CSA Template vs Union

[BattleVonWar]

Against two even players through 1861 to 1863 the CSA cannot really win. Also beyond that it cannot really hold the Union no matter how well the CSA plays. There is no point system I can see that can give the CSA a partial victory...which should be included!

Though the Union Divisions are possible as follows:

Pure Infantry Divisions(CSA has to farm Kentucky and Missouri to get a few Pure Infantry Divisions but the Union can easily recruit these all day long)

20 Pounders... The Union can make these and park them out in devoted Artillery Divisions and it doesn't hurt her to do this. The CSA is fortunate to come up with 10 Pounders..though will have to include old style Napoleon Artillery at best in most of her Divisions. Not that it's not historical it's just the best way to build Divisions.

I think that the designers did not intend to dwarf CSA Divisions, they merely didn't include enough of them in the Build to constraint her manpower but there is no reason why she should be forced to buy Arty/Cav/etc... in her divisions...

The CSA can never win against the Union if the Union knows how to build and is just patient. The CSA probably is doing something to last until Mid 1863(which I see the best CSA players capitulate by about then)

Numbers usually are easily approaching 1.5 to 1 at that point with the very best CSA players... The Template is not any good ... (artillery was superior up north but still)

The ease of which leaders can be promoted(I have had Grant 3Star just now in a MP game in 1861) 1 battle and the loss of 4 NM and a few VPs.. It's a beautiful trade to have him that early! Therefore even the leadership cannot patch the extreme division comparison.

CSA Divisions by late 1862 in the best hands, and leadership melt in front of superior Union Design and I've seen these numerous times. Just wanted to add 2 cents!

[BattleVonWar]

With Grant and the build a very good Union Player can end Southern misery rather early. Either the leaders for the North should be dwarfed or her builds... she shouldn't have the best of both worlds. IMHO

[Durk]

Well, you are kind of and mostly correct, as you know.
However, the CSA has lots of resources. With luck, they can even win. But this game is so close to historical that one must forgive the game balance which allows them a better chance to win than the historical.

[BattleVonWar]

Grant(Lyon/Hooker Subordinates/etc...) + perfect Division Templates + endless 20 pounders = really no way one can lose at all, ever...

Maybe Durk, I have tried some really innovative stuff to win as the South. Most of the time due to the limitations on offense it's been a journey of sorts(you gotta get a little lucky Down South). I have never beaten or come close to winning a game vs the Union with the CSA unless the Union left it's door wide open, quit due to early frustrations or had a technical misunderstanding. Even with a massive technical misunderstanding I have seen a Union player come back from losing an entire Army(literally) to winning quickly.

Similarly with little or no trial I can easily hold the Confederacy easily with the Union. Look at our current game as you as the CSA. I see about 50ish to strength to mine in 1861. I don't think that this level of superiority was reached so quick... If I scrap every last CSA brigade out..Burn, pillage and exploit every possibility the game engine offers I cannot build enough men to fill uniforms to hold the front by 1863. Which yeah, is historical though in 1861 is a little bit much!

Watch our current game I will show you.. Grant just invaded Missouri and after that I think I will take him to Virginia and whoa... You will not stop him! He will have 2 men to every 1 of your men. and could have this in 1862(beginning) or 1861

[Gray Fox]

Can a CSA player beat a maxed out Athena? I did it in October 1861 by taking D.C.

In 1861, would a human player not:

-expand the blockade fleet
-reinforce MO and KY
- split his forces to defend Harper's Ferry and Alexandria
-launch an invasion of NO or some other port

and instead actually defend his capital to prevent this? I'm pretty sure that most would not think the head shot possible. So "really no way one can lose at all, ever...", is perhaps a stretch.

[DrPostman]

Maxed out means Athena is at max aggression, and therefore takes bigger
risks. I think that's why you were able to take DC. I still find her to be a
pretty decent player at normal aggression.

[Gray Fox]

The point I was trying to make is that a Union player who is "maxed out" and thinks he can do no wrong...may do something very wrong.

[BattleVonWar]

I didn't mean Athena. I meant against a human opponent. Also Just move the Capitol if you are concerned about losing D.C. it's not that bad a situation. -10 NM now is really not going to hurt the Union that much. I see plenty of Union players gravitate on 70 NM forever and make up for it later down the road.

Also it's pretty easy to stack up and defend Cairo/St. Louis and why wouldn't you train your Officers in the West where the CSA cannot really defend. The only reason is the CSA abandons everywhere and goes all East and you can see this with 1 or 2 cav stomping around the South to check for it. Really easy(and you can also relocate all your forces East As the Union in 2 Turns*give or take* from just about anywhere on the map far west as St. Louis or so...

P.S. Only three times in any games I've seen D.C. truly threatened out of 12 Multiplayer games. 1 I was holding with General Scott and that was sufficient(even with all of Maryland fallen I had no issues and CSA quit after 3-4 battles for it) 2nd two times ... I would have had D.C. but not won the game in 1863 as the Confederacy as my opponent fell asleep and got a little complacent with his Union. He still would have won I think(I couldn't recruit enough men to stop him). Last game I actually took it but my opponent was too forward deployed and I think he needs more practice is all. This game is very chess like!

Can a CSA player beat a maxed out Athena? I did it in October 1861 by taking D.C.

In 1861, would a human player not:

-expand the blockade fleet
-reinforce MO and KY
- split his forces to defend Harper's Ferry and Alexandria
-launch an invasion of NO or some other port

and instead actually defend his capital to prevent this? I'm pretty sure that most would not think the head shot possible. So "really no way one can lose at all, ever...", is perhaps a stretch.

[pgr]

I've posted before that the game could use time hacks and pressure events (like northern papers howl for an immediate offensive) for the Union side. The congressional elections of 62 and 64 could be modded better as essentially Union fail points. Perhaps the simplist would be by having VP cutoffs in Late Nov 62 and 64. If the Union has not hit a certain VP point by those two cutoffs, then the northern public vote for a negotiated settlement and the South wins.

As Grey Fox has pointed out many a time, all a Union player has to do is move the capitol to NY, and not be stupid, and he'll come out on top.

[Cardinal Ape]

Here is a sarcastic event that will change the balance of the game:
Upset Admirals - Any turn in which the Union does not have at least two blockade flotillas under construction they lose 5NM and 50VP.

---

I'm not on board with the idea that the Union needs to be pressured more to get stuff done early. If such a thing prevented the Union from being inactive and building up a massive force for a offensive in '63, then, yes, I would agree with that. In some ways I feel like this premise might backfire: The more pressure the Union has to get stuff done early the more streamlined and narrow their build choices will become, its not an atmosphere conducive to getting the Union to make luxury expenditures on boats or industry.

For me the problem is that the Union gets so many damned resources that a nigh unstoppable steamroller can be built by spring of '62. Only a year into the war and the troop disparity can get as high as 1.7 to 1. Perhaps the bigger problem is that these resources come with no restrictions, if you want to spend it all on infantry and artillery you can. Maybe the game should force the Union to build boats.. GraniteStater seems to think that the CSA is the one that is overpowered, not the Union, I'm guessing he thinks that because he builds boats.

My gut response was a joke event, but the more I think about it, the game is won or lost on the Union build screen. So I do feel fairly strongly that some restrictions should be done to the early war Union build up. Something as simple as taking a 10NM hit if you don't commission a bare minimum of naval assets by '62 would go a long ways.

Also, the penalty for the Union moving their capital to New York is a joke. At the least it should cause a 20 point swing... maybe more. I'd rather see it cost 15NM and award the opposing side 15NM for a capital move, right now its too much of a no-brain decision for either side.

[Straight Arrow]

As the South, all my pbem wins have been won in the window of opportunity created when the Northern morale threshold jumps up to 60. During this time, if the Northern player's NM is already low and he refuses to turtle, but instead continues hammering on well lead, well dug in, Johnnys holding good ground, in the blink of an eye, Billy Yank can loose more NM then he can afford.

So, yes, it is possible for the South to win, against excellent Union players, without taking Washington DC.

[James W. Starnes]

Hmm.. Well this is historically what it's supposed to be. The trick isn't overcoming the North's manpower or resource, that is impossible. The trick is to target the NM and/or try to get foreign powers involved. That is what Lee understood, as many people forget that the battles themselves didn't win the war but really depended on the support of the war effort. If Lee could inflict more than what he did just before the 1864 election, or if Atlanta didn't fall, it is possible that the peace-making democrats would've signed peace with the CSA.

[Rod Smart]

The system where the Union gets more men and more money is working as designed.

- Disagree with a bigger penalty for moving out of DC- America moved out of Philadelphia in the revolution, and that helped win the war (Philly "captured" an enemy army for a year, and allowed Washington's army to continue to exist)
- Disagree with having to build a navy. There wasn't a navy to speak of in 1860, why demand a navy in 1862? Capturing ports with troops and rented merchant ships would be just as effective as building a blockade fleet.
- Disagree with more "on to Richmond!" events. There are already two of them.
- Disagree that the CSA cannot win. That said, most of us know our history, and know this game, so its easy(er) to know what works and what doesn't, and to not put McClellan and Freemont in charge of anything important.

All that said, there is something interesting that the old SSI game "No Greater Glory" did to the Union, which was to penalize them for victories that had lots of casualties. I'd have turns in that game where I'd attack across the entire country, win 6 out of 7 battles, but take a big moral loss due to the casualties taken. Which, based on the negative reaction across the North after the "victory" at Shiloh, seems realistic.

There is a way for the CSA to have partial victories. For example, in real life, if Sherman had lost in Atlanta and Lincoln had lost the re-election, the CSA would have "won", but would have lost Kentucky and Maryland and West Virginia and Missouri and been flat broke and in terrible shape. That's much different than winning the war in 1862 with a victory at Antietam and a pivot on DC. That's my opinion, and how I grade "victories," but to each his own.