Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
11 Posts

For the People» Forums » Strategy

Subject: Victory conditions rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Randy C
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
Robert L Howard (Medal of Honor recipient)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

I have the impression that when the Yanks win, it is by reducing Reb strategic will to zero, and not by holding 10 or more states at game end.

Is my impression faulty?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tobias Kriener
Germany
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
no; that's my experience, too; I've never won with the Union having occupied 10 states in the south.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randy C
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
Robert L Howard (Medal of Honor recipient)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

A friend of mine pointed out that the 10 can include border states if they were never Reb controlled, and

every 25 SW the yanks have in excess of the Rebs is worth 1 state.

With those, 10 seems possible.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
john f stup
United States
damascus
Maryland
flag msg tools
mb
generally speaking,the union victories don't seem to be very historical from my experience with this howbeit a very good game. i don't think the south would have surrendered so easily without the union taking several states unless they had been physically been beaten down to where they had no ability to resist. in all our games(40+or50+?), the northern wins have been by strategic will or by the south player resigning before the game was over(the player's will to continue was broken).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martí Cabré

Terrassa
Catalonia, Spain
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
nhojput wrote:
generally speaking,the union victories don't seem to be very historical from my experience with this howbeit a very good game. i don't think the south would have surrendered so easily without the union taking several states unless they had been physically been beaten down to where they had no ability to resist. in all our games(40+or50+?), the northern wins have been by strategic will or by the south player resigning before the game was over(the player's will to continue was broken).


Why do you say that Union victories don't seem to be very historical? Historically they did not conquer the South, it was the South that surrendered after losing the Mississippi, a few ports, a couple states, some major battles and Sherman's March to the Sea. It seems to me this is a SW defeat.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
john f stup
United States
damascus
Maryland
flag msg tools
mb
marticabre wrote:
nhojput wrote:
generally speaking,the union victories don't seem to be very historical from my experience with this howbeit a very good game. i don't think the south would have surrendered so easily without the union taking several states unless they had been physically been beaten down to where they had no ability to resist. in all our games(40+or50+?), the northern wins have been by strategic will or by the south player resigning before the game was over(the player's will to continue was broken).


Why do you say that Union victories don't seem to be very historical? Historically they did not conquer the South, it was the South that surrendered after losing the Mississippi, a few ports, a couple states, some major battles and Sherman's March to the Sea. It seems to me this is a SW defeat.
just my opinion. i think that several states(va.,nc.,ga.,tenn.,miss.,la.,sc.,and maybe ala.were pretty much conquered. i may be wrong but if the designer thinks 10 is the right number, that must mean something.they fought 2 or 3 years after the miss.river was cut and a few ports were taken.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Montgomery
United States
Joliet
Illinois
flag msg tools
Dear Geek: Please insert the wittiest comment you can think of in this text pop-up. Then times it by seven.
badge
The Coat of Arms of Clan Montgomery - Scotland. Yes, that's a woman with the head of a savage in her hand, and an anchor. No clue what it means, but it's cool.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I like the victory conditions, and they fit well with the game.

I feel that in my games (about ten so far over the course of four years), the outcomes have felt historically comparable.

The North, by the end of war, had captured the Mississippi River, Alabama, Arkansas, Texas, Tennessee, Virginia (including Richmond), Mississippi, portions of Louisiana and North Carolina, and had essentially captured Georgia (with the march to sea). There was no force in the West capable of resisting in any meaningful way.

In my games, the North will usually end with capturing all the border states, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Tennessee, and Mississippi. At this point, the South is pretty low on SW. It is odd that Virginia and Richmond are generally CSA-controlled and they don't seem to change hands in very many games.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lawrence Hung
Hong Kong
Wan Chai
Hong Kong
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
the northern wins have been by strategic will or by the south player resigning before the game was over(the player's will to continue was broken).


How true.

Quote:
At this point, the South is pretty low on SW. It is odd that Virginia and Richmond are generally CSA-controlled and they don't seem to change hands in very many games.


That's why this is the best strategic level ACW game. The South sees an entirely different picture at this level. They seems to be able to put up a fight with the North...at least they thought to be at tactical and operational level. Once things are put into the strategic perspective, the South is virtually on a declining trend and just to delay the time to defeat.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Montgomery
United States
Joliet
Illinois
flag msg tools
Dear Geek: Please insert the wittiest comment you can think of in this text pop-up. Then times it by seven.
badge
The Coat of Arms of Clan Montgomery - Scotland. Yes, that's a woman with the head of a savage in her hand, and an anchor. No clue what it means, but it's cool.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I suppose I find it odd because in an ideal situation, the game design would result in the occupation of Virginia and the fall of Richmond sometime near the end-game in most games with USA victories.

But thinking from a game-design perpective, it would be difficult to have this sort of behavior built into the game. It is very clear that the North's two-pronged approach weighed heavily - on men and resources - in the East, and this is borne out in the game. But the supreme goal of the Eastern Theatre - the capture of Richmond - seems a relatively distant probability, at least in my plays.

It is certainly not a solution to require the USA to capture Virginia and Richmond to win. In that situation, the CSA player, like the Northern player, would concentrate forces in Virginia. The CSA would probably employ a "fighting retreat" in the Western Theater, needing only to hold out long enough to get close to the end-game, at which time it could focus all its resources on holding Virginia/Richmond until the last turn.

Another option is the possiblity of messing around with the SW values of the other states, such that a state's SW value is lower as the game progresses, while manpower production falls off throughout the war (using some sort of table where, say, Louisiana's SW value drops off throughout the game, as does it's manpower). This could lead to the USA prioritizing the capture of certain states before others (border states being worth more in the first two turns, but worth nearly nothing by Turn 10). But this format would require some very delicate mathematical balancing to "fix" a game that is not broken.

I like the design as it is. I'm just surprised at how rare it is that Virginia/Richmond falls in my games considering that it was a long-term goal for the USA throughout the war and a historic eventuality
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
john f stup
United States
damascus
Maryland
flag msg tools
mb
cmontgo2 wrote:
I suppose I find it odd because in an ideal situation, the game design would result in the occupation of Virginia and the fall of Richmond sometime near the end-game in most games with USA victories.

But thinking from a game-design perpective, it would be difficult to have this sort of behavior built into the game. It is very clear that the North's two-pronged approach weighed heavily - on men and resources - in the East, and this is borne out in the game. But the supreme goal of the Eastern Theatre - the capture of Richmond - seems a relatively distant probability, at least in my plays.

It is certainly not a solution to require the USA to capture Virginia and Richmond to win. In that situation, the CSA player, like the Northern player, would concentrate forces in Virginia. The CSA would probably employ a "fighting retreat" in the Western Theater, needing only to hold out long enough to get close to the end-game, at which time it could focus all its resources on holding Virginia/Richmond until the last turn.

Another option is the possiblity of messing around with the SW values of the other states, such that a state's SW value is lower as the game progresses, while manpower production falls off throughout the war (using some sort of table where, say, Louisiana's SW value drops off throughout the game, as does it's manpower). This could lead to the USA prioritizing the capture of certain states before others (border states being worth more in the first two turns, but worth nearly nothing by Turn 10). But this format would require some very delicate mathematical balancing to "fix" a game that is not broken.

I like the design as it is. I'm just surprised at how rare it is that Virginia/Richmond falls in my games considering that it was a long-term goal for the USA throughout the war and a historic eventuality
i just played a game where the north won by conquering Virginia,NC,and SC. the only thing the north did in the west was destroying Nashville. there was only one amphibious landing during the whole game and that was the taking of Fort Phillip on the 1st turn when it wasn't garrisoned. the blockade level moved up slow but made it to level 4 a couple of turns before the game ended and became a strong factor. the Emancipation was never employed. concerning the question on this thread, by taking 3 neutral and 3 rebel states and with the north being ahead by 3 or 4X25 SW's, that was about as close as we ever came to getting 10 conquered states.but even then the south will lose by SW most of the time before the 10 states VC is acquired since zero SW's is a loss right away.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martí Cabré

Terrassa
Catalonia, Spain
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think that the 10 state victory condition exists to ensure that the CSA will defend its territory. If the only existing victory condition was SW, the CSA could delay fighting trading space for time and avoiding SW loss situations, counting just to get above zero by game's end.

If the CSA chooses this field of actions, then the USA has an open way to conquer the southern states, and they would easily win conquering ten states. To avoid this easy northern win the CSA are forced to defend their territory and thus the war is usually lost or won on SW.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.