How do you keep the game from bogging down into WW1?

[hgilmer]

    In my current game against the AI, I did do a blocking manoever - the troops I feared would come down didn't come down, now whether that is because of what I did or because the AI decided not to, it still gave me a nice little victory in a crucial battle.

I've tried using raiding to disrupt the CSA later in my game.  I'm not sure how much it is working.

[PyleDriver]

In a game vs Joel before or AAR, I lanched a huge counterattack in the west and almost recaptured Memphis. The CSA needs alot of balance. I never agreed with Lee's move into PA. But yes in this game its hard for the CSA to go into PA...

[8D]
Jon

[ssclark]

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen

I concur 100% with Joel. To experienced players my guess is that the Union is slightly favored. To players with less experience the game will favor the Conderation. I believe most of the concerns Berkut is posting are due to this. Yes, reaction movements seems too strong initially - no, imho it is not too strong once you gain some more experience with the game - infact, its very much needed to give the CSA a fighting chance. Its possible I am incorrect but thats my opinion based on having been involved with the game since early alpha nearly two years ago.

FWIW, I think this is about right in simulating the ACW. The Union had a monumental task in subduing the Confederacy. It had to organize a massive blockade and conduct all sorts of strategic and operational offensives across a vast hostile area. Etc. Once it really geared up (and it took a good 2 years plus to do so and get the good generals to rise out of the muck), it was all a matter of time.

It probably should be a bit of a struggle early on playing the Union as you have to accomplish so much.

I look forward to playing this game. I'll very likely buy and download in the next few days...

[ssclark]

ORIGINAL: PyleDriver

In a game vs Joel before or AAR, I lanched a huge counterattack in the west and almost recaptured Memphis. The CSA needs alot of balance. I never agreed with Lee's move into PA. But yes in this game its hard for the CSA to go into PA...

[8D]
Jon

Both of Lee's historical major offensive moves ended in near disaster (Antietam and Gettysburg). The CSA's major foray into Kentucky did not end well, either.

[heroldje]

First off, I think the personal attacks on Berkut are ridiculous.  He brings up a lot of good points, what kind of forum is this that you cannot discuss concerns and potential changes to the game??  Isn't that the whole point?
 
I actually happen to agree about the reaction movement.  The fact that I have to fight every unit in a large area if I want to press just one area, and have no real means to prevent it, is IMO unbalanced.  I could understand if there was a chance for this, even if it was high, or based on a commanders ability.... but to make it automatic is too much.  I also love the idea of diversionary attacks.  Just that much more for BOTH sides to think about, as the confederate player could do these, too. 
 
 
 
 

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Berkut

ORIGINAL: Pford

ORIGINAL: herwin


That sort of thing was very hard to pull off prior to modern communications.

Yes, you suppose spoiling/fixing attacks, on the grand tactical level, had to await the telephone, i.e. WW1.

I don't think feints and distraction was at all beyond that capabilities of this time, at the strategic level. Why would they be?

Most of the cases I know of were tactical or operational. Timing and good operational security were the essence.

[Nibelung]

Thanks on the feedback on CSA offensives.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Berkut

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: Pford



An option for launching a lower intensity attack in order to fix enemy forces sounds cool. But I'm not sure this was common policy on the strategic level during this war. Maybe some Civil War grog can enlighten us.

Anyone tried raiding regions, tearing up rail, in attempt to disrupt reaction possibilities?

That sort of thing was very hard to pull off prior to modern communications.

Well, I would say that if we can accept that prior to modern communications and logistics the stuff going on in reaction movement is feasible (multiple Corps moving across states in a period of days or weeks at the most and moving straight into battle), I don't think the idea of feints and spoiling attacks is all the tough to swallow, to be honest.

I can certainly see your point, but we are dealing with a particular system, and how to plausibly soften some of its effects.

Although WitP doesn't really show this, smothering attacks to fix enemy forces were the primary operational tactic for the USN in the Pacific.

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: herwin
Although WitP doesn't really show this, smothering attacks to fix enemy forces were the primary operational tactic for the USN in the Pacific.

I see...

[madgamer2]

this is what I wanted to say but I have not the language or ability or even a sense of tact. I tend to just blurt out whatever is in my mind at the time. I most likely should just refrain from post suchs as the one you comment on here but there are times when I just post something I should not...life is a lesson and I DO try to learn...honest
Madgamer

[PyleDriver]

madgamer, welcome to my life. We all say things we wish we could take back, just ask my wife...lol...Keep posting.

[8D]
Jon

[madgamer2]

Slanderous language aside I find this post to be interesting and well stated. Given the advantage the game gives to defender in home regions do you as a PBEM gamer playing the South attempt the kind of invasions that Lee tried in 62 &63? Do you think that if the South Had done what most Reb players do, that is defend the home ground it would have changed the war? I think the only thing that would have changed the outcome would have been the election of 64. In effect the South could not win but the North could have lost.
This is rambling on a bit as I was just wondering if you invade the North when you play the South? I do not really have the ability to play a PBEM game and do admire those who do right out of box without even a test drive first. I have played this game for countless hours of restarting and replay of saves and am just beginning to understand it and must start at the easy level at that. I like this game a lot because in most strategic level game such as FoF and AACW I can not deal with the production economic part of the game. I also have a habit of doing first and thinking after.
I can see now that you are interested in making it better and even if there are those who won't admit it, are trying to make it better even if some may object to the way in which you do it and act on the spur of the moment.

Madgamer

[Berkut]

Thanks madgamer, I certainly appreciate the sentiment.

I have not played as the South (the guy I play with is from Georgia, I am in New York...the result is predictable). However, his attack have not had any more luck - the issue is going to favor whoever is doing the reacting into the combat area. And the Union generally has plenty of troops around to react in.

[madgamer2]

Now here are some ideas that have merit. I think GG has introduced something that adds a great deal to the game and is what your ideas point to. Its the use of luck and the unexpected that make this game interesting. I bring D.C.Buell into the game and groom him for higher command and just before I replace the worthless commander in the Army in DC he gets killed and the same turn Scott dies also...the best laid plans,etc.
It is the use of luck and the feeling of uncertainty that make this game for me. Most good ideas start out half-baked but with some work can be whole baked

[madgamer2]

Perhaps a player could under certain curcomstances make a attack a holding or diversion attack by meeting certain conditions such as
1. a limit as to how many troops and/or leaders are committed
2. instead of loosing the usual way a limited loss would be the result in exchange for say a certain number of PP

Just a brain fart but perhaps others can add change the idea that Berkut came up with

Madgamer

[PyleDriver]

Ok guys, the defender has some advantages, better leadership and unseen reaction. Other than that there toast. In a game I played with Joel before our AAR post, he beat me like a step child when I played the CSA. The Union has all the tools to win this game. I only got that close in our AAR because I was Union...

[8D]
Jon

[madgamer2]

Some of us react first and think later......Its like a friend of mine who has helped me to be a better person says "If I did not like you I would not bother". I am an old guy and the concept of the internet family is something I still have to get used to. Having a friend who I have never met is something that is quite interesting...oh yes post I will.

Madgamer

[tran505]

I think the one reason in favor of doing 1st Bull Run is you get a chance to kill some good leaders before they grow up. 'Ole Stonewall died on turn 1 in my 2nd game as Union!