The intention of this rule change is quite good.

However, the "No Entrenchments" rule won't stand up to much historical scrutiny.

One example: Robert E. Lee was sent to improve the coastal defenses of South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida after his 1861 failure in West Virginia. From November 1861 until the early spring of 1862 he spent so much time entrenching that he was dubbed "The King Of Spades" or "Granny Lee" by his troops and the local gentry.

That "No Entrenchments" rule might need to be polished up a little bit.

Dear Mr. Belli,

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

Historically, the South was improving its coastal defenses continuously throughout the war. The presence of Lee in the Carolinas in the Winter of 1861-1862 did not prevent the fall of seven of the game's "port boxes" to the North in the Winter 1861-1862 and Sping 1862: New Berne, Port Royal, Fort Pulaski (controlling Savannah river), Norfolk, Brunswick, Jacksonville, and last and most important, New Orleans.

Measuring the game by the historical record, it would be more accurate for the game not to allow the South any coastal defenses at all. Only that way can the Northern player match halfway the above historical port box captures. It also allows the North a way to counterstrike and to match losses of Northern cities to Southern Cavalry.

Historically, by late 1862 Southern port defenses toughened markedly. The North had a very hard time taking Charleston, Wilmington, and Mobile, all of which held out until 1865.

So, I think my proposal gets it right, in terms both of game balance and historical accuracy.

I've only recently picked up this game and thus don't claim any kind of expertise here. But this issue stuck out to me immediately after the first play as being rather difficult to fit to history.

If you don't use Coastal Defenses, the threat of Union Naval Invasions will be devastating, either by snapping up empty ports or by pinning down a significant chunk of the Confederate Army.

If you do use them, Invasions directly into high-value Recruiting Ports are essentially impossible. Even a lowly 1-rated garrison (Jacksonville, Savannah) is entrenched and receives the +1 "river-crossing" bonus for the first two rounds. You would need to invade with a Veteran unit or two Militia units to have a passable chance at success. And forget about invading Mobile or New Orleans in 1861-1862.

But I'm wondering whether Coastal Defenses will provide the correct balance overall, though perhaps not in a historical way. A Veteran unit invading Jacksonville/Savannah is still a credible (though minor) threat, especially if said unit can retreat via Naval Evacuation. Also, Mobile is adjacent to Pensacola - if the Union can Naval Move a unit there early on, it will still tie down a Confederate unit in Mobile or force him to burn Marches flushing it out. The big historical problem is that any kind of threat on New Orleans is still basically impossible. But overall, it looks like the Coastal Defenses rule as written still leaves Invasions as a threat, just neither a terribly potent nor terribly historical one. Perhaps that's good enough to avoid adding more house rules and exceptions, particularly if you give the Union a bit of boost on land by providing them fast rail movement?

Mr. Todd, IMHO, giving the North the three box Railroad Movement advantage would encourage the North even more to focus on the land campaign and to ignore the naval aspect of the war.

Unless the North has won several battles it won't have enough units until April 1862, and maybe not even then, to make a credible invasion threat, if the South has the Advanced Game's Coastal Defenses rule.

Another simple making Naval invasion more credible would be to move up the North's drafts, with their four Militia Infantry, to January-February 1862,1863, and 1864. Also, allowing the North to place two recruits at New York and Philadelphia, as well as to invade from those ports, would be very realistic. If one made a Naval invasion with a big stack of Militia, one could ignore the easily replaced losses. Also, if you invade a Reb port with no defending Reb infantry, you need not worry about the Rebs getting a promotion.

In passing, it's very strange that the game does not make Philadelphia, in 1860 the second largest port in the nation, a port.

J,

You are correct that this advanced rule causes gameplay problems. It also causes historical problems because it ignores the impact of the US Navy. A better way to fix it is to just not use it. This will force the Confederate player to decide whether to defend the coastline or concentrate his forces in the key theaters. This improves gameplay and is also an historical decision point. In early 1962, the Confederates decided to thin their coastal positions to mass for a counterattack in Tennessee. The resulting Battle of Shiloh was a failure, and the thinning of the coastal defenses led to the successful invasion of New Orleans.

Also, I have to ask: are you playing the GDW 1st edition? I ask because of your description of the Southern cavalry. This was a serious problem with the 1st edition, but the GDW 2nd and Phalanx editions toned the cavalry down significantly. The Union player shouldn't have any problems with widespread Southern cavalry raids in those editions unless he just isn't paying attention.

We played our first game with Coastal Defenses a couple nights back. I got totally hammered (as the Union) and lost by sudden death in 3/62. My play wasn't perfect and I certainly had terrible march rolls compared to my wife's Confederates, but I'm not sure how much difference that would have made in the end. I think this rule may just give too much of an advantage to the South early on. More plays are certainly in order, though...

No naval invasion is permitted on Turn 1, July 1861. In the six following turns, the odds of the North rolling zero, one, two, three, four or more 6s, which permit naval invasions, are as follow:

Zero 6s rolled: 33.5%
One 6 rolled: 40.2%
Two 6s rolled: 20%
Three 6s rolled: 5.4%
Four 6s rolled: 0.8%
Five 6s rolled: 0.06%
Six 6s rolled: 0.002%

So, there's a 1/3 chance the North will not roll a 6 in the first six turns, and a 2/5 chance it will roll only one 6. An aggressive Southern strategy which ignores the defense of New Orleans, Mobile, Charleston, and Wilmington could easily succeed. Of course, if the North has a big stack in Washington and rolls a 6, the South would then be in trouble. But the North can hardly afford big stacks in Washington if the South is running wild with cavalry in the North in the first seven turns of the game.

Play balance is not the problem with the basic game, where there is no Coastal Defense. The problem is that its outcome (invasion/no invasion) too much depends on luck. Perhaps the North should be permitted to save up marches for the purpose of buying its naval invasions, at a cost of seven or eight marches. Just place a Lincoln head penny on the turn track for each march saved. Saved marches could only be spent on naval invasions. Then it would be a matter of when, not if, the invasion occurs, and piling four or more Militia on Washington would make sense.