Siekster wrote:I've only gotten to play the 1812 scenario once as the US side in a PBEM game. I was playing CristoFire, and by the time we were almost done, New York City, Fort Niagara and possibly Washington (we stopped when the 1.03 patch was released) were in British hands. Pretty embarrasing. Now, it could have been my lack of skill, but i got the feeling that the American Generals were not on par with their British counterparts. The American forces were also pretty fragmented, so if you wanted an army equivalent to the Brits invasion stacks, you had to pool them all together, leaving other areas exposed.
I admit, the big head start in VP's helped out a lot, but I think the Americans were fine as they were, considering their weaknesses. (The war was about maximizing your own side's strengths, which I failed to do.)
When deciding how to balance a scenario, the PBEM factor has to be weighed....
British player is in a race against time in this scenario, but I agree that US side should have more troops at his disposal.Basically FAR more militia units locked in the cities representing the fact, that they only defended their homes.
According to wikipedia the British army did not had (such) numerical advantage than in the game:
United States
•Regular Army:
— 7,000 (at start of war);
— 35,800 (at war's end)
•Rangers: 3,049
•Militia: 458,463 - Very few militia members left their homes to fight in the war's campaigns.
British Empire
•British Army:
— 5,200 (at start of war);
— 48,160 (at war's end)
•Provincial Regulars: 10,000
•Provincial Militia: 4,000
