I'm very disappointed...

[ltccone]

I just bought this game the other day, and I'm a veteran EU2 and HoI player.

I tried playing the ACW scenario as the South. First I couldn't get any kind of surplus budget unless I jacked the tax rates to 50%, and I know that was going to get everyone ticked off.

But the war with the North REALLY ticked me off. I moved all troops in VA to Manassas with Lee in charge. I can't build any more troops so its not like I can put anymore there. The North moves all of their troops, under a no name leader, into Manassas and attacks. I was wiped out. I even moved the difficulty to very easy to see what would happen. I was STILL wiped out.

I'm beginning to wonder if I wasted my money.

 

[unmerged(24689)]

Beliave, win this war is hard.

 

[unmerged(26770)]

In reality the south could never achieve a budget surplus. All their money were going to a war, they couldnt win anyway. You might be able to get white peace with the US if u drain them. However they will come back in 10 years and kick ur ass. Your economy is too shattered and u are in debt. Do yourself a favour and play someone else. I realize you probably have the Johny Red pride in you, but Billy Yank always wins in vicky.

 

[ltccone]

In reality the south could never achieve a budget surplus. All their money were going to a war, they couldnt win anyway. You might be able to get white peace with the US if u drain them. However they will come back in 10 years and kick ur ass. Your economy is too shattered and u are in debt. Do yourself a favour and play someone else. I realize you probably have the Johny Red pride in you, but Billy Yank always wins in vicky.

That isn't what is bothering me. What ticks me off is that the South can't even win a battle! If you can't win a battle with Lee and all of your troops, when can you win?

 

[Varyar]

If you're new to the game, I'm not sure that playing the CSA in the 1861 scenario is the best choice for learning. Try a Grand Campaign as Belgium, or Brazil. Also, depending on which patch you're using, the 1861 scenario might be a bit unbalanced.

 

[unmerged(28851)]

I'm beginning to wonder if I wasted my money.

You shouldn't wonder after one battle as the (arguably) hardest nation in the game. After couple of GCs when you've got a grasp of the game you can begin to wonder.

 

[ltccone]

If you're new to the game, I'm not sure that playing the CSA in the 1861 scenario is the best choice for learning. Try a Grand Campaign as Belgium, or Brazil. Also, depending on which patch you're using, the 1861 scenario might be a bit unbalanced.

I'm playing 1.03b. I just wanted to see if the scenario mirrors the war. Apparently not. I knew I couldn't win with the CSA...

 

[ltccone]

You shouldn't wonder after one battle as the (arguably) hardest nation in the game. After couple of GCs when you've got a grasp of the game you can begin to wonder.

If an ACW scenario doesn't go anywhere like the war did, I don't have much hope for the GC, but I will give it more time.

 

[unmerged(28851)]

If an ACW scenario doesn't go anywhere like the war did, I don't have much hope for the GC, but I will give it more time.

It doesn't go anywhere like the war did. It has been made easy for the Union so that it wouldn't lose and completely cripple U.S.A. (that's my understanding about it).

 

[Golden_Deliciou]

I'm playing 1.03b. I just wanted to see if the scenario mirrors the war. Apparently not. I knew I couldn't win with the CSA...

Well, Victoria is exceedingly hard to get into. I recommend you learn the ropes as some nice, remote country first. Wait until you can lead Brazil to victory before trying the CSA.

 

[Golden_Deliciou]

It doesn't go anywhere like the war did. It has been made easy for the Union so that it wouldn't lose and completely cripple U.S.A. (that's my understanding about it).

Well, the South wasn't really going to win anyway. For all those battles where the North took twice as many losses as the South, the South was still screwed- they had only 40% as many white males as the North.

 

[ltccone]

It doesn't go anywhere like the war did. It has been made easy for the Union so that it wouldn't lose and completely cripple U.S.A. (that's my understanding about it).

Well they did that. It is a cakewalk for the North. They can easily win by the end of 1861.

 

[Chaingun]

Well they did that. It is a cakewalk for the North. They can easily win by the end of 1861.

The AI tends to be quite retarded when it comes to negotiating peace deals, so if they made it any less easy for the union then the US would probably remain split for the reminder of the game. It is a sacrifice from historicity to make the game somewhat more realistic later on.

It doesn't mean you can't modify the scenario file though (if you feel like learning editing those text files).

 

[unmerged(26770)]

I think we need an event in which Johny Reb asks Europe for help. If anyone of you have seen the Gettysburgh (cant spell right) movie, there was a British sodlier among the southerners. Maybe the UK needs to somewhat intervene and send money and expeditionary forces to the south. Who knows maybe even attack
In my games as Mexico, I have managed to save the South by attacking the US and later making an alliance with the South and a minor European power like Spain which will love to tear down the Union.
BTW the South had better leadership in the face of Robert E. Lee. He won some early battles. I think the South could have won if they did not fight the Yanks at Gettysburgh and instead stood on the defensive and tried to draft the UK in the conflict.

 

[Quarto]

Well, the South wasn't really going to win anyway. For all those battles where the North took twice as many losses as the South, the South was still screwed- they had only 40% as many white males as the North.

Well now, that's like saying Germany couldn't have won WWII. In retrospect, such things usually seem pretty inevitable - but that doesn't mean they really were inevitable.

 

[TC Pilot]

It's still a little screwed up, I'll admit, except in 1.01, it was ludicrously easy for the CSA. I'd managed to win and GAIN territory by the winter of 1861.

The idea of Britain joining the war is absurd. No matter how strongly the government wanted to weaken the U.S., the people would never have allowed them to fight a war to help a slave nation.

 

[unmerged(26770)]

In reality slavery would have eventuallly been abolished. It was bad for the economy, since rich plantation owners could use free labour and thus sell for less and still wield high profits. If the South was able seccede, then they would have been asked to abolish the slavery or face trade embargoes

 

[unmerged(29491)]

It's still a little screwed up, I'll admit, except in 1.01, it was ludicrously easy for the CSA. I'd managed to win and GAIN territory by the winter of 1861.

The idea of Britain joining the war is absurd. No matter how strongly the government wanted to weaken the U.S., the people would never have allowed them to fight a war to help a slave nation.

Proof?

 

[Armfeldt]

I won the ACW as the south once. Think it was 1.03. It was a pretty tough fight, but I eventually gained all the border states.... Didn't bother playing on, as my economy would never have recovered...

 

[unmerged(12603)]

Proof?

What are you saying that about? It it is about britan then that is a horrible thing to say, does anyone have any proof that britan even sufficiently thought about helping a slave nation win a war against a "free" nation?, and that the citizens would have supported being flung into another war, over a slave nation.