From: dpw@CS.Arizona.EDU (Don Waugaman) Subject: Re: A House Divided: Southern advantage? In article <19980209005401.TAA10607@ladder03.news.aol.com>, JD Yahoo wrote: >I haven't played AHD for awhile, and my memory on the specifics of the advanced >rules is somewhat thin. > >Here's a couple possible ideas based on historic fact of the ACW that may help >you "balance play". Even, if you don't use these ideas for optional rules, I'm >sure you make up your own that are similar. > >First of all, to counter the Union Draft Riot rules, I think we should be >realistic about the actual Confederate draft, which did not begin until >September of 1863 (I have read). Maybe this draft started because the CSA did >not get enough volunteers that April. SO delay the CSA forces of the militia >pool. Instead of April, they get them in September. For starters, the CSA started its draft in April of 1862, well before the US began conscription. Also, there is no "militia draft" for the Confederacy in the game, at least in the same sense as the Union has. The CSA player starts out with eight militia infantry, and that's all he has for the rest of the game - unless playing with the "more support from border states" optional rule, in which case he can pick up one more militia each from good occupation and die-roll results in Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri. >Next, the USA used "Negro" troops extensively in their garrisons, while the >CSA did not. Starting in 1863, give the USA player (NOT the CSA player) an >extra recruiting point in Baltimore, New York, Atlanta, and New Orleans. The >USA player gets these extra points if they hold the city. They also get up to 4 >additional points added to their maximum troop level. This seems to be pretty redundant compared to the "Increasing Union Forces" optional rule, which gives the USA player a four-point boost to the maximum army size (economic, not political - the USA still needs to keep its total recruiting cities point controlled higher than the CSA) in each April turn of 1862, 1863, and 1864. I would guess that the impact of the USCT would be best represented by one or two additional militia counters in the 1864 turn, or it could be considered that they are part of the 1864 draft. >These ideas have not been playtested. Let me know if you decide to use them, >and if they accomplish a better play balance. > >Singing the Battle Hymn of the Republic >J.D. The one optional rule that seems to help the Union considerably in _A House Divided_ is the "Union Rail Movement Bonus." Moving three spaces per march along friendly rail lines is a huge lift - it helps negate the CSA's advantage of interior lines to a great degree. On the first turn alone, the Union can fight Bull Run and move the Chicago stack down to Cairo and/or St. Louis. Then, the next turn, the Union can seize the Ohio River. All by itself, better rail movement is a huge advantage. I generally consider playing with the "Leaders" advanced game rule to be a pretty significant Southern advantage. It's hard for the U.S. to do anything in the midgame when Lee is at +3, and the Army of Northern Virginia is knocking on the door to Washington. With Lee's bonus, they have a legit chance to take Washington, even if Grant (+1) is defending. Of course, if the Union survives into 1864, they've got Lee matched on one front and the rest of the Confederacy soundly overmatched on another... kinda like real life. -- - Don Waugaman (dpw@cs.arizona.edu) O- _|_ Will pun Web Page: http://www.cs.arizona.edu/people/dpw/ | for food In the Sonoran Desert, home of the phrase "It's a dry heat..." | <>< Friends don't let friends watch _Friends_. From: will@condor.sccs.swarthmore.edu (Will Quale) Subject: Re: A House Divided: Southern advantage? Don Waugaman (dpw@CS.Arizona.EDU) wrote: : The one optional rule that seems to help the Union considerably in _A House : Divided_ is the "Union Rail Movement Bonus." Moving three spaces per march : along friendly rail lines is a huge lift - it helps negate the CSA's : advantage of interior lines to a great degree. On the first turn alone, : the Union can fight Bull Run and move the Chicago stack down to Cairo and/or : St. Louis. Then, the next turn, the Union can seize the Ohio River. All : by itself, better rail movement is a huge advantage. The thing about the Union Rail Movement Bonus is, it only applies to friendly rail. So while the Union can move his troops into position, fortifying key border locations such as Cairo and St. Louis, and can move troops around easily, his attack into the South is still extremely slow, as he is encountering unfriendly rail until he takes each city, one per turn. The South still moves faster than the North in the South. : I generally consider playing with the "Leaders" advanced game rule to be : a pretty significant Southern advantage. It's hard for the U.S. to do : anything in the midgame when Lee is at +3, and the Army of Northern : Virginia is knocking on the door to Washington. With Lee's bonus, they : have a legit chance to take Washington, even if Grant (+1) is defending. : Of course, if the Union survives into 1864, they've got Lee matched on one : front and the rest of the Confederacy soundly overmatched on another... : kinda like real life. Thing is, if the Union survives to 1864, pull Lee out of Richmond (using the free leader moves) and send him to Memphis or New Orleans--wherever your "last stand city" will be. And stock that location with crack troops, use cavalry to pester the advancing Union army from the rear, and entrench, entrench, entrench ... The North will easily walk all over Richmond, Charleston, and Wilmington, and likely take Atlanta, but if the South plays right, the North won't be able to take the last few cities in time. Playing to "6 out of the 7, including Richmond" might be a better Union victory condition--forces the South to defend two cities, and gives the Union more options. dunno ... --will From: dpw@CS.Arizona.EDU (Don Waugaman) Subject: Re: A House Divided: Southern advantage? In article <6bq1r0$2lq@larch.cc.swarthmore.edu>, Will Quale wrote: >Don Waugaman (dpw@CS.Arizona.EDU) wrote: > >: The one optional rule that seems to help the Union considerably in _A House >: Divided_ is the "Union Rail Movement Bonus." Moving three spaces per march >: along friendly rail lines is a huge lift - it helps negate the CSA's >: advantage of interior lines to a great degree. On the first turn alone, >: the Union can fight Bull Run and move the Chicago stack down to Cairo and/or >: St. Louis. Then, the next turn, the Union can seize the Ohio River. All >: by itself, better rail movement is a huge advantage. > >The thing about the Union Rail Movement Bonus is, it only applies to >friendly rail. So while the Union can move his troops into position, >fortifying key border locations such as Cairo and St. Louis, and can move >troops around easily, his attack into the South is still extremely slow, as >he is encountering unfriendly rail until he takes each city, one per turn. >The South still moves faster than the North in the South. Absolutely. The Rail Movement Bonus, however, allows the Union to move reinforcements to the front faster - a big plus if you're going overland through central Tennessee or Virginia. The extra moves also allow the Union to use fewer marches by making it easier to group stacks with one first march per stack, then a second march by the whole stack. With more movement, you can group stacks that are farther apart. This means that the Union uses fewer marches to get troops to the front, and more marches to take Southern boxes, which adds up significantly in the long run. >: I generally consider playing with the "Leaders" advanced game rule to be >: a pretty significant Southern advantage. It's hard for the U.S. to do >: anything in the midgame when Lee is at +3, and the Army of Northern >: Virginia is knocking on the door to Washington. With Lee's bonus, they >: have a legit chance to take Washington, even if Grant (+1) is defending. >: Of course, if the Union survives into 1864, they've got Lee matched on one >: front and the rest of the Confederacy soundly overmatched on another... >: kinda like real life. > >Thing is, if the Union survives to 1864, pull Lee out of Richmond (using the >free leader moves) and send him to Memphis or New Orleans--wherever your >"last stand city" will be. And stock that location with crack troops, use >cavalry to pester the advancing Union army from the rear, and entrench, >entrench, entrench ... The North will easily walk all over Richmond, >Charleston, and Wilmington, and likely take Atlanta, but if the South plays >right, the North won't be able to take the last few cities in time. > >Playing to "6 out of the 7, including Richmond" might be a better Union >victory condition--forces the South to defend two cities, and gives the >Union more options. dunno ... Six out of seven might be more historically accurate, too. The Union didn't hold Atlanta at the end of the war - Sherman just made the city militarily irrelevant by wrecking its productive potential. (The Union did hold the other cities.) I think that a good variant would allow the USA to "wreck" one of the South's major cities that it holds after mid- 1863 or so. For the cost of one march by at least two units located in that city, its recruiting level goes down to one, and cannot be raised again, and (as such) is no longer counted as required to be held by the Union to fulfill victory conditions. However, this still allows the "last citadel" defense, but playing with the advanced game supply rule can put a damper on things - even the largest stack of crack infantry will melt away at 1/turn when out of supply. -- - Don Waugaman (dpw@cs.arizona.edu) O- _|_ Will pun Web Page: http://www.cs.arizona.edu/people/dpw/ | for food In the Sonoran Desert, home of the phrase "It's a dry heat..." | <>< Blore's Razor: Given a choice between two theories, take the one which is funnier.