Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Deep Water

 
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] >> Civil War II >> After Action Report >> RE: Deep Water Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Deep Water - 1/20/2014 9:13:22 AM   
bugwar


Posts: 91
Joined: 9/5/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bugwar

Is there a historical reference that identifies the channel that allows the back door past New Orleans for ocean going ships?
I have been looking, and the only references I see for bypassing New Orleans by water are with shallow draft (about four foot) craft.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ol Choctaw

That is true. It took shallow draft steamboats to traverse that route. It should not be open to warships and even naval transports.

War ships could not take that route in AACW. I had thought it was the same for CWII but never checked.



In that case, I suppose that there should be a house rule to deny that route to deep draft (Ocean going) ships.
That way the Rebels in New Orleans only have to worry about the Mississippi channel.

(in reply to veji1)
Post #: 91
RE: Deep Water - 1/20/2014 12:12:24 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline 		The route up the Atchalafiya, via Bayou Teche, is not passable to Ocean-going ships. Shallow-draft only.

The reason I was able to get ocean-going ships to Baton Rouge is because I had cleared both forts at the Head of the Passes, so the Mississippi River was open. The Union River fleet was able to meet me there, because Vicksburg was by then the only Rebel-held point on the river.

_____________________________


(in reply to bugwar)
Post #: 92
RE: Deep Water - 1/20/2014 1:12:24 PM   
bugwar


Posts: 91
Joined: 9/5/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

The route up the Atchalafiya, via Bayou Teche, is not passable to Ocean-going ships. Shallow-draft only.

The reason I was able to get ocean-going ships to Baton Rouge is because I had cleared both forts at the Head of the Passes, so the Mississippi River was open. The Union River fleet was able to meet me there, because Vicksburg was by then the only Rebel-held point on the river.



Oh.

Ok.

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 93
RE: Deep Water - 1/20/2014 4:43:16 PM   
Ol Choctaw

 

Posts: 75
Joined: 9/12/2011
Status: offline 		He ran the forts as easy as the AI always does. I think running forts is a bit easy, at least with a Union fleet...have not seen anything but the James Sqd. bite the dust.

(in reply to bugwar)
Post #: 94
RE: Deep Water - 1/20/2014 4:53:45 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ol Choctaw

He ran the forts as easy as the AI always does. I think running forts is a bit easy, at least with a Union fleet...have not seen anything but the James Sqd. bite the dust.


As an important point, my transports didn't run any forts at all. Ft. St. Phillip and Jackson were Union-occupied. There was no fort at New Orleans, and no battery active there.

The only fort running was that I ran some Ironclads past Vicksburg, and they met Farragut's fleet downriver. That I think is kosher

Running forts should be possible for Ironclads, and I'm fine with that; but not for anything made of wood. There has to be HR preventing transports running guns; it's too easy in-game.

_____________________________


(in reply to Ol Choctaw)
Post #: 95
Vicksburg Guns - 1/20/2014 5:27:27 PM   
bugwar


Posts: 91
Joined: 9/5/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
Running forts should be possible for Ironclads, and I'm fine with that; but not for anything made of wood. There has to be HR preventing transports running guns; it's too easy in-game.


How would the house rule deal with Vicksburg?

1863 campaign and initial movements.


His [Grant’s] final option was bold but risky: March the army down the west side of the Mississippi, cross the river south of Vicksburg, and either attack Vicksburg from the south and the east or join forces with Banks, capture Port Hudson, and then together reduce Vicksburg.
Porter would have to sneak past the guns to get sufficient gunboats and transport ships south of the city.
Once they had completed the downstream passage, they would not be able to return past Vicksburg's guns because the river current would slow them too much.
...
On April 16, a clear night with no moon, Porter sent seven gunboats and three empty troop transports loaded with stores to run the bluff, taking care to minimize noise and lights.
But the preparations were ineffective. Confederate sentries sighted the boats, and the bluff exploded with massive artillery fire.
Fires were set along the banks to improve visibility. The Union gunboats answered back.
Porter observed that the Confederates mainly hit the high parts of his boats, reasoned that they could not depress their guns, and had them hug the east shore, right under Confederate cannon, so close he could hear their commanders giving orders, shells flying overhead.
The fleet survived with little damage; thirteen men were wounded and none killed. The Henry Clay was disabled and burned at the water's edge.
On April 22, six more boats loaded with supplies made the run; one boat did not make it, though no one was killed—the crew floated downstream on the boat's remnants.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicksburg_Campaign#Battles_in_Grant.27s_Operations_against_Vicksburg.2C_April.C2.A0.E2.80.93_July_1863

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 96
RE: Deep Water - 1/20/2014 5:33:34 PM   
Ol Choctaw

 

Posts: 75
Joined: 9/12/2011
Status: offline 		It was not an attack on you. You have shown that time and again.

The game has a few thing that need tweaked, is all.

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 97
RE: Vicksburg Guns - 1/20/2014 5:43:48 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bugwar


quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
Running forts should be possible for Ironclads, and I'm fine with that; but not for anything made of wood. There has to be HR preventing transports running guns; it's too easy in-game.


How would the house rule deal with Vicksburg?

1863 campaign and initial movements.


His [Grant’s] final option was bold but risky: March the army down the west side of the Mississippi, cross the river south of Vicksburg, and either attack Vicksburg from the south and the east or join forces with Banks, capture Port Hudson, and then together reduce Vicksburg.
Porter would have to sneak past the guns to get sufficient gunboats and transport ships south of the city.
Once they had completed the downstream passage, they would not be able to return past Vicksburg's guns because the river current would slow them too much.
...
On April 16, a clear night with no moon, Porter sent seven gunboats and three empty troop transports loaded with stores to run the bluff, taking care to minimize noise and lights.
But the preparations were ineffective. Confederate sentries sighted the boats, and the bluff exploded with massive artillery fire.
Fires were set along the banks to improve visibility. The Union gunboats answered back.
Porter observed that the Confederates mainly hit the high parts of his boats, reasoned that they could not depress their guns, and had them hug the east shore, right under Confederate cannon, so close he could hear their commanders giving orders, shells flying overhead.
The fleet survived with little damage; thirteen men were wounded and none killed. The Henry Clay was disabled and burned at the water's edge.
On April 22, six more boats loaded with supplies made the run; one boat did not make it, though no one was killed—the crew floated downstream on the boat's remnants.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicksburg_Campaign#Battles_in_Grant.27s_Operations_against_Vicksburg.2C_April.C2.A0.E2.80.93_July_1863



Good question; how do you model that?

I think the HR of not allowing amphib landings behind the lines still models this. Another HR could be to NOT allow wooden ships to run batteries. Still OK in this instance.

This is because the game allows you to move supplies and cross the Mississippi without actual boats down there. So, in game terms, I can see that:

1. Grant has a depot in the region across from Vicksburg
2. Ironclads run Vicksburg, allowing him to control the river below the town
3. This allows the flow of supplies from the west-shore depot, to Port Gibson, where Grant builds another depot
4. Also allows his army to cross the river without difficulty, which he did, and draw supplies over the river

So, players can employe creative devices like this, which approach history, but don't break the game

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ol Choctaw

It was not an attack on you. You have shown that time and again.

The game has a few thing that need tweaked, is all.



No offense was taken, and at any rate, I would agree the game needs some tweeks. I do think it's closer than the original version though.

But there has to be limitations via HR on the US Navy

< Message edited by Q-Ball -- 1/20/2014 7:15:48 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to bugwar)
Post #: 98
RE: Vicksburg Guns - 1/20/2014 11:07:37 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline 		July 1864

The war drags on, and increasingly, the Confederacy is reduced to increasingly bad choices. A couple victories for Gunnulf at the beginning of the month, but the close sees an increasingly bad CSA strategic situation.

Little Rock:

The Rebels have re-taken Little Rock. 13,000 men under Van Dorn descended from Ft. Smith before I could see them. Stupid on my part, I should have kept more guys there.

Meagher's command retreated to Madison, where they will probably gain some troops and make another attempt.

Charleston:

I attempted to take Charleston with Meade's corps that took Ft. Johnson. Failure; 2 NM lost. In the interim, though, I had brought Sherman's men from Sumter to Johnson via boat, and more reinforcements. Sherman is now leading upwards of 27,000 men, and should clear Charleston.

Once that happens, we'll have a campaign in South Carolina underway, and Sherman will begin a march through Georgia, just from the other direction.

Mobile:

We are moving Grant's army toward Mobile. I am in between Johnston and Mobile, so I should be able to take it, I think. My biggest problem is supply; I need to take Mobile fairly quickly, or starve in the attempt.

Virginia:

See map below......we lost a counterattack, but no NM. I am perfectly happy to fight battles that just kill an equal number of guys.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 99
RE: Vicksburg Guns - 1/21/2014 5:15:45 AM   
Ace1_slith

 

Posts: 340
Joined: 9/24/2013
Status: offline 		Great AAR. It is fun to read, and gives lot of insites on the way game developes.

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 100
Closing out the CSA - 1/22/2014 1:42:35 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ace1

Great AAR. It is fun to read, and gives lot of insites on the way game developes.


Thanks, I appreciate the feedback.

It would be nice to see another AAR or two make it into 1863. I think part of the problem is some players play for a "blood win", and go all-in in the East. If you are playing to win, this is the correct strategy. However, I think that's a boring game. I think a good Union player, looking for an interesting game, will force themselves to defeat the CSA elsewhere.

Aug 1864:

WEST:

We took Mobile. Pemberton's Corps escaped up the river toward Montgomery via steamboat, and that's that. Thomas will clear the place.

Afterwards, we are moving over the bay, and up the rail line toward Montgomery. We can get there in 15 days using the rails; we have the rail line clear all the way to Sparta, AL.

The Army of Tennessee is still very strong, but they are pulling back from Meridian. I think it's a race to Montgomery now; he can't be caught west of there. He can win using rails easily, but I think he has way less rail cap than I do. He'll probably make it anyway, but I hope to have him abaondon central Alabama, then I can use the rail line to the Northeast to flank him out of Chattanooga.

Carolinas:

Charleston has officially fallen. We are moving forces toward Columbia. Pemberton's Corps appears at Savannah, too much to overcome for now.

We have cut the rail lines through South Carolina, so there is no uninterrupted rail connection from Richmond to Atlanta. You can still do it by skipping a region, but the Confederacy is getting smaller, for sure.

East:

In the east, working around his flanks has forced the AnV to abandon everything north of Richmond, including Fredricksburg.

I am still way vulnerable to counterattack, and I would be surprised if he didn't try to crush Newton's men at City Point. But that does allow me to draw closer to Richmond on all sides, and start a siege.

The AnV has nearly 10,000 AV dug-in in Richmond proper; this is unassailable. This will force me to cut them off to the south.

Status:

VPs: I am way ahead in VPs. I think, though, the VP system is whacked; I don't think it's particularly valid. I could have sat on Vicksburg and won on VPs easily, without attempting to reduce the CSA.

Strategic Towns: Of the Strategic towns, the CSA only holds Little Rock, Richmond, and Atlanta. All else is my hands. I had Little Rock, but lost it; I can clear it as soon as I feel like sending a Corps that way. I would rather close out Atlanta first, though.

The CSA production has to be pretty low at this point. We are now collecting over $430 a turn in city income, plus 115 recruits. Even so, I am spending most on replacements lately, as we have fought several battles, and moving causes attrition.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to Ace1_slith)
Post #: 101
RE: Closing out the CSA - 1/22/2014 2:09:12 PM   
veji1

 

Posts: 1019
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline 		Interesting. you said earlier you had switched to historical attrition. Is it actually happening in your game and does it have an effect ?

_____________________________

Adieu Ô Dieu odieux... signé Adam

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 102
RE: Closing out the CSA - 1/22/2014 8:40:30 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: veji1

Interesting. you said earlier you had switched to historical attrition. Is it actually happening in your game and does it have an effect ?


It seems to....not sure if it's the increased fighting, or attrition, probably both....but I'm spending most money now on replacements and supply wagons. Not much on new units.

So yes, I think it's having an effect

_____________________________


(in reply to veji1)
Post #: 103
RE: Closing out the CSA - 1/23/2014 3:05:12 AM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline 		Sept 1864:

Missouri:

Buell's army took Springfield; really, Howard's Corps did the heavy lifting. The CSA was down to 14,000 men.

West:

We had another mini-Chickamauga at Montgomery, AL

I lost the race for Montgomery; Thomas's Corps arrived, finding the entire AoT, about 80,000 angry Confederates. 6 NM lost, and a 3-1 casualty ratio. Ouch!

My Western armies have lost nearly every major battle, yet here we are in Alabama. I've never assaulted dug-in Confederates, and when I move, I leave myself open to counterattack. Maybe I could have played it better tactically, but live and learn.

The AoT is now concentrated at Montgomery; the only real objective left over there is Atlanta. I am not sure what the next step is, I may just halt, leave a screen and use pieces of Grant's army to take the last parts along the coastline.

Carolinas:

We defeated Ewell's small army at Columbia, and took the South Carolina state capital. Camden is next. We also cleared the South Carolina and North Carolina plantations. Georgetown has fallen, so has Beaufort. Blockade is up to 75%.

Economy:

My monthly take is much higher than the CSA now, but I think he still gets the 400-per treasury move, plus volunteers......so he can probably build stuff unless he runs out of WSU.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 104
RE: Closing out the CSA - 1/23/2014 12:38:22 PM   
veji1

 

Posts: 1019
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline 		Again a very interesting read. It will be a useful and very well documented campaign to assess where the game is at present. Gunnulf seems to have given overall priority to force conservation, sacrificing territory to preserve his forces. The question is whether his armies are going to simply starve to death now that you control most of his industry and have cut off Virginia.

Based on this game. I wonder if the Union isn't a tad overpowered if not in terms of numbers, in terms of mechanics. I say so because you seem not to be a reckless player, pretty methodic and not of the optimizing type (ie self imposed rules on invasions, Virginia, etc), and yet you have advance very very fast once you got going (which really was the unlocking of Memphis for you and the end of McClellan), despite Gunnulf having won most of the 10/11 biggish battles you have had. I wonder if a more aggressive Union player wouldn't have flooded the CSA more quickly.

I wonder what the issue could be. Could it be that supply is to easy to come buy ? that armies don't need nearly enough operational pauses to regain cohesion (an issue in nearly all wargames) ? Very interesting anyway.

_____________________________

Adieu Ô Dieu odieux... signé Adam

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 105
RE: Closing out the CSA - 1/23/2014 5:12:56 PM   
Scotster

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 1/23/2014
Status: offline 		Good points, I agree.

(in reply to veji1)
Post #: 106
RE: Closing out the CSA - 1/23/2014 8:18:38 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline 		I will say I do tend to be conservative; part of that is learning the engine. I'm pretty aggressive in WITP-AE for example, but that just comes from being comfortable with the engine.

That being said, a few things:

1. I have purposely done a couple things that go against "winning" the game more quickly, mostly in Virginia. The "McClellan" house rule, plus really trying to win elsewhere.

2. RE: Battles, I do think the CSA should win the majority of major battles. The primary reason is that attacking entrenched units is usually not a good idea, and the CSA player has many more opportunities to attack non-entrenched units. This is because the USA has to move. I will say nearly every victory to Gunnulf is against a unit that was moving. Good on his part, I think he has taken advantage of this fact. In my first PBEM, against Michael T, I won loads of battles. I lost the war, but won lots of battles.

3. After Memphis, things did move quickly; very quickly. A couple reasons for that:
a. Gunnulf focused on Memphis, and did not have any forts short of Vicksburg at all. This meant quick Union Naval moves downriver. I also did that Baton Rouge landing, I think that really opened things up.
b. Union has huge strategic advantages with Naval power, and you can more freely use it once the Mississippi is open
c. Weather; south of Tennessee, there is no snow, making winter campaigning easier
d. Gunnulf kept his main armies together; not a bad idea, as I could not defeat them head-on. But the price you pay is the flanks. The lack of CSA 2* generals is another problem; this needs to be fixed IMO.

I also do think it's pretty easy to get into CSA rear. One of the most important events in the game is when Cavalry can take towns (early 1863). Before that happens, deep raiding is difficult, since Cavalry can't capture supplies. After that change, Cav units can live off the land easily; it's really a huge change. It probably makes Cav units too powerful.

I think Gunnulf played a good game, and I think as Union you can play more aggressively than I did. I think there are not alot of penalties for moving smaller forces all over the map and taking towns. It's a flaw that could be exploited.

At this point, it's getting into late 1864, at which point the historical Confederacy was falling apart anyway.


< Message edited by Q-Ball -- 1/23/2014 9:25:52 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Scotster)
Post #: 107
RE: Closing out the CSA - 1/24/2014 6:14:59 AM   
Ace1_slith

 

Posts: 340
Joined: 9/24/2013
Status: offline 		Do you think Grant's stats are too inflated. He was not the best offensive general in the war (Cold Harbor), and his defense performance has left some doubts historically (Shiloh, inactivness at Luka). This also affects balance. His stratetic rating, however can not be high enough, he was the best strateegist of the war, along with Sherman. I think 6/5/3 would be more appropriate.

< Message edited by Ace1 -- 1/24/2014 7:15:21 AM >

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 108
RE: Closing out the CSA - 1/24/2014 7:30:08 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ace1

Do you think Grant's stats are too inflated. He was not the best offensive general in the war (Cold Harbor), and his defense performance has left some doubts historically (Shiloh, inactivness at Luka). This also affects balance. His stratetic rating, however can not be high enough, he was the best strateegist of the war, along with Sherman. I think 6/5/3 would be more appropriate.


You could say the same about Lee. Gettysburg, especially the third day, was hardly him at his finest. And his habit of issuing discretionary orders, (take that hill if practicable) failed him too. (Why can't any of you do as Jackson would of done?)

Shiloh, Grant wasn't driven from the field. And did win after all. Certainly Lincoln had no doubts.

Luks, it's my understanding that an acoustic shadow suppressed the sound of the battle, so no one in the AoT heard it. Much like how the artillery fire before Longstreet's Assualt was heard 150 miles away, but some areas within 20 miles didn't hear anything.

I remember a lot of rancor over at the AACW forum when Joe Johnston's ratings came up. Some strongly felt he was over rated, considering his record of retreating

_____________________________

If the Earth was flat, cats would of knocked everything off of it long ago.

(in reply to Ace1_slith)
Post #: 109
RE: Closing out the CSA - 1/24/2014 8:32:40 AM   
veji1

 

Posts: 1019
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline 		The Grant issue is one of those points where we see how important a role leadership plays in this game, and how skewed it is to some extent because we have the generals stats before our eyes and can optimize our leadership. Put Grant in Virginia in 62 and you have a very very different game. Is it that enjoyable though ?

This is why I have high hopes for a "hidden activation status" toggle that could really make the leadership aspect of the game a bit less predictable. I would even couple it personaly with modding the leaders' ratings so that there is no more strategic rating 6. I would have Lee, Grant, Sherman, Jackson and some cavalry leaders a 5, but no 6. Have leaders like Lee and Jackson who are fast movers, yet could have a bit more of a chance of being inactive.

It is really only my humble opinion, but I think a bit more inactivity from top leaders + hidden activation status would make (for me) a more enjoyable game. Ideally one would probably want to lower a bit the combat penalties for being inactive.

_____________________________

Adieu Ô Dieu odieux... signé Adam

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 110
RE: Closing out the CSA - 1/24/2014 1:42:04 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ace1

Do you think Grant's stats are too inflated. He was not the best offensive general in the war (Cold Harbor), and his defense performance has left some doubts historically (Shiloh, inactivness at Luka). This also affects balance. His stratetic rating, however can not be high enough, he was the best strateegist of the war, along with Sherman. I think 6/5/3 would be more appropriate.


I think it's probably a bit high in my opinion......Grant showed little tactical skill in the Overland campaign, and overall his tactical handling was a bit wanting, IMO. However, a "6" is very appropriate for Start rating, because a) he had a pair, so to speak, and b) understood completely what the Union needed to do to win the war.

In the real war, the Union didn't win alot of battles. Union victories were more the result of poor and over aggressive attacks against prepared positions on the part of the CSA leaders, than the result of any tactical brilliance. I literally can't think of any major Union victories where the Union was the attacker, except maybe Cedar Creek and Missionary Ridge. On the Rebel side, I would count both Bull Runs, Seven Days, Chancellorsville, Chickamauga, Cedar Mountain, Richmond KY, Sabine Crossroads. Rebel losses at Gettysburg, Corinth, Pea Ridge, and pretty much anything Hood did, can all be attributable to serious tactical errors on the part of the CSA commander in assaulting a prepared position, particularly one that included Federal artillery.

The leader ratings are all subjective, though, so ultimately I can't quibble too much; it's a judgement call

One thing though that isn't a judgement call are dates leaders appear, and ranks. There are some serious errors here that I have written on before that are confounding. I just don't understand why, for example, William Forney is a more prominent commander than William Hardee. THAT is what drives me crazy, not the leader ratings.

_____________________________


(in reply to Ace1_slith)
Post #: 111
RE: Closing out the CSA - 1/24/2014 1:45:15 PM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline 		I really do think players are over-reacting a bit to this outcome. Had they used historical attrition from day one I doubt the Union army would have been able to grow as large as it did by 1863 and things would have been balanced longer and the fight around Memphis would have taken many more months. It’s even possible he’d have had to wait until mid 64 to take Memphis. Historical attrition really starts to hurt in 1863 as the Union army grows in size and buying all those replacement chits every turn translates to a LOT of firepower not on the board that he’s been using vs. Gunnulf here.

Jim


_____________________________


(in reply to veji1)
Post #: 112
RE: Closing out the CSA - 1/24/2014 2:19:09 PM   
veji1

 

Posts: 1019
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

I really do think players are over-reacting a bit to this outcome. Had they used historical attrition from day one I doubt the Union army would have been able to grow as large as it did by 1863 and things would have been balanced longer and the fight around Memphis would have taken many more months. It’s even possible he’d have had to wait until mid 64 to take Memphis. Historical attrition really starts to hurt in 1863 as the Union army grows in size and buying all those replacement chits every turn translates to a LOT of firepower not on the board that he’s been using vs. Gunnulf here.

Jim



Thanks for that point of view. I try to stay measured in my reaction specifically because as you point it out, this is just a game and started with different settings than what my become the norm, so to speak, for PBEMs from now on.

And it was also my hunch that rather than saying "the Union is too strong", key points might reside more in attrition, supply, movement and leader activation. Thanks for your views.

_____________________________

Adieu Ô Dieu odieux... signé Adam

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 113
RE: Closing out the CSA - 1/24/2014 4:08:34 PM   
Ace1_slith

 

Posts: 340
Joined: 9/24/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ace1

Do you think Grant's stats are too inflated. He was not the best offensive general in the war (Cold Harbor), and his defense performance has left some doubts historically (Shiloh, inactivness at Luka). This also affects balance. His stratetic rating, however can not be high enough, he was the best strateegist of the war, along with Sherman. I think 6/5/3 would be more appropriate.


You could say the same about Lee. Gettysburg, especially the third day, was hardly him at his finest. And his habit of issuing discretionary orders, (take that hill if practicable) failed him too. (Why can't any of you do as Jackson would of done?)

Shiloh, Grant wasn't driven from the field. And did win after all. Certainly Lincoln had no doubts.

Luks, it's my understanding that an acoustic shadow suppressed the sound of the battle, so no one in the AoT heard it. Much like how the artillery fire before Longstreet's Assualt was heard 150 miles away, but some areas within 20 miles didn't hear anything.

I remember a lot of rancor over at the AACW forum when Joe Johnston's ratings came up. Some strongly felt he was over rated, considering his record of retreating


Well, I was suggesting Grant to have the same offensive ability as Lee, wasn't I? Plus Lee has rather negative trait that reflects his rashness and influences his battle casualties.

I agree with you about Luka, but his performance at Shiloh was below standard against general who in game we rate as offensive 2, and if Union was not overall 2:1 stronger in numbers, he would suffer a terrible defeat. When you look at Grant, we have to see that his two greatest Campaigns (Vicksburg and Overland) were won without a mayor victory in the field.

I do not want to steal this thread by talking about varios generals. let's just focus on the two most prominent ones.

Speaking of Overland Campaign, who do you think performed better given the resources available (Lee off/def rating 5,or Grant offensive rating 6).
If we compare those two, when did Grant win an offensive victory against enemy twice its size.
Grant's tactical victories came from Union manpower and material advantage, and Grant had strategical wisdom to use it to its full effect.
We have adjusted manpower of both sides to be at 2:1 ratio. We have to enable Southern generals to win battles against opponent larger in size if we want to recreate true Civil War.



< Message edited by Ace1 -- 1/24/2014 5:18:54 PM >

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 114
RE: Closing out the CSA - 1/24/2014 4:36:24 PM   
bugwar


Posts: 91
Joined: 9/5/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ace1

We have to enable Southern generals to win battles against opponent larger in size if we want to recreate true Civil War.




Wasn't that the case only when the best Southern Generals were opposed by some of the worst Northern Leaders?

(in reply to Ace1_slith)
Post #: 115
RE: Closing out the CSA - 1/24/2014 5:11:17 PM   
Ace1_slith

 

Posts: 340
Joined: 9/24/2013
Status: offline 		Hooker was not the Union's worst leader. Before and AFTER facing Lee, he showed he was more than capable general. And Grant was very much outgeneraled by Lee as well. If he had either Jackson or Longstreet (wounded) in these battles to fully implement his orders, the war would drag on for at least a year more. It was only the sheer Union numbers that made them possible to march South after every battle. Show me a battle where Union was outnumbered and won. I can think of only one.

(in reply to bugwar)
Post #: 116
RE: Closing out the CSA - 1/24/2014 7:00:01 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ace1

Hooker was not the Union's worst leader. Before and AFTER facing Lee, he showed he was more than capable general. And Grant was very much outgeneraled by Lee as well. If he had either Jackson or Longstreet (wounded) in these battles to fully implement his orders, the war would drag on for at least a year more. It was only the sheer Union numbers that made them possible to march South after every battle. Show me a battle where Union was outnumbered and won. I can think of only one.


There were 4 major battles that I can think of that the Union was outnumbered, and they won 2 out of 4 (Pea Ridge, Corinth). The others were Chickamauga and Wilson's Creek. The Rebs may have had more men at Franklin as well, can't recall.

I don't disagree on Grant though; his tactical handling was a bit suspect. In his defense, he also was missing key subordinates during the Overland campaign, specifically Hancock (wounded), Sedgwick and Reynolds (dead).

_____________________________


(in reply to Ace1_slith)
Post #: 117
RE: Closing out the CSA - 1/25/2014 7:51:02 PM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline 		Can the Union player take more advantage of his knowledge of history to avoid the mistakes of what happened IRL.

This allows a more considered approach, avoiding some of the stupid mistakes made by his historical counterparts and maximise his forces. In real life, who would run the batteries at Vicksburg, Mobile or the mouth of the Mississippi. The fear of possible losses held back these attacks. In game, the rules tell you basically what will occur, you choose if this is acceptable and run with it.

As for Generals ratings, everyone has there own opinions, should be possible to easily mod the ratings. (I would like a completley random rating for each General )

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 118
RE: Closing out the CSA - 1/25/2014 9:02:24 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ace1

Hooker was not the Union's worst leader. Before and AFTER facing Lee, he showed he was more than capable general. And Grant was very much outgeneraled by Lee as well. If he had either Jackson or Longstreet (wounded) in these battles to fully implement his orders, the war would drag on for at least a year more. It was only the sheer Union numbers that made them possible to march South after every battle. Show me a battle where Union was outnumbered and won. I can think of only one.


For someone who was "outgeneraled", he managed keep moving south after the Wilderness. By the standards of the day, he lost. But it didn't faze him. Unlike McClellan/Burnside/Pope. Unlike Lee himself after Sharpsburg. If being outgeneraled means that you refuse to accept any battle as a defeat and move backwards, then I suppose he was. he was outgeneraled all the way to Appomattox.

And numbers don't tell the story. See "Grant takes Command" by Bruce Catton for that. Thanks to things such as expiring terms of service, and attrition, the AoTP was not as large as many people think it was.



< Message edited by Aurelian -- 1/25/2014 10:05:52 PM >

_____________________________

If the Earth was flat, cats would of knocked everything off of it long ago.

(in reply to Ace1_slith)
Post #: 119
RE: Closing out the CSA - 1/25/2014 9:39:32 PM   
Ol Choctaw

 

Posts: 75
Joined: 9/12/2011
Status: offline 		That is exactly so. Grant fought a campaign of attrition. So long as he still had the troops and the means it did not matter. He had the nerve to persist.

He bulled his way to the end. He could lose more troops and still bleed the south dry before the north was weakened.

Grant was not a great tactician but his strategy succeeded.

Grant as 6-6-4 is a joke. 6 is the top number in strategic ratings so it has to do. Otherwise it would be higher. But 6-4 is just absurd. Maybe 4-2. His assaults never worked. He almost lost at Shiloh on defense. None of his campaigns were exactly beautiful pieces of brilliance, but they worked because he had the resources and he would not give up.

It was his tenacity that won not tactical skills.

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Civil War II >> After Action Report >> RE: Deep Water Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.188