End of Campaign Imbalance

[River of Death]

Does anyone else feel that at the end of each of the campaigns, the minor battles just before Washington and Richmond are rather unfairly uneven?  By this I mean the following:

Both of the Confederate minor battles (the Vicksburg one and Hardin Pike) involve just more of the same from the Cold Harbor campaign - attacking multiple layers of fortifications.  If you reach this point in the game then you have your strategy down - pick a single point, bull rush with multiple brigades (maybe with melee weapons), have the first 2-3 rout and the last one open a hole, then flank the fortifications from there and widen the hole, etc. etc.  Fine and dandy, though it gets repetitive quickly.  But unlike the Cold Harbor campaign battles, at Vicksburg and Hardin Pike the fortifications are many layers deep, and in many places your charges are slowed by irregular woods and creeks.  Considering that you barely outnumber the Union at best (maybe far worse), these battles become a big slog, taking very heavy casualties.  Considering that the Union will be reinforced for Washington anyway, it doesn't really help (much, weapons capture is the minor exception) if you succeed in wiping them out in the minor battles - the most important thing is your own force preservation, but that is virtually impossible considering how deep (and in multiple places) on both maps you must penetrate.  If you fight well you can just barely recoup your losses, then waste money on training and weapons to bring your brigades back up to strength for Washington.

In comparison the Union does have one of its minor battles like this (whats-its-name Bluff), with much the same difficulties.  But the *other* minor battle is the Georgia Railroad.  Very thematically similar to Jackson, you are on the Defensive and with fairly good though long fortifications.  Eschewing them for woods (or held by skirmishers) in strategic places, you have just enough brigades to make reserves against the points where the Confederates charge you.  You are never outnumbered more than 2:1 (maybe much less depending on how the campaign went).  Fight this well and you can have a fairly cheap wipe or almost-wipe that can be favorably compared to many other battles from the whole campaign.  I find this quite a fun minor battle, in fact.  The "problem" is that you actually will replenish your reserves and make money as a result of this battle, plus wiping the Confederates will measurably (if slightly) reduce their forces for Richmond.

My issue is that this makes the end of the game significantly easier for the Union.  I know that the chance of anything being changed now is roughly 0%.  But wouldn't it be more interesting and enjoyable if the Confederates had a minor battle in the last campaign that was something less than a slog?  Maybe replace Hardin Pike with something like Peachtree Creek - you will still be on the offensive but there will not be any fortifications (or maybe just a few minor woods fortifications), with fairly even numbers and a large map; thus giving you at least a *chance*, given good play, to gain a little bit of money and recruits in time for Washington.

[Yogol]

I agree that it is harder to win the Confederate campaign than the Union campaign. But that doesn't bother me, because, well, the confederates lost the war, so it's only fair that it's harder to win with them. Plus, it's nice to have a harder campaign than the Unions, because that campaign is rather easy, compared to other games out there.