Thu Aug 16, 2007 8:27 am
I conceded a PBEM by April 1862 as the Union.
First the rebs steamrolled my entire Eastern Union army in their level 7 entrenchments at Alexandria. Then they attacked Washington with a 2-1 odds advantage in numbers and routed most of the Union army....I had enough. I conceded.
The West plays historically and seems balanced but the East is not right.
First, the Union cannot and should not attack in the East....period. It is simply counterproductive suicide. Second, the Union leadership is sooooo bad and the Reb leadership sooooo good combined with the reb ability to mobilize an equal or larger army in the east, that the Union will be very lucky to hold Washington against aggressive confederate attacks. The union can only entrench in the East and hope to survive the rebel attacks. And it is highly likely, the Union won't survive the reb attacks. Even if the bad union leaders put up a good fight, bad leadership commanders tend to retreat anyway-right out of their level 7 entrenchments. And there isn't much room to retreat in the east. Lose a couple battles and Washington falls.
The rebs can put very large numbers of troops in the East which combined with the arrival of Lee, Longstreet and Jackson produces an unstoppable steamroller in aggressive hands. The Union cannot win in the West before the war is over in the East.
Are the leadership values of the Reb eastern leaders too high or the Union leaders too low? Are the rebs able to build too large of an army early in the game by maxing mobilization and printing money? I know I was amazed at the large reb armies in the first year of the war. Although large armies can be built if you are willing to print money and fully mobilize from day one.
IMO, the scenario needs tweaking as it is vulnerable to a single winning strategy which has too high a probability of ending the game in less than a year.