General Quarters
Posts: 1059
Joined: 12/3/2006
Status: offline
|
In population, industrial capacity, railroads, and even the high moral ground, the Union clearly overbalanced the South, and the game should, and in many ways does, reflect that imbalance. How then can the game be playable? Because the South did indeed have a real chance of winning -- primarily because of the difference in political will. The North could lose and still survive; the South could not. The South lost huge chucks of territory and still had plenty of fight in it; the North could not have suffered a comparable loss without moving to negotiate. Peace sentiment rose in the North whenever the two sides were stalemated.
This factor is present in the domestic politics on both sides. The opposition to Jefferson Davis was primarily based on personal dislike, individual ambition, disagreements over personnel and strategy, and states' jealously of even a Confederate central government. It was not a peace movement. The opposition to Lincoln (outside his own party) was primarily a peace movement.
One way to balance is game is not only to be microhistorical (e.g., the correct ratios of northern to southern horses and the like) when possible; but also to be macrohistorical and reflect this larger political reality. One can argue with the mechanism of VPs after Nov 64, but the basic concept is right on target. There was a time-limit on Northern but not on Southern will to fight.
Several other things could be done:
(1) It would reflect political reality for the North to suffer greater losses in National Will for its defeats than the South for its.
(2) From the beginning, there was Northern demand for battle. There was a reason McDowell took his army to Bull Run -- political opinion required it. For every Union general, the clock was always running. The North could be penalized whenever a certain amount of time passes with no battle.
(3) The Northern public expected territory to be conquered. The North might be peanlized if it does not conquer 1 province by a certain point into the war, 2 provinces by a subsequent point, etc.
(4) There was a political cost, reflected in the game, when a general was demoted. The South started with capable generals and therefore rarely, if at all, suffered this penalty. The game reflects that fact. Lincoln paid a political cost in demoting McClellan (who was popular enough that he became the almost automatic Democratic presidential nominee) and even a guy like Rosecrans. In addition, with guys like Banks, Butler, and McClernand, the cost was so great he was not willing to pay it.
Two changes might more adequately reflect this problem in Union command: one is increasing the cost of demoting a general. The cost was greater than offending a single governor. The whole Democratic party immediately embraced McClellan as its next presidential nominee. Prominent Republicans wanted to replace Lincoln with Fremont, who had resigned rather than serve under someone junior. The cost should probably be a reduction in National Will -- at least for the most important figures.
The other is to start these political generals with several stars, so that you either have to suffer their poor command or suffer a serious political cost.
(5) I don't know what the chances were of England and France recognizing the confederacy, but knowledgeable people at the time regarded them as quite real. It was thought that the South had to prove that it was viable and this could be done in either of two ways: by surviving long enough or by winning a major victory on Northern soil. The first might be reflected in the game by adding a clock running so that, if the North does not have certain achievements at certain times, the odds of recognition go up significantly. One would have to define "major victory" and "Northern soil," but odds of recognition could markedly increase in the case of such a victory.
If the Nothern advantage in men and material were offset by these very real political factors, the game would reflect both Northern strength and Northern vulnerability, and should thereby be quite playable. Basically, the South should be able to win a few significant victories while not being able to stop the overall Union advance, with the possibility of that those victories are just enough to survive long enough, to fuel the Northern peace movement, and perhaps to trigger foreign intervention.
|
Printable Version
RE: Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread