Strategic victory?

From the legendary team at 2 by 3 Games comes a new grand strategy masterpiece: Gary Grigsby’s War Between the States. Taking gamers back to the American Civil War, this innovative grand strategy game allows players to experience the trials and tribulations of the role of commander-in-chief for either side. Historically accurate, detailed and finely balanced for realistic gameplay, War Between the States is also easy to play and does not take months to finish.

Moderators: Joel Billings, PyleDriver

Post Reply
Smirfy
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:24 pm

Strategic victory?

Post by Smirfy »

Not that it distracts from my enjoyment of the game but I find the Strategic victory an odd precondition for emancipation. In my last couple of games which were great fun I captured Vicksburg and Atlanta yet still was required to throw my armies lemming like against the South in the east to get the strategic victory.

My understanding is that although the South could attempt to delay, time and resources were against protracted struggle and a strategic victory as we understand it on the field was sought. Strategic defeat time and again would surely destroy the unions most important weapon, will.

Think the game is first rate and hope that WWI and the English Civil War/War of Three Kingdoms are up for consideration in future. One minor quibble if there are month turns why not just be able to insert your leaders on an order of battle chart from a pool with if need be a penatly rather than scouring the map it would make things more managable and fun
runyan99
Posts: 158
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 11:59 pm

RE: Strategic victory?

Post by runyan99 »

Historically Lincoln pocketed the Proclamation until the strategic victory (in WTBS terms) at Antietam. He didn't want it to look like a desperate measure. Therefore I assume the requirement in game.
Smirfy
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:24 pm

RE: Strategic victory?

Post by Smirfy »

Historically Lincoln pocketed the Proclamation until the strategic victory (in WTBS terms) at Antietam. He didn't want it to look like a desperate measure. Therefore I assume the requirement in game.

I understand that Antietam directly effected the release of the statement but Lincoln was not in possesion of Atlanta or Vicksburg at the time [;)] Surely the capture of either would rank as strategic victories
User avatar
Treefrog
Posts: 703
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2004 3:11 am

RE: Strategic victory?

Post by Treefrog »

Politics is a strange animal. Lincoln proposed to free all the slaves in areas the Union did not control, yet freed none of the slaves in the area the Union did control.

That paradox gives context to his concern that the EP not be perceived as being done from weakness.
"L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace."
User avatar
Doc o War
Posts: 345
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: Northern California

RE: Strategic victory?

Post by Doc o War »

When I was playing this game it seemed to me that the Union should get some higher point value for taking Memphis, New Orleans, Atlanta, Vicksburg and various other major Southern points- Chattanooga comes to mind Historically- these points had impact on the war effort when they were taken- but most gammes I played when they fell to the Union they were considered Minor Victories.. I disagree. They should rate as higher vicory points when captured the first time. Capture of those points were truely Strategic Victories..
Tell me the story of the common foot soldier, and I will tell you the story of all wars.
... Heroditus.
Smirfy
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:24 pm

RE: Strategic victory?

Post by Smirfy »

When I was playing this game it seemed to me that the Union should get some higher point value for taking Memphis, New Orleans, Atlanta, Vicksburg and various other major Southern points- Chattanooga comes to mind Historically- these points had impact on the war effort when they were taken- but most gammes I played when they fell to the Union they were considered Minor Victories.. I disagree. They should rate as higher vicory points when captured the first time. Capture of those points were truely Strategic Victories..

This is exactly my point, in one game my indirect strategy was so successful that I had captured Atlanta, Chattanooga, New Orleans, Memphis, Savanah and Vicksburg etc and could not find a Confederate army left large enough to beat to be considered a strategic victory[&:]

Whatever politcal considerations there were in the historical declaration maintenence of the status quo by the victorious Union Army in vast swathes of Confederate territory seems to me bizarre.

Post Reply

Return to “Gary Grigsby's War Between the States”