instead (yes they were offered to Lincoln)

Hmmm...do I build an ironclad or invest in Elephant Tech?