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: Closing out the CSA

 
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: Closing out the CSA Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Closing out the CSA - 1/25/2014 11:23:19 PM   
Aurelian

 

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

ORIGINAL: Ol Choctaw

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 didn't fight such a campaign in the early years. Not at Henry/Donelson. Or Shiloh or Vicksburg. But the nerve was there.

He was prepared for a war of attrition if necessary, but would of rather had a quicker, decisive victory.

He also agreed with Lincoln, probably the only one who did. The proper target was the Confederate army, not Richmond

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Ol Choctaw)
Post #: 121
RE: Closing out the CSA - 1/26/2014 8:11:08 AM   
Ol Choctaw

 

Posts: 75
Joined: 9/12/2011
Status: offline 		The victory at Ft. Donelson was more southern defeatism than Union success.

He lost his command after Shiloh. His dogged determination saw him through.

The Vicksburg campaign ended in a siege because assaults didn’t work. He had 5 to 2 odds in his favor.

The Chattanooga Campaign was more a loss by Bragg than it was a Union victory. Grant had difficulty with his officers and his orders were not followed. Despite the victories it is not something you want to write home about.

He succeeded because he had the nerve to keep going and never give in. His victories were never pretty and came at a cost.

It was success that mattered. Not how it was achieved. Other commanders, when suffering reversals had withdrawn to regroup and given the enemy breathing space. Grant just kept up the pressure and kept going.

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 122
RE: Closing out the CSA - 1/31/2014 3:19:07 PM   
veji1

 

Posts: 1019
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline 		We feel abandonned Qball ! Where are the updates !

_____________________________

Adieu Ô Dieu odieux... signé Adam

(in reply to Ol Choctaw)
Post #: 123
RE: Closing out the CSA - 1/31/2014 4:45:28 PM   
bugwar


Posts: 91
Joined: 9/5/2011
Status: offline 		Maybe the South decided to throw in the towel?

(in reply to veji1)
Post #: 124
RE: Closing out the CSA - 2/5/2014 11:33:51 PM   
Q-Ball


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

Game is going much slower due to RL issues, but Gunnulf is a good sport and refuses to surrender as long as there is a CSA army in the field.....which there very much is.

In fact, it's not easy to close out the CSA. I have now cut Richmond off from the rest of the Confederacy, and occupied North Carolina, but the AnV shows no signs of starving or trying to re-take any ground.

Anyway, more description below.

Virginia:

It's a stalemate at the moment. The AnV has about 100,000 men, almost 10,000 AV, dug-in in the 3 regions from Richmond to Petersburg. I have a large army east of Petersburg, drawing supply from Norfolk, and army to the West. There is nobody north of Richmond; I suppose he could just march toward Washington, but Richmond would fall before he got there.

I have maybe 125,000 men around Richmond; not enough to seriously challenge him.

I guess those regions produce enough food to keep going, because I have taken Garysburg, Lynchburg, and cut all rail lines into NC.

But for the most part, he is down to the 3 regions around Richmond; the rest of Virginia is either Federal, or no-man's land.

Alabama:

The other stalemate is Montgomery, AL: Again, I have more troops, but only at a roughly 5 to 3 ratio, not enough to force him out of dug-in trenches. I have siphoned off a couple divisions here anyway to send to the Carolinas.

Carolinas:

I've invested more and more units here; I am up to nearly 90,000 troops. Why not, I'm actually making progress here.

Savannah has fallen. You can see below, my biggest problem is that there are now two types of CSA Armies; those that are very well dug-in, and can't be attacked easily, and those that are retreating, and hoping to re-take stuff because I can't hold everything. This is the Carolinas; it's impossible to actually hold everything with CSA forces running around. So we are taking all the good stuff.

The CSA is basically down to Richmond area, western NC, most of Georgia except Savannah, and East Tennessee. Unlike the real Civil War, though, that's enough to sustain the Southern Army, and he has the ability still to use Treasury Options and Volunteers, even as his per-turn take in $ and resources is really low at this point.






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Q-Ball -- 2/6/2014 12:34:53 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to bugwar)
Post #: 125
RE: Closing out the CSA - 2/6/2014 4:03:20 PM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline 		Can we get a look at the objectives screen? I’d like to see how his NM is holding up with so much stuff lost at this point. You’d think if his NM is low enough, attacking a dug in army would be mitigated some due to the penalty players suffer for having low morale. Have you tried any 3-2 Red/Red frontal assaults to see how his troops stand up in a fight under intense pressure?

Jim


_____________________________


(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 126
RE: Closing out the CSA - 2/6/2014 5:06:36 PM   
KamilS

 

Posts: 1827
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline 		I think big cities produce too much supply - it leads to situation, when large army encircled in very populated region is not suffering from any food shortages and can maintain its strength indefinitely.

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 127
RE: Closing out the CSA - 2/6/2014 5:38:40 PM   
Ace1_slith

 

Posts: 340
Joined: 9/24/2013
Status: offline 		Cities do produce a lot due to the structures producing GS as well. With the increases in manpower te effect should be toned down.

CSA has scored a lot of tactical Pyrric victories. I do not think his morale is low, despite the overall bad situation.

(in reply to KamilS)
Post #: 128
RE: Closing out the CSA - 2/7/2014 6:55:11 PM   
Q-Ball


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

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Can we get a look at the objectives screen? I’d like to see how his NM is holding up with so much stuff lost at this point. You’d think if his NM is low enough, attacking a dug in army would be mitigated some due to the penalty players suffer for having low morale. Have you tried any 3-2 Red/Red frontal assaults to see how his troops stand up in a fight under intense pressure?

Jim



I don't have it open, but my NM right now is about 110, and his is in the low 90s.

The problem is taking cities really doesn't have a huge impact. If you add up the NM gained or lost from Nashville, Memphis, Norfolk, New Orleans, Little Rock, Mobile, and Charleston combined, it's 12 NM. And those cities I listed are pretty much the whole South except Richmond and Atlanta.

12 NM isn't peanuts, but a couple battle wins, a few partisan raids, and you've made it back up.

Partisans, in particular, are the NM gift that keeps on giving. There should not be a 1 NM win for blowing up a depot. Gunnulf has probably blown up at least a dozen; replacing the lost depot is price enough. But why should blowing up a depot be worth the same as losing Charleston?

The biggest hit to NM for the CSA in this one is Mobilizations. He's punched pretty much all options there, not to mention all Treasury options, etc.

_____________________________


(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 129
RE: Closing out the CSA - 2/8/2014 3:19:41 AM   
Richard S

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 2/8/2014
Status: offline 		I'm new to Matrix and this game, and this AAR thread was the best introduction I could have had. Huge thanks to Q-Ball and all those who commented. So I can plan, Q-ball, roughly how many RL hours did you spend per turn?

Best, Richard

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 130
RE: Closing out the CSA - 2/8/2014 5:02:43 AM   
Aurelian

 

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

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Partisans, in particular, are the NM gift that keeps on giving. There should not be a 1 NM win for blowing up a depot. Gunnulf has probably blown up at least a dozen; replacing the lost depot is price enough. But why should blowing up a depot be worth the same as losing Charleston?


Yeah, Looks like they didn't think that one through.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 131
RE: Closing out the CSA - 2/8/2014 2:02:33 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline 		Jan 1865

This was a very frustrating turn.

Virginia:

I can't seem to be able to close out Richmond. Any ideas?

My first tactic was to surround it and starve it out. That is apparently not going to work. We cut access to North Carolina in the fall, but I don't think it's having much of an impact.

So, option B is to attack. We managed to move most of the AoP south of the James River, for an attack on the smallest stack, at Petersburg; here, we saw 1200 AV well dug-in, with Jackson's Corps in support.

We managed to get a 2-1 advantage, and a position where Longstreet's 40,000 or so in Richmond (4500 AV) could not support. The result? DISASTER!

We lost 7 NM, which is harsh I think. What next? Any ideas?

Apparently, 2-1 is not enough. I will neeed an additional 100,000 troops in Virginia to make a dent.

This also gives back any NM gained from occupying Norfolk, Charleston, Mobile, New Orleans.

Carolinas:

Good news is that we re-took Savannah and defeated AS Johnston's 55,000 man army there.

The bad news is that they are now closer to Charleston than Sherman's 75,000 men at Savannah. So they'll probably march there and take it.

Pope has beaten Ewell again at Charlotte, but I have to pull them back to Charleston to maybe defend the place. We are also taking Raleigh.

Outlook:

I am getting frustrated, clearly. There are several things bugging me:

1. I have occupied pretty much all the South now except a few points. Yet, I haven't really damaged the Southern war effort substantially. They can still use Treasury and Regional Card options to build replacements and units no problem. Only the city income is impacted, but that is less than 1/2 of the total Southern Production.

2. NM is about even. I have a few points for taking spots, but I bet Gunnulf has gained more NM burning depots than he has lost by losing 8 states.

I don't blame my opponent, it is what it is




Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 132
RE: Closing out the CSA - 2/8/2014 2:49:57 PM   
terje439


Posts: 6813
Joined: 3/28/2004
Status: offline 		Thanks (I think, as this has me back on the ropes for this game...) for this AAR
Q-Ball. It is a good read, and as your aar's tend to be, well and interestingly written.

I would, if you allow, ask a question;
I have seen you landing rather large forces during invasions. To me it seems that
the number of troops the Union can land is somewhat in excess (about twice what
was landed historically). And that worries me somewhat. So my question is wether
or not you feel this is something that should be fixed or not. I am not questioning
you or your game in any way, I am just curious as if to this is a game balance issue
or not.

Terje

_____________________________

"Hun skal torpederes!" - Birger Eriksen

("She is to be torpedoed!")

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 133
RE: Closing out the CSA - 2/8/2014 6:22:53 PM   
moni kerr

 

Posts: 691
Joined: 1/19/2001
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Status: offline 		At this stage of the war you need 3:1 against an highly entrenched force. But it's not just raw numbers it's the maximum frontage and how many combat/support elements that can be deployed that really counts. And that is dependent on the respective leaders. In clear terrain the formulas are;

Combat Units Quota: (+25 points)*(rank)*(off/def rating)

Support Units Quota: (+10 points)*(rank)*(off/def rating)
http://www.ageod.net/aacwwiki/Frontage

(There may be a further modifier whereby the attacker's offensive value is lowered by the defender's defensive value. I'm not entirely sure)

Lee is going to beat Leon in this respect, so although you had 2:1 overall you were outgunned because Lee can deploy more combat and support elements than Leon. Theoretically you should be able to cycle fresh units in but I doubt that it is as simple as that. Your frontline units probably took a pounding very quickly, got brittle and started to rout, convincing Leon to call off the attack. With 2:1 there wasn't enough staying power in your attack.

So for starters, change your leader to Grant or Sherman, whoever has the better offensive value, and get the best offensive corps and divisional leaders you can find. Make sure every division has a sharpshooter and an elite brigade plus 2-4 20lb artillery elements.

Second, take advantage of your artillery. Union elements have more guns than Confederate ones so bring your best to the fight. Leave all 6lb, 12lb and even 10lb guns behind (range is only 5-6). Get all your Rodman and 20lb batteries (range 7), and all artillery officers and put them in the army stack and the lead corps stack. You want to open the battle with as much heavy art as possible, so make sure your lead corps contains the lion share, an artillery officer (without a division command) and as many CP as possible. This is where an army commander like Grant is important. So 3-4 divisions with the rest of the CP taken up by independent heavy art.

_____________________________

Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords.--Ben Franklin

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 134
RE: Closing out the CSA - 2/8/2014 7:00:19 PM   
Ace1_slith

 

Posts: 340
Joined: 9/24/2013
Status: offline 		Listen to the man. He knows what is saying, one of the top aacw and cw2 players.
Here are some frontage numbers for your current battle. You had 878 artillery pieces.
Let's see how many took part in the battle.
I presume Lyon has attack rating 2. His bonus to artillery frontage would be 3*2*10=60 points.

Clear terrain base artillery unit frontage is 60 points, and if the weather was fine, each Union artillery battery of 12 guns takes up 4 frontage spaces.

So you could field 12*(60+60)/4=360 guns out of over 800.

If Grant was in charge, his frontage bonus would be 3*6*10=180.
He could field 12*(60+180)/4=720 artillery pieces. Do you see the differences. And that is only artillery, add the infantry to the frontage equation as well.

This battle reminds me of Chancellorsville. Hooker had 2:1 advantage in men and even greater advantage in artillery. He just could not deploy them to the combat, and most AoP missed on the combat opportunity.

< Message edited by Ace1 -- 2/8/2014 8:08:05 PM >

(in reply to moni kerr)
Post #: 135
RE: Closing out the CSA - 2/8/2014 7:15:42 PM   
Ace1_slith

 

Posts: 340
Joined: 9/24/2013
Status: offline 		Here are infantry numbers:

Your frontage for infantry units was 180+3*2*25=330 points. Each standard inf regiment in clear terrain and good weather takes up 4 frontage slots.
That equals to 330/4=83 regiments. That is 50.000 men that can take part in each combat round. Lee was able to deploy all 70.000 men. His frontage limit was 180+3*5*25=555 points, or 555/4=139 regiments, or 83.000 men.
You were attacking every round with less men than him. This is an abstraction. I always role play better general outmaneuvered poorer one and concentrated his full firepower against a section of your army.

You see why you cannot defeat Bobby Lee until Grant or Sherman show up in town.

You can always try to repeat the attack the next turn. His full army was in combat, while only a part of yours where. That's what Grant did in the Overland Campaign.

But I would put Sherman in charge before that

< Message edited by Ace1 -- 2/8/2014 11:02:56 PM >

(in reply to Ace1_slith)
Post #: 136
RE: Closing out the CSA - 2/13/2014 3:45:44 AM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline 		I don’t see a blockade symbol on map, do you have a fleet sitting off Richmond to cut supply? 12-16 Ironclad’s should do the trick and they can also punish the south if they try and bombard them. Too much artillery around to use wooden vessels, just use ironclads. If you have enough of them available, two fleets that can swap positions might be best so you don’t have to try and bring in the flimsy supply ships.

Jim


_____________________________


(in reply to Ace1_slith)
Post #: 137
RE: Closing out the CSA - 2/13/2014 5:36:45 AM   
Ace1_slith

 

Posts: 340
Joined: 9/24/2013
Status: offline 		Richmond is blockaded as long as US holds FtMonroe. The blockade icon is shown only after you had run the turn though.

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 138
RE: Closing out the CSA - 2/19/2014 7:41:39 AM   
CaptBeefheart


Posts: 2301
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Seoul, Korea
Status: offline 		Great AAR, Q-Ball. Similar to your WIPT-AE work. Based on this I am definitely going to buy this one (the only question is timing). I've got AACW and liked it quite a bit.

Cheers,
CC

_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to Ace1_slith)
Post #: 139
Richmond Falls - 2/20/2014 1:45:24 AM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline 		April 1865

Richmond Falls. That's the big news, and maybe the final news in this one.

Following Ace's advice, which I didn't know how that worked, I moved Sherman up to Virginia, and banished Lyon to the Carolinas. Lesson learned; apparently, someone like Lyon is OK for smaller forces, but once you get north of 80,000 men, sounds like you need Sherman or Grant. And for the South, Lee or Jackson, with Beauregard and Joe Johnston OK for defense.

While I was at it, I also moved Meade's whole Corps up to City Point; that addition of 30,000 men probably helped alot.

Battle of Petersburg:

Early April, Jackson and Lee attacked one wing of the AoP, under John Newton, at Petersburg. The South gained 3 NM, defeated Newton soundly, and captured the depot at Petersburg. Maybe supplies were running low and this was the target; the following turn it was emptied of supplies.

Battle of Richmond:

But with Jackson at Petersburg, and nearly 170,000 troops around Richmond, it was certainly time to attack. Even so, it's not like we wiped out Lee's army; 90,000 troops under Lee is a tough nut to crack, but apparently 175,000 is enough under Sherman.

Elsewhere:

Not much happened elsewhere since January; the CSA did manage to re-take Charleston after I pushed them out of Savannah, but rather than attack Charleston, I left an army outside, moved Sherman northward, and took Meade's Corps. At this point, I can probably move Meade back and close out Charleston in a couple turns. Probably, Gunnulf will throw in the towel; I would.

Score:

Attached is the tally at this point.

I don't think anyone won. Gunnulf played a very good game and gave me some fits, and he is a gentleman and good opponent. The VPs are way, way off, and it's tough to infer much even if you add the VPs for the South, because the last couple years both of us pretty much ignored VPs for things like leader promotions, etc, because it was clear they are pretty borked. I think they still are; CSA needs more VPs for sure.

I lost my share of battles, and it took me awhile to figure out certain tactical aspects. I also self-imposed a "no all-in on Richmond" rule, attempting to force a decision in the West primarily. I personally like that approach; I only piled 250,000 men into Virginia in the end, when it was just time to close out the CSA, and I had cleared everything except Atlanta, Montgomery, and other parts of Georgia.

I felt like I used the Navy pretty well to my advantage; that's about the only thing I think I did fairly well with, including using them on the rivers. I gobbled up alot of ports early, and pushed the Blockade % up past 70% by mid-war; in the last year, it's 95%, sometimes 100%.






Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to CaptBeefheart)
Post #: 140
RE: Closing out the CSA - 2/20/2014 1:58:29 AM   
Q-Ball


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

ORIGINAL: terje439

Thanks (I think, as this has me back on the ropes for this game...) for this AAR
Q-Ball. It is a good read, and as your aar's tend to be, well and interestingly written.

I would, if you allow, ask a question;
I have seen you landing rather large forces during invasions. To me it seems that
the number of troops the Union can land is somewhat in excess (about twice what
was landed historically). And that worries me somewhat. So my question is wether
or not you feel this is something that should be fixed or not. I am not questioning
you or your game in any way, I am just curious as if to this is a game balance issue
or not.

Terje


I never answered this question, and it's a good one....what is historically acceptable with regard to landing numbers of troops?

Probably the largest movement of troops in the Civil War was McClellan's campaign. About 95,000 men were moved in a couple weeks, though the distance was short, and they were landed at Ft. Monroe.

The largest other landing was probably Butler's landing on Bermuda Hundred; that was about 30,000 men. It was a quick and well-done landing; Butler just beefed it because he was, well, Butler.

Other landings that were longer included 15,000 men at New Orleans, and several expeditions nearly that size along the Atlantic Coast. It's hard to say though that the Union brought 15,000 men to New Orleans because they lacked the ability to lift more, or if it was simply all that was available and needed. I tend to think the latter.

It takes alot of transports to lift a 30,000-man army Corps; during the game I probably built at least 8 to 10, plus I ended up pulling all transports from the Sealanes (leaving only the Merchant ships).

_____________________________


(in reply to terje439)
Post #: 141
RE: Richmond Falls - 2/20/2014 7:16:50 AM   
Ace1_slith

 

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

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
I don't think anyone won. Gunnulf played a very good game and gave me some fits, and he is a gentleman and good opponent. The VPs are way, way off, and it's tough to infer much even if you add the VPs for the South, because the last couple years both of us pretty much ignored VPs for things like leader promotions, etc, because it was clear they are pretty borked. I think they still are; CSA needs more VPs for sure.


I would also treat this like a draw. Great AAR!

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 142
RE: Richmond Falls - 3/2/2014 9:49:23 PM   
Gunnulf


Posts: 686
Joined: 10/31/2012
Status: offline 		Spoke to Q-Ball and this is a free-fire zone now and been catching up on 'the other side of the hill'. Echo all the sentiments that its a cracking AAR (even though you are all obviously pure evil for giving advice, comfort and encouragement to the enemy!! :) ). Unfortunately my AAR fell by the wayside at christmas as due to a bunch of familiy stuff I just barely had time to get a turn done. However I thought a few summary words here for the record might be interesting.

So, for sure it was an interesting and challenging game. Q-Ball definately applied the pressure and used the Unions advantage in extra corps to exploit weaknesses in the CSA armour and ensure that as we couldnt be everywhere then any fortified positions I created could only buy time for a few months each at best. I for my part tried to get in character and while strategically I had to surrender the initiative, at least tactically I tried to be aggressive and give the Union a bloody nose wherever possible. His strategy of spreading his corps out in a net to outflank my positions often left one isolated that I could hit hard before the others evened the score. This meant I was able to gain a number of decent NM victories that stopped our morale deteriorating.

Aside from taking Fort Donelson, Grant didnt have much success the rest of the war on the actually field. Winning 'Shiloh' held up the union in the west for months just when things were looking dark. However once on the move again the Union net forced us to abandon Memphis, but much later than historically. I was tempted to make a siege of it out of curiousity to see how long would last, but I knew he would strip the countryside south. We held him long enough I think. But after that we could hold a blocking position south for a while but with the numbers he was building he was flowing around us like water, never assaulting frontally. It wasnt until Montgomery that we were able to find a position that was difficult to outflank. However as we were able to keep the army of the Mississippi pretty intact and fairly much undefeated then it was a strong position and with Chattanooga, Atlanta and Montgomery and Texas still held at end game I think out west that was about the best result we could have hoped for given Q-Balls well executed strategy.

In the Far west we tried to hold Missouri as long as possible. Not many VPs or industry but a decent opportunity seemed to arise early that Q-Ball was ignoring Missouri. There was maybe a chance to take St Louis which would have been a real pain for his plans so the 3 divs we deployed there were worth the risk I think, but at the last minute he saw the threat and re-inforced. This weakened his Mississippi campaign ever so slightly and maybe helped the 'Shiloh stall' so overall I don't regret that. Also that Missouri force re-took Little Rock when it obviously was held too weakly and we ended with Arkansas in CSA hands which was nice.

In the east the disparity in numbers in the end was frightening. In fact the numbers showed from quite early on. We managed a good few successful counterattacks, and held the Potomac line and the the Fredricksburg line for a while but in the end once again numbers just had him flowing around the edges. But once again that gave us a few good NM boosts picking off vulnerable corps, but never any knock out blow. Right until the end Q-Ball made sure he didnt waste himself attacking frontally which kept me frustrated for sure but was the rational thing to do for sure. Unless he had 2+ combat power then he would strike. He opened the door at Fredricksburg which got me sweating but lucking agressive action by Jackson saved the day more than once. Keeping him the whole war certainly helped. In fact very few men of note were lost possibly due to mostly CSA victories. What was frustrating right at the end, and it happened quite a few times before, despite being on red/hold at all costs and being well fortified in Richmond, and inflicting more casualties on the Union, the CSA retreated and left the city. This was curtains obviously but felt a shame not to last another month. But the game really doesn't do sieges very satisfactorily i think, there never was a real proper siege. Its too easy to flick to red/assault and even what should be a strong defense retreats the province leaving the attacker to crush the inner city defence instantly. Needs a better model on this i think.

And obviously a relentless naval campaign steadily stripped us nearly bare in the end. We kept Texas and retook Charleston but otherwise we couldnt have done much more. We kept a series of decent garrisons in key points, probably more so than historically but to no avail. Any more and the front lines would have suffered too much. As it is the CSA faces tough tough choices. With huge naval advantage and of corps commanders the Union has a massive strategic advantage in maneuverability that the CSA really has to work hard to keep at bay. Given everything against us I think we put up a decent fight, but Q-Ball mastered his forces advantages and ultimately won.

On the subject of VPs we both picked up early on that they really are out of balance and its probably impossible for the CSA to gain more points, unless they really rip the Union apart in which case there would probably be an NM victory anyway. I think the VPs are designed to tip as they are linked to foreign intervention. However whats really needed is a scale I think of what the final points ratio is. For example we ended up CSA 2478 to USA 3956. But even before we lost Memphis and Nashville I think the Union was already pulling in more VPs per turn and we held most of Missouri. So despite holding out longer than historically we were losing. Its not going to be possible to redress that to anything close to the CSA ending up with more points I think in any sensible game, but maybe thats not a problem. Given time it will be apparent maybe that 1,000 points spread is a tactical victory, 2,000 points is a decisive victory etc... But in the end it doesnt really matter. It was an excellent and challenging game that I was sure the CSA would lose, but going down like a southern warrior was my objective and trying to fight a good non-gamey fight that felt historical. Mission accomplished I reckon.

< Message edited by Gunnulf -- 3/2/2014 11:01:42 PM >

(in reply to Ace1_slith)
Post #: 143
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Civil War II >> After Action Report >> RE: Closing out the CSA Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]
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

2.186