Erik Rutins
Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Treefrog
He summarized the development of AC commands during the war for both sides and arrived at the conclusion, as best I can recollect, he can comment and clear up any misconceptions on my part, that the game AC system did not reflect that the logistical and other ability of the North to maintain large operations on multiple fronts was greater than that of the South. This view is clearly our subjective point of view, your mileage may vary.
Sure, thanks for the explanation. I understand what you're after now and I can see your point.
quote:
In my experience with about 9 or so PBEM games with opponents of differing ability, the North often (not always) has a very difficult time against a CSA player of comparable skill and ability. Not always, but often. Of course, a sample of 9 or so is sufficiently small that it doesn't necessarily reflect reality. My abject failures as the Union are limited to Jutland13, which, again, may simply be idiosyncratic (or in my case, idiotsyncratic); he clearly outplayed me and I don't attribute my failings to 4 CSA ACs, although it might have helped if he didn't have them.
9 Games is a good sample as far as I'm concerned, it's a lot more post-update PBEM experience than I've had. From previous experience, I think WBTS does require quite a bit of skill to play well and it's easy to let yourself get bogged down as the Union if you don't plan ahead. I think both sides are quite challenging though and the Union player has to focus on stretching the Confederate player's defense. If the Union player does not stretch the Confederate player through both multiple land advance routes as well as coastal invasions, he will likely stall out. If he succeeds in stretching the Confederacy, he can keep the momentum going and once it builds the CSA has a heck of a time stopping it.
It's also worth keeping in mind that CSA players tend to do a better job of defending in the West than the CSA did historically and Union players tend not to be as aggressive about pushing on Richmond to tie down the CSA there due to PP concerns (hopefully the updates helped with that). So to some degree house rules have to reflect the "meta game" as well as the real game and consider that the historical figures didn't get a chance to re-fight things multiple times to find optimal strategies.
quote:
My 3 CSA AC suggestion is as much a play balance/handicap solution as anything else
We address the PP challenge addressed by GShock by allowing the 4th AC on the map, he just doesn't do anything until 1864 when he is available to actively participate in the TransMississippi. Frankly, we might adjust that house rule to allow activation when the North severs the South at the three Mississippi River crossings.
I'm very interested to hear how it goes. I'm concerned that it will make things too easy for the Union, but maybe it will work out. No way to know for sure except to try it out.
Regards,
- Erik
_____________________________
|
Printable Version
House Rules? - 
But I don't really want to spend that much. Read all the comparisons, so I understand the differences between the two. It's simply me deciding which I prefer, a more tactical + civ type (FoF), or a more realistic strategic simplified UI (WBTS). What I don't like about FoF, from what I have read, is that it seems a bit too ahistorical. 
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