How realistic are the morale points?

[tcampbell1950]

I just finished my first full campaign as the North and enjoyed it thoroughly during the early stages. Of course I played the easy version and thus had little difficulty in subduing the foe. Of interest to me was that the morale points seem to be a bit unrealistic. By the end of 1863 it was clear there was nothing left for the South to do except surrender. I had complete control of Va. most of NC and significant parts of SC, GA, LA and MS. By July 1864 I was in control of every state except Texas (and Indian Terr.). The South had no effective fighting force that I could see, I had captured and controlled every objective city. Enemy losses were near 350000 compared to my losses of 200000 and I had captured 45000 prisoners to 0 for the South. Yet the southern moral remained at 56. When it starts at 100 and the defeat level is 25, that means I was only about 2/3s the way to destroying their morale. (I had 210 morale). It took until late Nov 64 to finally win but that was after Lincoln's reelection which boosted my morale point total to 229. (while lowering the win threshold). At the end there was one confederate force left on the map with a power rating of about 350 and as far as I could tell nothing other than a small raider unit. Shouldn't the confederates surrender earlier just to avoid the additional loss of 50000 more men? Lee surrendered at Appomattox in part because he knew continued resistance would not change the outcome but would only result in more needless loss of life and suffering. In addition, the 'mopping up' is not all that much fun compared to the intensity of splitting Lee's forces and crushing them in turn. Anyhow, just my thoughts--and I am interested in yours as I really enjoy reading the forum!

[Coffee Sergeant]

Yes the victory conditions for both sides are bit harsh. Personally I think that once every CSA capital is captured that should be a win for the Union. And capture of D.C. should be an automatic win for the CSA.

[Ethy]

you sure you didnt just miss the victory screen? if you had control of every major objective with the morale of 210 like you said then it should have come up

[Daxil]

Well, the alternative is to capture Memhpis, Nashville, Richmond and NO. Vice versa CSA wins if they nab DC and Bowling Green.

[W.Barksdale]

Personally I think that once every CSA capital is captured that should be a win for the Union. And capture of D.C. should be an automatic win for the CSA.

This is a little strong. Yes, the capture of Richmond is a huge blow to the rebels, but outright defeat? As long as there is still troops in the field I see no reason why the loss of any city should result in defeat.

[Rafiki]

Capturing all objective cities should at the very least be an automatic, though not "major", win, IMHO

[Spruce]

A month ago I posted a similar post - I got the majority of confederate cities. State capitals of Arkansas, Texas and Florida were not captured - all the rest was within the Union control.

I got flamed because I hadn't attack "in a smart way". The forum veterans describe begin smart as "doing a lot of morale point damage in one turn to let the rebel morale drop deep enough". So if you don't shock and awe, you are not playing intelligently ... and as such surrender yourself to long tedious micromanagement.

About being smart - I find that to be a questionable argument.

[Jabberwock]

As one of those who replied, I didn't mean my advice as a flame, or to imply that winning without the victory screen wasn't smart. Just by getting that far, you've proven that you're smart.

The game is set up in such a way that if you want the victory screen, you have to go through the "shock and awe" routine. I don't think the condition is very realistic, just an added challenge to get that reward.

[Coffee Sergeant]

This is a little strong. Yes, the capture of Richmond is a huge blow to the rebels, but outright defeat? As long as there is still troops in the field I see no reason why the loss of any city should result in defeat.

I didn't say capturing Richmond should be Union victory, I said *every* Confederate capital. You probably want to add major cities too. So Richmond, Charleston, Raleigh, Atlanta, Jacksonville, Montgomery, Mobile, Vicksburgh, New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Houston, etc.

Perhaps capture of Washington = automatic CSA victory is a bit strong. But I really think the Union player should be forced to protect his cities/territories more than they have to.

As it is in the game, if the CSA attempts any type of serious invasion in th East, like Lee did historically, its all too easy for the Union player to run down and grab Richmond. Which is more than a fair trade for Harrisburg or Baltimore.

[W.Barksdale]

I didn't say capturing Richmond should be Union victory, I said *every* Confederate capital.

Yeah I totally misread that. I must have been stoned. Anyway, I suppose the capture of many of the major cities should will the war.

[Zebedee]

I kind of accidentally won on my first proper full campaign with CSA.




It was a tad anti-climactic as I certainly wasn't expecting to win the war in 6 months. I still haven't managed to figure out how to make divisions either

If the automatic victory can be triggered like this regularly (poor Athena, I know), then might it not be an idea to give a time limit of a certain amount of turns for the opponent to retake at least one key location before the auto-victory?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Zebedee]

Zebedee:

Creating divisions can be a tad difficult at first, but here's a link to a thread that has a small tutorial on how to create divisions: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=9381

Maybe it'll help. Regards

Hugely appreciated Gray. Step by step is the way forward for me with this one and that's exactly what I needed.

It was the click with mouse step which I wasn't aware of, happy days for the confederacy now

[Daxil]

Perhaps capture of Washington = automatic CSA victory is a bit strong. But I really think the Union player should be forced to protect his cities/territories more than they have to.

Yeah, I've had the problem of a Union player just stationing troops in DC, Baltimore, Philly and Facquar VA? Even when I invadedf they didn't react knowing I can only go so far without compromising Richmond. Basically there's not much of an incentive to attack if you're the Union until you get a good 3 star general. I agree, at least for the first 1-2 years. Maybe morale hits for southern invasions would be something to make that style of player come out of their hole.

[Pdubya64]

Hugely appreciated Gray. Step by step is the way forward for me with this one and that's exactly what I needed.

It was the click with mouse step which I wasn't aware of, happy days for the confederacy now

One other point Zeb that took me forever to figure out it seemed, is that Divisions are not worth it unless you combine more than 5 or 6 units to create it. No one I know of has done a break-even analysis on exactly where the sweetspot lies, but it's something to keep in mind.

Essentially, if you play around with forming and unforming Divisions enough, you start to realize that your command penalty benefit (that is the number one reason for creating Divisions in the first place) is not utilized efficiently with smaller numbers of units involved. In other words, you are kind of wasting those assets that it cost to create the Division, they could be better used elsewhere.

[Zebedee]

One other point Zeb that took me forever to figure out it seemed, is that Divisions are not worth it unless you combine more than 5 or 6 units to create it. No one I know of has done a break-even analysis on exactly where the sweetspot lies, but it's something to keep in mind.

Essentially, if you play around with forming and unforming Divisions enough, you start to realize that your command penalty benefit (that is the number one reason for creating Divisions in the first place) is not utilized efficiently with smaller numbers of units involved. In other words, you are kind of wasting those assets that it cost to create the Division, they could be better used elsewhere.

Yeah, I'm just starting to notice that in the light of your post. That said, battles are a lot less of a lottery now I can get command penalties under 35% for large stacks at least I'm currently doing it on a command by command basis and figuring out whether it's better to division or not.

---------

re. morale hits for the union for invasion - if there were more penalties (and increasing ones) for the further the South gets into union territory especially on the East coast, would that force the Union to come out to play? Perhaps increase the morale hit overall by adding it into more cities in the east but lower it for Washington? Maryland switching sides because the Union refuses to protect it properly would prevent 'gaming' the morale system too.