National Morale and Battles

[bloodybucket]

I've been reading an interesting collection of essays in the book Why the Confederacy Lost and one of them made an arguement that battles, while sometimes not pivotal in a strictly strategic sense, were sometimes pivotal in how they changed morale, and how the public perception of the war was wrapped up in battles won and lost.

An example the author gives is Lee's first "raid" North. While it accomplished the strategic objective of protecting the Virginia harvest while allowing Lee to feed his army in enemy territory, and while Antietam wasn't a crushing tactical defeat for Lee, since he retreated after a battle it was a viewed as a significant defeat by the public, even though he would have had to withdraw eventually.

That got me thinking as to how National Morale (NM) is handled in AACW.

Should individual battles swing NM more than they do currently? Some of the essayists in Why the Confederacy Lost seem to think that morale was much more volatile than it is in AACW, and rose and fell much faster than it does in the game.

Is there an NM advantage winning several battles in a row, so that the cumulative effect of a streak of victories is greater than the same wins interspersed with defeats? Should there be an advantage to being "on a roll"?

Does where a battle take place have any bearing on the NM effect, and should it be factored in?

How about inactivity? The most famous example of this is Little Mac, of course, but in what about Joe Johnston and the decision to replace him with J. B. Hood? Should there be a mechanism that demands a fight from certain leaders or armies, with a large loss of NM being the price for ignoring the popular clamor for battle despite the strategic merits of turning maneuvers and trading space for time?

Was the blockade more of a tool for wearing down rebel civil morale than an effective way to starve the rebel armies of the logistical means to function? Does the blockade play a direct role in NM in AACW?

I'm approaching the 1864 elections as the South in my current match against the AI, and if Lincoln wins, will my NM take a dive?

I'm sure I have yet to fully grasp NM and how it works, other than I can win or lose if it goes too high or low.

[jimwinsor]

NM seems to swing most upon whole element destruction. As opposed to just casualties.

Which means, you need to be very careful whan deciding to defend in a city/fort or attack/defend in any other no retreat situation (ie, amphibious invasion).

[Black Cat]

FWIW, I thought NM, as it effects the winning or losing of the Game,was based on territory lost, especially large cities ?

In an age where public communcations were severely affected by distances, and both sides routinely used disinformation, also know as " spin control " as far as batttle results, losses like the entire city of New Orleans, or the Mississippi River would travel fast and would be hard to cover up or explain away IMO.

[Sheytan]

I had bucannan (sp) the confed admiral with 2 ironclads near hampton roads, a huge union fleet came and destroyed both in 2 battles. my loss of national moral was 2 points per ship. ouch!

[denisonh]

I have seen battles where the "victor" vacated the battlefield.

It seems odd that losing a town/territory does not count against the side losing it, especially when it is "home turf".

By not leaving a garrison and keeping the Army outside the town, a player can "win" and not lose the army or any units to siege.

If this is the case, then there is no reason for the CSA to try and hold Vicksburg. Just Make the Yankees "kick you out" in a bloody fight, "win" the battle and vacate to fight another day. Lose Vickburg and come out in the positive on NM. Makes no sense.

I beleive that NM, at least in a major way, needs to be related to holding the battlefield or gaining it. Casualty reports can be "fudged", but possession of the battlefield is hard to "spin".

[jimwinsor]

I think it could be argued that the CSA trying to hold Vicksburg was a very very bad idea in the real war too.

[denisonh]

I would say that we must remember political imperatives and sound military decision making do not arrive at the same conclusions.

Balancing political objectives with military reality is a main task for a "commander in chief".

NM should reflect the political IMHO. The player can ignore those at his own risk, but here should be a consequence.

I think it could be argued that the CSA trying to hold Vicksburg was a very very bad idea in the real war too.

[bloodybucket]

That's the crux of the essay that caught my eye: That leaders in the civil war were often forced by political/public pressure make choices that made little military sense.

Also, battles were events that could massively effect NM, more so than in the game.

I'm not sure that having NM go up or down in big chunks after a battle would make for a better game, and I don't know how complicated it would be to have the game rate each battle for factors like location, time and if it was one in a series of defeats or victories would be.

I do think it might be more simulative.

[Pocus]

NM will change if you lose an important location (objective city), so control of the territory is taken into account. For smaller but still important towns, they are tagged as strategic towns/cities, which provide victory points, and VP are also important in the game.