After turn 2 I can't see why the South would ever attempt to invade the North. Because the South cannot garrison, at most an invasion will temporarily decrease the Union war effort one or two levels. Likely, such an invasion would just cause the South the elimination of a corp or two. Historically one can make the argument that had Lee won Gettysburg and raided Philadephia or Baltimore, the Union would not have reelected Lincoln and made peace with the South. Also, the lack of incentive for a Northern invasion makes the game less interesting. As a variant I propose that every Union resource area raided during turn 3 or latter causes the war effort level differential needed for a political victory for the South be reduced by one. Other possible variants along these lines could be, beginning with Turn 3, that the Union war effort level be reduced by two if the South occupies a resource center (reflecting the diversion of resources to garrisoning cities in the North); or, increasing the Southern war effort level by one when it occupies a Union resource center in addition to the decease to the Union war effort level (reflecting increased aid from Great Britain).
Here's again what I wrote in our email discussion:
Is it worth to raid the North? Probably not, the risk is quite great that you lose more than you gain (as you explained). To do anything worthy you would have to split your army into 2 or 3 parts occupying Baltimore, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh at once, and even then it is not likely that this will be sufficient to reduce Union WE for a win. The only real upside is that it will force the union to waste 1 or 2 ops better spent in the west (as the threat is more psychological than real)
Maybe it would be a better option if Union resource cities gave a 2 WE loss instead of one (to reflect the psychological impact of a Confederate Army occupying Philadelphia for example), or the South would gain one WE as well (so you could expand your army during the temporary WE increase) or if you could put Washington OOS (thus softening up the defense there). Would still be a risk, but the mere threat would keep the North on the heels to take any Confederate incursion in to its territory damn seriously. It may not be 100% historical, but it would make for a more interesting game (probably) for the South, and I want the Union to be on its toes and answer ANY threat the CSA might pose. The rules as currently written allow no threat at all, as one could just let the CSA army march into Pittsburgh and watch it starve to death. And if the Union devotes resources to the defense of its resource regions, the South shouldn't really have a chance to get one.
Well, given I am no expert on ACW history, from what I read Lee's objectives were precisely that: threatening Pennsylvania, drawing attention there and relieving the Western Front, attempting to deal a blow to morale by bringing the war to the North and living off the land in Union territory instead off already ravaged Virginia. Well, one could of course argue that it indeed WAS too big a risk, given the defeat, and thus modeling history very well, however, it leads to a boring situation in the game, as the South has little to do and no incentive to do anything offensively after the initial turns (or rather never), as Washington is pretty safe if the Union player is not stupid and always leaves 4+ corps plus a garrison in there. Perhaps one of my suggested variants could fix this while making the game just a wee little ahistorical (of course, Gettysburg was quite a narrow thing, and we will never know what would've happened if Lee won. In PoF, he would have probably reorganized and returned to Shenandoah to avoid campaign attrition in enemy territory.)
- Last edited Sat Jun 20, 2009 9:37 am (Total Number of Edits: 2)
- Posted Sat Jun 20, 2009 9:27 am
More realistic War Effort values for cities in "The Price of Freedom" would increase the menace of Southern invasion of the North.
In 1860, Philadelphia was America's second largest city, with one-half million people. Baltimore was the third most populous. The fall, looting and destruction of a city such as Philadelphia or Baltimore would have been a worse blow to the North than the fall of Washington, which in 1860 was not the Big Government monster it is today. Washington's population swelled during the Civil War, but it never approached Philadelphia's population. .
New Orleans was the fourth largest city, with maybe 100,000 people. State capitals such as Pennsylvania's Harrisburg, Ohio's Columbus, Indiana's Indianapolis were also significant. Certainly more significant than the Shenandoah Valley or Atlanta. Atlanta was a tiny town before the war, far less important than Nashville.
I would re-figure War Effort values as something like these:
Washington: 3, 2 may be recovered if North retakes Washington.
Baltimore: 3, 2 may be recovered if North retakes it.
Philadelphia: 3, 1 may be recovered if North retakes it.
Harper's Ferry: 1 (H.F. was on the economically important Baltimore and Ohio railroad and Potomac River valley artery to the western states.)
Greensboro, NC: 1. (North Carolina contributed more soldiers than any other Southern state.)
Nashville: 1 (A center of Southern industry and capital of Tennessee).
Charleston: 1. (Symbolically important as well as economically important due to its harbor. The North invested much effort in taking it amphibiously).
Memphis: 0. Less important than Nashville.
Chattanooga: 1. Center of locomotive industry in South, intersection of railway from Virginia via Knoxville and of the Memphis & Charleston railway.
- Last edited Mon Jun 14, 2010 1:52 pm (Total Number of Edits: 1)
- Posted Mon Jun 14, 2010 3:53 am