From: Warren Bruhn Subject: VG Civil War: leader options Victory Games' Civil War is the game I rate as the finest board game ever published. Still, I can't help tinkering with games, including this one. Here is a set of optional rules that I have been experimenting with. I hope that it will generate a bit of discussion. In what follows "r:" stands for "rationale:" and "a:" stands for "analysis:". LEADER OPTIONS: "Wilson's Creek" Start the 1861 game with Lyon already dead, the Union SP in Springfield, Missouri demoralized with Sigel in command. Subtract 2 command points from the starting Union Trans-Miss total. r: Lyon's attack at Wilson's Creek in August was largely out of the Union high command's control. Make the Union live with the results. Having Lyon running around the board as an army commander is tough for the Conf. to handle. While the other game start conditions are not very nice for the Conf., having Lyon around lends a really strange feel after game after game with a long lived Lyon. a: This option leads to a Union defeat usually unless some compensation in made. "Phil Kearny lives" Use the Lyon counters to represent Phil Kearny. He arrives turn 6 as "*". Add 10 to the seniority ratings on each of the Lyon counters to represent Kearny. r: Kearny, like Lyon, was one of the Union's early stars. He was highly respected by both sides for his performances in early to mid-1862. Bringing him in helps offset the "Wilson's Creek" option. a: Have used this once in conjunction with the "Wilson's Creek" start option. Kearney was killed in his very first battle, but fortunately for the Union, Jackson was killed early also. "Political Generals" Give the Conf. 9 vp. The Union may subtract one vp each time one of the following leaders is used in combat in such a way as to use his dice addition for the Conf. or give his dice reroll options to modify a combat die roll: -not in army command: Sigel (G) McClernand (D) Howard (R) Fremont (R) Banks (R) Butler (R) -in army command: McClellan (D) Buell (D) Butler (R) Note: Butler does need to be used twice. When used in army command he may be moved by a "****" as part of a stack with two or more armies so long as Butler is in command of one of the armies. Give the union one vp. The Conf. may subtract this vp when Polk is used in combat in such a way as to add to the Union combat die roll in a combat. r: In order to hold the Union together, Loncoln was forced to employ many influential Democrats, Republicans, and one German to satisfy important segments of Northern political society. Many of these generals turned out to be pretty bad, but Lincoln had to try them (Butler more than once). Polk was a West Pointer and influential person in Tennessee, as well as being a personal friend of Jeff Davis... so Polk also needs to be given his shot in battle. a: The rule worked OK the first few times I used it. It does put a bit of a burden on the Union, but not a fatal one. I think it adds some flavor to the game. Having all the bad leaders sit in some spot such as St.Louis for the entire game seems a little silly to me. There is a reason why they were used. "alternative promotion system" When a leader is turned face up on the map (by getting into his first combat... and not allowed until then), his next promotion counter is placed in a cup. Beginning turn 4 (inclusive), the Conf. draws two of these promotion counters each turn, and the Union draws three. Each of these draws counts as a reinforcement, and thus counts against dice difference, or against the reinforcement allowed the player winning the initiative. These are "Blind draws" from among the possible promotions. Because the leaders to be promoted are either already on the map face up, or are dead, there is no need to pick a location for the arriving promotion when it is drawn from the cup. If the leader promoted is dead, no new draw is made, and the draw still counts as a reinforcement taken (and against dice difference). r: Promotion is often much more rapid in VGCW than in the historical Civil War. Leaders were often promoted without battle experience (as in the case of Pemberton). Also, players are motivated to attack just to get an important leader promoted. This motivation that may be a valid design consideration, but promotion was not entirely based on battle, and many battles were fought which did not result in forced and immediate promotion to the next grade. a: Not yet playtested. Hope it will result in a more historical rate of promotion than that of VGCW's normal rule. "Van Dorn demotion" Conf. General Earl Van Dorn may be demoted to a "**" cavalry leader with senority of "1" and ratings of 2x0. r: This is a historical event which took place after Van Dorn lost at Pea Ridge, Baton Rouge, and Corinth. He was fairly competent in this role, leading a force of 10,000 cavalry in what was probably the most destructive and strategically significant cavalry raid of the war, essentially ending Grant's first drive on Vicksburg. While in command of a cavalry corps, he met his death by being shot by an irrate husband in middle Tennessee. a: This option is cool, but so far I have not actually demoted Van Dorn except in a long solitaire game in which a couple of other Conf. cavalry leaders were killed by the late game. Even with his bad ratings, Van Dorn is still useful as a "***" because of his great initiative. "Jesse Reno" Add Union ** Reno, rating 3-1, arrive turn 6. (seniority???) r: This guy performed pretty well at Second Bull Run and South Mountain (where he died). a: Not playtested yet. "Judson Kilpatrick" Add Union cavalry * Kilpatrick, ratings 3x(1), arrive turn 10 (senority???) r: "Kill Cavalry" was the nickname this guy got for ordering the suicidal charge of Farnsworth's brigade at Gettysburg. He led a raid on St.Petersburg which resulted in the death of the son of Admiral Dahlgren. He led Sherman's cavalry during the march to the sea. He adds one to the Conf. combat die roll. a: Not playtested yet. "More confederate cavalry leaders" Add the following * cavalry leaders for the Conf. 2x0 * Marmaduke, turn 11 (seniority???) 2x0 * Sibley, turn 15 (seniority???) 2x0 * Hampton, when and if Stuart dies (seniority???) 2x0 * F.Lee, when and if Stuart dies (seniority???) r: Marmaduke and Sibley were two Conf. cavalry division commanders who particpated in raids into Missouri, including Prices big raid into Missouri in 1864, in which they were not always moving in the same direction. When Stuart died, Lee did not promote another cavalry corps commander, instead directing his cavalry divisions under Wade Hampton and Fitz Lee. Hampton later went south and held command over his own and Joe Wheeler's divisions in the Carolinas in 1865. a: Not yet playtested. "Sherman's March" Beginning game turn 14, an army or armies under Sherman which leave a city in a Confederate friendly state may leave it destroyed. Use a burn marker from the Far West option counters on the city. Even if the Conf. take the city back, it's resource value is reduced to only one, thus permanently lowering the Conf. production. (Consider letting Pope and Sheridan do the same.) r: Y'all know all about that march I'm sure. a: Not yet playtested. "Sheridan's command" Sheridan *** may act as infantry or cavalry leader at any time as the Union player chooses, except that he may not command an army. r: Sheridan was given command of an infantry corps in addition to his cavalry corps on multiple occasions. a: Not yet playtested. "Severe wounds" When a leader is wounded, roll one die. On a roll of 1-3, he is placed on the leader reinforcement track for the next turn. On a roll of 4-5, he is placed on the leader reinforcement track for the second turn following the turn on which he was wounded. On a roll of 6 he is placed on the leader reinforcement track for the third turn following the turn on which he was wounded. r: Some wounds are more painful than others. a: Have been using this and it works very well. "Subordinate commanders" Any leader activating a force, or defending in combat, may take along one other leader junior to himself, and both leaders' tactical ratings affect the battle, so long as there is at least one SP for each leader. r: Jackson and Ewell, SD Lee and Forrest, Van Dorn and Forrest, Longstreet and Hood, etc., the historical examples abound. a: Have seen very little actual use of this so far, but occasionally it is used to effect in some of my games. Can make a non-army force a little more potent. "Army leaders' tactical ratings" Army leaders' tactical ratings do affect battle. r: The tactical conceptions or abilities of army commanders did affect army combat on many occasions, together with their strategic ability and "luck" (dice reroll options). a: Have hardly playtested this one. It is a help to the Union which could offset many of the options harmful to the Union that I play with. "*** tactical ratings" *** leaders who use their tactical rating must roll for leader casualty as if they are a ** leader. r: I didn't make this one up. It is the idea of a good friend of mine. a: Not yet playtested. Could be interesting used in conjunction with the immediately preceeding option, as it would make for hard choices by both sides on whether or not to increase the risk to their better army commanders. Warren Bruhn From: Warren Bruhn Subject: VG Civil War: army options Here are some options for armies in VG Civil War that I'm trying out: "More armies" I made up some counters for Union "Army of Virginia" and "Army of the Ohio", and Confederate "Army of the East" and "Army of the "Trans-Miss". So far, these extra counters have been fun, but neither side really has the dice addition leaders and manpower to make them important. Using them has either led to a damaging dispersal of force, or has merely been an interesting change of label on the map. They do allow some flexibility, and something eqivalent to rebuilding a couple of armies if some are lost. "Army size by theatre" I use the following army size restrictions instead of the ones in the normal rules. So far, they have worked great. Theatre Union Confed East 25 20 West 20 15 Trans-Miss 9 9 These Restrictions apply to any army operating in the theatre, regardless of the army's name or where it was created. If an army moves east to west across a theatre boundary, it is required to leave behind any SPs in excess of what it can contain in the theatre into which it is moving. This is based on differing political importance of the various theatres, as well as their transportation infrastructures and available forage. "River transport of armies" Allow transport of armies by river transports. Actual transports need to be used and the army counter itself counts as an SP for transport. Need this to recreate the move of Grant down the Mississippi to the bend across from Vicksburg. "Rail transport of armies" Allow armies to be moved by rail, the army counter counting as an SP against rail capacity. Can't think of any other way to recreate the long move of the remnants of the "Army of Tennessee" from Nashville to North Carolina. Warren Bruhn From: Warren Bruhn Subject: VG Civil War: naval options Being a navy guy, I couldn't help but make up a lot more counters for VG Civil War and add to the naval system. Here is the system I have been experimenting with which has added some fun to my games. NAVAL LEADERS: New naval leaders: Union: 2+1 ** Dupont (seniority 1) [in first group] 2.0 ** Goldsborough (seniority 2) [in first group] 2.0 ** Dahlgren (seniority 3) [arrives only if the number of Union naval leaders has been reduced by deaths to two or less] Confederate: 2+1 * F.Buchanon (seniority 1) [with 1st Conf. ironclad] 2+1 * I.Brown (seniority 3) [with any subsequnst ironclad] 2+0 * D.Ingram (seniority 4) [with any subsequent ironclad] 2+1 * R.Semmes (seniority 2) [arrives turn 19] "*" is "flag officer" or Confederate admiral, may move up to 4 NSPs as a group, together with any SP carried by a river ram. In spite of whatever their rank is, the Confederate Navy cannot move as many NSPs as a group as the Union can. Confederate ground leaders may not move confederate NSPs, but may be carried by a confederate naval force which carries an SP aboard a river ram. Leader arrival: I put the following five Union naval leaders face down in the naval pool: Foote, Faragut, Porter, Dupont, and Goldsborough. One may be entered into play each time the Union player enters the naval pool, without looking to see which admiral is put into play until the counter is on the map. Union naval leaders are always on an NSP, never in a land hex. If wounded, the naval leader is put onto the naval reinforcement track, and is then returned to play in the same manner. Confederate "*" enter play with the entry of ironclads, at no cost in dice difference or command points. Sealift: A Union naval leader may sealift an army if he is present on board an NSP in a hexside adjacent either the starting or ending hex of the army's sealift. An army may be sealifted without an admiral, simply by paying the Union army commander's initiative rating in naval and/or discretionary command points. New Confederate Units and Arrival: turn 1: Sumpter CR1 turn 2: Nashville CR1 turn 3: Ram 1 turn 4: any one Ironclad turn 5: Ram 2 turns 6-19: any Ironclad, but no more than one Ironclad per turn. turn 7: Alabama CR2 turn 8: Florida CR2 turn 9: Georgia CR2 turn 17: Shenandoah CR2 turn 18: Stonewall CR1/ocean going Ironclad Explanation of new unit types: CR1=commerce raider rolling one die, modified roll of "6" sinking the CR. CR2=commerce raider rolling two dice, modified roll of "12" sinking the CR. Ram 1 & 2 are the great numbers of riverboats and ships converted to cottonclad rams and gunboats on the Mississippi and its tributaries by the Confederates. The Ram 1 represents the force that fought Faragut at New Orleans. The Ram 2 represents the River Defense Fleet that surprised the Union at Plum Point and was later destroyed at the Battle of Memphis. The Ram 1 & 2 may only be built at a Confederate vp city in supply on the Mississippi River and/or its tributaries, and they may not exit the Mississippi River or its tributaries to sail into the Gulf of Mexico (mostly low draft paddlewheel river boats). They are sunk when damaged, like Conf. ironclads. They are identical in all other respects to Union river transports. They may each carry a Conf. SP. Both together in battle only count as one NSP for combat. The Conf. may use them to stage an amphibious landing under command of one of the Conf. naval leaders. (Note: I know this is not historical, but the river boats could carry soldiers, and the possibility is fun.) The Stonewall enters play only on turn 18, and, if entered, is placed in the commerce raiders at sea box. If there on turn 19, the Stonewall may forgo rolling to sink Union ships, and may instead enter the map by moving onto the map upon payment of one Confederate discretionary command point. It simply sails onto the map as an ocean going ironclad. Cost of Entry of Confederate NSPs: When Confederate production is at 120 or more, entry of a Confederate NSP costs only one discretionary command point. When Confederate production drops to 119 or less, then the cost is increased to two discretionary command points. Confederate Ironclad Names: The Conf. may use any name for the Ironclad entered on any particular turn (no more than one may enter per turn 4 & 6-19). I've made up a number of counters with names like Louisianna, N.Carolina, Mississippi, Texas, Chicora, Richmond, Fredricksburg, Savannah, S.Carolina, Columbia, etc., and any name can be reused after one is sunk. There were many historically built or building during that war, and there isn't necessarilly any reason to stick with historical names. (I also made up counters for commerce raiders Sumter, Nashville, Georgia, and for the Stonewall, and those river ram groups.) Union NSPs: When a Union NSP is sunk, place the NSP on the Naval reinforcement track on the sixth turn after the turn on which it was sunk (it is replaced by new construction). When a Union NSP is damaged, roll one die. On a roll of 1-2, the NSP is put in the naval pool immediately. On a roll of 3-4 the NSP is put on the naval reinforcement track for the next turn. On a roll of 5 the NSP is put on the naval reinforcement track for the second turn following the turn on which the NSP was damaged. On a roll of 6 the NSP is placed on the naval reinforcement track for the third turn following the turn on which the NSP was damaged. Altogether, these have been fun to play with, though the Mississippi can get choked up with Confederate NSP. The land game is still where the war is decided of course. Warren Bruhn From: Warren Bruhn Subject: VG Civil War: depot option One last option that I am trying in VG Civil War: a depot may be also be built on resource hexes in supply, map printed fortresses in supply, and player built forts that are in supply. Haven't really done much with this option yet, but it should open up some additional invasion route possibilities for the Union. Since many of my home-made options hurt the Yanks, this is one that might offset some of the harm and balance things out again. Warren Bruhn From: Stan Grossman Subject: Re: VG Civil War: leader options At 11:33 PM 8/10/97 -0700, Warren Bruhn wrote:[in part]: >Victory Games' Civil War is the game I rate as the finest board game ever >published. I love the game myself. A great stragetic treatment of the topic. Still, I can't help tinkering with games, including this one. >Here is a set of optional rules that I have been experimenting with. I hope >that it will generate a bit of discussion. >In what follows "r:" stands for "rationale:" and "a:" stands for "analysis:". > >LEADER OPTIONS: > >"Wilson's Creek" >Start the 1861 game with Lyon already dead... >r: Lyon's attack at Wilson's Creek in August was largely out of the Union >high command's control. Make the Union live with the results. Having Lyon >running around the board as an army commander is tough for the Conf. to >handle. While the other game start conditions are not very nice for the >Conf., having Lyon around lends a really strange feel after game after game >with a long lived Lyon. I agree, but then there is General Jackson who often survives past him time, though I'm never sorry to see this happen as a Confed. player. >a: This option leads to a Union defeat usually unless some compensation in made. >r: Kearny, like Lyon, was one of the Union's early stars. He was highly >respected by both sides for his performances in early to mid-1862. Bringing >him in helps offset the "Wilson's Creek" option. > >"Political Generals" >Give the Conf. 9 vp. The Union may subtract one vp each time one of the >following leaders is used in combat in such a way as to use his dice >addition for the Conf. or give his dice reroll options to modify a combat >die roll: >-not in army command: [snip] >-in army command: [snip] ...I think it adds some flavor to the >game. Having all the bad leaders sit in some spot such as St.Louis for the >entire game seems a little silly to me. There is a reason why they were used. I agree. As it stands, there is no motivation for either side to employ these inferior Political Generals. This seems to be a doable alternative to keeping them in action (Note: Players must use up Command Points for demotion, and follow seniority, but this varient addresses a different issue...) > >"alternative promotion system" [snip] >r: Promotion is often much more rapid in VGCW than in the historical Civil >War. Leaders were often promoted without battle experience (as in the case >of Pemberton). Also, players are motivated to attack just to get an >important leader promoted. This motivation that may be a valid design >consideration, but promotion was not entirely based on battle, and many >battles were fought which did not result in forced and immediate promotion >to the next grade. Promotion is a bit rapid in the game at points, but I've never really had a big problem with it. Attacks can yield leader causulties, though a player will usually not have qualms about this small risk compared to the benefits of promoting a leader they KNOW will rise to greatness. > >"Van Dorn demotion" >Conf. General Earl Van Dorn may be demoted to a "**" cavalry leader with >senority of "1" and ratings of 2x0. >r: This is a historical event which took place after Van Dorn lost at Pea >Ridge, Baton Rouge, and Corinth. He was fairly competent in this role... While in command of a cavalry corps, he >met his death by being shot by an irrate husband in middle Tennessee. Hmm, seems Van Dorn was a man of many talents. :) >a: This option is cool, but so far I have not actually demoted Van Dorn >except in a long solitaire game in which a couple of other Conf. cavalry >leaders were killed by the late game. Even with his bad ratings, Van Dorn is >still useful as a "***" because of his great initiative. A definite Confed. advantage here, since he is a 2 (-1) leader as an Army Command (using the (-) to indicate he gives the enemy a roll bonus). Also Cav. can wreck havoc in the game if employed well, and this gives them another one...of course, you can add one of the Union Cav. to balance things back... >"Sherman's March" >Beginning game turn 14, an army or armies under Sherman which leave a city >in a Confederate friendly state may leave it destroyed. Use a burn marker >from the Far West option counters on the city. Even if the Conf. take the >city back, it's resource value is reduced to only one, thus permanently >lowering the Conf. production. (Consider letting Pope and Sheridan do the same.) >r: Y'all know all about that march I'm sure. >a: Not yet playtested. No problems here, though at this point in the game, the Confed. is already in a pretty bad way if Sherman is actually able to pull this off.... >"Subordinate commanders" >Any leader activating a force, or defending in combat, may take along one >other leader junior to himself.... >r: ...the historical examples abound. I like this variant a lot, and is simple to implement.... > >"Army leaders' tactical ratings" >Army leaders' tactical ratings do affect battle. >r: The tactical conceptions or abilities of army commanders did affect army >combat on many occasions, together with their strategic ability and "luck" >(dice reroll options). Hmm, I feel the re-roll option already gives them enough the proper level of control over a battle, but... >*** leaders who use their tactical rating must roll for leader casualty as >if they are a ** leader. this certainly will give players pause for concern before using a Lee, Grant or Sherman "tactically" in battle. The loss of one of these leaders, esp Lee, can be a backbreaker for that side.... Thanks for the variants -- I'll give some of them a try next time I break out this game. Stan Stan Grossman Houston, Texas gjoseph@bcm.tmc.edu From: Stan Grossman Subject: Re: VG Civil War: army options At 11:33 PM 8/10/97 -0700, you wrote:[in part]: >Here are some options for armies in VG Civil War that I'm trying out: > >"More armies" >I made up some counters for Union "Army of Virginia" and "Army of the Ohio", >and Confederate "Army of the East" and "Army of the "Trans-Miss". So far, >these extra counters have been fun, but neither side really has the dice >addition leaders and manpower to make them important. I usually have trouble getting the strengths I want in the Armies as they are, though their ability to take replacements where they stand, as well as their other abilities would give them the flexability you note. Why not give R.E. Lee the ability of a "****" general, perhaps sometime in 1864, to command multiple Armies? This would fit in well with the "mini-armies" above. > >"Army size by theatre" >I use the following army size restrictions instead of the ones in the normal >rules. So far, they have worked great. I have always preferred to let Armies build up to the levels in the Options section of the game.... > >"River transport of armies" > >"Rail transport of armies" These both have their historical references, but I think they might be subject to abuse by the players. A tough call.... Regards, Stan Stan Grossman Houston, Texas gjoseph@bcm.tmc.edu From: Stan Grossman Subject: Re: VG Civil War: naval options On Sun, 10 Aug 1997, Warren Bruhn wrote:[in part]: [snip of cool Naval variations] > Altogether, these have been fun to play with, though the Mississippi can get > choked up with Confederate NSP. The land game is still where the war is > decided of course. Good grief! You have done a LOT in this area! Thanks for the ideas. I tend to concentrate more on the land aspects of play, with the Confeds. a given "lost cause" at control of the sea's and rivers, but this would certainly add a lot of spice to the game. Do you play much with the Far West Option? I have only tried it once, the only cool part being that more of Texas is included on the map. :) Stan From: Stan Grossman Subject: Re: VG Civil War: depot option On Sun, 10 Aug 1997, Warren Bruhn wrote: > One last option that I am trying in VG Civil War: a depot may be also be > built on resource hexes in supply, map printed fortresses in supply, and > player built forts that are in supply. > I like this option as well. Depot placement seemed a bit rigid in the game. Of course, play balance comes into effect, but perhaps with more Cav on both sides, this could become more of a side system. One thing I'd consider with these variants for Armies, Cav, depots, etc., to achieve more actual use of them (even if they tend to offset) is to give each player, say, some extra Command Points so they can employ them. For example, for each such "add on variant" that is applicable, add 1 Discretionary Command Point to what is actually rolled for by each player. That is, if you allow each side to have extra Cav Leaders, give each side 1 extra Discr. CP, if you add the depot rules, another one, etc. Stan From: Warren Bruhn Subject: Re: VG Civil War: army options >>"Army size by theatre" >>I use the following army size restrictions instead of the ones in the normal >>rules. So far, they have worked great. > > I have always preferred to let Armies build up to the levels in > the Options section of the game.... Play with the army size in the options section of the normal rules, and soon a 20+ factor Union army will be steamroling Arkansas from the west. This soon puts Memphis in a untenable situation, and the game crumbles from there. I think that 25 factor armies in the Trans-Miss is hopelessly unrealistic given the poorer forage value and poorer transportation infrastructure of the region. I based the value for Trans-Miss in my option on the largest mass ever present in that theatre in one spot (45,000 men of Grant's Army of the Tennesssee across from Vicksburg) and on the fact that an SP limit of 9 means no large force in the Trans-Miss, and no odds of greater than +3 against the largest possible non-army force that can be moved by one leader. Try this army size option in play. I think you'll like it, even if just for a change of pace. Warren Bruhn From: Terry Rooker Subject: Re: VG Civil War: army options On Mon, 11 Aug 1997, Stan Grossman wrote: > Why not give R.E. Lee the ability of a "****" general, perhaps sometime > in 1864, to command multiple Armies? This would fit in well with the > "mini-armies" above. But is this realistic? Lee had a wonderful mastery of what is now called operational art. He could get his army in a decisive position but then he let his corps commanders run the battle. Look at the battles where there were problems with the corps (wing) commanders, Chancellorsville, Wilderness, Gettysburg. They were hardly stunning operations for the ANV. Look at the times that Lee got involved in the battle and tried directing operations. It almost always resulted in a simple frontal assault. If Lee had difficulty coordinating the movements of corps, it is optimistic to give him the capability of coordinating armies. For those who believe in the Lost Cause these comments are not putting Lee down. One mark of a truly great leader is to find good people, put them in positions of responsibility, and let them do their jobs. Lee abviously had the sense to find good leaders and the courage to let them run free. Terry From: Warren Bruhn Subject: Re: VG Civil War: army options >> Why not give R.E. Lee the ability of a "****" general,... >But is this realistic?... I don't think that it is necessary to give RE Lee **** rank. When using the optional army sizes fromm the normal rules, or my own optional sizes, the Yanks can mass a second army and land it somewhere along the coast of the Carolinas. Sending the AoNV racing down from Virginia to confront this threat leaves Virginia unprotected against the other Union army there. The Confederate armies in the West may be too far from the Carolinas to be moved to meet the threat (unless rail movement of armies is permitted). It seems to me that the Confderacy would have been capable of fielding another army to meet this kind of threat with another army. That is why I added a Conf. "Army of the East" counter, and compensated the Union with an "Army of Virginia" counter, NOT to allow RE Lee to command an even larger mass of troops (20 SPs is enough). The difficulty is that only armies in VGCW can react to enemy movements. The Confederates certainly had plenty of cavalry, and on home turf, such as in the deep south states where they might need to field another army, they would have advantages of local terrain knowledge and intelligence from their own people. I did not feel that some of the small forces of rebels in the south should be sitting ducks without army counters. My first attempt to similate reaction ability of such junior commanders as Jackson was to have a "Confederate Reaction Force" rule. These CRF's could be formed by expending one command point and were marked with the yellow with red arrows counter from the Far West Option. Only one CRF could be formed per theatre per turn, and at the end of the turn, the CRF counter had to be removed. Used with the capability of allowing subordinate leaders to accompany what were essentially idependent corps, I expected these to be a potent and useful Rebel option. I also expected that they would come in handy late in the game when the Union can take reinforcements while forcing the Rebels to expend their command points, and then make the Union moves. The CRFs could have allowed a few Rebel small forces to slip away without battle. I figured this was a better way to similate the Conf "Army of Tennessee" in the Carolinas in 1865 than a long march of that army counter from defeat at Nashville. I figured the Conf should be able to shift cavalry, intelligence, and logistic support around in that manner from turn to turn. Well, you can imagine what happened to the CRFs. No one I played against wanted to spend even one command to give a force temporary reaction capability. I even had a hard time justifying the expenditure when I was playing solitaire!!! Since the rule for CRFs was not used, I decided to throw in the towel on the CRF rule. My solitaire experience with use of multiple armies in the east included some exciting events. Once, when two Union armies had maneuvered the Conf out of most of the eastern part of Virginia, I raced up a large army from the West under Van Dorn. In the resulting melee of maneuvers, the massive Conf one-two punch with "2" initive leaders totally smashed the Yanks out of Virginia with massive casualties. In ftf play, the extra armies were often used, but due to limits of SP and leaders with tactical modifiers, the extra armies are seldom strong. For the Union, I have made the mistake of trying to out-maneuver the Conf using two large armies in the East. Even the Union does not have the manpower to man two large armies in the East, and still have any manpower left for the vital amphipious operations against the Conf coasts. The Union needs to keep one army each in the East and West at maximum strength and tactical dice addition to pound on some vital objective to keep up the attrition and pin most of the Conf force. Then smaller Union armies might be able to make some headway somewhere. The extra armies are sometimes sacrificed. Once the threat in a theatre has been withdrawn (such as another amphibious lift of a Union force), it is often quicker to rail all SPs in excess of one to another threatenned theatre. In my most recent game, I sacrificed the small A.Potomac on react to stop an ANV drive on Washington. With another army each in both the West and East it becomes possible to sacrifice a small army from time to time. In the late game, some small armies can preserve the Conf ability to refuse battle, and provide a safer holding container for the few Conf SP that are left. From these small armies, the occasional cavalry raid can be launched, or the solo SP can dash out to do some small damage. One thing that I enjoy about VGCW is getting to the end game and finding that the biggest enemy that the Union has as it races the clock is just the huge size of the South. Warren Bruhn From: Stan Grossman Subject: Re: VG Civil War: army options At 07:59 PM 8/11/97 -0700, you wrote: >> [Stan]: >> I have always preferred to let Armies build up to the levels in >> the Options section of the game.... > >Play with the army size in the options section of the normal rules, and soon >a 20+ factor Union army will be steamroling Arkansas from the west. This >soon puts Memphis in a untenable situation, and the game crumbles from >there. I think that 25 factor armies in the Trans-Miss is hopelessly >unrealistic given the poorer forage value and poorer transportation >infrastructure of the region. I based the value for Trans-Miss in my option >on the largest mass ever present in that theatre in one spot (45,000 men of >Grant's Army of the Tennesssee across from Vicksburg) and on the fact that >an SP limit of 9 means no large force in the Trans-Miss, and no odds of >greater than +3 against the largest possible non-army force that can be >moved by one leader. That all sounds about right to me. Actually, I have only played the game ONCE against a live, ftf opponent, and we used the standard army restrictions. The rest of my gameplay has been solo, and I tend to do things and keep things within some bounds of historical play (NOT that I am a Civil War expert by anymeans), so I simply don't built huge Armies I know did not exist above the game limits. I use the optional Army settings so I can perhaps add in an extra SP here or there, but nothing outrageous... >Try this army size option in play. I think you'll like it, even if just for >a change of pace. I will give it a shot next time I play, along with some of the other variants you have posted. From a real VGCW fan, thanks a lot for them, Regards, Stan Stan Grossman Houston, Texas gjoseph@bcm.tmc.edu From: Stan Grossman Subject: Re: VG Civil War: army options At 06:00 AM 8/12/97 -0400, you wrote: >On Mon, 11 Aug 1997, Stan Grossman wrote: > >> Why not give R.E. Lee the ability of a "****" general, perhaps sometime >> in 1864, to command multiple Armies? This would fit in well with the >> "mini-armies" above. > >But is this realistic? Well, it has some historical basis, at least being considered towards the end. Perhaps allowing it in late '64 or starting in '65. Many of these 'minor armies' were in fact little more than Corps Level in strength, and you could still keep the upper level of SP allowed to command to 20. In practical game play, it's probably not the best of strategies anyway, since the whole point of having these "extra armies" is to give the Confed. (or Union) player more flexability. But there might be circumstances where the Confed. player might want to do this (running low on CP's, etc). He could get his army in a decisive position but then >he let his corps commanders run the battle. Look at the battles where >there were problems with the corps (wing) commanders, Chancellorsville, >Wilderness, Gettysburg. They were hardly stunning operations for the >ANV. Look at the times that Lee got involved in the battle and tried >directing operations. It almost always resulted in a simple frontal >assault. If Lee had difficulty coordinating the movements of corps, it >is optimistic to give him the capability of coordinating armies. I can follow your historical references, but if you take this angle (that he was poor at directing his Corps), yet could place his Army at a decisive point, this seems to point to better Army level command, so it may not be overly optimistic to give him the capability of moving Armies, at least in game terms at this stage of the war. >For those who believe in the Lost Cause these comments are not putting >Lee down. One mark of a truly great leader is to find good people, put >them in positions of responsibility, and let them do their jobs. Lee >abviously had the sense to find good leaders and the courage to let them >run free. There is always debate on subjective matters, esp. leadership ratings in games. For instance, Lee is rated as the top Army commander. But have him demoted to a Corps commander, and sure enough, as you note, he is mediocre. Stan Stan Grossman Houston, Texas gjoseph@bcm.tmc.edu From: Stan Grossman Subject: Re: VG Civil War: army options At 11:21 AM 8/12/97 -0700, you wrote: >>> Why not give R.E. Lee the ability of a "****" general,... > >>But is this realistic?... > >I don't think that it is necessary to give RE Lee **** rank. [snip] It seems to me that the Confderacy would have been capable of fielding another army >to meet this kind of threat with another army. That is why I added a Conf. >"Army of the East" counter, and compensated the Union with an "Army of >Virginia" counter, NOT to allow RE Lee to command an even larger mass of >troops (20 SPs is enough). My thought was also not allow Lee to command massive troops, and indeed the flexability of multiple Armies outweights sticking them together in the same hex. It would just be nice to have that ability if a Confed. player wanted to try a desperate manuever late in the game. I've usually found my Confed. Armies pretty whittled down by '65, so that it usually takes sticking two together to approach 20 SP. Could the CSA have even put the ANV together with any other Army and come close to 100,000 effective troops? Of course, the game will not necessarily go as history... [snip] >My solitaire experience with use of multiple armies in the east included >some exciting events. Once, when two Union armies had maneuvered the Conf >out of most of the eastern part of Virginia, I raced up a large army from >the West under Van Dorn. In the resulting melee of maneuvers, the massive >Conf one-two punch with "2" initive leaders totally smashed the Yanks out of >Virginia with massive casualties. It can be a fascinating experience to watch two or more of these armies 'dance' about into proper position for attack or defense. If you can hit a Demoralized Army with a fresh one, the results can be devastating. > [snip] > > One thing that I enjoy >about VGCW is getting to the end game and finding that the biggest enemy >that the Union has as it races the clock is just the huge size of the South. Indeed, and the tactics of delay and trading time for space become critical. I like the "multiple armies" concept, and will have to give it, and some of your other variants a go next time... Stan Stan Grossman Houston, Texas gjoseph@bcm.tmc.edu From: Warren Bruhn Subject: VG Civil War Here is another little "house option" that might be interesting for VG Civil War: allow the following leaders with "3" initiative ratings to rally certain armies for only 2 command points: McClellan: Army of the Potomac Rosecrans: Army of the Tennessee JE Johnston: Army of Tennessee This would recreate the special relationship of confidence that these armies had in these particular commanders. Warren Bruhn