bon j'avais 5 minutes à perdre, je vous ai retrouvé les regles trouvés sur le net qui rééquilibrent en partie le jeu
Modifications and Optional Rules for Civil War
1) Promotions happen MUCH too quickly and with too much certainty.
Grant, Sherman, Lyon, and Jackson end up as 3 star leaders in early
1862. After the battle, roll 1 die per leader, if a 7 or greater is
rolled, he promotes. The die roll modifiers are:
a) +3 for winning the battle. The winner is the side remaining in
b) +# number of ranks that leader can still rise.
Thus Sherman starts out as a (*) and gets +3 (* -> ****), after a
promotion to (**) he gets +2 (** -> ***), etc.
A leader is not eligible for promotion on the turn after a promotion.
Thus Sherman would take a minimum of six months to reach four stars.
2) Leader reinforcement placement - Historically leaders performed
very differently than was expected, usually being worse than expected.
It's too easy to place all entering leaders in a hex with one
strength point, and if they are bad, leave them there forever. Thus a
"graveyard" of several leaders exists for the whole game. Also there
could be severe political consequences for removing leaders, esp. Ben
Butler before 1864. Without these rules both sides, esp. the USA
remove or exile bad leaders with out much penalty.
A) A three star leader must be placed in a hex with at least two SPs
for his control. A one or two star leader must be placed in a hex
with a depot or with SPs such that there is at least 1 SP per
leader. Thus a 3 star and two 2 star generals need 3 or 4 SPs [2+1+
(1 or depot)] in the hex. If this condition is not met at the end
of the turn there is a one VP penalty and the generals go back
into the pool. Leaders in an army are exempt.
B) A leader may not be dropped off by himself in the middle of
nowhere, so he won't hurt you and go back into the leader pool.
He may only be dropped off with SPs or at a Depot with no other
C) A leader in command of an army who is removed without having fought
a battle, and is not reassigned to another army costs three VPs.
A non-army leader who is removed without having fought a battle
and is not reassigned to a depot or 1+ SP force costs one VP.
3) The victory conditions are MUCH too easy for the USA, and VPs are
much too easy to come by. Try the following rules:
A) MO, KY, and WVa. contribute no VPs to the USA. To give
incentive to fight for these states, the CSA gets 1 VP a turn,
per state, that have not joined the USA. KY is subject to this
on turn three.
B) Election of 1864 (end of turn 17). The USA needs a number of
victory points equal to the number of SPs lost throughout the
war. (or instead use 60 rather than the 50 specified in the
rules). Lincoln won by a large margin, but the 1864 scenario
starts on turn 14 with 49 VPs and 4 turns to get 1 (or 11)
more. If not for the fall of Atlanta and Sheridan's victory in the
Shenandoah valley, Lincoln would have lost.
4) US Railroad supply and movement by armies supplied by sea
Forces that have invaded by ocean or river may not use railroads for
supply or movement until they have linked up to some line in the
north. This is because the USA doest have enough captured engines and
rolling stock until it can be moved over rail lines to the captured
rail net. Thus depots and river supply become more important for
areas in NC, MS, and GA. Once a rail link to the north is
established, the captured rail net is functional at 100%. If a
section of the rail net is cut after full utilization is established,
it is still functional.
5) Naval rules and Naval units vs. Fort(ress)s
A) If a fleet containing a transport runs past a fort, the fort adds
one to the die roll for each shot. This prevents a monitor from
escorting five transports past a fort with minimal losses to the
transports. Historically the forts didn't stop the ironclads and gun
boats, but Grant didn't want to run past Vicksburg with loaded
B) A naval unit in a fort may not be fired on by a fort
built next to it. Thus the CSA may not force the USA navy out
6) The Confederate navy is much too expensive to enter. They almost
never have enough extra CPs to enter more than a few units. The
Confederacy does not have to pay anything to enter their naval units.
They may be placed at no cost when they become available.
et quelques regles expérimentales
1) Allow the partial expenditure of command points on depots and
The unit appears when the last CP needed is expended. Thus a unit
can be built over the course of the turn by expending 1 CP, in each
of 3 impulses.
2) Combat ratios of 3-2 are resolved on the H table. Other wise small
forces are hard pressed to attack. (6 SP vs 4 SP = +2 rather than 3-2)
Van Dorn should be ** not ***, He never controlled more than 15,000
men. Lee must stay in Va as long as there is an army in that state.
McClellen should be 4,0,+1 not 3,-1,0.
et ça trouvé ailleurs qui ne marche pas avec ce qui est donné avant mais que j'avais trouvé marrant
Banks and Butler To reflect their importance as military generals, add 5 VPs to
the total Lincoln needs for re-election on Turn 17 for each of these bozos that
does not command an army. (eg, if they're both playing Hearts in Boggy Depot,
Lincoln needs 60. If Butler commands the Army of the James and Banks is in cold
storage, Abe needs 55).
McClellan Little Mac has a variable initiative rating. He is a 2 for rallying
troops, a 3 on Union and Neutral soil, and a 4 on Confederate land. The Union
player also loses 1 VP for every turn after 9 that Mac hasn't been removed, to
reflect his opposition to Emancipation.
personellement les regles expérimentales n'ont pas d'interet
par contre pour les autres
1/ je sais pas trop quoi en penser, j'optimise pas trop mes montés de chef donc...
2/ tres bonne idée, ça force a démettre les mauvais chef, pour l'union c'est indispensable. rajouter qu'on peut pas démettre mc lellan avant une date minimum (pour son poid politique) et qu'il faut absolument qu'il soit à la tete d'une armée à partir du tour 2 ou 3.
6/indispensable (qui a déjà vue la marine confederé?
elle coute tellement chere que c'est stupide de la sortir actuellement)
et un petit passage pour dire que les pions de lyon et jackson sont un peu fumeux
A) There is no evidence that Lyon and Jackson would make good
army leaders. Lyon did a lot with a small body of troops but he
wasn't around long enough to prove he could handle large numbers of
troops. Jackson operated independently with much less than 30,000
troops. At Chancelorsville, as a corps commander he had roughly
trouvé sur grognard.com