Subject: VG: The Civil War -- Advice? (long) After just getting more or less crushed in the last game (least I didn't lose DC) as the Union, I am at it again. We are playing random leader entry, with 'no automatic death' for Jackson and Lyon. And no historical restrictions on army size (25 North, 20 South) or location. It's the beginning of turn 4, and I am in a bit of a pickle. For starters: +Lyon was killed phase 1, turn 1 (Confed attack on Springfield, MO) +RE Lee out on turn 2. +Grant not out turns 1-3. On the upside: NB Forrest was killed in battle Sherman was out on turn 1. Is now eligible for 3* rank. Trans-Miss: Looks hopeless, I have a decent stack (5-6 SP) parked in St. Louis. I blew the depots and backed off when I realized I could not take MO. South has a 6-7 SP Army of TM in MO -- South controls all but Lex and StL. I figured that given the supply situation, and my lack of 1/2 decent army commanders, it was best to concentrate on West and East Theaters. I have a single 3-0-0 1* general in the TM. East RE Lee (out on turn 2!) commands a full strength Army of NVa. I have 2 armies, commanded by McClellan and Another 3 init - give one reroll leader. Total, about 20 SPs. This is a bad thing (tm). Lee has leaders giving him at least a +5 die mod in that army. Almost certainly a +6. I have 2 +1 die mods. I could concieveable pull a couple from West. I don't think I could make a +6, FWIW I have taken WV, and there are a few SPs garrisioning it. I have a bad feeling that if Lee decides he wants it, I cannot stop him. West Theater: This is probably the 'brightest'. Sherman is currently 2 stars, in the West thrt. His 3* promo will be in the turn 4 pool. The other 3 star generals all big minuses -- I have kept them away from the front. The south has a medium sized (12 SP) Army of Tenn, commanded by a 3 init (+1 reroll leader). He is parked outside of Cairo (defended by Hooker 2*, 3-0-1, and 8 SPs), in that VP city in KY. Sherman has taken the rest of KY, except Mill Springs in the East, plus Nashville and the Ironworks. Currently parked in the capital or thereabouts, waiting for his promo, so he can form an army and join with the rest of the forces to go boot the Confed out of KY, and work on Tenn. I have another *3-0-0 with a SP poised to take Mill Springs and points SE in Tenn (undefended) Questions: The South player is as least as good a player as I am, almost certainly a bit better. Last game, we made ~equal numbers of 'tactical' mistakes; but I had trouble forming a coherent offensive strategy. With this in mind, is this overall situation basically hopeless? One of the troubles I had last game was doing ANYTHING effective in the East against Lee. I have a vauge plan with how to deal with it, but I won't post it. He may be watching. Any ideas? Comments? Basic Union strategy? I think part of my problem last game was NOT doing anything effective in turns 1-4 in the East. Then once the Army of NVa is at full strength, I was forced into a reactive stance. Thanks -- I know that it's evil. | I must I know that it's got to be. | yet -- 'Down Payment Blues' AC/DC | I cannot -- Robot Monster ============================================================== Ben Hitz From: pborgnat@ens-lyon.fr (Pierre Borgnat) Subject: Re: VG: The Civil War -- Advice? (long) I basically think that the game is still balanced : somme good conquests in the west ; statu-quo in the east. Trans-mis isn't important as lond as St-Louis isn't threatened. Soon, the south won't have any ressource to spend there. When you see that he won't have any more reinforcement, a slow campaign of attrition where both lose manpowers will surely deplete this area from southern forces. You just have to hold on until you have advantage in the west (when Memphis falls for example). West : This theater in definitly the best for the north : you can win here and the south can lose there. The vast field of operation allows you to have two big armies here, independant, when the south can have only one. The situation you describe doesn't seem bad. One of your bog advantage is that it take at least two movements to go from Cairo to Nashville. Thus Army of Tenn. can't go on a quick offensive toward Nashville. Maybe you should move with Sherman's army (when 3*) toward Chatanooga, securing the railroads in east Tenesse. Sherman's initiative of 2 let you to move quickly : southern forces in KY won't have time to react and, given a good defense (4 points for example) in Nashville, nor KY forces nor Army of Tenn. should be able to take Nashville back. In case where Army of tenn. would fall back toward Nashville, you should try to let Sherman close enough to Nashville after his first move to go just one hex west of it. Such a mouvement can deceive the southern army to reactand leave the town in front of Cairo. Now the safer way : another possibility. You can see that is army is in great danger of isolation. There are major rivers everywhere around him and an army can't retreat through this terrain. You can make an offensive move with Sherman, since you seem to have an force of the same power. I guess army of Tenn. had the better go away. I generally think that CSA can't hold KY : Nashville is too vulnerable by river, cutting then suply to the railroad in KY ; the town in front of Cairo is a trap because if you attack him from the good hex with an army, you can destroy his. On the long run, two majors options are Mississipi and Chatanooga. Last one can be taken by a rapid move from KY to Fort Knox and then down the river to Chatanooga or the hard way from Nashville through the mountains. With gunboats, Memphis is easy to take. Afterwards... East : The most delicate point. I considere you can't win something valuable in the east so early in the game... Maybe just one thing : to wear down Lee's army. The basic defense is to let 7 points in DC and a fortress. The forces can sustain 2 attacks without retreating and DC should be safe. Then you can attempt to lure Lee's army on offensive. If your adversaire goes in WV with his army, you should jump down on his supply line. Even if you lose the susequent battle, he will have trade some command points and some manpower point for nothing great. You don't have to stop him in WV : he just can't afford to lose his eastern army and thus cut his supply lines. He also can't let you be between his army and Richmond if he gis more than 4 hexes away from you. Any movement from Lee takes command points from somewhere else (forts on the coast...). So you should try to move a big army out (on this small front, you better have one grand army). I guess (but i don't remember the results of the tables well) that you can make at least '1' loss to AoV with a +2/+3 tactical bonus. This is not that bad... South has few reinforcement. Another point : I don't think that you're command of AoP is too low. In historical leader entry games, the same phenomenon happens too often : AoV with excellent command and AoP with poor one. But southern leaders get often less good after promotion. Northern generals get better on the whole after promotion ! Any point lost in AoV is taken from coastal defences that should matter to you. The important thing that you must do early, as soon as you have some boats, is to threaten southern coasts. He will have to set forces here and spend command points for forts. If not, you will take him town, PVs and Trading points ! I think this is the best means to relieve DC and AoP of some pressure. I rarely begin offensive in Virginia so early in the course of the game. Given the superiority in commandement of the south, you can only win by attrition here (there's no way to manoeuver). So, wait until the flow of reinforcements are vastly in your favour (spring 63 or later). Hope these somewhat unorganised comments can help. If i think of something else, i will post again. In fact, I guess that 'Anaconda Plan', the one by Scott is quite good for the north. A good thing to do is to cut the CSA in two by taking Fort Knox and the river in the south (east of Pensacola if i remeber well) : these are the only two ways by railroad between east and west... The river can easily be controled by ironclads. Then CSA won't have the advantage of interior lignes and any transfer from one theater to another will be difficult for him. Pierre pborgnat@ens-lyon.fr Subject: Re: VG: The Civil War -- Advice? (long) From: tar@ISI.EDU (Thomas A. Russ) The standard Union advice for this game is: TM: Everyone can ignore this, since it won't win the game East: Contain RE Lee. Don't let him capture DC. As long as Lee and the ANV are just sitting around, then let them. If the CSA leaves Virginia, go for Richmond. Basic rule: Don't try to win in the east. Just don't lose the war. West: This is where you win. Use the navy and control the Mississippi. Once you cut the river, you weaken the South economically and basically make the TM theater irrelevant. Then aim an offensive at the southern end of the Allegheny Mountains. Your war objective is to cut the South in half and cut down on the supplies and economic power of your enemy. Sherman had the right strategy. Tactically: Mount an amphibious threat. Force the CSA to keep units in Georgia, Mississippi and Alabama instead of in Virginia and Tennessee. -- Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute tar@isi.edu From: sdorr@ix.netcom.com(Scott D. Orr ) Subject: Re: VG: The Civil War -- Advice? (long) In <4pk6om$ogm@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu> Mail-Order Snide writes: > >After just getting more or less crushed in the last game (least I >didn't lose DC) as the Union, I am at it again. We are playing random >leader entry, with 'no automatic death' for Jackson and Lyon. Good, good. I'd suggest further modifications though: first off, letting Lee's entry be random is quite unbalancing -- and it's not terribly realistic, since everyone _knew_ the guy was a good leader even before the war started. Second, you shouldn't be drawing two- stars and promotion counters when you're looking for a one-star; that's sillly. One way to solve this problem is to put extra stars on the backs of 2-star and 3-star counters, and "C"'s on the back of cavalry commanders, and keep promotion counters in a separate stack. You still draw randomly, but within categories (and initial placement on the turn track should match the ranks of the historical generals). If you really want to get fancy, put the leader's CP rating on the back, too, and then don't turn him over until he sees combat. You can extend this to leaders on the board at the start, or not (we usually don't). For more elaborate suggestions in this area, as well as a (paper, actually) countersheet to help implement them, take a look at the two varaints in issue #20 of _Paper_Wars_. >And no historical >restrictions on army size (25 North, 20 South) or location. Don't do that -- the historical limits reflect the logisitical the logistical difficulties of maintaining large armies to the west of the Mississippi. And as the North, letting the South pick his fights by shifting SP's around in such an unlimited manner is a Bad Thing. > >It's the beginning of turn 4, and I am in a bit of a pickle. >For starters: >+Lyon was killed phase 1, turn 1 (Confed attack on Springfield, MO) >+RE Lee out on turn 2. >+Grant not out turns 1-3. >On the upside: >NB Forrest was killed in battle >Sherman was out on turn 1. Is now eligible for 3* rank. > Personally, I think the rate of leader casualties in the game is absolutely absurd. My suggestion: if the casualty roll indicates a one-star or two-star is wounded, nothing happens; if it indicates he's killed, roll again, as for a 3-star or 4-star, and only a 7 means he's actually killed; otherwise he's wounded. The other problem is the cavalry rules -- there's no reason whatsoever that failed screening should occur only when there's a leader casualty (and using the above rule would make screening failure too likely). Therefore, I suggest rolling the two separate -- for the screening roll, just roll one die, and a 1 means screening fails (that roughly the same probability as before), though for a 3SP cavalry force, you might allow another roll to "confirm", with a sreening failure only on 1-3 (or whatever you prefer) on the second die. Now to think up a variant so that all your men won't eat their horses whenver a leader is injured....(One possible solution to this last: make a little temporary leader counter, the minimum rank necessary for the force in question, with rating of, say 3-0; or, if you're using the first _Paper_Wars_ variant, the Union has a spare cavalry commander.) Okay, enough pontificating, on to advice.... >Trans-Miss: >Looks hopeless, I have a decent stack (5-6 SP) parked in St. Louis. I >blew the depots and backed off when I realized I could not take MO. >South has a 6-7 SP Army of TM in MO -- South controls all but Lex and >StL. I figured that given the supply situation, and my lack of 1/2 >decent army commanders, it was best to concentrate on West and East >Theaters. >I have a single 3-0-0 1* general in the TM. > Okay, fairly sound -- if you can secure St. Louis, there's nothing really he can do, the railroads out there are so sparse. Just be sure to watch your northern flank. OTOH, seeing as how the South doesn't get any reinforcements out there (except discretionaries), wrapping that one up quickly can be a big help for the South. >East >RE Lee (out on turn 2!) commands a full strength Army of NVa. I have >2 armies, commanded by McClellan and Another 3 init - give one reroll >leader. Total, about 20 SPs. This is a bad thing (tm). Lee has >leaders giving him at least a +5 die mod in that army. Almost >certainly a +6. I have 2 +1 die mods. I could concieveable pull a >couple from West. I don't think I could make a +6, FWIW > Ugh -- this is why I don't like letting Lee's entry be random. >I have taken WV, and there are a few SPs garrisioning it. I have a >bad feeling that if Lee decides he wants it, I cannot stop him. Well, you've definitely got a problem. OTOH, the South is a lot less dangerous in the early war if his SP's are concentrated rather than running around in small forces under all those 2-1 one-stars. Probably your best hope is to do whatever you can to delay; consider detaching one of your one-stars or two-stars with a raiding force to harass his supply lines (yes, your army will be incompetent at this and you'll get creamed, but it should slow him down). And if he wants to take WV, LET HIM. It's not like you need it (and it's ridiculously easy to re-take via amphibious invasion, when you decide you want it back), and it will keep him from driving on Washington. > >West Theater: >This is probably the 'brightest'. >Sherman is currently 2 stars, in the West thrt. His 3* promo will be >in the turn 4 pool. One other comment: promotions occur too quickly. One variant in _Paper_Wars_ limits leaders to one promotion per year, while the other (allegedly used by the game designer himself) only promotes one-stars on an 8 or better on the Leader Loss Check Roll, or a two- or three-star on a 9 or better. Allowing Jackson to be promoted to 3-star, BTW (he is one NASTY army commander) makes this variant easier to stomach for the North. >The other 3 star generals all big minuses -- I have kept them >away from the front. >The south has a medium sized (12 SP) Army of Tenn, commanded by a 3 >init (+1 reroll leader). He is parked outside of Cairo (defended by >Hooker 2*, 3-0-1, and 8 SPs), in that VP city in KY. Sherman has >taken the rest of KY, except Mill Springs in the East, plus Nashville >and the Ironworks. >Currently parked in the capital or thereabouts, waiting for his promo, >so he can form an army and join with the rest of the forces to go boot >the Confed out of KY, and work on Tenn. I have another *3-0-0 with a >SP poised to take Mill Springs and points SE in Tenn (undefended) It sounds like you've got the situation well in hand -- if you can cut off that army, you've got it made, and success here could force him to divert some of the SP's and leaders he's now giving to Lee. >Questions: >The South player is as least as good a player as I am, almost >certainly a bit better. Last game, we made ~equal numbers of >'tactical' mistakes; but I had trouble forming a coherent offensive >strategy. >With this in mind, is this overall situation basically hopeless? One >of the troubles I had last game was doing ANYTHING effective in the >East against Lee. You can't really -- your strategy has to be to force casualties on him. If you've both got maxed-out armies, he's always at a tactical disadvantage, and the more you fight, the more casualties each side takes, and the better YOU do, because you can replace your casualties and he can't replace his. It's a war of attrition, so just be patient -- and keep him from rolling over you before the attrition kicks in. You don't have to win a dramatic victory: just keep him from delivering a knock-out punch and you'll have it in the bag. >I have a vauge plan with how to deal with it, but I won't post it. He >may be watching. Heh. :) > >Any ideas? Comments? Basic Union strategy? I think part of my >problem last game was NOT doing anything effective in turns 1-4 in the >East. Then once the Army of NVa is at full strength, I was forced >into a reactive stance. So far, utterly historical. :) Don't worry about that part.... Scott Orr From: hansen@math.gwu.edu (Cliff Hansen) Subject: Re: VG: The Civil War -- Advice? (long) In article <4pk6om$ogm@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>, Mail-Order Snide wrote: >After just getting more or less crushed in the last game (least I didn't >lose DC) as the Union, I am at it again. We are playing random leader >entry, with 'no automatic death' for Jackson and Lyon. And no historical >restrictions on army size (25 North, 20 South) or location. I'll second the other post, I don't like the random entry rule nor the "no restrictions on army size rule." >It's the beginning of turn 4, and I am in a bit of a pickle. >For starters: >+Lyon was killed phase 1, turn 1 (Confed attack on Springfield, MO) >+RE Lee out on turn 2. >+Grant not out turns 1-3. >On the upside: >NB Forrest was killed in battle >Sherman was out on turn 1. Is now eligible for 3* rank. I won't repeat the sound advice from the other posts - good info there. I have played games where Lyon was killed early, or Jackson, when we were using the "no automatic death" rule - if nothing else, this can be a crushing blow for your morale. For the Union, its *not* a Good Thing. You only get two 2-initiative army commanders, wher the Confed. will have four. However, removing Forrest really balances this out. The reason here is, placing Forrest with any army gives that army automatic reaction. A typical move is to put Forrest with Van Dorn - he sucks in a fight, now he can't be forced into battle. You use him to raid behind Union lines, to overrun garrisons, etc. Anyway, on to something that *might* help you :-) I didn't see any mention of your naval disposition. I hope you aren't ignoring this critical facet of the Union campaign. It makes the difference between a competitive game, and a frustrating loss to the Confederate. If your opponent has left important cities unguarded (New Orleans, Memphis) jump on them. You can take some states entirely through amphibious invasions (Louisana, Texas) and in most cases you can get all but one or two sites. For example, I have captured Alabama by taking that northern city (using the armies operating in Tennessee, and the rest of the state by amphibious landings. ALso, landing behind the Confed. armies (in Florida, SouthCarolina, Alabama) and threatening to capture states usually forces one Confed army to react to the threat. While its spending command points and dice difference to march down there, you are taking advantage of its absence. Also, contorl of the rivers in KY and TN eases your defense of supply lines as you are fighting for these states. If he builds up a threat to St. Louis, a naval invasion at Little Rock or Clarksville or Madison in Arkansas cuts his supply line and will put a quick end to that Confed. campaign. I fully know that the Union side is the most frustrating to play. You have the burden of attacking. Its OK to accept a standoff in the East theater, because the points to win or lose the game are in the West. Let us know how it goes. Enjoy. Cliff From: Mail-Order Snide Subject: Re: VG: The Civil War -- Advice? (long) tar@ISI.EDU (Thomas A. Russ) wrote: Thanks. >East: Contain RE Lee. Don't let him capture DC. As long as Lee and > the ANV are just sitting around, then let them. If the CSA > leaves Virginia, go for Richmond. Basic rule: Don't try to win > in the east. Just don't lose the war. This was my main concern. I was worried that the Union could/should ACTUALLY be clever and get something done before Lee got his act together. -- I know that it's evil. | I must I know that it's got to be. | yet -- "Down Payment Blues" AC/DC | I cannot -- Robot Monster ============================================================== Ben Hitz* hitz@cumbnd.bioc.columbia.edu *Dept. of Biochemistry *** http://tincan.bioc.columbia.edu/Home/ben.home/ *** From: casper@axcrnb.cern.ch (Dave Casper) Subject: Re: VG: The Civil War -- Advice? (long) In article <4pk6om$ogm@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>, Mail-Order Snide writes... >After just getting more or less crushed in the last game (least I didn't >lose DC) as the Union, I am at it again. We are playing random leader >entry, with 'no automatic death' for Jackson and Lyon. And no historical >restrictions on army size (25 North, 20 South) or location. > >It's the beginning of turn 4, and I am in a bit of a pickle. [...] While I do not claim to be anything like an expert on this game, isn't it important for the Union to keep inflicting casualties on Lee, even at an unfavorable rate of exchange, to keep the size of the CSA army from getting out of hand? Also, attacking stacks of brilliant leaders with waves of incompetent fools can only have favorable effects on the leader situation over time. In particular, some of the futute military geniuses of the Confederacy who start out at one-star rank are vulnerable and should be sought out. One has to be slightly cold-blooded as the Union player, I think... I sounds like your game isn't going too far from history, really, so probably history can be a guide. It's a war of attrition, so try to keep bleeding the south as long as they can't take advantage of the inevitable Union tactical defeats to take DC. As you suggest, just sitting around is probably not the right thing to do. Also, like the designer's notes say, one incontrovertible Union advantage is on the seas, so you have to find ways to use this to divert southern commands, leaders, and troops from the more important theaters. Dave d.casper@cern.ch We shall overcome - just say "no" to renaming rec.games.board! From: sdorr@ix.netcom.com(Scott D. Orr ) Subject: Re: VG: The Civil War -- Advice? (long) In <4pnfrm$79a@cronkite.seas.gwu.edu> hansen@math.gwu.edu (Cliff Hansen) writes: > >I didn't see any mention of your naval disposition. I hope you >aren't ignoring this critical facet of the Union campaign. It >makes the difference between a competitive game, and a frustrating >loss to the Confederate. If your opponent has left important >cities unguarded (New Orleans, Memphis) jump on them. You can >take some states entirely through amphibious invasions (Louisana, >Texas) and in most cases you can get all but one or two sites. >For example, I have captured Alabama by taking that northern >city (using the armies operating in Tennessee, and the rest of >the state by amphibious landings. Against a good Southern player, this (sea-borne invasions) is a BAD idea. It's a really bad, giant-sucking-sound sort of proposition. It LOOKS good, but if the Southern player sends serious forces to oppose your, he'll win pretty much automatically, since you've got to bring in reinforcements one-by-one with by sea, even if you've got an army down there. In short, this is the one situation in which the South will be able to bring in more reinforcements than the North. And not only that, but you're splitting your forces, and as the North you simply can't afford to do that, because you don't have the leaders to command multiple forces. >ALso, landing behind the >Confed. armies (in Florida, SouthCarolina, Alabama) and threatening >to capture states usually forces one Confed army to react to >the threat. While its spending command points and dice difference >to march down there, you are taking advantage of its absence. The one case where the tactic might be effective is a landing just behind his lines, where you plan to link up with other forces soon. Otherwise, you're forcing him to divert troops from the front and march down there, but only because YOU have ALREADY diverted troops from the front and marched down there; and once he gets there, he's going to kick your rear end. >Also, contorl of the rivers in KY and TN eases your defense of >supply lines as you are fighting for these states. If he builds >up a threat to St. Louis, a naval invasion at Little Rock or >Clarksville or Madison in Arkansas cuts his supply line and >will put a quick end to that Confed. campaign. > True -- river-borne invasion are much more feasible than sea-borne ones, and in general an excellent tactic. Scott Orr From: hansen@math.gwu.edu (Cliff Hansen) Subject: Re: VG: The Civil War -- Advice? (long) In article <4pojvb$6jr@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>, Scott D. Orr wrote: >In <4pnfrm$79a@cronkite.seas.gwu.edu> hansen@math.gwu.edu (Cliff >Hansen) writes: >>For example, I have captured Alabama by taking that northern >>city (using the armies operating in Tennessee, and the rest of >>the state by amphibious landings. > >Against a good Southern player, this (sea-borne invasions) is a BAD >idea. It's a really bad, giant-sucking-sound sort of proposition. >It LOOKS good, but if the Southern player sends serious forces to >oppose your, he'll win pretty much automatically, since you've >got to bring in reinforcements one-by-one with by sea, even if you've I probably overstated my intentions here. My opponent adopted the fortress strategy (you make the garrisons big enough and the fortress can't be taken). What I needed was some way to force him to move one of the two armies out of Memphis. I did this by sending an invasion force to Alabama. I ended up taking the state, produced the desired reaction: he sent an army down there to take it back (didn't, I hung on to either Mobile or that northern city each turn.). Admittedly I sacrificed some forces, losing all that I had landed in Selma and Montgomery, but it accomplished my objective: I was able to take Memphis and thus converted Tennessee. If you haven't played against someone who uses the fortress strategy this may seem stupid. I haven't played much against any *other* strategy, I just opened my e-mouth and assumed that everyone would else knew what I was up against. My bust. Thinking over your comments, I'll agree that what I proposed isn't the best move against a Confed who plays a mobile defense. Cliff From: Mail-Order Snide Subject: Re: VG: The Civil War -- Advice? (long) Dave Casper wrote: >> While I do not claim to be anything like an expert on this game, isn't it > important for the Union to keep inflicting casualties on Lee, even at an > unfavorable rate of exchange, to keep the size of the CSA army from getting > out of hand? Also, attacking stacks of brilliant leaders with waves of > incompetent fools can only have favorable effects on the leader situation over > time. I have no problem with this concept, but it has problems in execution. Lets assume I have 25 SPs vs Lee 20, commanded by McClellan (3-(-1)-0). Let us further assume that in any given engagment, we each have enough tactical bonues to ensure a D1-D3 result (i.e. Union loses 3, Lee loses 1, both demoralized). This also assumes that Lee can manover around rivers and gaps to get 1 or 2 column shifts (believe me, it's easy), if it's open ground, you might be able to pull a D2-D3 or even a D2-D2 (maybe with Grant taking back some rerolls) If we both have 6 East CPs (common, if we both declare East primary) I can attack once, and 'remoralize' once. Lee can, in a single 4 die-difffernce turn, re-moralize his army, and attack me, doing another 3 SPs to me, while not even getting demoralized himself. Then, he can remoralize AGAIN with his last two CPs. The odds of Lee geting 4 die-difference (blocks of at least 2) before I get 3 to remoralize myself, are quite reasonable, if not 50-50. I don't think this is a good way to win a war of attrition. And I don't even HAVE 25 SPs in that army yet. Once Grant is is command of the North army, this isn't completly horrible, but by going on the offensive, you not only are trading 3 for 1 or 2 SPs, but 2 CPs as well. You can still get spammed by a 4 die-differnce, though. > In particular, some of the futute military geniuses of the Confederacy > who start out at one-star rank are vulnerable and should be sought out. > One has to be slightly cold-blooded as the Union player, I think... Yes, but there are SO MANY of them, that you can't really hope to make progress here, at least in terms of reducing his Tactical rating edge. You CAN get lucky and pop Forrest or Jackson (who are better than the average), but it's still luck. -- I know that it's evil. | I must I know that it's got to be. | yet -- "Down Payment Blues" AC/DC | I cannot -- Robot Monster ============================================================== Ben Hitz* hitz@cumbnd.bioc.columbia.edu *Dept. of Biochemistry *** http://tincan.bioc.columbia.edu/Home/ben.home/ *** From: bgregory@nrel.nrel.gov (Brian Gregory) Subject: Re: VG: The Civil War -- Advice? (long) Mail-Order Snide writes: >Dave Casper wrote: >> While I do not claim to be anything like an expert on this game, isn't it >> important for the Union to keep inflicting casualties on Lee, even at an >> unfavorable rate of exchange, to keep the size of the CSA army from getting >> out of hand? Also, attacking stacks of brilliant leaders with waves of >> incompetent fools has favorable effects on the leader situation over >> time. >I have no problem with this concept, but it has problems in execution. [snip] >If we both have 6 East CPs (common, if we both declare East primary) >I can attack once, and 'remoralize' once. Lee can, in a single 4 >die-difffernce turn, re-moralize his army, and attack me, doing another > 3 SPs to me, while not even getting demoralized himself. >Then, he can remoralize AGAIN with his last two CPs. Actually, this would take a die-diff of 6, and usually represents a worst-case scenario. However, this situation can arise and the North must take steps to avoid getting your army trashed for 6+ SPs/turn. The best way is to invade and threaten imporant eastern coastal cities (Charleston, Savannah...). The North can expend Naval CPs to do this, whereas the South must counter (i.e., if the invasion is done well enough that single SPs can't bottle it up) with Eastern or Discrete CPs. Other ways are to throw discrete SPs into your army - tho' they're better used down on the coasts - and/or form a force of about 6 SPs to attack east (or evern south) from the WVa mountains! Lastly, make the West so successful, Lee has to pull leaders and SPs into the Western theater. Both of these last two suggestions have the advantage of getting more and more generals through their lower ranks quickly. Also note that naval invasions can also allow land leaders to increase their ratings. Morale is: you can't beat Lee, but he must not defeat your war effort. Your best weapon early on (and even later) is your navy. >> In particular, some of the futute military geniuses of the Confederacy >> who start out at one-star rank are vulnerable and should be sought out. >> One has to be slightly cold-blooded as the Union player, I think... > Yes, but there are SO MANY of them, that you can't really hope to make > progress here, at least in terms of reducing his Tactical rating edge. Luck is no way to win :) This tactic is only one side of the same attrition-sword. In fact, some people I've talked to would concede if more than two of the Union's 2-rated generals got killed, unless the South had been similarly reduced. This 'perfect vision' of how each leader will progress through the war is the game's main flaw, IMO. It's mitigated by the possibility of them dying, of course, but tends to drive advanced games into predictable pattterns. I prefer to use the optional leader rules that were published in Paper Wars #20. >Ben Hitz* hitz@cumbnd.bioc.columbia.edu *Dept. of Biochemistry >*** http://tincan.bioc.columbia.edu/Home/ben.home/ *** Regards, and good luck! Brian Gregory