American Civil War Grand Strategy

[Montem]

This would be a really one sided game. As an American, every textbook that covers that part of our history makes it quite clear that the South was extremely doomed. Lower population, less industry capacity, fewer railroads, no available diplomatic options (ultimately, Europe just did not care enough to upset the balance of power over there by helping either side, especially once the North made liberation of slaves part of the goal), most of the population was either completely unwilling to fight or would have been in favor of supporting the North, political infighting between the states of the CSA. The only "advantage" most American textbooks gave the South was its starting generals being of better quality, and I dispute this fact. Neither side had generals who were ready for the capabilities of their new weaponry, and the war was an extremely bloody affair as a result. The most the South could hope for is temporary independence, most likely with them being reabsorbed sometime later, or they themselves splitting apart.

So ultimately, the appeal here is small, the outcome is clear, and the conflict would only be more interesting as part of a larger strategy game, to me.

Completely agree. The historical importance of the Civil War in American History is that it's when America shifts from a Union to a Nation (look at Lincoln's word choice as the war progresses) and frankly the failure of reconstruction AFTERWARDS because of Southern sabotage is more important to understand the rest of American History and 20th/21st Century politics.

On an international scale the American Civil War is really a preview for industrial war, even WW1 despite being years earlier. It shows that the 100 year peace the Europe experienced after Napoleon was in a way detremental, becauase no trategies existed to be practised (sure there were the Balkan wars but the Germans and French and British weren't even involved) all that anything prior to these wars gave anyone was a small, controlled environment which didn't accurately represent the reality of the upcoming war and the damage that would be done. Thankfully by the end of WW2 the world learned its lesson. And by learned its lesson I mean decided Proxy Wars and killing peoples of non-european descent was much safer.

 

[Axe99]

Well what's a "Win Condition". If a "Win Condition" is defeat the Northern army to a point where they cannot defeat you and retain independence that's not feasable with a historically accurate setup. Even defeating the North to the point where they want the war to end would be inredibly difficult and unlikely (though the first think to do is make Atlanta the capital). The Northern Generals were better trained (a historical starting condition) and had 3 times more troops available than their opponents.

Wargames have been coping with lop-sided wars and win conditions for a good long time. A simple win condition for a side that's destined to lose, is to survive until a certain date. So the north may win, but if it wins after 1864 (or 3/2/5, wherever it's set), for example, it's a loss in the context of the game.

 

[P-51]

Well what's a "Win Condition". If a "Win Condition" is defeat the Northern army to a point where they cannot defeat you and retain independence that's not feasable with a historically accurate setup. Even defeating the North to the point where they want the war to end would be inredibly difficult and unlikely (though the first think to do is make Atlanta the capital). The Northern Generals were better trained (a historical starting condition) and had 3 times more troops available than their opponents.

Wargames usually use victory points to handle abstractions like this. If the South is resilient enough so that Northern morale cannot support the war, the South can win even if some Northern armies are still capable of fighting. A victory doesn't necessarily require the destruction of all field armies. In a game where one side has an inherent advantage like the North does in the Civil War, the VP system will be adjusted to compensate for this difference. For example in Forge of Freedom the South is awarded victory points for surviving to the 1864 election. In the board game For the People the South wins if the North fails to occupy at least seven of the Southern states.

Just think about what you're saying for a minute and try to translate it into the terms of a game. You say that a decisive Northern victory is inevitable. So shouldn't any result that is less than decisive be considered a Southern victory? Wargames shouldn't exist according to your logic because one side almost always has an advantage of another. That would be no fun.

 

[RorySheen]

On an international scale the American Civil War is really a preview for industrial war, even WW1 despite being years earlier.

As much as I love the American Civil War, I see a lot of people claiming this when talking about it but it's not really true.
The Crimean War did a lot of what the American Civil War did, it just did it ten years earlier.

 

[Montem]

Wargames have been coping with lop-sided wars and win conditions for a good long time. A simple win condition for a side that's destined to lose, is to survive until a certain date. So the north may win, but if it wins after 1864 (or 3/2/5, wherever it's set), for example, it's a loss in the context of the game.

That's a valid condition, but as a strategy game player and not a wargame player that doesn't have quite the appeal to me that "Winning The War" in a traditional sense would.

Wargames usually use victory points to handle abstractions like this. If the South is resilient enough so that Northern morale cannot support the war, the South can win even if some Northern armies are still capable of fighting. A victory doesn't necessarily require the destruction of all field armies. In a game where one side has an inherent advantage like the North does in the Civil War, the VP system will be adjusted to compensate for this difference. For example in Forge of Freedom the South is awarded victory points for surviving to the 1864 election. In the board game For the People the South wins if the North fails to occupy at least seven of the Southern states.

Just think about what you're saying for a minute and try to translate it into the terms of a game. You say that a decisive Northern victory is inevitable. So shouldn't any result that is less than decisive be considered a Southern victory? Wargames shouldn't exist according to your logic because one side almost always has an advantage of another. That would be no fun.

That's true, like I said, I don't have much experience with wargames and the only "Main Title" wargame that Paradox makes is HOI4, which is an international, industrial, and even atomic war which has much more leadup in terms of politics, along with a long timeperiod and strategy.

As much as I love the American Civil War, I see a lot of people claiming this when talking about it but it's not really true.
The Crimean War did a lot of what the American Civil War did, it just did it ten years earlier.

That's a completely valid point.

 

[P-51]

I don't see how it isn't traditional. There are plenty of historical examples for countries that ended the war from exhaustion instead of being physically occupied.

An ACW game wouldn't be any less of a longterm strategy game than HOI. So if people enjoy it for WWII why wouldn't they for ACW? The only thing missing would be the possibility of diplomatic interaction with every other country, which really isn't one of the more exciting features in HOI.

 

[RorySheen]

I don't see how it isn't traditional. There are plenty of historical examples for countries that ended the war from exhaustion instead of being physically occupied.

An ACW game wouldn't be any less of a longterm strategy game than HOI. So if people enjoy it for WWII why wouldn't they for ACW? The only thing missing would be the possibility of diplomatic interaction with every other country, which really isn't one of the more exciting features in HOI.

There's a huge difference between WWII and the ACW.
World War II was a global war fought significantly on land, sea and air. Nearly every country in the world was involved or affected somehow.

The American Civil War was just that... a civil war... in a country that hadn't yet become important on a global level. Mainly land with a very small amount of proper naval conflict and obviously no air.
I'm not saying I don't like it, it's just nowhere near the same level as World War II at all.

 

[P-51]

There's a huge difference between WWII and the ACW.
World War II was a global war fought significantly on land, sea and air. Nearly every country in the world was involved or affected somehow.

So you're telling me that the only war worth making a game out of is WWII? An entire community of gamers strongly disagrees with you.
In terms of military, politics, economics, and logistics, ACW has just as much longterm strategic decision making as WWII does. Like I said, the only thing missing is diplomacy.

 

[Montem]

So you're telling me that the only war worth making a game out of is WWII? An entire community of gamers strongly disagrees with you.
In terms of military, politics, economics, and logistics, ACW has just as much longterm strategic decision making as WWII does. Like I said, the only thing missing is diplomacy.

He's saying that it's realtively small scale, with a single theatre and solely land battles.

 

[P-51]

He's saying that it's realtively small scale, with a single theatre and solely land battles.

Can either of you support that claim? The lack of air and naval battles does not change the scale of the war.

 

[Montem]

Can either of you support that claim? The lack of air and naval battles does not change the scale of the war.

Simply in the number of troops, battles, and complexity. There were fewer troops, only one theater (WW2 had African, Pacific, and the East and West fronts), no diplomacy, and was during the phase where lines of people were shot down dead from outdated millitary tactics.

 

[P-51]

Simply in the number of troops, battles, and complexity. There were fewer troops, only one theater (WW2 had African, Pacific, and the East and West fronts), no diplomacy, and was during the phase where lines of people were shot down dead from outdated millitary tactics.

Well we already agreed on diplomacy; tactics are irrelevant for a game at this scale. The number of troops doesn't change anything either because the scale of any game can be adapted to fit different wars. Plenty of good games have been made for wars that are a smaller scale than ACW. Not all wargames have to be represented at the brigade level like HOI. Most Civil War games will go down to the regimental level. You will find a small difference in the size of the military in ACW games compared to HOI.

 

[RorySheen]

So you're telling me that the only war worth making a game out of is WWII? An entire community of gamers strongly disagrees with you.
In terms of military, politics, economics, and logistics, ACW has just as much longterm strategic decision making as WWII does. Like I said, the only thing missing is diplomacy.

No, I'm saying the American Civil War is nowhere near the same level of ANYTHING as World War II.

Can either of you support that claim? The lack of air and naval battles does not change the scale of the war.

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

[Montem]

No, I'm saying the American Civil War is nowhere near the same level of ANYTHING as World War II.

Spoiler

Spoiler

This exactly. Maybe you could do some inter-state dimplomacy.

 

[P-51]

No, I'm saying the American Civil War is nowhere near the same level of ANYTHING as World War II.

Spoiler

Spoiler

Wow is that a serious response? Why do you talk about wargames if you don't know anything about them? Go read about the difference between tactical, operational, and strategic level games and then try saying with any validity that ACW is at a different level than WWII.

 

[Montem]

Wow is that a serious response? Why do you talk about wargames if you don't know anything about them? Go read about the difference between tactical, operational, and strategic level games and then try saying with any validity that ACW is at a different level than WWII.

But grander scale games have a larger appeal and Paradox is a company that makes money.

 

[P-51]

But grander scale games have a larger appeal and Paradox is a company that makes money.

ACW and WWII are the same scale. Geographical size and numerical values do not change scale. I play games that represent both wars; I can assure that there is just as much strategic decision making involved in a ACW game as there is in one on WWII. If you don't think PI should make an ACW game because it is topic that you don't have a personal interest in, then that's fine. I can accept your personal preference. But you can't act like the ACW is somehow a lesser scale than WWII just because it took place in a geographically smaller area.

 

[RorySheen]

Wow is that a serious response? Why do you talk about wargames if you don't know anything about them? Go read about the difference between tactical, operational, and strategic level games and then try saying with any validity that ACW is at a different level than WWII.

Come on, mate. I'm trying to be civil here.
I've been playing wargames for well over a decade... I know the difference.

I don't see how any of that makes the American Civil War the same scale and World War II.
If you're trying to say that you want a 3000 province US east coast and the ability to control smaller units, well that could be said about ANY war.
You could even do that with the Anglo-Zanzibar war if you wanted to.

 

[P-51]

Come on, mate. I'm trying to be civil here.
I've been playing wargames for well over a decade... I know the difference.

I don't see how any of that makes the American Civil War the same scale and World War II.
If you're trying to say that you want a 3000 province US east coast and the ability to control smaller units, well that could be said about ANY war.
You could even do that with the Anglo-Zanzibar war if you wanted to.

Sorry, where I come from the implication that one doesn't know the difference in size between the United States and the world isn't being civil. You keep talking about real world numbers, but you are ignoring, in the context of a strategy game, how ACW would be represented at a lesser scale than WWII. I don't see this: you have long term economic, logistic, political, technological decisions. Just like in WWII. Like I said in the post above, size does not equal scale. So yes, most wars can be said to be at this scale. Do they not all have the same issues to deal with?

 

[Axe99]

I think this might be getting into semantics a little, in that what one of you means by 'scale' is different to the other (and, from my angle, both are valid uses of the term, it's just that one word alone isn't usually enough to define something that specifically).

I do think you could have as deep and engaging a game about the ACW as you do about WW2, though, even if the scale is, on some definitions, not as large. You'd need to substitute in things like state-level politics instead of international politics (which were important, particularly in the lead up to the war) and other things to give it that, but it's perfectly feasible. That said, Johan's said it's not going to happen, which pretty much means it's not going to happen.