Southern Steel-strategies?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Southern Steel-strategies?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> Southern Steel-strategies?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Southern Steel-strategies? - 5/9/2007 3:42:43 PM

ChuckK

Posts: 85
Joined: 5/22/2004
Status: offline

Well, I'm happily getting slapped around by the Union in the Southern Steel campaign (first Sargent difficulty).

I didn't see an AAR dealing with Southern Steel. Any thoughts on whether Confederate strategy here should be the same as the standard campaign?

I'm wondering if the Confederate cause might be better served by building and mustering as many forces as possible right from turn one instead of the usual focus on developing infrastructure?

I'm finding the Union quickly gathers 100k+ worth of troops in both the eastern and western theatres and just steam rolls south. The AI now seems to be relentless (did you guys digitize Grant's engrams or something?) My boys will win a half a dozen battles in a row with fort and terrain advantages in both areas but those blue devils just keep coming and coming--eventually grinding my lads into dust.

Best

_____________________________

Saratoga CV-3
One of 3 U.S. pre-war carriers to survive WWII
Awarded 7 battle stars
Torpedoed on two separate occasions
Hit by 6 bombs, holed twice, on 2-17-45
Sunk at Bikini Atoll, '46, after enduring 2nd A-Bomb test
She was a tough Lady!

Post #: 1

RE: Southern Steel-strategies? - 5/9/2007 3:48:59 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

Different battle require different ideas

in this one, you need men, and lots of them, only build what you can, when you can

the Union can take Massive losses and keep on comeing, you got to be ready, to keep giving them

_____________________________

(in reply to ChuckK)

Post #: 2

RE: Southern Steel-strategies? - 5/9/2007 3:58:49 PM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChuckK
Well, I'm happily getting slapped around by the Union in the Southern Steel campaign (first Sargent difficulty).
I didn't see an AAR dealing with Southern Steel. Any thoughts on whether Confederate strategy here should be the same as the standard campaign?
I'm wondering if the Confederate cause might be better served by building and mustering as many forces as possible right from turn one instead of the usual focus on developing infrastructure?

Yes, as the CSA in Southern Steel I basically drain my cities dry of manpower in the first year to make sure I have enough troops to actually contest the Union advance. My main developments as Spring approaches are Camps to keep the men flowing. Focus raiders on money and guns, store up resources periodically to build or upgrade forts where necessary.

Come April, you get the population boost which is a bit more significant in 1.9.16d and then you can slow down a bit and put more time into infrastructure, as long as the Union gives you some breathing room.

quote:

I'm finding the Union quickly gathers 100k+ worth of troops in both the eastern and western theatres and just steam rolls south. The AI now seems to be relentless (did you guys digitize Grant's engrams or something?) My boys will win a half a dozen battles in a row with fort and terrain advantages in both areas but those blue devils just keep coming and coming--eventually grinding my lads into dust.

I'm glad to hear it's doing so well - we did spend the vast majority of the time from the first public beta to this one improving the AI further.

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to ChuckK)

Post #: 3

RE: Southern Steel-strategies? - 5/9/2007 5:52:22 PM

Walloc

Posts: 3141
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Playing as CSA in SS vs an AI, i have the following advice.

In the words of a wise man, Frederick the Great, if u defend every where, u defend no where.
My main goal is to eliminate the enemy forces there by opening up for land grabs.
This is needed because u notoriasly have a smaller army and ur capacity to build an army is much smaller than the US.

In pratice this means i usually have the ANV beeffed up by forces around Virginia including most garrisions to defending Virginia, as a mobil field army Striking / defending where ever the US attacks. As a rule i stay in Virginia to keep battles on my terms in regards too defender getting +2 moral bonus. Only if things are going really well or other necessity do i venture into US territory with ANV. As oppose to my West armies.

In the west i assemple my forces into 1 army since that is what is possible. I draw spare garrions from all other states than Virginia to beef up that army. In pratice i always leave 1 to 2 units depening on whether there is both a city and a fort or not in each province with a city, especially provinces with coastal acces. All other garrisons i send to the West army.

Usually the US AI fields 2 armies in the west. I use my west army once its assempled into a unit go after and destroys 1 of the US armies. Letting in the other run free for a while. Complying with Frederick the Great wise words.
I ruthlessly destroys the 1 US army bying taking as many units as possible POWs, over how ever many battles i need to in effect destroy that 1 army. Usually 1 to 3 battles.

One thing to notice is try to spred the US armies out, by setting up different targets, so u can defeat them in detail. If they are to close they can support each other, and u wont be able to defeat them if together. Never attack the 1 army until its in a position where u can defeat it alone.
Then I turn my attentions to the other US army and destroy that too.

This means u have to trade space for time. Be prepared to lose some cities. Once the 2 US armies is destroyed u can then advance. Taking back ur cities and then US ones.

Usually by late 62 i've gotten enough VP to win. I've used this strategy up too major level and it seems to work.
One assumtion is that u play out these battles as HWs where if skilled as player and with superior numbers u can capture loads of enemy troops. They oppose to normal casulties dont get replaced.

All these captured troops leads to a nice thing. U can take over the captured art brigades which means that is one thing i never buy my self. I rely solely on the art u start with and captured ones.
This free's up money for other uses.

Dont spend any thing on building up ur economy, less its spare resources, build up the army.
Its a knock out strategy not a long planned war. Should be over by late 62, early 63.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 5/9/2007 8:10:23 PM >

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 4

RE: Southern Steel-strategies? - 5/10/2007 8:58:40 AM

cesteman

Posts: 845
Joined: 2/15/2004
From: San Luis Obispo, CA
Status: offline

Thanks for the advice Walloc.

(in reply to Walloc)

Post #: 5

RE: Southern Steel-strategies? - 5/10/2007 12:00:31 PM

jkBluesman

Posts: 797
Joined: 2/12/2007
Status: offline

That seem to be Johnston tactics (Joseph E.). And Davis did not read Friedrich den Gro�en that is for sure. But for us as gamers it does not matter that slavery is virtually ended in regions the Union has counquered.

For which Western army do you go first, the more western or more eastern one?

(in reply to Walloc)

Post #: 6

RE: Southern Steel-strategies? - 5/10/2007 1:24:54 PM

Walloc

Posts: 3141
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Depence really.
Which one isnt set in stone. U have to be flexible at all times. Strike what gives the best possibilty of decisive succes. Alot depence ofc on if US side advances through KY. If not you have to adjust.
I've had times where the Cairo army was advancing alone to Memphis and US didnt advance through KY. Then the lone advancing army is ofc a natural target.

If its the other way round, at times the Tn/KY army makes the best target.

Its really situasional. Just dont engage until u have ur army assempled. U need to strike with superior numbers. In order to make decisive blows. I dont mind waiting and dancing make side ways steps until the situasion is right.

Yes its a strategists strategy not a politicians. I can live with losing territory if i win the war, i cant live with losing my army defeding that territory. Slavery could alwasy be reintroduced when the war was won, certainly wouldnt be if it was lost. Not that i condone slavery.
In RL that wouldnt necesarry cuz of political issues be a way a commader would be allowed to go.
Back to reading Clausewitz and Jomini i guess ;-)

Kind regards,

Rasmus

P.S im not sure if i dont regret my first post. Challanges are flooding in my email...

im gona get my ass kicked.

< Message edited by Walloc -- 5/10/2007 1:35:23 PM >

(in reply to jkBluesman)

Post #: 7

RE: Southern Steel-strategies? - 5/10/2007 1:47:14 PM

ChuckK

Posts: 85
Joined: 5/22/2004
Status: offline

quote:

Walloc wrote: P.S im not sure if i dont regret my first post. Challanges are flooding in my email...
im gona get my ass kicked.

Lol! No good deed goes unpunished....

Thanks for the help!

_____________________________

(in reply to Walloc)

Post #: 8

RE: Southern Steel-strategies? - 5/10/2007 2:28:23 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

Back to reading Clausewitz and Jomini i guess ;-)

you need to do some reading from that little old guy from the East

_____________________________

(in reply to Walloc)

Post #: 9

RE: Southern Steel-strategies? - 5/10/2007 3:52:37 PM

Walloc

Posts: 3141
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Good old Sunny boy! yeah he is on my list of have read. Actually its been a few years since i really was in too reading theoritical military stuff. Been mainly campaign stories lately.

http://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html

Thats a classic,

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 5/10/2007 4:02:22 PM >

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 10

RE: Southern Steel-strategies? - 5/10/2007 4:25:44 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

Good book :)

some of the side stories are good too

_____________________________

(in reply to Walloc)

Post #: 11

OT: - 5/10/2007 4:40:37 PM

Walloc

Posts: 3141
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline

OT:: be warned.

Thinking it over i have been reading some organization theoritical stuff lately.
Both OKH and modern US army, in regards to 4th Generation warfare.(4GW)

Here is an interesting snip from William S. Lind

By William S. Lind

Many years ago, a friend of mine who was an aide to the Marine Corps Commandant asked his boss how many Marine generals he thought could command competently in combat. The Commandant came up with six, out of about sixty.

That figure of ten percent should not surprise any historian. Militarily competent generals have always been in short supply. One need only think of either side in the American Civil War; as J.F.C. Fuller wrote, the main reason the Federals won is that they came up with two competent generals while the Confederacy had only one. Toward the end of that war, when Confederate President Jefferson Davis selected General Braxton Bragg to command the defense of the South's last remaining port, Wilmington, North Carolina, a Richmond newspaper's headline read, "Bragg sent to Wilmington; Good-bye, Wilmington."

http://www.d-n-i.net/lind/lind_archive.htm

I was a member of a wargaming sociaty for 10 years. We played alot of napoleaonic miniatures in teams, 5-10 per side. WWII and ACW too.
A friend and me spend quiet a amount of time discussing the different players ability.
One of the things i found interesting was, how little intelligence seemed to played role in ppls battlefield abiltities.
We had ppl who was Ph.Ds, was members of mensa all very very bright and sucecsfull in business and to booth in general nice ppl.
That seemed to have no bearing on what the french descripe as coup d'oeil
here In Phillippe Thibaut translation:

litterally "glance of the eye" (although 'coup' in French has the standard menaing of 'blow', but not in that precise case ...tricky language, guess why nobody wants to learn it...)

The meaning in that particular case is roughly that the leader with the right 'coup d'oeil' will quickly spot the important action and location on the battlefield and know what to do / order / react in order to achieve victory...

For instance, Napoleon was reknown for having it, as he was able to immediately find the place where the battle would be decided..

I would watch possibly point out to these other wise bright ppl that they we're going to be flanked and if they didnt move xx or react in some way, they would be in trouble,
The ppl in question was totally obliviant to the situasion and wouldnt react until it was to late / it alrdy had happend. Things others could see turns / miles away.

It intrigues me how promotions are done in real military settings.
As in the case of the above by W.S Lind descriped situasion it seems that and this is my speculation that abilties, like leading, being an alpha male, personal connections plays in as much as actual battlefield lead ability. This is ofc human nature to do so.
Im not saying that the ablities i descripe isnt importand. Being able to lead having men follow u certainly is. I do wonder tho in if the higher echalons that ppls actual ability to read battlefield situasions and reacting instinticly in the right way isnt just more importand.

If we take an example from the ACW.
Mcclelland being a prim example. He was both mytical, had the ability to inspire, was a good organizer, but as a battlefield commander i wouldnt intrust him with a Battalion let alone an army.

Then ofc come the question can you spot the ability for battlefield management in ppl prio to testing them in RL settings. More so even if they have the ability to act on a battlefield with decisive results.
In my own very limited experience i think at leased in cases it can be spotted, for those who certainly doenst have that ability. Possibly also which has the abiltity yo act decisivly. Taken into account is ofc wher i learned this so there naturally is a disclaimer to it.
In my own military experience I never got any where near the level where it was of any concern/ i could learn any about the issue.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

P.S back to gaming FoF where i just lost 1st bull run as CSA in the july scn. The first of my newly started Pbem's. I did say my ass was gona get kicked :-)

< Message edited by Walloc -- 5/10/2007 6:23:55 PM >

(in reply to Walloc)

Post #: 12

RE: Southern Steel-strategies? - 5/10/2007 5:44:28 PM

jkBluesman

Posts: 797
Joined: 2/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc

Good old Sunny boy! yeah he is on my list of have read. Actually its been a few years since i really was in too reading theoritical military stuff. Been mainly campaign stories lately.

http://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html

Thats a classic,

Rasmus

It is. I find it really hard to read the theoritical stuff. To read Clausewitz from the beginning to the end is almost impossible though you may look into his book when you want his opinion on certain situations.

(in reply to Walloc)

Post #: 13

RE: Southern Steel-strategies? - 5/10/2007 5:53:08 PM

Twotribes

Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline

Your assuming the Commandant in question was a competent commander and that he could put aside his politics long enough to make an informed decision.

Reality is that politics not abilities gets one promoted past about Lt Col in all services. Hopefully the good politicians are also competent commanders.

< Message edited by Twotribes -- 5/10/2007 7:44:19 PM >

(in reply to ChuckK)

Post #: 14

RE: Southern Steel-strategies? - 5/10/2007 6:10:22 PM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

TwoTribes,

The subject of this thread is military strategies for a specific scenario in this game, not about politics or current events. The comment about competent commanders was in that context. Let's not hijack it, please.

Edit: Whoops, I didn't notice that Walloc brought up Iraq above. Walloc, please refrain from bringing that into this discussion, it will always cause things to tangent off. Let's stay on topic please.

Regards,

- Erik

< Message edited by Erik Rutins -- 5/10/2007 6:13:44 PM >

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Twotribes)

Post #: 15

RE: Southern Steel-strategies? - 5/10/2007 6:21:24 PM

Walloc

Posts: 3141
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Sorry my bad. Ill edit out that part. Wasnt in particular to my main point any how.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 16

RE: Southern Steel-strategies? - 5/11/2007 1:05:38 AM

ChuckK

Posts: 85
Joined: 5/22/2004
Status: offline

Getting back to the Walloc strategy for playing the Confederates in Southern Steel, was there a historical precedence for pulling garrisons into the field at this point in the war?

Thanks

_____________________________

(in reply to Walloc)

Post #: 17

RE: Southern Steel-strategies? - 5/11/2007 1:25:11 AM

Twotribes

Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline

Politically I dont think garrisons could be easily pulled.

(in reply to ChuckK)

Post #: 18

RE: Southern Steel-strategies? - 5/11/2007 1:59:51 AM

ChuckK

Posts: 85
Joined: 5/22/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
Politically I dont think garrisons could be easily pulled.

Aye, towards the end of the war I know Grant put at least a part of the pampered Washington garrison into the field and I assume the garrisons of Petersburg and Richmond sort of blended into the remnants of the ANV at about the same time.

I don't know if there are any examples of this happening though earlier.

_____________________________

(in reply to Twotribes)

Post #: 19

RE: Southern Steel-strategies? - 5/11/2007 2:02:27 AM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

I was just editing Ewell's bio, so this is fresh in my mind: Ewell was in charge of the Richmond defenses in the winter of 1864-65, and when Lee was forced to abandon Richmond in the war's final days, Ewell and his command tried to join up, but Sheridan acted quickly and captured them all. I'm sure that there were still garrison troops left in Richmond, but a good number would have surrendered with Ewell. (Does anyone know the numbers involved?)

(in reply to ChuckK)

Post #: 20

RE: Southern Steel-strategies? - 5/11/2007 2:23:22 AM

Walloc

Posts: 3141
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Ill agree with Twotribes on that, but unfortuantly some1 made me both CiC and political leader playing FoF so ill do what needs to be done.

You could then ofc argue should it be possible to ungarrison while not emphtying parts of the south.
Depence i guess on how much "freedom" u wana give players. A design issue.
IMO it could easily be argued that u shouldnt be able. On ther other hand u do have very wide freedom in regards to for example economy and other issues in the game. More so then the political leadership historicly had.
In some sense, tho there are governours, there is a political vacuum or rather u do play as both military and political leader as the design is. At leased thats how i see it.
Playing both naturally gives you more "freedom" than the military leaders had, per say historicly.

Quoting my self:

Yes its a strategists strategy not a politicians. I can live with losing territory if i win the war, i cant live with losing my army defeding that territory. Slavery could alwasy be reintroduced when the war was won, certainly wouldnt be if it was lost. Not that i condone slavery.
In RL that wouldnt necesarry cuz of political issues be a way a commader would be allowed to go.

Again a political leader might very well say but if we lose that initial territory we lose support and in losing support we lose the war. If that is true u very possibly fighting a losing war.
I can certainly with merit arguing against my own strategy from a political point, to the points where its questionble if the strategy is viable in a historical context. Same with garrisons.

Again we come back to the issue of design. Is a player of FoF merely the military leader or also political leader, at leased to a certain degree and if so where is the limit of the degree.
You could pose the question are we to replay the ACW or play it according to ur own strategy and again if so to what degree.

Back to a military POV. While garrions certainly are importand. IMHO dont tie down more than highly necesarry.
Garrison has the inherit disadvantage in that they are motionless, lacking initiative. This means the greater part of ur army that is in garrison the less ability u to have / gain the initiative. The more field army u have, the more of ur forces are mobil having the possibilty of initiative and the enemy cant predict or can less predict what u are doing and where u are striking than with an army consiting of motionless garrisons.

Again i could come into some theoritical stuff like John Boyd and the Boyd cycle, but i got my finger slapped once so i better try stay on topic.

. Oh if u hadnt noticed, its apparently name dropping day today.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 5/11/2007 3:04:34 AM >

(in reply to Twotribes)

Post #: 21

RE: Southern Steel-strategies? - 5/11/2007 3:33:55 AM

ChuckK

Posts: 85
Joined: 5/22/2004
Status: offline

No detraction of the Walloc Strategy intended. I was rather upset with myself for not thinking of tapping into the garrisons first!

I'm curious though if historically anyone tried to yank garrisons early in the war and what opposition was met. It does make for an interesting what if similar to the issue of the South beating the Union in declaring emancipation of the slaves

Best

_____________________________

(in reply to Walloc)

Post #: 22

RE: Southern Steel-strategies? - 5/11/2007 4:33:10 AM

Walloc

Posts: 3141
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline

I didnt take it as such, ChuckK.

Its a fair questions posed. Answer IMO falls in at the line where ever/how much/closely people think a game should mirror history. Each his/her own answer to that.

I tend to be of the school that says. ill do what ever im allowed too within the given rules of said game. ill develop a strategy that fits what ever im given and how im given the rights to use them within the game rules. Will that at times fall outside history, ofc.

Having been part of making miniature rule sets i've fallen into the category where i say.
If u want ppl to act historicly. Make the rules so it pays to act historicly and penalize things u view as unhistoric. Problem is can u think of every thing, nope :-).
There tend to be those my self included that are rule lawyers. That then will pass through said rules to find what do indeed give u the best pay off. I've many a times pointed out if rules are like <insert> this. The best thing IMO is to do this. Skilled players will do so. Is this what we want?

Kind regards,

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 5/11/2007 4:36:12 AM >

(in reply to ChuckK)

Post #: 23

RE: Southern Steel-strategies? - 5/11/2007 6:16:32 AM

Twotribes

Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline

Agreed, I strip rearward garrisons and send them to fight.

(in reply to Walloc)

Post #: 24

RE: Southern Steel-strategies? - 5/11/2007 12:07:15 PM

jkBluesman

Posts: 797
Joined: 2/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

I was just editing Ewell's bio, so this is fresh in my mind: Ewell was in charge of the Richmond defenses in the winter of 1864-65, and when Lee was forced to abandon Richmond in the war's final days, Ewell and his command tried to join up, but Sheridan acted quickly and captured them all. I'm sure that there were still garrison troops left in Richmond, but a good number would have surrendered with Ewell. (Does anyone know the numbers involved?)

The garrison in Richmond was some kind of emergency force. It was made up by office clerks of the government etc.
I do not think that there were still troops in the capital when the Union army entered. The fall of Richmond is mostly discribed as a breakdown of official authority. Otherwise the fire would not have spread so quickly.
The number of troops with Ewell is hard to estimate as the forces got mixed up with Anderson's shortly before the surrender. Ewell's "corps" consisted of two divisions (led by Custis Lee and Kershaw). Their total number was perhaps 5 000, but that included garrison troops and regulars.

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 25

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> Southern Steel-strategies?

Page: [1]