Modify the Victory Conditions?

[Chaplain Lovejoy]

Am just now reading Lincoln and His Generals by T. Harry Williams. He makes this interesting claim: "[Lincoln] soon realized, if he did not know it at the beginning, that the proper objective of his armies was the destruction of the Confederate armies and not the occupation of Southern territory" (p. 7).

This yields two questions:
1. Do we agree with this?
2. If we do agree, how should the victory conditions be modified to reflect it, if at all?

Two other interesting quotes:

"The objective is not to destroy the enemy per say, but to take land. Land that produces supplies and victory points" (from Kyle vs. Keith thread).

"[McClellan's faulty plan] would have made places instead of enemy armies the objective" (T. Harry Williams, p. 31).

[Jabberwock]

Taking land is a means to an end. My enemy must defend land in order to produce things he needs for his army, and keep his population happy. If I destroy the enemies lines of communication and supply, or his ability to produce supply in a given region, then he will eventually have to move his army. An army on the move is vulnerable, especially if it has low supplies.

In terms of victory, it is entirely possible to take all the land without winning the game. This is easily accomplished by players who do any or all the following things:

• Want the right "name" general to get a promotion regardless of the effects, or promote anybody who is eligible.
• Take too many options, believing they can never have too many replacements or supplies to go around.
• View conquering land as a final objective, rather than a means to an end.
• Fail to land morale crushing blows, but wear the opponent down instead.
• Don't pay enough attention to events that cost VP or NM.

I view this situation as resulting in an extended asymmetric war after the conquest or a "You win, but we'll try again in a few years". I'm guessing most players are fine with that, and fairly happy with the results they obtain under the current system.

[Chaplain Lovejoy]

Nicely put. I was thinking that T. Harry Williams was offering the classic "false choice."

[soloswolf]

Can we stop this guy?

[Rafiki]

Can we stop this guy?

Yes; you can count on spam getting deleted

(Guessing that you are reffering to the spammer and not Chaplain Lovejoy or Jabberwock.... )

[tagwyn]

Jabber: I completely agree with you. T