|
|
|
Clear |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Related Links
|
Publishers: http://www.decisiongames.com Boardgame Geek review page: http://boardgamegeek.com/game/11708 ConsimWorld discussion page: http://www.consimworld.com/archives/000357.html Our Game Thus FarThe game ended on turn 15 (9/1862) with a Union concession. Although
a win for the South is a win regardless, I felt as a newbie WBTS player, I
made some serious mistakes early on, especially with production. Having a
game to my experience, I think the next one will be closer, even favoring the
1861 Campaign Game Current turn: Turn 12, 6/1862 (Summer) Political Points: 3-3 Confederate Confederate: Captured a fort, Union second volunteer call, Union casualties.
Personnel: General Stance: East
– Lee moves north! Captured West
– Captured South
- Union invasions capturing the ports of Morehead City and New Bern, North Carolina drew considerable Confederate
attention and manpower. Failed invasion of Game: All rules including optional and experimental except for limited intelligence (more on this later). When We PlayWe’ve be consistent on Saturday evenings, averaging about three weekends a month. We play about one strategic cycle, sometimes five turns per session, about 6:00 pm to midnight. PlayersConfederates: Dirk Our Questions about War Between the StatesThe following are questions we have about the game. If you want to comment or answer some of them, please write. RulesNaval leaders 1) What are naval leaders’ initiative if they want to
move on land? For example, you want them moved from the Atlantic to Do they need initiative like
land leaders if they want to move by water but not currently stacked with a
naval vessel? [7.2] Water Transportation Can a river/naval transport pick up two or more separate forces (that
is, forces using separate moving orders) in the same turn if each has
sufficient movement points? If the two forces start in the
same hex, does the transport pay the cost to load once or twice? Does the same rule apply when a
transport wants to load both a force of units and some unpossessed supplies
(that is, does the transport pay once to load the force then pay again to
load the supply)? Does this change if the supply is
possessed by a Supply Train that is part of the moving force, but which
Supply Train does not elect to itself load with the loading force (that is,
it wants to load the supply on the river/naval transport but remain behind)? 1) Is 2) Thus, we
interpret this to mean the Confederate player gains no political points from
any Virginia city (for example, Leesville or ________) because these are not
in a Union state, nor from any 3) Michael
comes short of calling it a state. Who controls the 4) What
about through unoccupied CSA cities such as Romney? 5) Can
either side eventually move a department into a West Virginia city if they
control all Political table [25.4] What does “concede” mean: “If the free appeal fails, the player may make further appeals on subsequent strategic turns, but if such appeals fail, he must concede increasing numbers of political points to his opponent according to the following schedule:…” 1) Does the rolling player
reduce his political points by that number while at the same time increasing
his opponents by the same number? What if the active player does not have the
number of political points should the attempt be unsuccessful? Our suggested wording: “If the free appeal fails, the player may make further appeals on subsequent strategic turns, but if such appeals fail, his opponent gains political points according to the following schedule:…” Captured Union Cities (For [29.12]) “The Confederate player must be able to trace a path via road and/or Confederate controlled railroad hexes free of Union units from the city to a Confederate department.” Can the Confederate use roads in
a neutral “The Confederate player must be able to trace a path of Confederate controlled road and/or railroad hexes from the city to a Confederate department.” Does successfully rolling for combat initiative commit that leader to combat? Our answer is no. You can roll for all leaders first then decide if you want to actually attack or not. If nothing else, it just saves time figuring out combat odds unnecessarily. When is a Volunteer/draft initiated? Our answer is as a part of production phase (meaning that the new points are available for the current production)? However during the Political Events phase (meaning that the points are available for the next production phase) is also viable. General Grant 1) It's unclear to us how this rule is intended to
work in practice. For example, our reading of the command rules is that
a leader can command another leader only if the first leader is in command of
an Army (not Corps) HQ. Is the Grant rule intended as an exception to
that? For example, if Halleck gets to move or attack, does
this mean that if Grant is stacked with him he may also move and
attack? If this is the case, how does Grant and units in Grant's command
count toward Halleck's command limit and can they combine their units into a
single attack?" 2) Can
Grant even command a corps while stacked with Halleck, with Grant essentially
becoming a 1-5-2 leader? 3) Is the
combined Halleck/Grant stack considered a single unit for movement? 4) The 15 turn restriction starts at the beginning of a turn that the two are stacked. If Halleck is removed from the game or the board, Grant is still uses a one initiative until the 15 turn limit expires. 5) Grant uses his own initiative until he becomes stacked with Halleck. Until then, Grant may only move and may not command any units. Don't forward reference optional
rules. In our case it doesn’t matter since we’re using all the rules,
optional and experimental. However, if we weren’t, it be a question if the
reference in the main body of the rules makes it required or experimental. Does naval support count toward
the combat attrition supply factors? [26.3] Confederate Initiative Pick For [26.3] Confederate Initiative
Pick, does this mean the Confederate goes first in getting his chit? Suggested rule clarification: Modified Leader Schedule For the Leader Rating table,
which lists the appearance schedule for all the leaders, list the promotion
dates at the time of the actual promotion, not as it is currently when the
leader first appears. It might make tracking leaders easier. [8.18] Allocation of Losses When naval and ground units are part of the same force, the rule of even distribution is applied as follows: a force of three naval flotillas supports three defending 10-3 infantry divisions (total defending strength 90). A) The loss required is 10 percent, or nine points. Half of that loss rounded up (five points) must be distributed among the infantry divisions; the remaining loss (four points) is applied to the naval presence and is accounted for by destroying one flotilla, which is a 20 point shot. (It would be unfair to kill all the naval units.) B) To describe the loss process another way: units take losses equally, and no unit may take more than one loss until all involved units take one loss, and so on with two losses, three losses, etc. Any losses against naval units may be combined, so the player loses as few naval units as possible, since naval units do not have step reduction.” I see cases A and B contradicting each other. For example Case A loses six things (five infantry and a ship). Case B would lose seven things. That is, the losses would be one from Infantry A, Infantry B, Infantry C, Ship A, Ship B, Ship C for the first six and again one from Infantry A, Infantry B, Infantry C for six infantry losses and three ship losses. The ship losses can be consolidated into a single ship, so for the total, six infantry and a ship are lost, for seven things. How have others played this? Counters[27.0] Further Optional Rules for Historical Leaders Add leader characteristics for five star generals. Include this also in the summary rather than saying “A five star leader functions the same as in the original rules,” and list naval leaders, too. The summary is an excellent idea since the leader rules are confusing. Grant, Again Consider making Grant a 1-5-2 four star, and promote him later to 4-5-2 four stars. That would be consistent with all the other rules, less bookkeeping, and does away with all these questions. PreferencesAlthough the designer clearly says the Attrition table says what it means, does anyone else think that table is ridiculously draconian? When all other losses are expressed as a percentage loss, the attrition table indicates an absolute number from zero to 10. This seems excessive to the point of having to be wrong still. Should cities modify supply
consumption? It seems logical that being quartered in a major city makes this
easier. Only a leader initiating combat can use his combat modifier. Any single leader in a stack being attacked can use his modifier. The Supply And Consumption Phase is way too long (often longer than a game turn), dull, and too mundane or having too little of an effect. Has anyone thought about an alternative? Limited Intelligence is an interesting idea but is undermined by the supply consumption rule. That rule necessitates examining each hex in detail, ironically giving the opponent more information about the stacks, not less. Before making a case against this, the consumption rule requires that openness to prevent mistakes. It's not a matter of trusting your opponent; it's making sure mistakes don't happen. In spite of rule 11. Militia Demobilization, “such secrecy can be fun,” may not always true. Remove the phrases "They
mean exactly what they say." It demeans the reader. I hope all rules
always mean "what they say" or why even have a rule book. On the other hand, perhaps the author does need to point out the rules that “mean what they say” (say with an asterisk by those rules) since not all the rules “mean what they say.” As pointed out earlier [29.12] the “Confederate Player the Confederate player also receives one (1) political point on each strategic turn he has ground combat units occupying any at-start Union city,” really means “cities in Union states rather than any city occupied by the Union player at games beginning.” Likewise, [26.7] Partisans “the Confederate player may place one partisan cadre in any clear terrain hex of a Confederate or neutral state that is not occupied by Union units.” I am guessing, but may mean “in any clear terrain hex not occupied by Union units in a Confederate or neutral state.” In general, tone the language down: [12.13] Supply Attrition Table “Note: the key to the Supply Attrition Table means exactly what it says. The number read is the number of combat strength points that must be lost due to attrition. That is the number, the real whole number as expressed in the base 10 Arabic numeral system, not — repeat, not — a percentage of the force.” It really is patronizing being told it's a "real whole number as expressed in the base 10 Arabic numeral." Besides, this rule does need to be changed. If this question is asked a lot it’s because of the attrition table is perceived to be so unrealistic. MapThe graphics for the cities need to be more distinct. On our map, the color and size distinction is almost indiscernible for certain locations. Make state boundaries far more distinct. Explain why Remove the red forts. They are the most noticeable hexes on the map and they have no effect. Perhaps mark them in small fonts similar to some of the battle sites. Make victory cities red. Consider using different fonts to distinguish Confederate major cities, supply cities and potential supply cities from each other and from other cities. Introduce port symbols for Confederate cities capable of providing import supply. "Has anyone given thought about expanding the naval combat procedure/table? Our players have been experimenting with optional rules to introduce more variety than the current Exchange, Eliminated and No Effect possibilities. The current "all or nothing" naval combat system seems out of place when compared with the great incremental loss approach of the land combat system (particularly when we are talking of flotillas and not individual ships)." Mark river headwaters either at the beginning of the hex of the back of it, not in the exact center. The center makes it unclear if the boat can enter that river segment of not. [7.54] Units in “[7.54] Units in Galveston may go
around the head of Galveston Bay by spending one game turn off the map and
reentering at hex B0129.” Include these three hexes in the next map, it’ll
resolve a lot of questions. Can those units be attacked while off map? Is
there a functioning railroad between the map and Rule Wording Suggestions Current: "Defenders in both
cities and towns are not required to retreat. Minor towns, those represented
by dots, have no effect." For individual scenarios, put the
scenario name first. It'll make it easier to determine if that change applies
to you. For the set up chart, reference the city by name where applicable rather than just the hex number. OtherExceptions That Are the Rule Not a technical point but an amusing one. The rules writer takes the approach of stating the general rule first and then adds specific cases modifying it. While there is nothing wrong with this, in some cases it produces odd results. For example, the general rule is [10.1] Command Span: the leader may command [subordinate leaders]. Now, start adding the restrictions: Except
for all two star leaders, This doesn't leave all that much.
In other simpler example, the general rule is: [18.0] Railroads. …The rail
lines in Use the terms army HQ, corps HQ consistently. Field army and army is used interchangeably but causes some confusion at times. The worse case is: “A three star leader may command a single army corps...” (we assume this means corps) and later, “If a three star leader commands a field army…four-star leader can command a corps or a single army…” Foreign Words in Rule Books Foreign words and phrases should almost always be avoided, especially in technical documentation. They are likely to be misunderstood, if they are understood in the first place. In memoriam may be easily guessed but i.e, e.g, tend to obfuscate ideas rather than clarify them. In technical documentation, why would the readers have to guess at all? Ipso facto ("by the fact itself") could be simply stated "by the very fact," or "because." Via implies a physical movement through ("via the highway") but common usage changed the meaning to a synonym of "through." Technical documentation aims not to obscure ideas by complication but to clarify, a fortiori the uncommon. Lex non scripta becomes lex loci, so we can follow the rules canonically or ipsissima verba. There is a goal of summum bonum not sapienti sat, et hoc genus omne. After considerable thought, I’ve
come to the alarming conclusion that General Butler is nearly minimal in this
game. He’s a four star general and one of a few leaders the In spite of his atrocious initiative, he is still a leader. There are several things that can be done with him. As an officer by himself, he can only command a single unit and at that, only with a drawn initiative chit. That makes him no better than if the unit were by itself. As a corps commander, he leverages that one chit and can command four units (three in the corps and one for his span), five with a subordinate office who in turn is in command of two units. Also, that leader could extend command into an additional hex, useful if you're trying to cover a range. In this role, he becomes a mule. Useful but the force still can’t attack. Also, the early part of the game this may not be a good time to do this since corps counters and drawn initiatives chits are always at a premium. Later in the game when both become more abundant, this becomes practicable. To get around Things a
leader can do: Star Power The use of general’s ranking (two-star, three-star, and so on) is a convenient game mechanism as long as everyone knows it’s historically inaccurate, by as much as 80 years. The lack of one star generals in
the game is historically accurate but inconsistent with the star numbering
system they use in the game. It’s accurate in that during the Civil War,
Union divisions were led by one star generals. In this game, the operations
of divisions themselves are left to an abstract level with brigadier generals
or senior colonels assumed to be in charge. This has since changed in that
current military doctrine (actually since about WW I) prohibits one star
generals from commanding divisions (there are less than a dozen divisions
anyway now), although they are often deputies or second in command. But more
on this later. By way of example, perhaps the most famous WWII division commander
was Anthony McAuliffe with his “Nuts” reply during the 1944 The lack of one star generals is inconsistent in game terms since the highest rank in the army at the outbreak of the Civil War was a two-star general, and they only had three of those (McClellan, Halleck, and Buell). That means most of the commanders represented in the game were one-star generals. The use of one star commanders became more prevalent with brevet promotions as new divisions formed. While that practice undermines the structure of an army, the Union army was designed for 18,000 in 1860 and became 6.2 million by 1865. Because of this rapid increase, there was an inflation of sorts with generals and better structure was needed to show seniority. That’s when Abraham Lincoln had trouble with George Washington. George Washington had been given
a lieutenant general rank posthumously. Technically in A similar situation occurred two
years later: George Washington was promoted to four stars. Eight days later
so was Grant. Even if Grant was a week less senior, he is still considered
the first four-star general. In 1868, He also had a claim to being a five star general. In 1919, he was titled “General of the Armies,” a title that also had been held by Grant. However Pershing declined to design a new uniform and insignia and the issue was dropped until 1944. At that time, the Congress authorized five stars. Although retired, the promotion affected Pershing as well. After WWII, five stars were retired upon the death of those officers. In 1981, Omar Bradley’s passing ended the five star general and it is unlikely it will ever be reissued. Finally, there is the matter of a six star general. There isn’t one. However, there could have been. The 1944 introduction of the five-star general affected the retired General Pershing too. As mentioned, he too was promoted to five stars and since he was the senior general at the time, there was a brief discussion to introduce a sixth star. It was decided not to and instead they settled on an extra title. This meant that during WWII, he was the senior general, even to Eisenhower. Pershing lived to see the end of WWII. All this takes us back to George
Washington. The reverence for him has never waned but Congress got tired of
giving him posthumous promotions. The matter was settled in 1976 when Gerald
Ford signed a bill conferring once The Confederate army had a
similar but an even odder skew on generals. In 1861 there was only one rank
of general (brigade general) but by 1864 they had four ranks of general
(brigade general, major general, lieutenant general, and general) although a
strict matching with the Retired QuestionsRailroads Does a unit that begin its movement under a railroad counter (that
is, still entrained from the turn before) count again as units moved for the
rail capacity limit for the cycle? Even if just unloading? The fort rules changed after the
game was produced. As a result, the X on the fort counter actually intersects
two hexsides. For that reason, we assumed they meant each fort could cover
two hexsides (although it could only attack once per fort). This is not the
case. Each fort only covers one hexside. In our game this doesn’t matter
since we have a Plexiglas overlay and can mark the hexsides. However, the
counters get reprinted, consider redesigning the Fort markers. Are militia considered divisions
for the purposes of command control? Thoughts on the Combat TableThe combat tables have two interesting characteristics, one could be intentional, however, the other one may be a flaw. Regardless, they have an large impact on the game. One characteristic is that the tables are designed for even exchanges. For starters, nearly one third of all the results include an equals sign. That means a force takes the same number of causalities (as absolute number, not the same percentage) as the other side. By definition, of course, these are equal exchanges. Other results are expressed as a percentage loss of that force. For example, 5/15 result means that the attacker loses 5% of his force and the defender loses 15% of his. At lower odds attacks, the difference between the two percentages are not large. For example, the follow table is for a 10:10 attack or when both sides are evenly matched. The results are even exchanges, almost as you would expect.
There are two assumptions that go along with this. One, is that higher odds column benefits the attacker, and two, higher die rolls benefits the attacker. In both cases, this is not true. The first assumption is supported by the fact that when reviewing the combat tables as a whole, it looks like the tables intentionally create a gradual continuum from mere contacts without any real fighting, to light encounters (such as the one above), to all out blood baths. There certainly seems to be a copious number of combinations such as from 100/0, 40/25, to 0/100 and almost every pairing in between. They even went out of their way to design not one but four different tables to create that slope. Yet almost regardless of the table, column, or die roll, the results are consistently equal exchanges. We see results such as 10/20 or 10/40. Although it looks like the combat is going to result in 2:1 or 4:1 casualties in favor of the attacker, the actual result is that losses are almost even, and in many cases, the attacker takes more casualties and technically losses the battle. The problem is in using percentage (or as the rules say "peercentage") for the losses. For example, the 10/40 result only appears only in the 251-400 column, or when the attack is about four times stronger than the defender. Although at face value, the result is one fourth the losses for the attacker relative to the defender, the attacker's base number is four times larger to begin with. In a combat of 26 to 10, which is on the 251-400 column, the actually losses are 3/4, hardly the lopsided result it seemed at first and even at that, by rolling the high number of five. Furthermore, if the attack were 40:10, also on the 251-400 column, the same result becomes 4/4. Adding 14 strength points does nothing more for the attacker other than to increase his own losses. More on that later. The table below shows the possible results.
If you’re lucky enough to roll a six, you got a reasonably large differential. In one instance, the attacker loses more. While these may not be bad results, the 251-400 column is the third highest column and you may be expecting to start getting into a greater differential of losses. The other two higher columns don't improve this much. The 401-900 column (the second highest one), has a 5/50, a seemingly large difference. But keeping in mind that the attacking force is nine times larger, the effective difference becomes more like 45/50. In a 45:5 attack, a 5/50 result nets a 3/3 loss. Again, hardly the difference you’d expect from such overpowering odds. The higher numbers tables do present a slight increase of the differences. Really it’s not until the 901+ column is used (the highest column possible), do the 0/25, 0/50, and the coveted 0/100 results occur. However, as a practical matter, it won’t be often an attack will be on that column for any defender greater than five. All that doesn’t mean the combat tables are flawed. The war was one of attrition and a case can be made that the tables reflect that. However, the game designers certainly did put a lot of effort (four tables, and 504 possible results) just to get a series of even exchanges. What I do believe is that the columns are flawed. Remember that losses are expressed as a percentage of your force. For the defender, this doesn’t matter much since typically a defense is fixed and you can’t really choose to change that number. It’s important for the attacker since he has the option to add more or fewer units to get to a column he wants. The problem is that that the although the attacker can add more units, in many instances it won’t change the column used. That means, the same percentage loss for the attack results only in more losses for his side without any benefit. For example, using the 401-900 Column attack, consider the following two attacks, one at 41:10 and the other at 90:10
The defender’s losses don’t change based on the number of attackers. The attacker’s losses do change and considerably so. The attacker’s average loss goes from 3.8 to 6.0 while the defender’s average loss remains constant at 4.0. The effect is present in all the columns but is most noticeably in the higher odds ones since they cover more of a range and is likely to be used more anyhow. In this case, you can more than double the number of attackers (from 41 to 90) without changing the odds. Clearly, it’s never in your best interest to attack with more units than fewer ones. That’s why I think there's a flaw in the columns. Perhaps the solution is an artificial game mechanism (to attack with the fewest units needed to make the column) but in general you should never be penalized for attacking with more units in a case like this. More the come How the leader’s combat modifier effects the tables. How to play around the combat charts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||