Civil War 2 is the definitive grand strategy game of the period. It is a turn based regional game with an emphasis on playability and historical accuracy. It is built on the renowned AGE game engine, with a modern and intuitive interface that makes it easy to learn yet hard to master.
This historical operational strategy game with a simultaneous turn-based engine (WEGO system) that places players at the head of the USA or CSA during the American Civil War (1861-1865).
*I don't want to hijack Jim's AAR so here I post this*
ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
I am also now in complete agreement with those stating the game is unbalanced. Against the AI I hadn’t seen the full power of the south, but this turn I look across the map at all the powerful southern forces I can see and now realized a successful spring offensive (even if I don’t lose Butler’s army) will be impossible vs. a human opponent.
Don't get me wrong, I really don't want to piss in your pockets... [:D]
It's 1861 and the Confederacy surrendered in 1865. Butler is two mere regions away of Richmond. What did you expect? Him advancing and capturing basically unopposed the enemy capital? Again -don't get me wrong- I hope the Rebels trash Butler's army. If they don't and Butler tries to storm Richmond then... Houston, we have a problem!
The South did not resist 5 years without a good reason, despite the North had more men and an industry.
So please, give me a break or wake me up the day the South captures in 1861-2 Washington, Baltimore, New York, Boston or Chicago [;)]
You're way too pessimistic. Grant, Sherman do matter. A lot. These beasts can -and will- destroy almost anything in sight (all things being equal). They can be more or less fully deployed from 1862 on, your spring, summer offensive.
What I said: I really hope Butler will be trashed [8D]
"Hitler is a horrible sexual degenerate, a dangerous fool" - Mussolini, circa 1934
In one game, normal settings, against the AI with default settings, I had over 4kav around Manassas, 3kav in Kentucky, 2-3kav in Shenandoah, 2kav running rampant in Kansas, and @ 1500av in the west. When I saw a Confederate river gunboat squadron with 1950av pop up just east of Cairo, I hung it up. This was in late March ’62. A human player would have rolled the north with these numbers.
I don’t know if things are imbalanced. I have yet to play a game to conclusion. But as the game stands, as someone else pointed out, the north does not have access to all it’s ‘chrome’. The south sure as shucks appears to. So some sort of balance issue appears to me, at least at this point in my learning curve.
I still need to play both sides to completion to be sure.
*I don't want to hijack Jim's AAR so here I post this*
First let me say thanks for posting a quote discussing strategy from my one side only AAR… nothing like southern spies in the forums.
Second I said a spring offensive would be impossible, and that is true. He simply has too much CV all across the map, I will never make any headway against such forces.
And if I lose Butler that frees up 2000 CV for the south to use to smash its way to NY I have nowhere near enough CV left to stop him if Butler is destroyed, so my analysis is correct. Right now Butler ties enough of that 2k down near Richmond that he can’t use the entire army, but if Butler is gone he is free to attack with it and I do not have enough CV on map to oppose such a concentration of force right now.
I think the gimmick they used to balance the forces in game is a bad one. Historically the Union outnumbered the south by about 2-1 in manpower and 9-1 in economic strength from the start and it only got worse as the war wore on. In game they ‘balanced’ things and even made the south stronger than the Union. The problem with that approach is what happens if the Union takes a big hit early like what could potentially happen to me if Butler goes down.
The gearing up period needed to increase force ratios enough to attack the south even without a loss is already close to two years. The loss of Butler right now would severely reduce my on map CV and allow the south the chance to overwhelm me.
A better solution to the problem would have been to put large fixed stacks of Union troops on map at all key strategic locations in the rear at game start. Then have them unfix slowly as the game progressed to slowly feed that strength into the active army. That way a big hit early in the game wouldn’t break the balance as bad as to make the Union unable to resist.
Using my current situation as an example, if Butler does go down, the south would run into thousands of fixed troops at all the strategic locations along the east coast and wouldn’t be able to clear the map up past NY as he will be able to do in my current game.
Sorry if you think I gave info. I thought your opponent can count and thus quickly deduce how many troops are trying to get to Richmond via the Peninsule.
Maybe your analysis is correct. Or maybe not [;)]
I still think it's too early to bash the system (let's be fair). This does NOT mean you might be wrong in the end, eh [8D]
"Hitler is a horrible sexual degenerate, a dangerous fool" - Mussolini, circa 1934
ORIGINAL: comsolut
Ouch! I guess wargamers have a strong competitive streak.
Ouch! I guess some players (like me) want HISTORICAL, ACCURATE games. I bought American Civil War. I expect the South to resist more or less 5 years. Other than that, it's pure fantasy. So again, death to Butler! [:D]
As for the "competitive" thing, you might want to ask my opponents if I really care (at all) about "winning" or "losing", as opposed to having *fun* They will disappoint you, but you can try [:'(]
"Hitler is a horrible sexual degenerate, a dangerous fool" - Mussolini, circa 1934
I have some concerns about balance as well. But I am totally new to this game and I have only played into mid 1862 as Union so far. But on the face of it I sense that an aggressive CSA player may really have a chance of an outright win in 62 unless the USA is very wary. But I still have an open mind and want to play my game as Union out and see if I can push Brad back in 63/64. Also I want to see how I go as CSA. But right now I feel the South is a little too strong in 62 and the Union a little too weak.
Having said that there are a lot of Vet players at the AGEOD site and none have raised this issue so perhaps the Union come home with a wet sail late in the game. I just don't know enough to have a real infomed opinion. I just get a feeling there is a problem.
I think we should tread carefully, but there nevertheless seems to be a manpower issue with the Union. It should simply have a lot more soldiers. Now it doesn't mean they should be able to use them offensively straight away and there must be a way of hindering the union player in a sense, because contrary to the real union, he will maximise his generals, bet methodic etc.
I suggested giving the union massive amounts of militia regularly, see what I wrote in Qball's AAR as an example:
I think a possible solution would be to give regularly via event (twice a year ?) lots of locked militia to the Union, that becomes unlocked when it becomes conscript. The Union player would still have to use his different levers to get conscripts to build troops, because he needs troops he can readily employ when and where he wants. But these big lumps of militia would, as they are progressively released, trickle down into his army.
By giving the Union player a big amount of locked troops, you sort of emulate the north situation : lots more troops, but statistically further from the battlefield and less employed in the few years of the war.
Like all locked troops, they would be unlocked if attacked as well.
The idea is not that the union reaches the same amount of troops as in history, because than a clever union player will win a lot more easily because he knows to use only his best generals, he knows that the 64 strategy of attriting the rebs is the right one in that setting, etc.
So for example I would give the north in january and july of each year something like 40/50 regiments of militia (450 guys per reg right ?, that's 22500 militiamen)locked in place mainly in the big urban centers. Just give them proper regiment names and use the militia stage as an extra development stage, ie they will never be employed as militia unless attacked, they are only useable once they become conscripts. As they train up, they become slowly unlocked, and the Union player can expect a regular influx of those regiment to strengthen his forces.
He can focus his builds more on quality troops, artillery, cavalry etc, particularly in late war when all those regiments will have accumulated in the system (ie in july 63 it will be the 5th time he gets the event so that's between 200 and 250 regiments.
Of course you have to fine tune then the training officer trait and the natural training rythm, to prevent the Union player from engineering a rapid training of those units. Training officer should only marginally speed the process up.
So that would give the Union an extra 22500 troops by july 61, 45000 by jan 62, 67500 by july 62, 90000 by jan 63, 112500 by jul 63, 135000 by jan 64, 157500 by jul 64, 180000 by jan 65, 202500 by jul 65 and 225000 by jul 65.
That type of event would help give the Union more manpower (and free garrisons in many places), yet as it would only progressively become unlocked, it would avoid too early a steamroller for the Union. But in 63/64, one can imagine that the Union player would from that system get about a free division per turn of infantry.
Numbers have to be tested of course, but what do you guys think of such an idea? It has the advantage of giving more troops, not so many at the beginning though, without depriving the Union player of the fun of the troop building process as well.
I can confirm that the Union is having more difficult game than in AACW1. In the previous title, Union could utilize its greater economic potential and manpower right from the start. But, in reality it wasn't so. Lincoln called for 75000 volunteers not only because he thought the war will be short, but because they couldn't arm much more. Early 61 US had to import rifles from Europe. At the same time CSA called for the raising of 100.000 men army. They also had the problem with arming those men, but they solved it by allowing men to bring their owned guns with them. It helped them to raise larger Army more quickly, particularly in the West, but on the other hand it created some problems as well since it was difficult to form cohesive units if 1/3 brought shotguns, 1/3 ancient muskets, and only 1/3 properly armed. Some CSA battles in late 61/early 62 were plagued by the issue.
So, do not expect USA to steamroll to Richmond as in cw1. It is far more gradual and historic process now. With every volunteer call and mobilization, you get twice the number of conscripts to CSA. Later manpower production in North cities is increased as well.
There are several aspects : the Union should have lots more men, because it is what it was, and it is also necessary for it to embark on offensive operations. But balance should be maintained so that the Union fails to materialise that advantage early on, because again that is what happened.
It is different but similar to what we see in many wargames where a war wasn't really balanced (think WITP as well) : if you reflect properly the material and human imbalances, clever players with less regard for human "pixel" life will bring the strongest side to victory a lot quicker. If in WITP the japanese player didn't have an absurdly ahistoric capability to train lots of pilots and builds lots of the very best airframes to outproduce the allies, but was constrained by what really happened, in PBEM the allied player would just steamroll over the japanese one.
So how does one give "more" help to the CSA, so that it can last longer and have a chance of some sort of victory, ie war weariness in the north, without completely altering the way the game is played. That is a fair question. In terms of headcount, it might be necessary to help the Union, either by giving it more men directly via conscript points or events, or maybe by giving it lots more money to be able to raise a boatload of volunteers through bounties.
So how does one give "more" help to the CSA, so that it can last longer and have a chance of some sort of victory, ie war weariness in the north, without completely altering the way the game is played.
Aaahh... that might be complicated. In WitE precisely THIS was a headache [:)] Not sure if it was finally solved. I would say no, because the Red Army did not get what they got in the real thing.
And getting to Berlin was not guaranteed (I can vouch for that, as I was on the receiving end!) [:D]
So in that case:
- no historical [Soviet] OOB (not even close)
and
- Soviet victory not guaranteed
IF the Union manages to get to Richmond I can live with a non historical OOB. If they don't, then it's like WitE Rants 2.0 [:D]
Given that I played quite many AGEOD games, I more or less know their games tend to replicate 100% the final outcome. Why should I distrust them now? [:)]
"Hitler is a horrible sexual degenerate, a dangerous fool" - Mussolini, circa 1934
I can confirm that the Union is having more difficult game than in AACW1. In the previous title, Union could utilize its greater economic potential and manpower right from the start. But, in reality it wasn't so. Lincoln called for 75000 volunteers not only because he thought the war will be short, but because they couldn't arm much more. Early 61 US had to import rifles from Europe. At the same time CSA called for the raising of 100.000 men army. They also had the problem with arming those men, but they solved it by allowing men to bring their owned guns with them. It helped them to raise larger Army more quickly, particularly in the West, but on the other hand it created some problems as well since it was difficult to form cohesive units if 1/3 brought shotguns, 1/3 ancient muskets, and only 1/3 properly armed. Some CSA battles in late 61/early 62 were plagued by the issue.
So, do not expect USA to steamroll to Richmond as in cw1. It is far more gradual and historic process now. With every volunteer call and mobilization, you get twice the number of conscripts to CSA. Later manpower production in North cities is increased as well.
I find this very reassuring, thanks for the input [:)]
One possible way to 'balance' the game would be to skew the victory conditions. For instance,
if Richmond was still in Rebel hands after 1863 it would yield double victory points. This way
you could generate historical force levels yet still give the Rebels a chance of winning the
game, if not the war.
Dave
San Diego
Home of the World's Busiest Radar Approach Control
I can confirm that the Union is having more difficult game than in AACW1. In the previous title, Union could utilize its greater economic potential and manpower right from the start. But, in reality it wasn't so. Lincoln called for 75000 volunteers not only because he thought the war will be short, but because they couldn't arm much more. Early 61 US had to import rifles from Europe. At the same time CSA called for the raising of 100.000 men army. They also had the problem with arming those men, but they solved it by allowing men to bring their owned guns with them. It helped them to raise larger Army more quickly, particularly in the West, but on the other hand it created some problems as well since it was difficult to form cohesive units if 1/3 brought shotguns, 1/3 ancient muskets, and only 1/3 properly armed. Some CSA battles in late 61/early 62 were plagued by the issue.
So, do not expect USA to steamroll to Richmond as in cw1. It is far more gradual and historic process now. With every volunteer call and mobilization, you get twice the number of conscripts to CSA. Later manpower production in North cities is increased as well.
I find this very reassuring, thanks for the input [:)]
My issue with this problem is that the manpower and industry available makes for huge slug matches by mid-'62 onwards. By the time I can make corps for my armies in '62, I usually already have two big main armies as well smaller reaction forces in all theaters. It's not hard as either the north or the south to have 50-60,000 man armies by late '62 and 70-90,000 by 1863. In comparison, the historical Kentucky campaign in late 1862 pitted roughly 25-30,000 man armies, and for the south that was about as much as they could muster for the entire offensive. In fact, with detachments and attrition in effect, the south at Perryville was only able to bring about 16,000 troops to the fight.
I just think that in effort to make for a competitive AI, the devs upped the industrial and logistical numbers for both sides but especially the south. If you can hold central and southern Virginia as the Confeds, it's also easy to have a 120,000 man army under Lee by mid '63. That is WAY beyond what the south could manage in the eastern theater. Like Jim said earlier, what they should have done was create larger contingency forces for the north and unlocked them by a timer or if attacked. As it is, the north ponders too long with too little while the south AI builds armies and fleets on a level or even greater than the north. Yeah, a tad ahistorical.
I'm not sure if bolstering the north or nerfing the south is a better solution, but as it is the north is inadequate to deal with southern AI in the first half of the war. Some would say that is historical, but it's not because of southern genius in command or logistics, it's because the Union's industry and manpower isn't enough to field the kind of forces necessary to even defend the north, let alone begin invading southern cities/forts.
"Fly, god dammit it fly! God damn cheap Japanese flying packs!"
ORIGINAL: comsolut
Ouch! I guess wargamers have a strong competitive streak.
Ouch! I guess some players (like me) want HISTORICAL, ACCURATE games. I bought American Civil War. I expect the South to resist more or less 5 years. Other than that, it's pure fantasy. So again, death to Butler! [:D]
As for the "competitive" thing, you might want to ask my opponents if I really care (at all) about "winning" or "losing", as opposed to having *fun* They will disappoint you, but you can try [:'(]
Actually, I don't see that as a competitive statement at all. A good historic wargame should reward historic play and punish 'gamey' tactics. In real life there is no way in hell Butler could have advanced on Richmond in 1861, so if this tactic is successful it shows the game is less about history. I agree with TD, I'm here for the history. If Butler successfully charges on to Richmond before the smoke from Bull Run has even settled then the game is historically flawed. Mind you, that does not mean it's a failure, there are far more people into wargaming for the game than for the history these days.
ORIGINAL: comsolut
Ouch! I guess wargamers have a strong competitive streak.
Ouch! I guess some players (like me) want HISTORICAL, ACCURATE games. I bought American Civil War. I expect the South to resist more or less 5 years. Other than that, it's pure fantasy. So again, death to Butler! [:D]
As for the "competitive" thing, you might want to ask my opponents if I really care (at all) about "winning" or "losing", as opposed to having *fun* They will disappoint you, but you can try [:'(]
Actually, I don't see that as a competitive statement at all. A good historic wargame should reward historic play and punish 'gamey' tactics. In real life there is no way in hell Butler could have advanced on Richmond in 1861, so if this tactic is successful it shows the game is less about history. I agree with TD, I'm here for the history. If Butler successfully charges on to Richmond before the smoke from Bull Run has even settled then the game is historically flawed. Mind you, that does not mean it's a failure, there are far more people into wargaming for the game than for the history these days.
In real life, how would you know he couldn't? If in the game Butler goes all the way and takes Richmond, it isn't the fault of the game. It's what would be called an Epic Fail on the part of the Southern player to defend it.
