RE: Southern Strategy (Full Version)

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



Message

Gil R. -> RE: Southern Strategy (12/11/2007 5:22:36 AM)

(Bumped again)



GShock -> RE: Southern Strategy (12/11/2007 3:13:20 PM)

I would slightly reconsider the strategy on building so many camps since with the latest patch those camps will influence the production of new men, possibly leaving no room for buying any fresh troops at all. The importance of diplomacy is still there though. Without assistance the lone runners won't get much of opportunity to gather the iron needed for the rr.  I would stress the importance of Partisans and Raiders as they can really help tip the scales a little less towards USA production. It's a good strategy but we need to see it at the light of 1.10.10 :)



Gil R. -> RE: Southern Strategy (12/28/2007 10:48:45 AM)

(Bumping to the top for the benefit of new players.)



terje439 -> RE: Southern Strategy (12/28/2007 6:11:24 PM)

Will throw my experience in here as well then.
-As to number of available troops when you start, empty some fortresses, use those units as normal infantry, you should easily gain 8-10 brigades that way.
-Diplomacy never seems worth it to me, so I do not engage in that no matter.
-I never build camps in my "unit producing" cities
-Weapon resarch rocks! Cav with Spencer Carabines will break almost any unit in one or two attacks.
-Aprox. half the units in a container will keep muskets untill my economy is going strong, I then move offensively but fight defensively. Arty and inf with minie/springfield/richmond muskets on a hilltop with inf with muskets in front will make the union bleed hard when he attacks.
-Always use detailed battle, even if you know you need to withdraw. Why? So that you do not lose some 300+ men in pursuit from a quick battle.
-I never build arty units, let the north build them and donate them to you
-I never build anything the first 2-3 turns, instead I rearm my units. Only after all units have something other than "improvised" do I start building, cause the yanks are gonna attack you again and again, making decent weapons a must buy.
-learn to read the going of a battle, if you realize that the union troops are going to run back to DC in a turn or two, start moving around the flanks with as many units as can be spared, keep those yanks in a southern resort instead of allowing them to return to DC just to come back into Virginia again next turn!



Jonah -> RE: Southern Strategy (12/28/2007 8:30:14 PM)

Very Informitive! Thanks!



meisterchow -> RE: Southern Strategy (12/28/2007 9:00:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: terje439
-I never build arty units, let the north build them and donate them to you


Amen, brother! In my current game I have built 2 siege artillery units to speed the siege process. Expensive, but worth it. Since about 95% of the Union army is either in Virginia or North Carolina, I've got two containers (a rampaging Lee and besieging Polk) invading Ohio now that Kentucky has been pacified. Army of Northern Virginia just finished a successful spoiling attack in the Potomac River and 4 of 5 artillery units in the army were built up North. ;) After a bloody field battle, I shifted everything during the first night to the opposite flank, lined the artillery up hub to hub and started reducing fortresses. Those Yankees make very good artillery, and I take every opportunity to show them my appreciation. [:D]



terje439 -> RE: Southern Strategy (12/28/2007 10:50:52 PM)

Just realized I forgot to mention one thing;

Rearange your command structure. Some of the Corps and Armies have Div's in them with only a few brigades, I prefer to max out the number of brigades in each Div, which makes some containers available for you, just remember to move the empty containers away from the front as they will be disbanded if they end up in the same province as an enemy unit. I also tend to rearrange my generals, Polk is sent back to NC were he is given command of any available container in the off chance he will raise the quality of any units in said container. And for the love of God make sure Lee is overall commander of whatever army you put him in, the game itself seems to treasure Beauregard even when he is placed in a lower container level than Lee. (Ofc that is no issue as soon as you get Lee that 5th star on his collar). I also try to have a 2 star general in every Div, a 3 star in every Corps and a 4 star in every Army.



Valdemar -> RE: Southern Strategy (12/28/2007 11:11:26 PM)

Thanks for the input Terje.

I will be writing a new guide for the South entitled "Southern Strategy 2.0", which will include some of these points and tips.

The reasons are:

1) When I wrote this guide, I was still a new player and experience has changed some things.
2) Some of the points I made, while still valid, were vague and I need to clarify and make additions.
3) I want to go into more specifics about which cities should get what improvements.
4) I want to address the military situation in more detail.
5) I want to write a guide that will apply to the standard campaign as well as the July, 1861 campaign.
6) Finally, I need to address the changes in the latest version as it makes a significant impact on builds, especially camps.

Regards.



Gil R. -> RE: Southern Strategy (12/29/2007 10:41:02 PM)

Excellent news! We look forward to 2.0.



Pubcrawler -> RE: Southern Strategy (12/30/2007 3:40:19 PM)

That's great stuff. While I usually play Union, I'm pondering becoming a Sessesh for my next game!



Scotters1 -> RE: Southern Strategy (7/8/2008 3:11:40 AM)

First of all I'd like to say that this is my favorite game of all time (Age of Conan being a close second right now.) I'm a history teacher and a civil war buff, and this game is just awesome. Iv'e played it off and on since it first came out, but I have only recently had a chance to really dig in with the new patch and the new AI, which I reallly am impressed by. I do need some help though.

I'm playing Southern Steel with the South on second Lt. difficulty, and after winning the first 6 tactical battles (and feeling like a civil war genius as I always do in Civil War games haha) I have been getting my but kicked. Prior to the last patch I had played this game with the same settings and I never lost a tactical battle, now it is a challenge, (which is great!) but sometimes I feel like I'm getting unrealistic results. For example, I had a unit of about 2,000 infantry fighting a similar similary sized calvary unit and I would inflict 16 casualties and suffer over 300 casualties some times. Now they had repeating rifles, and I had Richmond Muskets, but my gosh, that seems extreme. (I did turn on the detailed battle report after that, but I still don't understand what is going on.) I also am suffering heavly against their infantry in fair stand up fire fights, but it is due mostly to their superior firearms and the fact that their brigades have more men.

It is now May of 1862 and Grant has whipped my army of Northern Virginia twice in a row! Now one mistake I made was that many of my brigades were severly depeleted, and I just figured out that I could disband brigades to help. But does anyone have some basic advice for tactical combat. Valemar's excellent suggestions are more strategic. For example, when is it appropritate to use skirmirshers, and when should you charge. Also, should I focus more on brigade artillery so I can start to match the fire power of the Northern infantry? They are just killing me at long distance. If this keeps up I'll be digging trenches in Petersburg and marching to Appomattox (spelling?) before Christmas, and I'd rather die a thousand deaths than see Grant!



haruntaiwan -> RE: Southern Strategy (7/8/2008 3:26:25 AM)

I almost never charge. The resulting disorder just doesn't seem worth it, though I've been experimenally charging more with units that have special abilities that help the charging.

Regarding cavalry, they always do more damage to infantry and take less unless you've got them surrounded and are attacking from the flanks and rear.

Never really had the North kill me at a distance, but playing the North now, I find the Rebs to do more damage than I can ever do. I wonder if that's due to their leadership. You can get some nice bonuses from them.



Scotters1 -> RE: Southern Strategy (7/8/2008 3:35:37 AM)

So what can you do against cavalry. Their cavalry has better guns than my cavalry, so I can't really match them up, and in a lined up fire fight against infantry I was getting crushed.

Also, besides my above questions in the previous post, what do you do with your artillery? I use 24lb howitzers, and I do not like having them in the back, but after things get smoky they usually can't see to fight. I read another thread about artillery, and everyone pretty much agreed to use the howitzers and keep them in the back, but what do you do when it gets smoky?

Thanks for the advice about not charging haruntaiwan, that was pretty much what I thought. I am getting killed a distance because they have better guns than my best, which is the Richmond musket, and they have lots of brigade artillery. Plus I think that I'm doing something seriously wrong here.



terje439 -> RE: Southern Strategy (7/8/2008 9:37:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Scotters1976

So what can you do against cavalry.

As previously mentioned, flank them. And try to use units with high strength (alot of men), and weapons with good close range (1 hex) damage, like muskets. But I agree, taking out CAVs are a pain indeed.

quote:

Their cavalry has better guns than my cavalry, so I can't really match them up, and in a lined up fire fight against infantry I was getting crushed.

What sort of guns do you use, and what sort of weapons do the northern agressors use? I rarely lose the weapons race even on highest difficulty, so I am not sure what you do here?

quote:

Also, besides my above questions in the previous post, what do you do with your artillery?

behind the front line (hex behind the front line). After having a few ARTYs charged into oblivion I am reluctant to use them in the front line. I prefer to place them on high ground, which is also why I try to be the defender in every battle, so that the union have to attacked into my prepared position.

quote:

I use 24lb howitzers, and I do not like having them in the back, but after things get smoky they usually can't see to fight. I read another thread about artillery, and everyone pretty much agreed to use the howitzers and keep them in the back, but what do you do when it gets smoky?

-I'll use the howitzers until I get the indirect fire research, then I switch to Napoleons. About the smoke?
a) Fire on another enemy unit
b) Wait a turn or two for night fall which will clear the air before morning
c) Relocate the arty
a>b>c
-If I get my economy going real well I'll buy the smokeless powder upgrade for my artys as well as those elite INFs that are likely to hold the important hexes.

[Quote]Thanks for the advice about not charging haruntaiwan, that was pretty much what I thought.
Yes I agree, charging is something better avoided all in all, too risky by far!

quote:

I am getting killed a distance because they have better guns than my best, which is the Richmond musket, and they have lots of brigade artillery. Plus I think that I'm doing something seriously wrong here.


The Richmond musket aint that bad a gun, so I am guessing that what happens is that the enemy blasts you with INFs that probably consists of (damn what is the name again....!) those beginning weapons (pistol and sabre) with the brigade arty, meaning only the arty part of it hits you. Well point one, if they fire back with brigade arty, do not fire on that unit, fire on another unit instead (what they fire on you with is stated in the detailed report). One thing you need to keep in mind when upping the difficulty is the reduced moral-damage you inflict on the enemy, in my latest game (full general rank) I only managed to capture a total of 18 brigades over the entire war. That is the same ammount as I would get in one battle earlier. Why? The moral loss reduction means the yanks stand and fight to the last man (and then some, had gen. Ingalls getting killed TWICE in the same battle once hehe), this translates into sharpshooters being a good choice, increasing the morale damage you do, making enemies more likely to run (and a higher chance to kill generals as well (although why would you want to kill the Union generals when they usually do better than you in destroying the enemy?))

And also try to make the enemy march on your position and not the other way around. Move offensively and fight defensively (this maxim was also used during WWII!). Try to have two or more units work on each enemy unit. And units with low strength or really low moral are better kept off the line, and in reserve only. Having alot of terrified units will cost you will to fight points, and might lose you an engagement.



ColinWright -> RE: Southern Strategy (7/9/2008 5:34:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Valdemar

Mike,

Maybe I'm unlucky, but I've NEVER had Kentucky join the Confederacy.




I always play the scenario that starts in July '61, I always play the Confederacy, and Kentucky ALWAYS joins the Confederacy.

Pull out of the province with Fort Henry in it. In fact, if the game gives you the option (I forget) demolish the fort. To tell the truth, the first or second time I played, Kentucky didn't join the good guys -- and I suspect that in that match I didn't immediately abandon Fort Henry.

At any rate, these days Kentucky is always a Confederate state. I just have to wait until early '62 or so for it to realize where its duty lies.

And, yes, I know Fort Henry was in Tennessee. Game apparently doesn't think so, though.



Scotters1 -> RE: Southern Strategy (7/9/2008 11:04:29 PM)

Weird, Kentucky always goes North in my games, and I don't invade. I like it that way though, because its what historically happened, and I like the challenge. I'm just hoping that I can whip Grant after getting all of this good advice.

Do you guys use skirmishers a lot? I use them in towns and in woods, but should they be used in terrain with rocks and other types of terrain? And do they help if you are guarding a flank? I know the manual says that skirmishers reduce flankers by 1, but I also know that skirmishers reduce the damage you dish out except in woods and stuff. Can anyone clarify the use of skirmishers?



terje439 -> RE: Southern Strategy (7/10/2008 9:26:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Scotters1976

Weird, Kentucky always goes North in my games, and I don't invade. I like it that way though, because its what historically happened, and I like the challenge. I'm just hoping that I can whip Grant after getting all of this good advice.

Do you guys use skirmishers a lot? I use them in towns and in woods, but should they be used in terrain with rocks and other types of terrain? And do they help if you are guarding a flank? I know the manual says that skirmishers reduce flankers by 1, but I also know that skirmishers reduce the damage you dish out except in woods and stuff. Can anyone clarify the use of skirmishers?


I hardly ever use skirmishers, only one exception;
-unit is under attack from multiple flanks (3+)
-and is close to being depleted (<= 1000men)
-and holding that hex is of outmost importance for my line

This is to keep losses down and keeping the unit in place long enough for me to adjust my line and/or bring in a reinforcement brigade.



Scotters1 -> RE: Southern Strategy (7/17/2008 7:23:00 PM)

I have done better with everyones advice in tactical battles. Thanks to everyone for their help.

Its probably too late for my game game though. Late July 1862, Grant and I are fighting at Petersburg, he has 104,000 against my 70,000 and even if I win here, Thomas is moving with 35,000 troops though Western Virginia into Tennesse, and Sherman has another 15,000 troops in Western Virginia, while I have an army down to 4,000 to face those two problems! There are about 5 other major problems going on too! I'm not giving up, but I if I lose this big battle against Grant I think I'm doomed, and even if I win its going to be rough. I love the challenge though, and I won't give up.

If I lose that war, I might play as the Union next. Any suggestions for a difficulty level where I will have a challenge, but still enjoy the power of the North. (I would play the Southern Steel scenario)



GShock -> RE: Southern Strategy (7/17/2008 7:40:12 PM)

I enjoy CSA with unbalanced economy april 61, lincoln+1 power davis -1 and first sergeant level. I havent played much with the USA but i think by keeping the same and increasing the difficulty the historical unbalance would be kept while still giving you a challenging game.



terje439 -> RE: Southern Strategy (7/18/2008 10:22:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Scotters1976

I have done better with everyones advice in tactical battles. Thanks to everyone for their help.

Its probably too late for my game game though. Late July 1862, Grant and I are fighting at Petersburg, he has 104,000 against my 70,000 and even if I win here, Thomas is moving with 35,000 troops though Western Virginia into Tennesse, and Sherman has another 15,000 troops in Western Virginia, while I have an army down to 4,000 to face those two problems! There are about 5 other major problems going on too! I'm not giving up, but I if I lose this big battle against Grant I think I'm doomed, and even if I win its going to be rough. I love the challenge though, and I won't give up.

If I lose that war, I might play as the Union next. Any suggestions for a difficulty level where I will have a challenge, but still enjoy the power of the North. (I would play the Southern Steel scenario)


Sounds like you have some problems just now, however after kicking Grant back to the right side of the border (at which time you should also capture some 10 brigades), regroup. Take out Thomas first and prey that Sherman will attack somewere fortified, then take him out.

Heavily fortified areas can kill alot of men! I tried to have Jackson's Corps (some 30k men) lay siege to the union fort just north of Richmond (do not recall the name atm...), after two turns they were down to 7k men!! Auch!



Scotters1 -> RE: Southern Strategy (7/19/2008 4:16:57 AM)

It was a a tough battle. I suffered 24,000 casualties to Grant's 25,000. I barely routed him. (I was at 3 points when he went down to 0!) We pushed him back to Fredricksburg but we need a while to regroup. I lost Memphis, but have an army there to take it back, and am also besieging New Orleans that I lost before. This is one heck of a game. Right now its one act of desperation after another! Thomas retreated back to the north, thankfully, Sherman didn't move, and I had my little army of 4,000 (Beuregard) invadedMaryland, hoping to draw Grant back north.

Things have gone from very very very desperate, to very very desperate. I guess its progress!



terje439 -> RE: Southern Strategy (7/19/2008 8:26:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Scotters1976

It was a a tough battle. I suffered 24,000 casualties to Grant's 25,000. I barely routed him. (I was at 3 points when he went down to 0!) We pushed him back to Fredricksburg but we need a while to regroup. I lost Memphis, but have an army there to take it back, and am also besieging New Orleans that I lost before. This is one heck of a game. Right now its one act of desperation after another! Thomas retreated back to the north, thankfully, Sherman didn't move, and I had my little army of 4,000 (Beuregard) invadedMaryland, hoping to draw Grant back north.

Things have gone from very very very desperate, to very very desperate. I guess its progress!


4k men, how many brigades? And you know that you can take garrison units out of forts/city and place them in an Amr, then disband them to ditribute those 3k men into your other brigades?



Scotters1 -> RE: Southern Strategy (7/21/2008 4:13:21 AM)

That 4K army is just a diversion. 4 brigades I think. I know that I need to disband some brigades, but right now I'm in big trouble and I don't have time.


Ok, I have a some important question. I was fighting a battle in Richmond, with a whole bunch of forts. Grant had 104,000 men, with more reinforcements. I had 55,000, and a whole bunch of garrison units. I was on the defensive of course.

1. My garrison units each had a morale of 4.00, and some had good weapons like a sprinfield, but many of them panicked very quickly. I know they are just garrison units, but with a 4.00 morale I thought they would last longer. Many surrendered very quickly. Is that normal?

2. Where did all these garrison units come from? I had probably 20 of them, which is a little crazy, since I only had 1 unit on the strategic map in Richmond's garrison.

2. What is the best formation to be in when you are in a fort? I had all my fort units in line with skirmishers, but many times we suffered more casualties than the enemy.

3. BIG QUESTION- How come my army panicked and went into chaos when I had 16 morale points, and Grant had 15 morale points. I was holding my line, and flanking him on the South, and I had inflicted more casualties at that point, but it the fight was still in doubt. Then out of the blue I get the message that my army is in a panick and we retreat. Any clue why that happened? It was about 6:20 p.m on the first day. After the battle it said that I had inflicted 12.000 casualties, and I suffered 10,000.



terje439 -> RE: Southern Strategy (7/21/2008 10:30:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Scotters1976

2. What is the best formation to be in when you are in a fort? I had all my fort units in line with skirmishers, but many times we suffered more casualties than the enemy.


Unless I am mistaken skirmish is probably the worst you can use in a fort (think they do less damage or something), but not 100% as I never let my GAR units stay in their fort, I always bring them in safety behind my army.

quote:

3. BIG QUESTION- How come my army panicked and went into chaos when I had 16 morale points, and Grant had 15 morale points. I was holding my line, and flanking him on the South, and I had inflicted more casualties at that point, but it the fight was still in doubt. Then out of the blue I get the message that my army is in a panick and we retreat. Any clue why that happened? It was about 6:20 p.m on the first day. After the battle it said that I had inflicted 12.000 casualties, and I suffered 10,000.


I am guessing that you had quite a few units routed? If enough of your units are routed the entire army will flee (might be that the previously mentioned GAR units are counted).

About Q#1 I have no idea as I never use my GAR units in forts. But you know that units in forts have cannons to fire with btw? So that you can open fire before the enemy gets within firing range.

And about the number of men in your army, how many reinforcements do you recieve every turn? And what year are you in atm?



Scotters1 -> RE: Southern Strategy (7/21/2008 11:20:29 PM)

Terje, thanks for the feedback. I did fire those cannons as much as I could in the fort.

So, does anyone know, should I leave a unit in line formation in a fort?

I figured out why I lost the battle last night, I lost all 3 victory locations. I just didn't realize it at the time.


As for my army, I think I'm only receiving about 2,500 reinforcemnts, I was getting close to 4,000, and building more camps, but when I lost Memphis and New Orleans I think I lost a few camps. I know that I should try to get up to 10,000 men a turn, but I haven't been doing well in that area. Right now I'm doing musters and conscriptions, and then when the units get into my army I'm disbanding them to fill up the veteran brigades.

Im in Late July 1862. I might set a record for how quickly a player looses as the Confederacy! I'm learning though, and in my next game I might reduce the difficulty level by one. I'm at second Lt. right now.



terje439 -> RE: Southern Strategy (7/21/2008 11:32:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Scotters1976

Terje, thanks for the feedback. I did fire those cannons as much as I could in the fort.

So, does anyone know, should I leave a unit in line formation in a fort?

I figured out why I lost the battle last night, I lost all 3 victory locations. I just didn't realize it at the time.


As for my army, I think I'm only receiving about 2,500 reinforcemnts, I was getting close to 4,000, and building more camps, but when I lost Memphis and New Orleans I think I lost a few camps. I know that I should try to get up to 10,000 men a turn, but I haven't been doing well in that area. Right now I'm doing musters and conscriptions, and then when the units get into my army I'm disbanding them to fill up the veteran brigades.

Im in Late July 1862. I might set a record for how quickly a player looses as the Confederacy! I'm learning though, and in my next game I might reduce the difficulty level by one. I'm at second Lt. right now.


Auch NO lost? Ah yes that will hurt you quite a bit [:)]
A small tip, I ould not build camps in NO, this is due to the fact that the city has a rather high POPcount, making it one of few good places to build new units.
And yes, losing all VO will lose you the battle [8D]
But what you are experiencing is one of the things I like about the game, you will have to rethink at times.
Good luck on your current game, and everything is not lost untill you are fortified in Florida [:D]



Scotters1 -> RE: Southern Strategy (7/23/2008 12:59:23 AM)

Florida, heck I was thinking of making a last stand in Puerto Rico!

I'm still wondering about the fort formation thing. I read the manual, and its my understanding that you get a bonus for being in skirmish formation in rough terrain, and I believe that a fort counts as rough terrain. I'm not clear if this is true though, and I'm still not sure if column or line is better in a fort. I would like to know the same thing for being in towns, should I be in column or line with skirmishers?

I don't think that I built anything new in NO, since I knew it was vulnerable, so maybe it didn't have camps, but I think Memphis did. I messed up with Memphis, I thought that one of my forts would last longer that it did. Joe Johnston is trying to fix that problem now.

I'm going to refight that battle between Lee and Grant w/ the forts as soon as I know about the proper formations in forts.



terje439 -> RE: Southern Strategy (7/23/2008 7:07:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Scotters1976

Florida, heck I was thinking of making a last stand in Puerto Rico!

I'm still wondering about the fort formation thing. I read the manual, and its my understanding that you get a bonus for being in skirmish formation in rough terrain, and I believe that a fort counts as rough terrain. I'm not clear if this is true though, and I'm still not sure if column or line is better in a fort. I would like to know the same thing for being in towns, should I be in column or line with skirmishers?

I don't think that I built anything new in NO, since I knew it was vulnerable, so maybe it didn't have camps, but I think Memphis did. I messed up with Memphis, I thought that one of my forts would last longer that it did. Joe Johnston is trying to fix that problem now.

I'm going to refight that battle between Lee and Grant w/ the forts as soon as I know about the proper formations in forts.


Found a link here, were it is stated that formations actually does not matter in forts.
In cities I use Line, but I hate fighting in them, better to make a stand outside them imo due to LOS for adjacant units.



Scotters1 -> RE: Southern Strategy (7/23/2008 6:24:40 PM)

Thanks for the link terge.



jnpoint -> RE: Southern Strategy (7/24/2008 12:14:28 PM)

very interesting debate here, thanks, helped me too just to read what you think and actually do in certain situations! I just have to little experience to say anything yet, I still play on a very easy level.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.484375