American Civil War using GGWAW Engine

[Cheesehead]

That might have happened, temporarily...but how long before a reunification drive began and round 2 commenced? Regardless, if the South has to rely on political factors to win, how well does that translate into a game the magnitude of GGWaW? I haven't played it yet, but fron scanning the AARs, I don't see any considerations made for a nations political will power.

[rhondabrwn]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead
I don't understand the excitement over a strategic level ACW game. It's not like the South ever had a chance.

A victory for the south would consist of making the war too expensive for the North to continue the fight. In the 1864 Presedential election the Democrats were committed to seeking an immediate end to the conflict... even at the expense of letting the south secede. If Lincoln had lost the election then the South would have "won" the war.

That sounds reasonable to me. After all, there are a LOT of wars and battles simulated in our hobby where one side "never had a chance" to win. We adjust victory levels to reward the player who does better than his side did historically.

Personally, though I think the introduction of a "Harry Turtledove - Guns of the South" option would be interesting. Nothing like an ANV armed with AK-47's to even out the chances [;)]

I'm KIDDING! I'm KIDDING!

Seriously, I've been buying and playing strategic Civil War games for decades and I never let the inevitability of a Union Victory keep me from enjoying the simulation. By Cheesehead's logic, no one should be interested in WiTP either.

[pasternakski]

So what's your bottom line on the old Victory Games strategic rendition?

[rhondabrwn]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

So what's your bottom line on the old Victory Games strategic rendition?

I thought that it deserved the pretty high ratings that it received when it was published. When I bought it, I was pretty well emersed in business and had little time to play in those days. It is definitely a permanent "Keeper" in my collection though. However, along the same lines, I am very partial to the old SPI "War Between the States" - a monster game that I managed to play through to completion several times.

I would personally enjoy a strategic ACW game that required all contacts to be fought out on the scale of the Talonsoft Battleground series. At one time it would have been dreaming to think of having half the country available for battles, but I suspect that would be reasonable to do now by developing a battle map generator that could build any required hex grid map from generic maps and elevation data. If MS Flight Simulator can provide the entire world as a 3D environment to fly in, we should be able to generate battlefields!

Am I dreaming? Well, I remember the first Apple II computer wargames and how no one could even imagine having the kind of detailed maps and units that we take for granted today so I suspect something like this is just around the corner if someone decides to do it!

[Cheesehead]

Seriously, I've been buying and playing strategic Civil War games for decades and I never let the inevitability of a Union Victory keep me from enjoying the simulation. By Cheesehead's logic, no one should be interested in WiTP either.

I'm not interested in WitP, either. OTOH I don't mind historical games where the designer tweeks things in order to create more play balance...WiF does this considerably. But in the case of a WWII strategic game, you don't have to create a bizarro world in order to have balance like you would with ACW. I still maintain, and I haven't heard any comments to this suggestion, that an ACW strategic level game using the GGWaW system would be interesting and viable if you included European powers involved in a 19th century World War...tie in Bismarcks unification drive with the clash of British and French colonial ambitions, Habsburg hegemony in Central Europe, Russian and Ottoman-Turk enmity all interacting with America's Civil War in a global conflagration...does anyone else think this could work or am I just nuts from waiting too long for a good strategic wargame on the computer? [&:]

[VI66_slith]

I believe the South could have triumphed. First off, the South should have stayed and fought, in the south; this is the thought of many an armchair general. Moving forward, how close really were the Rebels to winning during the middle of 1863? Keep in mind that the Battle of Gettysburgh wasn't the only negative event for the Confederates at that time. Now not to forget the trappings listed above, one of the South's chief problems was a shortage of quality leaders. This was a problem throughout the entire war, but by 1863, the ANV leadership was a shadow of it's former self.

I truly believe that these situations can be duplicated within the game knowing what Matrix has done to this point, and that this will be a hell of a game.

[Raverdave]

So you are saying that the South should have fought a purely defensive war?

[Fred98]

Dave, do you have a Ford Escape?

There is a fellow from Melbourne on the Escape forums who calls himself "Rave"

And he is a former soldier............

-

[ydejin]

ORIGINAL: VI66

I believe the South could have triumphed.

I've been reading through Shelby Foote's 3 volume Civil War narrative. I'm almost done with the first volume. One of the things that really strikes me is that the Union should have completely crushed the Confederates in 1862. The Union generals on both the Western and Eastern fronts both continually overestimated the number of troops opposing them. The Confederates simply did not have sufficient troops to hold the Union back.

Albert Sidney Johnston on the Western front actively worked to deceive the Union into thinking he had far more troops than he did. For a time he was succesful. Beuaregard did the same thing at Corinth. On the Eastern front McClellan constantly overestimated the number of forces facing him (abbetted in large part by Alan Pinkerton, whose intelligence reports constantly overestimated the number of Confederate troops by a factor of three or more). McClellan should have attacked far earlier, and should have crushed Lee/Johnston at Richmond at the conclusion of his Peninsula Campaign. Only his timidity combined with poor intelligence on the small number of Confederates facing him prevented that. He withdrew, not because he had been defeated in battle, but rather because he thought he was facing three to four times more troops than he actually was.

While I am very much looking forward to this game. I don't see how a Federal player, with the foreknowledge of his overwhelming superiority, can be prevented from completely destroying the Confederate very early on. Maybe the game should have a "historically accurate" option and a "enhanced Confederacy / fun game" option.

[Cheesehead]

That's my point! An ACW game would not be fun unless you brought in the European powers and made it a 19th century world war.

Compare the Confederate States with the Axis powers in WWII. Who had the better chance of winning? By winning, I don't mean the total destruction of their enemies. I mean winning a modest portion of the goals that each side started out with.

For the CSA, that goal was independence. No additional territory, just their own country

For Germany (WWII)...living space in the east. Extending the border of Germany east out to include the Baltic States down through Minsk--Kiev and Sevastopol. I don't think the Germans would expect to retain control of France beyond Alsace-Lorraine.

For Japan, hegemony in Asia and the Western Pacific, domination and control of most of China and (most importantly) control of the Dutch East Indies, Singapore and the Philippines.

Any thoughts?

[VI66_slith]

@Raverdave

So you are saying that the South should have fought a purely defensive war?

Yes and no. I believe that the South should have assumed an overall defensive "strategy." Why? Because firstly, the Confederates were well aware of their deficit in numbers concerning manpower as well as leaders. Civil War battles were bloody affairs, and this was brutally evident early on so, therefore; invading the North and risking annihilation for an infinitesimal gain should not have been an option. Perhaps a large scale raid, with a shared objective in the destruction of enemy forces would have proved the better option.

Once on the battlefield, the weapons and tactics of the day, at least in the East, lent themselves to a defensive posture. Examine almost any battle and you will discover this for yourself. Malvern Hill is the classic example, and any day of Gettysburg. During the first day, 1 July 1863, the men of the 26th North Carolina splashed accross Willoughby Run attacking McPherson's Ridge and Meredith's "Iron Brigade", how could they have possibly known what the butchers bill would amount to that day?

@ydejin

While I am very much looking forward to this game. I don't see how a Federal player, with the foreknowledge of his overwhelming superiority, can be prevented from completely destroying the Confederate very early on.

There is always fog in a war, at that time in history there was ever more. I believe that somewhere in your post you answer your own question.

Vin

[scout1]

The South couldn't afford a defensive war, nor could they afford a long war. The North had way too many resources, industry, manpower, etc .... The one thing they didn't have (or at least didn't give the impression of having) was resolve. This was sensed by several leaders in the South. Given the apparent lack of resolve on the North's part, a few strategic victories could presumably break their will to continue the war. Breaking the will of the people in the North was the South's only hope. Attacking in the North was the only way to achieve this.

[VI66_slith]

Scout, I disagree. The will of the people in the North could have been broken either way. I think that the objectives for the invasion, especially that of 1863, were too ambitious for reasons we both have stated. I would have utilized minimum raids (in scope) for maximum gain.

Vin

[Hanal]

ORIGINAL: VI66

Scout, I disagree. The will of the people in the North could have been broken either way. I think that the objectives for the invasion, especially that of 1863, were too ambitious for reasons we both have stated. I would have utilized minimum raids (in scope) for maximum gain.

Vin

Sounds like you two are gearing up for a friendly PBEM game when GGACW hits the shelves....[:)]

[fahdiz]

I have to say I'm far more excited about the prospect of an ACW game using this engine than I am about the release of WaW.

[scout1]

Scout, I disagree. The will of the people in the North could have been broken either way. I think that the objectives for the invasion, especially that of 1863, were too ambitious for reasons we both have stated. I would have utilized minimum raids (in scope) for maximum gain.

Minimum raids would have been insufficient. The South needed to meet the Northern forces in battle on their own terms and decisively beat them. The Northern commanders, prior to Grant, were either too timid to commit (McClellan) or just play stupid (Burnside). The South could have used a couple more Fredricksburg's.

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: scout1
Minimum raids would have been insufficient. The South needed to meet the Northern forces in battle on their own terms and decisively beat them...

The South did this a number of times... Bull Run, Chancellorsville, Fredericksburg etc but the North kept coming back. In the end, decisive military victories would not win the war since it was impossible for the south to militarily destroy the USA economy. Even Early's potential occupation of Washington would not have affected the capacity of the north to fight. IMHO the only way to Confederate success was to break the North's political will so they would vote Democrat in 1864. When that didn't happen (close run though it was) it was simply a case of waiting for the Fat Lady to Sing.

So could repeated military victories by the south break the Northern political will? That's a longer conversation [:D]

[TheHellPatrol]

ORIGINAL: fahdiz

I have to say I'm far more excited about the prospect of an ACW game using this engine than I am about the release of WaW.

I'll second that, but it's a good start[:)]. WW2 is my main "theater" of gaming but the ACW and the American Revolution need to be done properly and this just may be the perfect system. To go where no "Paradox"[;)] has gone before. "Dammit' Jim, i'm a doctor not a magician!"

[scout1]

The South did this a number of times... Bull Run, Chancellorsville, Fredericksburg etc but the North kept coming back. In the end, decisive military victories would not win the war since it was impossible for the south to militarily destroy the USA economy.

This is a true statement, but the fact that is being over looked is that Bull Run, Chancellorsvile and Fredericksburg were ALL on Southern soil. Had these been
Harrisburg, Philadelephia and Columbus, the Northern people would have taken a drastically different atitude. It's one thing to support a war when it occurs in somebody else's neighborhood, completely different when it's your own and you can stop it by saying "Go ahead and be the CSA".

[ravinhood]

ORIGINAL: elmo3

If history is any example (and in this case it certainly is), you'll have six months or more to enjoy your WaW "lite beer" before the HOI2 brew is even drinkable. Paradox always sells their beer long before it's ready for consumption.

LOL ELMO well said, well said hahahahaha