Impressions

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: heroldje
I'll fourth it.
I have always thought, however, there should be a PP penalty for not keeping a large number of troops in or around washington.  That was a non-negotiable handicap northern generals had imposed on them.

Well, here you probably have the reason why it is as it is. You can't make everyone happy.

I think the best way to prevent the blitzkrieg in the west would be to require a full turn of occupation of a territory before it can be used for supply (maybe two for more remote regions?).  Managing supply was a HUGE obstacle in the west, that I don't feel is modeled well at all.  Also, a successful raid would force the union player to redo this "supply management occupation".  That way if you try to advance to rapidly into kentucky, or beyond, your units will be extremely vulnerable and out of supply.  (although it would still be possible to launch an offensive leaving your wagons behind)

I'm surprised you think so. A leader is much less likely to gain initiative without a depot, which generally means that a successful attack is followed by a month of reorganization, including building a depot in the new location and replacing losses. A successful raid can end up removing that depot bonus, possibly delaying a follow up attack by another month.

The only instance in the west where there is generally any kind of "blitzkrieg" is Kentucky and we're looking to address that. After that, there should be very few "overrun" opportunities, which are the only way to both take ground and build a depot on it in the same turn.

In my mind, the proof is in the pudding and from what I've seen, the game makes the historical rate of advance in the West challenging to achieve. In general, the war seems to unfold at about the right historical pace, which suggests to me that the delays due to supply are just about right.

Regards,

- Erik

[John Neal]

Erik -

Yes, if one wants to avoid a blitzkrieg just put enough troops in an area to avoid an overrun. Then it's gonna take two months to advance, one to win the battle and another to build depots. A pretty slow slog, 2 months per region.

[IronWarrior]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

The only instance in the west where there is generally any kind of "blitzkrieg" is Kentucky and we're looking to address that. After that, there should be very few "overrun" opportunities, which are the only way to both take ground and build a depot on it in the same turn.

This is the right way to go, I am a big advocate in minor tweaks as opposed to major balance changes. Especially in this game, which I feel is damn near perfect (for me at least). In reference to the Blitz thread, I thought pp cost increases and % chance Kentucky joins other side really goes along with the spirit of this game. It lets the player decide if it's worth it and plan a strategy. Draft and invade? One or the other? Sort of fits in this game imo.

In my mind, the proof is in the pudding and from what I've seen, the game makes the historical rate of advance in the West challenging to achieve. In general, the war seems to unfold at about the right historical pace, which suggests to me that the delays due to supply are just about right.

I agree about the supply, I don't think it should be any harsher on the Union. It should remain up to the CSA player to raid and cause supply/initiative issues. I may be wrong about the rate of advance in the west, but I am seeing others having the same issues as I had. I will admit though, when it happened to me I was much greener than I am now, so it might be a case of needing more time to see if it really is what it seems. I was also playing a much better and experienced player at the time.

[heroldje]

While I agree the pacing is about correct, I think the causes of that pacing are not.  The war in the west was a war of supply and maneuver.  In this game it plays out very similarly to the war in the east.  Static lines requiring slugfests for every inch of ground. 

Bragg's kentucky offensive, Shermans march through the heart of the confederacy, Hood's 'siege' of nashville, Rosecrans capture of nashville... just a few examples of how armies were spread way to thin in the west to prevent offensive movements.  The only thing preventing them was supply lines.  I would even argue its too rigid in the east.

I enjoy the game a lot as is, but it seemed we were drifting to what-if land, so keep my critiques in that context.

I'm surprised you think so. A leader is much less likely to gain initiative without a depot, which generally means that a successful attack is followed by a month of reorganization, including building a depot in the new location and replacing losses. A successful raid can end up removing that depot bonus, possibly delaying a follow up attack by another month.

I find I can often blitz my cavalry into unoccupied territories after winning a battle.  For example, having a stack of 7 cavalry under sheridan overrun a territory, and then send 2-3 other 1 unit stacks through to capture the ungaurded territory in rear. This is partly caused by the fact that I can immediately use teh rail in that territory. You are right though, this is pretty gamey and probably wouldnt work against a human opponent.

[Doc o War]

Iron Warrior et all; Am into a fresh game using Kentucky Invasion House Rule- easy to impliment- no major programing needs to be done- Invasion allowed from Sept 61 on- Invader only gets to move into three regions that are adjascent to his start territory. Then it kicks back into normal move with the other player. By delaying to September it covers the historic paralysis both nations had politically- remember on both sides the political civilian government ruled their armies- often poorly.
   This seems to slow the pace in the west, take the steam out of the ahistoric early Union Blitz in the West, and allows for a more interesting 1862.
    It does allow the Union a bit more freedom to grab Missouri- but that is a small trade off to being Blitzed.