Matrix Games Forums

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

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.

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

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.

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..

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.