Design flaw

[Daxil]

Ok, I've run up into a very frustrating experience in my PBEM game and I don't know if it can be fixed with the way the game is currently designed, but...

The issue is the Union player has no incentive to attack the first few years in the East due to the discrepency in leadership abilities there. So, my PBEM opponent has just sat in the four hexes from Baltimore to the hex next to DC and refuses to budge. It's mid 1862 and not a peep. I've tried invading, but I can only go so far with that huge army in between me and my base. He just kind of sits there and watches me, which is sooo frustrating, not to mention completely ahistorical and politically unacceptable - I'm almost ready to call it an exploit and quit or demand a house rule that he not do that, but that wouldn't solve the core game issue.

Possible solution:
I know one aspect of the game is to mix up command abilities for each of the various leaders, but I'd like it taken a couple steps further.

1. Can we mask all command abilities for both players until a battle? And then only reveal, say the strategic ability and offensive/defensive ability depending on which was used?

2. On top of this can we somehow penalize a Union player who doesn't move from the Washington vicinity? I've been trying to figure out an unexploitable solution involving MP but haven't yet. I think obviously though, maybe a commander who doesn't move the eastern army should be sacked, or perhaps... a random script based on the amount of Union activity in the East that kicks in and unentrenches a large army at Washington and vicinity after a certain amount of time, and a Union only warning a turn befrore that says, "The president is demanding an invasion of the South (all units in Washington and vicinity to be unentrenched in one turn)...

Anyways, I hope you guys take this one seriously. Great PBEM game that I think could be perfected with that kind of feature.

[soloswolf]

1) Probably not going to happen. And really not needed, imho.

2) They do take a large NM hit for not advancing. If he is prepared to accept that, let him. Dig in, arm up and win in the West.

[Hobbes]

Ok, I've run up into a very frustrating experience in my PBEM game and I don't know if it can be fixed with the way the game is currently designed, but...

The issue is the Union player has no incentive to attack the first few years in the East due to the discrepency in leadership abilities there. So, my PBEM opponent has just sat in the four hexes from Baltimore to the hex next to DC and refuses to budge. It's mid 1862 and not a peep. I've tried invading, but I can only go so far with that huge army in between me and my base. He just kind of sits there and watches me, which is sooo frustrating, not to mention completely ahistorical and politically unacceptable - I'm almost ready to call it an exploit and quit or demand a house rule that he not do that, but that wouldn't solve the core game issue.

Possible solution:
I know one aspect of the game is to mix up command abilities for each of the various leaders, but I'd like it taken a couple steps further.

1. Can we mask all command abilities for both players until a battle? And then only reveal, say the strategic ability and offensive/defensive ability depending on which was used?

2. On top of this can we somehow penalize a Union player who doesn't move from the Washington vicinity? I've been trying to figure out an unexploitable solution involving MP but haven't yet. I think obviously though, maybe a commander who doesn't move the eastern army should be sacked, or perhaps... a random script based on the amount of Union activity in the East that kicks in and unentrenches a large army at Washington and vicinity after a certain amount of time, and a Union only warning a turn befrore that says, "The president is demanding an invasion of the South (all units in Washington and vicinity to be unentrenched in one turn)...

Anyways, I hope you guys take this one seriously. Great PBEM game that I think could be perfected with that kind of feature.

I would say that if he doesn't attack you you have a very good chance of winning the game or at least getting a draw. It takes quite a time for the Union player to manouver into a game winning position in a PBEM game. He should be trying to drain your resources and cut off your supply around Richmond as soon as he can.

Cheers, Chris

[Daxil]

They do take a large NM hit for not advancing

Hmm, it's not that large then. He keeps gaining on me each turn despite being stuffed in the West.

Thanks for the heads up guys. This is my first pbem game and still learning. I'm still sticking to my guns on the first point though. I think it just makes sense.

[Spharv2]

I've been yammering at them since beta that I'd like the ratings at least initially hidden from view, but no luck so far. I'll keep at it, but I doubt this is something you'll see until AACW2, if then.

I also completely agree with you as to the complete lack of incentive for the North to move into Virginia. The hits they take are nowhere near enough to simulate the actual pressure brought to bear. If Lincoln had allowed the army to just sit there, he would have been impeached at the minimum. Unfortunately, there really aren't any easy solutions. If you sack the commander, then that just provides extra incentive for them to sit there since that's exactly what they're looking for. You could do NM and VP hits for not controlling Manassas and the surrounding regions, but then you just move the problem a bit south.

Unfortunately, the only thing that can be done now is to take Soloswolf's advice. If he's that inactive, then you get active elsewhere. He has a huge entrenched army? Well, if you have a medium sized army in front of him it should also be entrenched to the gills by now. Make it as small as you dare (If he's got a normal sized AoP, I'd be willing to pare it down to a corps, corps and a half if they're well entrenched and well led) and send everything else to cause trouble in West Virginia and up around Pittsburgh, send them out west to see if you can get your own Chickamauga...hopefully with a better ending for the CSA.

Thing is, once you get let the enemy sit in place for as long as it sounds like he's let your armies be there, they're nearly impossible to shift because they're dug in so deep, even 3-1 at odds. So take advantage of that and hurt him somewhere else. Heck, if you've got the force and control Harper's Ferry, swing north of him and start cutting rail lines, that should bring him out.

[Hobbes]

Some PBEM players are aggressive and some defensive just like the generals they represent. Is the problem not more one of frustration at having little action? If the Union player is that entrenched do as Spharv2 recommends and cause him some grief. You may not have the strength to be able to bring him to a pitched battle but take out his supply lines and interdict his reinforcements; build a force that takes advantage of your opponents weaknesses.

I can't really see that the Union player gets much advantage in this situation. Don't forget that the CSA morale tends to climb quite well in relation to the Union's as the war drags on.

Cheers, Chris

[soloswolf]

Hmm, it's not that large then. He keeps gaining on me each turn despite being stuffed in the West.

Thanks for the heads up guys. This is my first pbem game and still learning. I'm still sticking to my guns on the first point though. I think it just makes sense.

I think it is a 10 NM hit if he isn't in Manassas by July.

Regarding your other point... It has been brought up a number of times in some form. The most common concern is that it will take too much out of the hands of the players. Essentially, there seems to be a minimum level of control that they want to maintain for the players. McClellan seems to be that minimum.

[runyan99]

The Union has to attack to win the game, so if your opponent is doing nothing, he's just wasting time. If you want to win as the CSA, you should be thrilled every turn your opponent does nothing.

[Jabberwock]

Its a 10 NM hit if the Union doesnt have 10 units south of the Rappahanock by July. That's it. The event only creates one incentive to move forward. In the game there is no immediate pressure after July. It's an unrealistic expectation. That much is historical. After Bull Run there was less pressure. That is historical. The design problems are the assumption that Bull Run will happen, and the lack of continued pressure. In most cases, the event conditions won't be met in PBEM. Now the Union has further disincentives to attack:

• the NMC is bad
• NMC will automatically improve over time
• they have better generals on the way

It's smarter to wait until '62 if you're stuffed. That is not exactly historical.

The other posters are right, if the Union does nothing, eventually they lose. Expect something.

My suggestions to Daxil:

• Win in the west. (what everybody else said)
• Take Fort Monroe. Fortify along the Chesapeake.
• Take Harrisburg. Threaten Wilmington and Philadelphia. Cut off some of the supplies to that entrenched army. You won't get them all, because supply ships can still sail into Baltimore, but you will create pressure.
• Send some cavalry into the eastern shore and Delaware.
• Build a navy. Build shore batteries at vulnerable points along the coast (river mouths). Fortify New Orleans.
• Take Pickens.

[soloswolf]

[Jabberwock]

[Daxil]

Win in the west. (what everybody else said)
Take Fort Monroe. Fortify along the Chesapeake.
Take Harrisburg. Threaten Wilmington and Philadelphia. Cut off some of the supplies to that entrenched army. You won't get them all, because supply ships can still sail into Baltimore, but you will create pressure.
Send some cavalry into the eastern shore and Delaware.
Build a navy. Build shore batteries at vulnerable points along the coast (river mouths). Fortify New Orleans.
Take Pickens.

Haha, I think Ive done all that. Ft Monroe went down early in the game, Pickens a bit ago. I've taken out Harrisburg, Yorkand Lancaster, destroyed the rails through Philly. Now my army's sitting right next to DC inviting an attack - with a sizeable force well dug in at Manassas and reserves of course. Still nothing, although he is working his way down the coast and has a cav invasion going on in NC.

I just wish I knew about the July thing. I'm sure he does (he's a mod here and probably reading this right now to spy on me ) and I'm sure he'll move next turn or something (late May). Although he can't move with my army sitting there at Washington (he'll probably do his gamey BS and land a single militia there). I guess I should expect the long-awaited attack on my army next turn.

[Hobbes]

Haha, I think Ive done all that. Ft Monroe went down early in the game, Pickens a bit ago. I've taken out Harrisburg, Yorkand Lancaster, destroyed the rails through Philly. Now my army's sitting right next to DC inviting an attack - with a sizeable force well dug in at Manassas and reserves of course. Still nothing, although he is working his way down the coast and has a cav invasion going on in NC.

I just wish I knew about the July thing. I'm sure he does (he's a mod here and probably reading this right now to spy on me ) and I'm sure he'll move next turn or something (late May). Although he can't move with my army sitting there at Washington (he'll probably do his gamey BS and land a single militia there). I guess I should expect the long-awaited attack on my army next turn.

The "July thing" only applies to '61 I think? One militia unit wont do it either you need a certain number of units to be in various regions. Can anyone remind me of the exact event requirements?

Edit: Oops I see Jab posted this!

Cheers, Chris