Getting Tired of Movement Anomalies

[XLegion]

I have now played about 60 games of War Between the States. Against the AI and against another player. In short I like the game very much.

I have only two issues with it. One, about the movement anomalies is really starting to get my goat. The Terrain Effects Chart and the rules just don't seem to cover situations that come up time and time again that work against moving a particular force. I'm starting to get very tired of this and it is destroying the simulation for me. The other problem is more subjective and I guess that is a 'designers call' kind of issue, but the fact that Gary Grigsby doesn't really give an explanation for this rule makes it all the worse.

Ok Example #1:

It is April of 1864 and the Union has just completed its move. It is now the Confederate Reaction Phase. I have a major force at Toccoa Georgia under General Hardee whose movement rating is '4' for infantry and he is activated.

Why will the computer NOT allow me to move to adjacent Athens Georgia which is clear terrain and currently has a Union unit in there attacking some of my other Confederate units?

This kind of thing comes up all the time. ie: The Terrain Effects Chart and the movement capabilities of the Generals with initiative state that they can move but in fact cannot.

My second problem is with the way the Emancipation Proclamation works. The UNION is penalized for issuing it and the Confederates rewarded. Please don't tell me all about the future penalties that the confederated do receive such a the port penalty etc...The fact is that the Confederates GAIN political points for it's issuance and the UNION loses.

This doesn't make any sense to me at all. One historian called the Proclamation the "deadliest blow yet dealt to the Rebellion" and yet the game rewards the Confederates. Yes, I know it's a design decision, but in my opinion it is a bad one and should be addressed.

I have other minor issues but this movement anomaly should be fixed. OR the rules explain more clearly how movement really does work. I can't help but feel something is missing in there because this has come up all over the place in different phases.

[Erik Rutins]

I haven't seen any movement anomalies and I've played many games with the terrain costs right next to me. Could you possibly provide a save that shows one of these in action?

[KyleK]

ORIGINAL: XLegion

Ok Example #1:

It is April of 1864 and the Union has just completed its move. It is now the Confederate Reaction Phase. I have a major force at Toccoa Georgia under General Hardee whose movement rating is '4' for infantry and he is activated.

Why will the computer NOT allow me to move to adjacent Athens Georgia which is clear terrain and currently has a Union unit in there attacking some of my other Confederate units?

This kind of thing comes up all the time. ie: The Terrain Effects Chart and the movement capabilities of the Generals with initiative state that they can move but in fact cannot.

read the rules on movement,

Units using normal movement across a road or rail side will always spend only 1 MP. Units not moving across a road or rail side will spend the cost for the area they are leaving or entering, whichever cost is higher.
Units entering an enemy controlled land area must spend 1 additional MP.

your troops are in the mountains, no road or rail to Athens. The cost would be 6 I believe, 5 for mountain plus 1 for enemy units in territory...

[kennonlightfoot]

ORIGINAL: KyleK

ORIGINAL: XLegion

Ok Example #1:

It is April of 1864 and the Union has just completed its move. It is now the Confederate Reaction Phase. I have a major force at Toccoa Georgia under General Hardee whose movement rating is '4' for infantry and he is activated.

Why will the computer NOT allow me to move to adjacent Athens Georgia which is clear terrain and currently has a Union unit in there attacking some of my other Confederate units?

This kind of thing comes up all the time. ie: The Terrain Effects Chart and the movement capabilities of the Generals with initiative state that they can move but in fact cannot.

read the rules on movement,

Units using normal movement across a road or rail side will always spend only 1 MP. Units not moving across a road or rail side will spend the cost for the area they are leaving or entering, whichever cost is higher.
Units entering an enemy controlled land area must spend 1 additional MP.

your troops are in the mountains, no road or rail to Athens. The cost would be 6 I believe, 5 for mountain plus 1 for enemy units in territory...

Athens is clear terrain. It should only cost 2 movement points which means any unit with initiative should be able to enter it from an adjacent region. Toccoa is mountainous but he is moving from there to Athens. As far as I know the terrain of the region you are leaving has no affect on movement costs.

[Joel Billings]

Unlike most games, WBTS is concerned with the type of terrain the unit is moving from, not just the terrain in the area moved to. It is the higher of the two costs that determines the cost of the move. This may be unusual, but we think it works given the area system and the need to make it difficult to go into or leave a poor terrain area.

As far as the EP goes, the EP effectively ends any chance for reconciliation of the two sides, and thus forces the CSA to continue the fight no matter what the cost. On the Union side, not all supported the EP. We think the rule can be justified and works within the game system.

[kennonlightfoot]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Unlike most games, WBTS is concerned with the type of terrain the unit is moving from, not just the terrain in the area moved to. It is the higher of the two costs that determines the cost of the move. This may be unusual, but we think it works given the area system and the need to make it difficult to go into or leave a poor terrain area.

That would explain some of the movement costs I have been seeing. You probably need to add a note to that affect in the game manual. It implies the opposite.

[Erik Rutins]

From section 9.1, Terrain and Effects on Movement:

"Land movement costs may be affected by the terrain in the regions that units are leaving or entering. Movement costs for terrain are as follows:

Clear: 2
Woods: 3
Swamp: 4
Mountain: 5
Units using normal movement across a road or rail side will always spend only 1 MP. Units not moving across a road or rail side will spend the cost for the area they are leaving or entering, whichever cost is higher."

Not sure how that's unclear?

[Doc o War]

Its not unclear- just different than trad gamers are used too- but there it is- the rule is there- first time I saw that I remember having the same WTF flash- but I got over it- .

[XLegion]

I'm with Doc o War on that one. That is one heck of an important distinction. The rule book is what......some 175 pages long. A rule that important really should be highlighted. But thanks for the explanation, that clears up a lot of moves that were mighty foggy to me in past games.

We can agree to disagree on the Emancipation Proclamation. The proclamation helped the Union win the war,not lose it. Thus it should help the Union more, and hinder the Confederate. I always feel as the Union player that when I have earned the Emancipation Proclamation that I'm being punished for it.

[Erik Rutins]

I have to say that I've found the EP feels about right to me. The initial declaration is overall favorable to the CSA. However, the long-run is much more favorable to the Union. If you manage to declare it in 1862, you will really be appreciating it by 1864 and 1865 (assuming you're still fighting). The black recruitment, decreased CSA free trade and increased Raider cost definitely adds up to another stress on the CSA that it can't afford.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: XLegion

We can agree to disagree on the Emancipation Proclamation. The proclamation helped the Union win the war,not lose it. Thus it should help the Union more, and hinder the Confederate. I always feel as the Union player that when I have earned the Emancipation Proclamation that I'm being punished for it.

The Emancipation Proclamation did three things:
1. Solidified Government support from the anti-slavery Northerners (Abolitionists).
2. Allowed the recruiting of Southern blacks.
3. Made it clear to Southern slave-holders that their way of life depended on the Confederacy's survival.

Something to understand is that the Abolitionists had been driven underground by deliberate national actions and policies during the twenty years before the war. After the Civil War, my family took pride in running a station on the Underground Railway, but before the war, that meant they were part of an illegal underground opposition to slavery. It also led some of them to volunteer to fight and die against slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation allowed them to openly continue that good fight.

Sorry about the political tone, but neither of my parent's families had forgotten why we fought against slavery.

[XLegion]

Herwin:

Interesting points made. But this supports my point of view. The Emancipation Proclamation helped the North and hurt the South. If anyone can tell me what "benefits" the proclamation gave to the Southern cause I would love to be enlightened. I just have not come across it in any Civil War writings and I'm just surprised that Gary went this way.

For example in Mark Herman's excellent "For the People" card based war game he handles the Emancipation in my opinion in a far more realistic manner. In that game the Union loses 5 'Strategic Will' points every turn until the proclamation is signed. After that event occurs the Confederates begin to lose "Strategic Will" every turn.

In Gary's game the Union is already losing 27 points per turn automatically. I would have thought a far better way to simulate the proclamation would be to lower this after the proclamation is signed or do away with it entirely. But in the end it is the designer's game and he makes the final decisions.

[Erik Rutins]

The side effects of the Proclamation make it easier for the Union to be victorious and harder for the South, which in the long run will lead to more Union PPs. It's a less direct way to boost PPs but IMHO equally valid. The EP did initially solidify Southern opposition to the Union, which is also modeled.

<Amateur Historian Mode On> Lincoln, IIRC, did not want to declare the EP or anything like the EP earlier because of the risks it entailed as far as the border states went and how it would affect Southern resolve.</Amateur Historian Mode Off> I think as the Union if you declare the EP, you will have an easier time winning the war, even if things get a bit harder for a few months after the declaration. I don't see how that's really different from the end result in For the People (which by the way is my favorite ACW board game). FTP is on a higher scale than WBTS as well, so just having a SW effect there makes more sense.

Regards,

- Erik

[GBS]

Wait a minute let me jump in here. As CSA I have had a small union force settle in the swamps west of new orleans and I can never get enough movement points to go in there and clear them out with infantry....4 for swamp, 1 for enemy occupied...and winter adds 1.. this means it is impossible to attact there in a winter turn. In the summer you can't take artillery with you unless you have a seperate arty commander with you who is activated also. Now the odds are really getting stretched. You almost have to have a an activated army commander in the attackers region so everyone can be activated which isn't practical. This doesn't feel right to me. I can see some negative battle adjustments to the attacker but to just never be able to move into occupied cajun country.....welll..just doesn't feel good.

[BossGnome]

Try moving 20 000 men (10 units) on foot across some 50 miles swamps with no roads or population to provide shelter/bivouack, and have them still in fighting order when they get there. It's very, very difficult, nigh impossible. Being in the army myself I know first hand the difficulties of organizing even a force of 2000 men, with modern communications and supplies. I don't want to imagine how difficult it must have been in the ACW. The game presents a minimum of infrastructure with roads. Where there are no roads; that means generally no infrastructure - you're taking your boys cross-country. Imagine horses' legs breaking in the swamps, canons sinking, men getting sick, food running out, a corps gets lost - where are they?

Etc.

[GBS]

Ok, no argument there but this is a game and the Yankees got in there easy enough with three infantry regiments and 20 cannon. I know this as I am able to slip some cavalry in to scout around.

[anarchyintheuk]

The Union landed pretty much wherever they wanted to during the war and generally chose places that were easy to defend or inaccesible once taken. Once settled in, the CSA found them almost impossible to dislodge. It would have required a major effort for the CSA, administratively and logistically, for them to organize a force to try to contain/expel a Union force so situated. The steps that you list seem a good representation of the level of effort needed. Just my $.02.

[GBS]

Thats agood reply. I didn't know that. If what you say is true then the game is remarably accurate. So there you are.

[Doc o War]

Indeed that is exactly it lads- it models reality just about on the button. Those swamp areas usually had one port or town on the only high ground around, which the Yankess could sail in and take from the sea side.  and attacking through the swamp regions in a serious manner was just too hard, especially then. - they usually opted to set up positions inland that the invader had to take to push inland- it worked the other way- the union had a hard time marching out of them.

Also remember- attrition is worse in swamps- especially for those poor Union boys- who died of so many diseases while on garrison duty in those swampy hell holes.  Many commanders refused to be sent into swampy regions- and few commanders in this time wanted to go home and tell their local neighbors that they commanded the unit when all their boys were dying of swamp fevers- this was a very political set of armies.  No rather the fire of battle than garrison duty in a southern swamp.

[Mike Parker]

As for the Emancipation Proclamation.&nbsp; I quote Wikipaedia below.&nbsp; While not the most scholarly of sources, it pretty much says what I have read in other more scholarly works.&nbsp; The Emancipation Proclamation was no easy thing, it did cement support from Abolitionists, but to be truthful even without the EP they very strongly supported Lincoln, it did however alienate many that supported Lincoln and the Union ONLY because they were pro-Federalist.&nbsp; This and the concern it brought about in the border states is JUST the effect it had in the North (and border) in the south, yes some where disheartened that the EP signaled a clear&nbsp;demarcation, there could be no settlement on the this issue now, the south would be REQUIRED to win this to retain slavery.&nbsp; But far more it steeled the resolve, both of those that were pro-slavery, but even more importantly the anti-federalists.&nbsp; We forget how close Virginia came to declaring neutrality in this conflict as one example, and the EP solidified its position with the Confeds as it very strongly grated against the states rights core in Virginia and other states.
&nbsp;
from Wiki
The Proclamation was immediately denounced by Copperhead Democrats who opposed the war and tolerated both secession and slavery. It became a campaign issue in the 1862 elections, in which the Democrats gained 28 seats in the House as well as the governorship of New York. Many War Democrats who had supported Lincoln's goal of saving the Union, balked at supporting emancipation. Lincoln's Gettysburg Address in November 1863 made indirect reference to the Proclamation and the ending of slavery as a war goal with the phrase "new birth of freedom". The Proclamation solidified Lincoln's support among the rapidly growing abolitionist element of the Republican Party and ensured they would not block his re-nomination in 1864
&nbsp;