American Civil War using GGWAW Engine

[ravinhood]

I hope if offers the chance for the South to free the slaves before the North does, it would be an interesting "whatif" version, with the inclusion of Britian on the side of the South after they free the slaves.

[VI66_slith]

South needed to meet the Northern forces in battle on their own terms and decisively beat them

I stated the same. When I said limited raid, I ment it in terms concerning the objective; for instance, the occupation of Philadelphia, very unrealistic.

Vin

[scout1]

I stated the same. When I said limited raid, I ment it in terms concerning the objective; for instance, the occupation of Philadelphia, very unrealistic.

Agreed. I guess we were arguing the same point from both sides. The objective for the South was to get the North to NOT want to fight. To exist was victory for the South and the only way to achieve this was to make the war unattractive for the North.

[Cheesehead]

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]

Any thoughts?

Yes, these were the stated candy coated goals of the Axis powers, with their true intentions being much more nefarious. The question should be, do you think that those particular fascist powers would be satisfied with the obtainment of the goals that you listed? I believe history proves otherwise. My point being that an entirely disparate situation existed during WWII than that of the American south during the ACW. As soon as Poland was attacked, Nazi Germany sealed her own fate.

Vin

[Cheesehead]

I guess my question is of the ahistorical variety...and the point I'm driving at is in regards to wargames and play balance. When you compare the combatants in both wars, the North was much more dominant over the South both militarily and economically than the Allies were over the Axis. Granted, the Allies had a larger production capacity than the Axis, but the Axis had an initial overwhelming advantage in military force at the beginning of the war. This meant that they had to win quick, but at least they had a chance. Not so for the Confederate Army. They "won" some early battles...but the 19th century standard for winning a battle was forcing your opponent to flee the field. These early Confederate "victories" were in name only. In most cases, the casualty figures for both sides were similar, and very high. This type of victory would only doom the South to a war of attrition which it could not win. Grant understood this which is why he chose to stay and slug it out in 1864. Most of those battles that year would have been considered Confederate "victories" two years before, except the Union Army stayed their ground, exhausted the South, and won the war.

My point to all this, is that I would never want to play a historical-strategic game of ACW because it wouldn't have play balance. This is why I'm suggesting to Mr. Grigsby and Co. to consider making a game in this era world-wide in scope. Consider that Prussia was fighting Austria over the idea of a new Germany, throw in the colonial rivalry between Britain and France, the birth of Modern Japan, and you have a historical basis for creating an ahistorical 19th century world war game. Make it a rival to Paradox's Victoria game, only turn based with PBEM capability.

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead
My point to all this, is that I would never want to play a historical-strategic game of ACW because it wouldn't have play balance.

That depends how you define "balance". The only games I can think of that have perfect "play balance" are chess and checkers. Most every other game has different victory conditions for each player. So should the South be expected to completely conquer the North by mid 1865? Of course not! Should the North be expected to completely conquer the South in the same frame? Most definitely!

The leader counters on my Victory Games "Civil War" have all but been erased by the 50+ games I have played of that sucker and I consider it a well balanced game because victory is defined in different terms for each player. A victory for the south is defined as preventing the northern victory by the 1865 deadline.

[VI66_slith]

Now that's the spirit! A very good primer on gaming victory conditions Greyshaft.

Vin

[Cheesehead]

A victory for the south is defined as preventing the northern victory by the 1865 deadline.

I see your point, but I still wouldn't want to play a game where the object is to 'not get clobbered.'

Is there any objection to expanding this game to a world-wide format?

[paullus99]

The civil war would end pretty quick at that point - since their would only be one territory for the CSA.

[Grifman]

ORIGINAL: 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. Maybe the game should have a "historically accurate" option and a "enhanced Confederacy / fun game" option.

Actually, there are any number of ways to balance this game:

1) Early on when the Union has crappy/inexperienced generals, you limit their command & control abilities, which means you limit their ability to actually do anything with their troops (this is how one ACW board game I've played did it). Remember Lincoln asking McClellan if he was going to use the army this weekend - if not, could he, the President, use it?

2) You can also set supply limitations until they have repaired railroads - this will slow any advance

3) You can simulate Northern war weariness by a number of means - awarding victory points for Southern occupation of Northern states, Northern battles lost or men lost, or Southern states held by the South over time

4) You can have foreign intervention based upon a number of conditions similar to the above in 3)

It can be done.

[33Vyper]

How are you going to model the possiblity of European intervention?

[ydejin]

ORIGINAL: Grifman

ORIGINAL: 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. Maybe the game should have a "historically accurate" option and a "enhanced Confederacy / fun game" option.

Actually, there are any number of ways to balance this game:

1) Early on when the Union has crappy/inexperienced generals, you limit their command & control abilities, which means you limit their ability to actually do anything with their troops (this is how one ACW board game I've played did it). Remember Lincoln asking McClellan if he was going to use the army this weekend - if not, could he, the President, use it?

That's a great idea. Give each general an initiative rating and don't let them do anything unless they make their "initiative roll". With McClellan, he can provide excellent morale and other leadership bonuses, and will do okay when on the defensive, but it will be very difficult to get him to take offensive action.

[ravinhood]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead
My point to all this, is that I would never want to play a historical-strategic game of ACW because it wouldn't have play balance.

That depends how you define "balance". The only games I can think of that have perfect "play balance" are chess and checkers. Most every other game has different victory conditions for each player. So should the South be expected to completely conquer the North by mid 1865? Of course not! Should the North be expected to completely conquer the South in the same frame? Most definitely!

The leader counters on my Victory Games "Civil War" have all but been erased by the 50+ games I have played of that sucker and I consider it a well balanced game because victory is defined in different terms for each player. A victory for the south is defined as preventing the northern victory by the 1865 deadline.

Excellent reply Greyshaft, any game can be balanced by scenario or campaign victory conditions, why I even have a little game called "The Alamo" by SPI and the Texicans can sure win in that game, even if they do all lose their lives.

If anything you certainly don't want a "balanced" game of ACW, might as well just play chess or checkers with civil war pieces. Nope, it needs to be unbalanced, but, with "balanced" victory conditions to make the North Player sweat as much as the south player.

And I would never buy any Prussian war or British French wargame to whomever mentioned that is what Matrixgames should make instead. You see We all have our preferences, what you won't buy, many others will, what I won't buy many others will, so saying you'd never buy a game of such n such really doesn't make a bit of difference, it's what the developers WANT TO CREATE that makes all the difference and they want to create an American Civil War game and I'm glad they aren't following the Paradox route, you have your Paradox go play with them. hehe

[bmodified]

While I agree that an historical sim should not be balanced at the expense of "the way it was" there is a fine line between having a game where one side is a punching bag, a game that emphasizes the strengths and weaknesses of each historical contestant, and a game that trashes history.

As was posted earlier, the South had some leadership and perhaps "motivational" advantages of defending early on that kept the war from being the one sided affair that a logistical spreadsheet would have predicted. Including this in the game gives balance while maintaining a sense of history. Simulating the political constraints that made Lincoln appoint and keep bad commanders does the same.

Having victory conditions that give a player a win for being a more effective speedbump than his historical counterpart is an option that some will find unsatisfying, and that is why some conflicts (the Alamo) aren't hugely popular subjects, I think. Look at that wargaming staple, the "Bulge". Had Germany won an operational slam dunk and gotten to Antwerp, her historical reward would probably have been an atom bomb on Berlin. But gamers like it because it is a well known subject from the WWII era, where both sides get to attack and defend. In the context of the battle, both sides have a "chance". Would a game depicting only the plight of the 106th division in that battle be as popular? Few gamers like to play a hopeless defense, even if they get a win for doing well.

GGWAW looks to do global WWII with a good historical feel, and to get it I think a little fudging is tolerable. Look at the inclusion of artillery: probably not a good simulation decision at this scale, but it reeks of WWII atmosphere, so I'm all for it. The ACW version could make similar bows to the "feel" of the era while keeping the game plausible. I hope so.

[ravinhood]

and that is why some conflicts (the Alamo) aren't hugely popular subjects

Well here in TEXAS it's a pretty popular subject.

But, I'm not that biased, I'd even like to see a good computer version of the Battle at Rorkes Drift against the Zulu.

I like games and battles where the underdog "can" win, even if it is only by scenario victory conditions.

We could be technical and by all historical accounts a true simulation would always have that "speed bump" play to them. Battle of the Bulge, Barbarossa, anything that is true to the simulation. But, with "balanced" victory conditions then it comes down to the experience of the player as a wargamer instead of the historical outcome of the situtation.

If the south had too much of a chance of winning the Civil War in a game it wouldn't be realistic to me. I would think taking Philadelphia and winning major battles would give the Confederate player some nice victory points, even though resources would surely be in favor of the Union at all times.

If it's an historical simulation it almost has to fit the historical situation and realities of that situation, else it's more "whatif" and not a true sim.

Of course using the WAW engine, I can see where it wouldn't be as much of an historical simulation and more of a whatif type game. As I expect WAW to be in the first place.

[JWW]

Although I won't disagree as far as you go, I think you also have to give Lee credit for correctly appraising the situation after he took command of the forces opposing McClellan, recognizing the opportunity, and organizing a daring counterattack that drove McClellan back. Lee got into McClellan's head, just as he did with other Union generals.

ORIGINAL: 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.

[VI66_slith]

Digging through my sources, I uncovered a few tidbits of information for your enjoyment. Early in 1863, Longstreet formulated his own strategic plan, and sometime during May, he submitted it to Lee. "It simply was to rely boldly upon the defensive power of the Army of Northern Virginia and to utilize the inner lines of the Confederacy. He concluded that half of Lee's forces could remain defiantly on the line of the Rappahannock, and that the other half could reinforce Bragg and help in destroying Rosecrans."1 With that being accomplished, Longstreet believed that the power of the Confederacy could be concentrated, and in turn smash the Federal divisions mustering against Vicksburg, but only after an "...march against Cincinnati," with the hope of drawing Grant away from Vicksburg.2 Lee liked the plan, but ultimately he rejected it. Lee didn't feel that he could divide his army while being faced with the vastly superior force led by Hooker.

Longstreet didn't much liken to the idea of an invasion of Maryland and Pennsylvania, but if it had to be he believed that defensive tactics should be implemented. He reminded Lee of Napoleon’s instructions to Marmont-"Select your ground and make the enemy attack you."3

Vin



1 Lee's Lieutenants, Volume III, p. 40.

2 Battles And Leaders Of The Civil War, Volume III, p. 246.

3 Annals, p. 417.

[Grifman]

ORIGINAL: 33Vyper

How are you going to model the possiblity of European intervention?

Easy, just set a serious of game events or parameters that have to be met - perhaps a certain number of Confederata victories by a certain date, or a certain number of Southern cities still held by the South by a certain date, etc. plus a die roll perhaps. A fair number of relevant parameters are avaiable.

[VI66_slith]

I myself would not favor European intervention beyond the constraints of history.

Vin