User avatar
BigDuke66
Brigadier General
Posts: 455
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:06 pm

National moral loss when conquering structures

Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:00 pm

Not sure if I posted this when I finished my PBEM game but big problem, and my opponent agreed to it, is the loss of NM if a structure is conquered that has a unit in it.
Seeing NM going down just because a militia unit at the end of the world that is acting as garrison surrenders is overkill.
If I wouldn't have conquered all these unimportant spots in Texas our game would likely have gone into 1865, like it should have in my opinion.

Can the NM loss be adjusted?
I think only the importance of the structure should be the factor to the NM loss.
"Spread word to every slave, that even the mighty republic bleeds when struck!"
Join the Napoleonic Wargame Club
Join the American Civil War Game Club
Join the The Blitz Wargaming Club

lightbrave
Lieutenant
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2014 3:39 am
Location: Jackson, Georgia

Re: National moral loss when conquering structures

Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:42 pm

I agree that its a bit overkill. I think the best fix for this would be a simple one. I don't think they should necessarily change the rules about a militia unit that surrenders or is destroyed to be subject to NM change. The change that should be implemented is that there shouldn't be any "Permanently" fixed units. These militia units should be able to abandon a city if they see inevitable destruction.

Another suggestion to this is this. Maybe NM should be equalized at 200. That way 1 NM would equate to .5 NM in the current system. NM for battle would be the same. So if you gained 5 NM from a battle in our current system then in the new system you would gain 10 NM. This would keep the significance of big battles unaffected and objective regions would remain the same as well. If a city is worth 5 NM then it would be worth 10 NM and so forth.

Also my idea might give significance to smaller battles that usually give no swing in NM. Maybe you could gain 1 NM for a small battle. Just a thought

User avatar
Gray Fox
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1372
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:48 pm
Location: Englewood, OH

Re: National moral loss when conquering structures

Sat Dec 09, 2017 1:35 am

The CSA player can and most probably should destroy all the stockades and even raze the size one towns that are of no use to the Confederacy before they become a Union bargain for NM. I've destroyed Union depots that I don't want to see fall into Forrest's hands. If you don't want the enemy to have it, then use the final solution.
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!

principes romanes
Sergeant
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 9:32 pm
Location: Genève

Re: National moral loss when conquering structures

Sat Dec 09, 2017 7:24 pm

There's actually a very elegant solution to this already in the game. When your units are besieged, you can issue a special order to them to surrender. If you do this, the NM and VP point loss is far less. I recall that for militia, it works out to 1VP lost and 0NM.
Currently writing:
The Coming Fury - an excessively detailed AAR on Union strategy

User avatar
Straight Arrow
Brigadier General
Posts: 424
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2014 5:44 pm
Location: Washington State

Re: National moral loss when conquering structures

Sun Dec 10, 2017 8:41 am

principes romanes wrote:There's actually a very elegant solution to this already in the game. When your units are besieged, you can issue a special order to them to surrender. If you do this, the NM and VP point loss is far less. I recall that for militia, it works out to 1VP lost and 0NM.



Neat trick that; I had no idea this was possible and made a habit of entrenching everyone outside the cities.

Return to “Civil War II”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests