Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
11 Posts

For the People» Forums » General

Subject: McClellan - Not that much of an hassle or am I missing something? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Jean-Luc Simard
Canada
Longueuil
Québec
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I (finally) managed to try the game yesterday after way too long of a wait, and we fumbled our way through the 1861 scenario to get more familiar with the game.

Overall it was definitely up to our expectations and we can see ourselves digging more deeply in the game in the future.

One thing surprised my opponent and I was the minimal impact of McClellan on the game. From what we've read and expected, we thought McClellan would be a major military liability to work around because of his political clout. But in our game, he happened to be deployed near DC, and was absorbed in the Army of Potomac in its next move. Once there he couldn't move out again as he was the highest ranking non-commanding officer, but he also didn't create a SW loss when creating new armies as he was now in an Army Display board. He didn't add anything to battles, but didn't prevent anything either, so he was mostly a non-s

Did we miss something? Of course, if he ended up being deployed alone in the West it would have been more complicated to park him in an army afterward, but you should still be able to achieve something similar once a western army is created, no? It is quite possible we missed a rule somewhere that would make we did inefficient (or even illegal).

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Gautier

Rhinebeck
New York
msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
You actually missed something, but not the way you think. Mac was under used in your game. The US should almost always have an army, camped in or next to DC, under Mac's command. It is worth an extra 5 SW as well as 1 extra SP per turn--which is huge (FtP is essentially a SP war). Put a cav bde in with him, and he intercepts on a 1-4 and defends against everyone but Lee and Jackson on an even basis.

Mac is pretty awesome. It's Butler and Fremont who suck.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jean-Luc Simard
Canada
Longueuil
Québec
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
We didn't miss it: we played without optional rules for the first game to get the basics down first. But with the special rule for McClellan it does make sense to promote to some Army command.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Gautier

Rhinebeck
New York
msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Just so you know, all competitive FtP games, i.e., ladder and BPA tournament, are played with the optionals, so they are not really optional.

But even without the optionals, Mac as an army commander is still one of your best generals in the early going (depending, he is either as important as Pope and Burnside, or almost as important). So, yeah, I still think you missed something because you wasted Mac by burying him in an army. I know, the army was probably commanded by Pope or Burnside, so it moved on a "2" card. Not bad, but I think with experience, you'll find Pope and Burnside far more valuable in the early going as corps commanders while Mac commands that second army near DC.
 
 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
Mac's drawback in the game is that if you leave him in command of the Army of the Potomac indefinitely, his 3-Ops value to activate the army will not allow the Union to move with enough alacrity to contest the East. In other words, he is slow - as with most of the Union generals at game start.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jean-Luc Simard
Canada
Longueuil
Québec
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ok, rereading the rules, I wonder if . Rule 5.22 (Designating the Commanding General) states:

"When an Army is created, the player’s Strategic Will is reduced by 2 SW if any general on the map (not Army Display) has a higher political rating than the new commanding general’s political rating"

We read that as meaning "ignore generals in Army Displays" for penalty purposes. But now that I reread it, it could also mean "consider all generals on the map, not only those in this Army's Display".

So which one is the right interpretation? If McClellan is a non-commanding general in the Army of the Potomac (and therefore in that Army Display), and I create a new Army with the next leader in political rating order, do I take the 2 SW penalty or not?

That notwithstanding, there is indeed some place for McClellan in command around DC for his defensive capabilities, like you guys pointed out.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Gautier

Rhinebeck
New York
msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
You had it right the first time.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Dehler
United States
Colorado
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Plus Mac gives you some naval movement capabilities for the Army of the Potomac.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thomas Gingras

Weymouth
Massachusetts
msg tools
mbmbmb
I read it differently:
"When an Army is created, the player’s Strategic Will is reduced by 2 SW if any general on the map (not Army Display) has a higher political rating than the new commanding general’s political rating"

On the map means if any general in play anywhere has a higher political rating. I think of it this way, a general with political pull is going to be pulling for any new command. So burying Mac or any other general in an Army Display does not invalidate their political pressure. It would still cost 2 SW. Otherwise it would make no sense at any time to voluntarily remove a leader from the game. Mac is a pain in the butt for Army organization as long as he is in play.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nick spencer
msg tools
Jaels wrote:
I (finally) managed to try the game yesterday after way too long of a wait, and we fumbled our way through the 1861 scenario to get more familiar with the game.

Overall it was definitely up to our expectations and we can see ourselves digging more deeply in the game in the future.

One thing surprised my opponent and I was the minimal impact of McClellan on the game. From what we've read and expected, we thought McClellan would be a major military liability to work around because of his political clout. But in our game, he happened to be deployed near DC, and was absorbed in the Army of Potomac in its next move. Once there he couldn't move out again as he was the highest ranking non-commanding officer, but he also didn't create a SW loss when creating new armies as he was now in an Army Display board. He didn't add anything to battles, but didn't prevent anything either, so he was mostly a non-s

Did we miss something? Of course, if he ended up being deployed alone in the West it would have been more complicated to park him in an army afterward, but you should still be able to achieve something similar once a western army is created, no? It is quite possible we missed a rule somewhere that would make we did inefficient (or even illegal).

Its odd that Mc combat values in no way reflect his combat effiecency, he was anything but a liability, being more effeciant at casualty infliction than almost all union commanders. Being why both Lee and Longstreet wrote he was the best general they had faced no doubt.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Luka Kovač Plavi
Croatia
Našice
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Rostranor wrote:
I read it differently:
"When an Army is created, the player’s Strategic Will is reduced by 2 SW if any general on the map (not Army Display) has a higher political rating than the new commanding general’s political rating"

On the map means if any general in play anywhere has a higher political rating. I think of it this way, a general with political pull is going to be pulling for any new command. So burying Mac or any other general in an Army Display does not invalidate their political pressure. It would still cost 2 SW. Otherwise it would make no sense at any time to voluntarily remove a leader from the game. Mac is a pain in the butt for Army organization as long as he is in play.



You are reading it wrong. The reason why it explicitly says 'not army display' is because they meant just that.
2 
 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.