RE: An improvement I think needs to be made to 1861 scenario (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Gary Grigsby's War Between the States



Message

SteveLohr -> RE: An improvement I think needs to be made to 1861 scenario (9/27/2008 1:48:05 PM)

Regarding the Army of the Potomac remaining static in Virginia:  First of all, I need to inform ya'll that I'mve very new at this game, so possibly what I have to say is wrong.  With that disclaimer out of the way, here is a possible solution for the static AoP problem.  Political considerations were a big driver in the AoP making the initial Bull RUn attack, and were likewise behind its operations in 1862.  Could the game have a political point loss for the Union, increasing each turn, for the AoP not invading Northern Virginia?  The PP loss would stop after either a major engagement was fought, or a province was captured.  The PP loss would again resume after X number of turns of inactivity.



Pford -> RE: An improvement I think needs to be made to 1861 scenario (9/27/2008 2:59:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SteveLohr
Could the game have a political point loss for the Union, increasing each turn, for the AoP not invading Northern Virginia?  The PP loss would stop after either a major engagement was fought, or a province was captured. 


You mean up to a certain date, right? For example, a Union yearly pp deduction if a Strategic battle does NOT occur in Virginia. Call it the 'Lincoln's Impatience' optional rule. For one thing , the Northern player will have to bite the bullet and do a Bull Run on the first turn.




SteveLohr -> RE: An improvement I think needs to be made to 1861 scenario (9/27/2008 3:36:23 PM)

Pford-yeah, something like that.  I haven't thought out the  acutal dates the rule would be in effect, but it would work something like this:
Beginning July 61- X  political points lost per turn, increasing by y points each turn with no major battle or capture of a N. Virginia province.  Upon a major battle or province being captured, the political point loss ceases for Y number of turns.  The rule would cease, probably around Spring 1863



jimkehn -> RE: An improvement I think needs to be made to 1861 scenario (9/27/2008 3:53:28 PM)

Doesn't the game do something like that now?? Doesn't the North lose PP's each turn, and they have to make them up by capturing regions?? I thought I read that. However, the regions can be captured....if I'm right....in MO, or KY or WV. I do like your idea of mandating a resonably large victory in VA, though.



Pford -> RE: An improvement I think needs to be made to 1861 scenario (9/27/2008 7:05:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JimKehn

I do like your idea of mandating a resonably large victory in VA, though.


Virtually nothing occurred in the eastern theatre between Bull Run and McClellan's amphibious campaign but it wasn't from lack of pressure from the administration and the Northern press. Mandating a Union victory in 1861 or 1862 in Vir is a lot to ask, in my opinion. The Yanks face daunting odds. That's why I propose that, to avoid penalties, a Strategic level battle merely take place.

Now, given the political vacuum in the game, the Union AI consolidates north of the Rappahannock and invades in 1863. Very wise on its part given the reverses and collapse in confidence in '62 until Antietam. This deprives the Confederates of their historical counterpunch and fosters conservatism on their side as well.



Joel Billings -> RE: An improvement I think needs to be made to 1861 scenario (9/27/2008 7:19:48 PM)

Historically Bull Run was not large enough to in game terms rate as a strategic victory. It wasn't until the Pennisula campaign that the forces involved got large enough to yield a strategic battle in game terms. We have at times considered a rule to force an attack in Virginia. We're open to the idea, but haven't come up with the exact rule that we'd want to add. Perhaps something like a 2 point Union loss in PPs per turn until a strategic battle is fought in Virginia would work, however in game turns this would mostly likely result in the Union player losing some points and could potentially alter game balance. Another idea is to insist on an attack into Virginia with at least 15 units in 1861, or a strategic battle of some kind in 1862, or there is a small loss of points each turn. I like the idea I read above that it would reset after a period of inactivity. Perhaps in return for this new rule, we could lower the per turn Union PP loss to offset the game balance hit on the Union. Like I said, we're open to ideas as long as they don't alter game balance a lot.



herwin -> RE: An improvement I think needs to be made to 1861 scenario (9/27/2008 9:32:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Historically Bull Run was not large enough to in game terms rate as a strategic victory. It wasn't until the Pennisula campaign that the forces involved got large enough to yield a strategic battle in game terms. We have at times considered a rule to force an attack in Virginia. We're open to the idea, but haven't come up with the exact rule that we'd want to add. Perhaps something like a 2 point Union loss in PPs per turn until a strategic battle is fought in Virginia would work, however in game turns this would mostly likely result in the Union player losing some points and could potentially alter game balance. Another idea is to insist on an attack into Virginia with at least 15 units in 1861, or a strategic battle of some kind in 1862, or there is a small loss of points each turn. I like the idea I read above that it would reset after a period of inactivity. Perhaps in return for this new rule, we could lower the per turn Union PP loss to offset the game balance hit on the Union. Like I said, we're open to ideas as long as they don't alter game balance a lot.


There was a reason that Meade didn't go on the offensive after Gettysburg. It wasn't until then that the War Department was willing to face facts.



herwin -> RE: An improvement I think needs to be made to 1861 scenario (9/27/2008 9:39:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Historically Bull Run was not large enough to in game terms rate as a strategic victory. It wasn't until the Pennisula campaign that the forces involved got large enough to yield a strategic battle in game terms. We have at times considered a rule to force an attack in Virginia. We're open to the idea, but haven't come up with the exact rule that we'd want to add. Perhaps something like a 2 point Union loss in PPs per turn until a strategic battle is fought in Virginia would work, however in game turns this would mostly likely result in the Union player losing some points and could potentially alter game balance. Another idea is to insist on an attack into Virginia with at least 15 units in 1861, or a strategic battle of some kind in 1862, or there is a small loss of points each turn. I like the idea I read above that it would reset after a period of inactivity. Perhaps in return for this new rule, we could lower the per turn Union PP loss to offset the game balance hit on the Union. Like I said, we're open to ideas as long as they don't alter game balance a lot.


You might increase the PP loss per turn and offset the increased loss with increased region values in the area between Washington and Richmond. There was a strategic balance on the line of the Rappahannock.



Doc o War -> RE: An improvement I think needs to be made to 1861 scenario (9/28/2008 8:45:56 AM)

I would argue that while Bull Run does not count in numbers of troops as a strategic Battle- it was something so powerful in its affect to the Nations involved- that it was a strategic Battle in its effect- and it should happen- or something like it should happen somewhere in Virginia proper on the 1st turn- the nation and Congress were screaming and pushing the army and Lincoln to Do Something in Virginia- he had to act.

The Union could have done nothing at first- but that would have encountered bitter political reaction from those forces within the Congress and the national government who opposed Lincoln. In July 61 Lincoln was operating with a cabinet made up of men who by and large thought very little of Lincoln and some were pretty active in trying to bring him down or possibly even replacing him as commander of the actual war effort.

THe pressure to march down to Richmond and end the rebellion was strong. To have not done something would have been politically terrible. Further the three month enlistments of the original militia volunteers who had rushed to defend Washington was about to run out and a good part of the existing force in Washington would return home- Somthing had to be done before they left- Lincoln really had no choice- nor did McDowell. He marched south from DC to Bull Run/Manassas. And th eshock of that defeat, and the victory for the south- set in motion all th eevents that followed- that effect I would argue was larger than just the size of the Battle.

From this first clash came a belief in the South that their men were somehow the better men, this feeling that one reb could lick his weight in Yankees lasted nearly 2 years - until mid 63.  and it started a long string of basic defeats for the Union.  Some say learning defeat early in the Army of Potomac made its future commanders tougher and more determined than ever to fight on until they did win. They were stubborn lads.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.40625