Recapture of CSA capitals loss of will (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> Public Beta Feedback



Message

Paper Tiger -> Recapture of CSA capitals loss of will (4/13/2007 11:49:51 AM)


I send off a medium sized raiding force and take a CSA capital city hurrah, loss of 1 will to the CSA and they detach a large force from another theatre and send it off to retake the lost city. OK all going to plan here until I am forced out by the weight of numbers and the CSA recapture the capital, at which point the USA loses 2 will!
Excuse me but this is still enemy territory it is an enemy state, not like it is Ohio or something, how come the USA loses national will for this, I could understand the CSA regaining the 1 it lost but as it stands the CSA is almost better off leaving it's capitals as open cities and attempting to retake them repeatedly.



christof139 -> RE: Recapture of CSA capitals loss of will (4/13/2007 12:01:40 PM)

quote:

I send off a medium sized raiding force and take a CSA capital city hurrah, loss of 1 will to the CSA and they detach a large force from another theatre and send it off to retake the lost city. OK all going to plan here until I am forced out by the weight of numbers and the CSA recapture the capital, at which point the USA loses 2 will!
Excuse me but this is still enemy territory it is an enemy state, not like it is Ohio or something, how come the USA loses national will for this, I could understand the CSA regaining the 1 it lost but as it stands the CSA is almost better off leaving it's capitals as open cities and attempting to retake them repeatedly.


Yup, also happened to me. It must be secret saboteurial programming methodology to drive players nuts. Could be so.

Chris



General Quarters -> RE: Recapture of CSA capitals loss of will (4/13/2007 5:35:21 PM)

I had wondered about this pattern also -- minus one for the South, but minus two for the North -- and had thought that it might be the designers' way to represent the very great political vulnerability of the Union commitment to the war. Democrats were either very reserved or outright opposed to the war, and even some Republican types, like Horace Greeley, sometimes thought, good riddance, we don't want to be in the same country with these guys. There were also the textile interests in New England -- the former "Cotton Whigs" -- their businesses and the economy of their region suffered severely from the cotton embargo.

There is also the fact that the North could, theoretically, let the South go and still have a country of its own, whereas, if the South lost, it lost all. That had a big impact on will to fight.

As a result, the South could lose city after city -- down to the nub that represented the final Confederacy -- and still fight. Whereas many in the North, even after taking Ky and Tenn and the Miss River etc, felt the war was hopeless and it was time to make peace. Imagine what had happened if the rebels had actually recaptured Nashville! In effect, it was a minus-one when the rebels lost it, but would have been a minus-two for the Union if they had recaptured it.

So this is a feature, maybe the only feature, of the game that reflects relative fragility of the Northern commitment to the war.



ericbabe -> RE: Recapture of CSA capitals loss of will (4/13/2007 8:54:26 PM)

The US does lose more National Will when it loses cities than the CSA does, and this is an attempt to model that the US' National Will was a bit more fragile than the South's.



Paper Tiger -> RE: Recapture of CSA capitals loss of will (4/14/2007 12:08:50 AM)

I would say that is fine for a loss of an actual Union capital, but when you are looking at CSA capitals in CSA territory how can that be correct? Would the Union really be devastated by the loss of a CSA city as they would by the loss of a Union one?
How about when the Union performs an amphibious landing, fine if you are kicked back out of New Orleans but -2 National Will if the CSA detatches a corps and chases you out of Talahassee???
At the moment it is in the Unions interest to attack cities and capitals along the CSA coast to try and keep the CSA from concentrating everything along the land border, with the -1 vs -2 Will here the CSA may as well leave all the coastal capitals undefended and hope the Union attacks them, that way the CSA can devestate the Union will to fight.
You could lose an entire army and everyone in it and suffer no loss of morale, lose a major city as long as it isn't a capitol and no loss of will from that either , but lose an enemy capital that you just managed to jump into while it was lightly defended in a strategic move to pull your opponents army out of position and you get hammered.

You want to make it common sense Union loses -1 for a normal Union city and -2 for a capital. CSA loses -1 for a CSA capital. Either side loses -1 for a corps or army destroyed, either side regains the lost will by recapturing lost cities.



ericbabe -> RE: Recapture of CSA capitals loss of will (4/14/2007 12:29:29 AM)

I don't think it's too unreasonable for the US to lose two points of National Will when the CSA recaptures one of its capitals.  I did not intend National Will to be zero-sum...the tendency should be for it to trend downward as the war goes on.



Paper Tiger -> RE: Recapture of CSA capitals loss of will (4/14/2007 9:42:02 AM)

Eric, I do think it is unreasonable, especially considering the things which have no impact at all and the fact that the US could well capture CSA capitals by amphibious landing. A landing in Florida which captures the capital but is then chased out loses 2 national will, a landing in Flordia where the entire landing force is destroyed without capturing anything loses nothing. And lets not forget these are CSA cities not USA ones. From a US point of view the rules as they stand will lead to capture of non capitals and just burning of capitals.
I'm not sure I can hold it so lets just pillage it to death, the CSA loses will for every Mansion or Plantation I burn anyway. Naval landings will become comando raids aimed at destroying as much as possible before you are chased off.



dude -> RE: Recapture of CSA capitals loss of will (4/14/2007 6:28:16 PM)

I would agree with Paper Tiger...  I hadn't realized that there was such a loopsided penalty for the USA.  Now I'm less inclined to take a CSA capital in future games.  I'll just pillage and bypass them.

"R2, I suggest a new strategy... let the wookie win..." comes to mind...  If you want to penalize the USA then do it for things that would have really mattered.  Fighting back and forth over a CSA capital I don't think would have been a major factor, having half your army surrender would.

You should only be penalized for losing one of your own cities not an enemy one.  Battles could rage back and forth over an area until one side finally could dominate.

Dude



christof139 -> RE: Recapture of CSA capitals loss of will (4/14/2007 6:37:36 PM)

Yeah, if the North takes a CSA State Capital and then loses it, the North shouldn't be penalized so heavily as it is now. Myabe as you say only a -1 to National Will and a +1 for the CSA retaking the State Capital.

Chris



Drex -> RE: Recapture of CSA capitals loss of will (4/14/2007 7:32:49 PM)

the fact is if you take a CSA capitol you better have it well garrisoned and have a strong army nearby to fend off the counterattack. Sounds like RL to me.



General Quarters -> RE: Recapture of CSA capitals loss of will (4/14/2007 8:08:30 PM)

The large penalty seems historical to me. Look at how much the Union worried over Nashville once it had taken it. For example, they kept a considerable force there even after Bragg invaded Kentucky, and they guarded it carefully when Rosecrans moved into Middle Tenn.



Paper Tiger -> RE: Recapture of CSA capitals loss of will (4/14/2007 9:26:10 PM)

I counter your Nashville with the following.
1. In this game the amount of resources available to each side are not at historical levels. Hence it is easier for the CSA to detach a force to counter an attack against the coastal capitals than was historicaly the case.
2. In the early war had the US taken and burned a CSA capital and then withdrawn faced with a larger CSA force being brought up within a couple of weeks would that be regarded as a victory or a defeat? Both sides performed raids in strength at various times.
3. The Union loses 2 Will for ANY capital and Nothing for a normal city. Sorry makes no sense would the loss of St Louis be of no interest while loss of Talahassee would devestate US will?

OK so at the moment the CSA can ignore the need to garrison coastal capitals in the secure knowledge that if the Union makes a landing with anything less than a full army then the CSA can push the US out and mess up US will, The US on the other hand will never be able to create an effective beachead as the areas will never fall even when the cities do, so the supply costs for the US will be prohibitive for anything more than a division.

Sorry but at the moment it makes no sense to me on a number of levels. Can you at least make this an optional setting so those of us who think it is stupid can turn it off?



dude -> RE: Recapture of CSA capitals loss of will (4/14/2007 9:45:07 PM)

Ok, here's a question for those that have better knowldege of the CW than I... was there ever a case of the USA capturing any CSA city (let's not just limit it to capitals for this point..) and then losing it and having the loss of said city baddly impact northern moral?

How many times did the USA NOT take Richmond and have a negative effect to northern will?

.... just curious.

Dude



Gray_Lensman -> RE: Recapture of CSA capitals loss of will (4/14/2007 9:53:50 PM)

 
IMHO, only cities that originally belong to the USA/CSA should have their corresponding national will affected by loss/recapture, with the possible exception of the "neutral at start" states and maybe national capitols. In other words loss/recapture of original southern cities should only affect CSA national will, and loss/recapture of Northern cities should only affect USA national will. The main reason Nashville and other southern cities were garrisoned so well after capture was to prevent their usage as sources of supplies and weaponry to the remaining southern armies.

As Paper Tiger says currently the National Will rules effectively curtail amphibious operations, when in reality virtually every southern port was eventually blocked, some with a standing blockading fleet, others where possible, by seizure of outlying controlling forts.



Drex -> RE: Recapture of CSA capitals loss of will (4/14/2007 10:13:06 PM)

After the above responses, I have to change my view and agree it is wrong to be penalized for losing an enemy capitol. One of your own capitols, yes.



Paper Tiger -> RE: Recapture of CSA capitals loss of will (4/14/2007 11:45:22 PM)

Just to clear some things up here, I can see why loss of an opposition city could affect Northern morale, imagine the loss of New Orleans, or Nashville, but then I do not think that such a loss would be as devestating as the loss of a northern city, in the second case you have the additional issue of "If the rebels can capture X where in the Union is safe?". To me the big problem in the loss of an enemy city would generally be more to do with the loss of a major battle which would more often than not go with it. I can see losing the same morale that you gain for a southern city that seems right. But beyond that should be more to do with the number of troops lost when the city surrenders. Marching out of a burning city in a tactical withdrawal is very different from having 15000 men surrender after a protracted seige. What effect did the loss of Fort Henry have on CSA morale?



ericbabe -> RE: Recapture of CSA capitals loss of will (4/15/2007 12:53:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Paper Tiger
1. In this game the amount of resources available to each side are not at historical levels. Hence it is easier for the CSA to detach a force to counter an attack against the


The old Southern Steel OOBs were taken from the West Point Academy Atlas of the Civil War, though they were still giving some benefit of the doubt to the South. However the newest ones we're testing in beta right now are even more restricting to the South and are even better documented. The production levels are taken directly from the 1860 census data. Now maybe upkeep costs could be increased or decreased, but everything has been calibrated in order to produce roughly the total number of brigades/strength that were levied during the war. If you have particular objections (i.e. "Selma produces too many horses!") please feel free to make them.



ericbabe -> RE: Recapture of CSA capitals loss of will (4/15/2007 12:58:31 AM)

I can see modifying the rules so that nations do not lose as much NW when an occupied city is lost, but I really do think that the Union was much more sensitive to setbacks than the South was; I would like to hear more opinions on this before we consider changing it.  The difference of 1 point of NW on a 24 point scale is really a quibbling over 5%, so I don't see this as being a significant disadvantage for the US.



christof139 -> RE: Recapture of CSA capitals loss of will (4/15/2007 1:09:18 AM)

You fellows are all right in many aspects. Just make the loss of any city a -1 to the side losing it, and a +0 for the side gaining it, except for State Capitals, which would give the winner a +1 and the loser a -1 including the loser getting only a +1 if it retakes a State Capital. For the National Capitals make it -2 or +2. No biggie. You have to draw a line somewhere.

Chris



Paper Tiger -> RE: Recapture of CSA capitals loss of will (4/15/2007 11:32:25 AM)

OK so the info now used is census related, fair enough I was working from what I saw way back when someone posted production figures for the US which were just far in excess of what the current ones are, but hey I can't remember who and I am not about to go searching so fair enough.
Still does not make sense to me how the loss of what is effectively a captured enemy city would be in any way as devastating to national will as the loss of a home city, nor does it make sense that the loss of say New Orleans would effect US morale not at all while the loss of Florida or Texas would damage it in the same way and to the same level as the loss of a Northern State capital.
Nor as I have said previously does it make sense that the loss of an entire division/corps/army affects will not at all.
I just lost an entire Corps of 25000 men surrounded and captured in Neverheardofit Tennessee but that is fine because they wern't defending Nashville...

Yep I understand the US had more National Will problems than the south, but isn't that covered by saying an invasion of the north resulting in the capture of any northern city affects northern morale much more than the same invasion of the south, equally the US loses more morale for the loss of a battle than the south, and early on the US will lose most of the major battles.

One other question, how many seiges did the south undertake during the war?



Moltke71 -> RE: Recapture of CSA capitals loss of will (4/15/2007 6:04:59 PM)

The CSA besieged no major city.  Early in the war, they besieged small towns such as Lexington, MO for a few days.

I concur that the Union should be penalized more for losing a captured capitol.  Let's get inside of a Northern reader's head:

Headlines:April 1, 1863.  Baton Rouge is captured!
Reader:  Hooray, we may be making real progress here.  Finally, we may have built a fighting army.

Headlines: April 30 1863.  Confederates recapture Baton Rouge!
Reader:  Here we go again.  Those clods can't keep what they take.  They probably got lucky in the first place.  Be darned if I buy anymore war bonds.



ericbabe -> RE: Recapture of CSA capitals loss of will (4/15/2007 6:41:12 PM)

What if we increase the loss of losing northern cities (and capitals) to US NW even higher than they are now?



General Quarters -> RE: Recapture of CSA capitals loss of will (4/16/2007 5:53:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Paper Tiger

I counter your Nashville with the following.
1. In this game the amount of resources available to each side are not at historical levels. Hence it is easier for the CSA to detach a force to counter an attack against the coastal capitals than was historicaly the case.
2. In the early war had the US taken and burned a CSA capital and then withdrawn faced with a larger CSA force being brought up within a couple of weeks would that be regarded as a victory or a defeat? Both sides performed raids in strength at various times.
3. The Union loses 2 Will for ANY capital and Nothing for a normal city. Sorry makes no sense would the loss of St Louis be of no interest while loss of Talahassee would devestate US will?

OK so at the moment the CSA can ignore the need to garrison coastal capitals in the secure knowledge that if the Union makes a landing with anything less than a full army then the CSA can push the US out and mess up US will, The US on the other hand will never be able to create an effective beachead as the areas will never fall even when the cities do, so the supply costs for the US will be prohibitive for anything more than a division.

Sorry but at the moment it makes no sense to me on a number of levels. Can you at least make this an optional setting so those of us who think it is stupid can turn it off?


1. I don't see military levels has making it unduly easy for the CSA to retake a capital.

2. Burning a city rather than taking and holding it is not what we are talking about here.

3. Whether there should be NW plus and minuses for other cities is a separate question that does not bear on whether the North was more sensitive to reverses than the South was.

4. On your last point, it does not seem to be that the current rules make it inadvisable for the CSA to garrison coastal capitals (Tallahassee?). I wouldn't want to lose them just to hope to regain them.

These points don't speak to the main issue -- the historical reality that the North was VERY susceptible to discouragement and willingness to throw in the towel. Simply NOT taking Southern cities FAST ENOUGH was enough to get anti-war politicians elected.



General Quarters -> RE: Recapture of CSA capitals loss of will (4/16/2007 6:03:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gray_Lensman

 
IMHO, only cities that originally belong to the USA/CSA should have their corresponding national will affected by loss/recapture, with the possible exception of the "neutral at start" states and maybe national capitols. In other words loss/recapture of original southern cities should only affect CSA national will, and loss/recapture of Northern cities should only affect USA national will. The main reason Nashville and other southern cities were garrisoned so well after capture was to prevent their usage as sources of supplies and weaponry to the remaining southern armies.



This doesn't seem historically realistic to me. The North was trying to conquer the South, not the other way around. The South did not have to take a single Northern city in order to win the war; it needed only to repel invasion. The North HAD to take AND HOLD Southern cities or it would lose the war.



General Quarters -> RE: Recapture of CSA capitals loss of will (4/16/2007 6:04:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bismarck


I concur that the Union should be penalized more for losing a captured capitol.  Let's get inside of a Northern reader's head:

Headlines:April 1, 1863.  Baton Rouge is captured!
Reader:  Hooray, we may be making real progress here.  Finally, we may have built a fighting army.

Headlines: April 30 1863.  Confederates recapture Baton Rouge!
Reader:  Here we go again.  Those clods can't keep what they take.  They probably got lucky in the first place.  Be darned if I buy anymore war bonds.



This seems exactly historical to me.



Paper Tiger -> RE: Recapture of CSA capitals loss of will (4/16/2007 1:57:45 PM)

OK so compare the capture and loss of Baton Rouge to the loss of the capital of a northern state.
Equally what effect would the capture or loss of New Orleans have? Non as at present?

I think this has become a question of more than just capital cities here it is more a matter of getting the effects on national will correct across the board.

I think to be fair that gain loss should in some way represent the size of the city, with a capital being a bonus in some way.
I think in addition the loss of an entire Division/Corps/Army should affect will and/or victory points. It was after all the eventual destruction of the ANV which finally saw an end to the war not the capture of Richmond nor the loss of a series of battles by the south.

If in that way we make the point that Northern will is much more fragile than for the south, while the souths main problem is always going to be lack of men and resources.



dude -> RE: Recapture of CSA capitals loss of will (4/16/2007 3:22:09 PM)

Part of the problem here is the lack of any factual meterial to back up either claim.  It was extreamly rare for the USA to lose a "major" city once it captured it.  So it's hard to claim what Northern will would or would not do without some historical cases to back up either claim.  There are plenty of case of the USA losing battles and Northern will dropping.  I'm just very hard pressed to find the same wealth of information on the lose of southern cities let alone capitals. 

By the time the USA was taking southern cities it had the force to back them up and hold them in most cases.  When it couldn't it, it pillaged and left.  Grant did this a few times out west.  So if anything the modified NW rules will force the USA player to only take cities once he knows he can hold them.   Is this a good thing? bad? Historical?  I don't know but would love to hear the comments.

You shouldn't be taking cities and expecting to garrison them with only one brigade.  One of the things I recall reading about were the large number of troops Grant had to use as he moved forward to garrison his rear.

Dude



Twotribes -> RE: Recapture of CSA capitals loss of will (4/16/2007 4:55:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

quote:

ORIGINAL: Paper Tiger

I counter your Nashville with the following.
1. In this game the amount of resources available to each side are not at historical levels. Hence it is easier for the CSA to detach a force to counter an attack against the coastal capitals than was historicaly the case.
2. In the early war had the US taken and burned a CSA capital and then withdrawn faced with a larger CSA force being brought up within a couple of weeks would that be regarded as a victory or a defeat? Both sides performed raids in strength at various times.
3. The Union loses 2 Will for ANY capital and Nothing for a normal city. Sorry makes no sense would the loss of St Louis be of no interest while loss of Talahassee would devestate US will?

OK so at the moment the CSA can ignore the need to garrison coastal capitals in the secure knowledge that if the Union makes a landing with anything less than a full army then the CSA can push the US out and mess up US will, The US on the other hand will never be able to create an effective beachead as the areas will never fall even when the cities do, so the supply costs for the US will be prohibitive for anything more than a division.

Sorry but at the moment it makes no sense to me on a number of levels. Can you at least make this an optional setting so those of us who think it is stupid can turn it off?


1. I don't see military levels has making it unduly easy for the CSA to retake a capital.

2. Burning a city rather than taking and holding it is not what we are talking about here.

3. Whether there should be NW plus and minuses for other cities is a separate question that does not bear on whether the North was more sensitive to reverses than the South was.

4. On your last point, it does not seem to be that the current rules make it inadvisable for the CSA to garrison coastal capitals (Tallahassee?). I wouldn't want to lose them just to hope to regain them.

These points don't speak to the main issue -- the historical reality that the North was VERY susceptible to discouragement and willingness to throw in the towel. Simply NOT taking Southern cities FAST ENOUGH was enough to get anti-war politicians elected.



Well except the Union NEVER did throw in the towel.



General Quarters -> RE: Recapture of CSA capitals loss of will (4/16/2007 6:00:06 PM)

The Union never threw in the towel BECAUSE they kept taking cities and not losing them. Every time their armies slowed down in the taking of Southern cities northern support for the war weakened. Lincoln thought that he was going to lose in 1864. The taking of Atlanta, he believed, saved him.



General Quarters -> RE: Recapture of CSA capitals loss of will (4/16/2007 6:10:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dude

Part of the problem here is the lack of any factual meterial to back up either claim.  It was extreamly rare for the USA to lose a "major" city once it captured it.  So it's hard to claim what Northern will would or would not do without some historical cases to back up either claim.  There are plenty of case of the USA losing battles and Northern will dropping.  I'm just very hard pressed to find the same wealth of information on the lose of southern cities let alone capitals. 

By the time the USA was taking southern cities it had the force to back them up and hold them in most cases.  When it couldn't it, it pillaged and left.  Grant did this a few times out west.  So if anything the modified NW rules will force the USA player to only take cities once he knows he can hold them.   Is this a good thing? bad? Historical?  I don't know but would love to hear the comments.

You shouldn't be taking cities and expecting to garrison them with only one brigade.  One of the things I recall reading about were the large number of troops Grant had to use as he moved forward to garrison his rear.

Dude


Yes, you are right to want evidence. In fact, it is hard to come up with cases of the CSA's retaking cities, but there are lots of examples of the South's losing cities. It was still fighting, without there being a strong Southern peace movement, even after losing Nashville, Memphis, New Orleans, Wilmington, the list goes on ... even Atlanta and Savannah and, if it just had the means, after the fall of Richmond.

While we do not have a parallel case in the North to compare, we do know a lot about the Northern anti-war movement, which won many elections in 62 and threatened to win the presidency in 64, and how it rose each time the Union suffered a setback or just seemed bogged down. It is not hard to imagine the effect if, 1864, the CSA had WON BACK all the cities listd above. That situation cannot be represented by -1 to CSA when the Union takes them, -1 to USA when they are taken back. The CSA well survived the loss of them. In light of Northern skittishness about the war, it is hard to see how support for the war would have survived the South's taking them back.




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.984375