Deca wrote:Keep in mind the alternative? Everyone plays a game in which we use the exact same commanders, to fight the exact same battles, for the exact same objectives, to have the exact same outcomes, over and over for literally each & every single time we play in which we find ourselves not even playing a game, but reliving the movie "Hedgehog Day" (good movie by the way).
A very good movie.ghostlight wrote:Groundhog Day
barkhorn45 wrote:" A side thought, but an interesting observation/question: I'm wondering how many players are taking every possible unit they build and piling it into forward armies or the East theatre only to sit in DC without moving into Virginia until as Pocus says "the stars are properly aligned", and then are complaining about the deep CSA raids against their improperly garrisoned cities?
Occasionally, I read a post from someone who actually does bother to garrison his rear cities and for the most part they are quite successful in handling the deep raids the AI throws at them. Now against a determined human player, I'm not so sure a single Militia garrison unit will work as effectively, so the FI penalty thru 1862 may need to be applied to PBEM games for the CSA player"
I'm curious the designers have gone thru a lot of trouble to make this game as historical as possible ie period railroad systems,leader pics and abilities and correct unit designations,weather conditions and their effects.
historically what kind of garrison did reading pa have in sept'61?enough to repulse a 3 brigade army{i'm assuming that would be the designation at this point in the war}lead by competant leaders?
I find it "PRETTY FUNNY"[to paraphrase a poster]that it is considered completely acceptable to suggest "house rules "for pbem players to limit these activities I complained "bitterly"about.So i guess it's perfectly acceptable for the human csa player to sit and wait for the union to wipe them out with their HUGE armies in a pbem game
i would be interested to know how many csa human players playing with historical house rules win?None i would guess using the above criteria
While I don't think the game, as it stands atm, realistically portrays deep raids and assaults, we can not deny that they happened on both sides; Forrest, Mosby, Stuarts rides, etc. for the south, and Grierson(sp) plus others for the north.
Redeemer wrote:While I don't think the game, as it stands atm, realistically portrays deep raids and assaults, we can not deny that they happened on both sides; Forrest, Mosby, Stuarts rides, etc. for the south, and Grierson(sp) plus others for the north. The problem is that while raids happened and were destructive, destroying rail, property, depots, captured garrisons, horses, wagons, supplys, etc. None had a real strategic impact on the war in any theatre. They were nuisances, and the consequences were short term affairs. So, how do we portrait this in a game? I am thinking this may be solvable with supply. Make the supply chain shorter, you have to be closer to a supply base than currently. Make depots cheaper and easier to build. Make larger forces more dependant on supply chains, and make smaller forces easier to live off the land, like most raiders would be able to do. Don't let enemy cities supply you with ammo until it become a supply base in your unbroken chain of supply. Just thinking out load.
Gray_Lensman wrote:Define what makes it impossible in reality. In reality it was entirely possible for these raids. They even seized their own supplies as necessary. The fact that the raids weren't done was for more political and common sense reasons then being physically impossible to do. Therein lies the solution, but I haven't found the right combination of restraints or penalties yet.
Redeemer wrote:I think the impossible parts are a cav regiment taking a level 2 or higher town by itself. That and Jackson running to Harrisburg with a 3 division corps and having Harrisburg supply him with food and ammo.
Gray_Lensman wrote:You guys need to distinguish between what would have really been historically physically impossible to do, and what just wasn't actually done historically. They are 2 different situations.
soloswolf wrote:I think 600+ armed, trained men working in unison can get what they need. It's not like the citizenry is going to form in the streets to stop them. Holding it is another issue, but they don't need to. They have gotten their supply and ammo and will move on.
Redeemer wrote:Gray and Solo, you both just proved my point. The raiders did not CONTROL the town. The came for prisoners, money, supplies, and to destroy vital infrastructure, but they did not cause the town to switch from Union to CSA. They exerted no military control over the towns as happens now in the game.
Redeemer wrote:I said nothing about loyalty, it wasn't even part of the discussion. The point was that a single regiment of cav should not be able to gain military control of a city regardless of a garrison or even if it is empty in one turn. For example, if a cav unit from either side can pass thru or even just end up and a level whatever city, if no garrison is present and poof, it now has control of that city. It will not effect the loyalty and will probably not even move the military control of the region much, but the city itself switches. Try putting a cav regiment in Philly or Richmond by itself during the civil war and think about what would happen.
TheDoctorKing wrote:I've never been an advocate for making it impossible under the rules for the CSA to invade. I think that the political consequences should be accurately modeled. Herewith a proposal:
Make a "CSA Raids North" and a "CSA Invades North" chit using the same model as the invasions of Kentucky in your add-on. The CSA player could destroy the unit at will, eliminating the continuing effects (including the ability to enter northern states.
The "raid" would allow CSA units to enter free states of the north (the border states would not be affected by this rule) for up to three turns, the two turns after the chit was purchased they could move freely, and on the third turn they would have to be ordered to move back to permitted territory (which would include border states). The "raid" would cost a small amount of NM to the CSA (maybe 1), cause a small loss of foreign intervention (2-5) and give the USA a similarly small NM boost, a dozen militia units in the towns of the invaded state (of they "insurrectory" type that disappear after a few turns) and a dose of conscripts (25-50). This would simulate the sort of thing the CSA actually did in the Gettysburg campaign: a movement a few tens of miles into free territory in order to outflank a defensive line and cut rail links.
The "invasion" would permit CSA units to freely enter USA territory but would give a big hit to NM (5 maybe), a big hit to foreign intervention (10-20), give the USA regular militia units in all its towns near the invasion point (so they don't disappear - if the CSA army isn't going away they won't either), give the USA a huge increase in NM, and the equivalent of a full mobilization in conscripts. This would simulate the absolutely inconceivable full-scale invasion of the north by the south, perhaps subsequent to foreign intervention or major victories by the CSA in their own territory. The USA never mobilized its resources fully for war; this simulates the reality that if they thought their national territory was going to be conquered by the CSA they most likely would have, and northern public opinion would have been more willing to stand for it given the northern fear of "slave power."
The NM bonus/malus for winning battles in northern free state territory for the CSA should be much higher than in the south, and a victory that gives the CSA NM should also reverse the loss of foreign intervention (or have a good chance of reversing it, anyway).
If you really want to simulate the political effects of such an invasion this is the kind of penalties you should have.
Gray_Lensman wrote:By game design there is no intrinsic defense of the structures themselves.
Gray_Lensman wrote:You have to provide the defense capability yourself. So, by game design you HAVE to place a Militia unit in the town to represent its defense, otherwise, yes, a lone cavalry unit can conceivably gain MC of Philadelphia. Now, you can put a pair of blinders on and say that's not right because all the towns weren't garrisoned by actual Militia units and technically you'd be correct..
Gray_Lensman wrote:On the other hand if you think of those Militia as a form of town defense regardless of the name "Militia", you might understand that the idea of placing some sort of Miltia presence in your rear structures is really representing the structure's building up it's own internal defense.
Redeemer wrote:If this fictional cav unit takes the defenseless philly for example, the loyalty will not change, the military control might change a percent, but the city itself changes from USA to CSA flagged. What does this mean in game terms?
Gray_Lensman wrote:Whereas up until very recently, I was somewhat convinced that there should be a penalty for CSA movements into northern territory, I don't believe in any penalty for raiding the North now.
One of the objectives of Lee's original 1862 Campaign was to invade the North thru to the Susquehanna and threaten Philadelphia, Baltimore, or Washington, in order to gain Foreign recognition, by presenting the foreign governments with proof that the south could win the war. This was prior to the release of the Emancipation Proclamation. Also, Bragg's intent was to move on Cincinnati if successful in central KY. Now, historically we all know that neither of these objectives came to pass, but the fact that the southern leaders were contemplating them has convinced me that they were not worried about any sort of political backlash, but actually counted on positive benefits had they been successful. To sum it up, they were militarily defeated but not politically inhibited in their attempts to invade the north.
This is why I will absolutely NOT be providing any penalty for CSA invasions of the North in this game, and in fact I'm removing some penalties I was originally contemplating that was present in some future work for beta testing.
Return to “AGEod's American Civil War”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests
