The strange,the weird..start here

The strange,the weird..start here (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Gary Grigsby's War Between the States

Message

madgamer2 -> The strange,the weird..start here (7/31/2008 5:14:52 AM)
Lets all just kick back and recall something that was very weird or strange that happened in the game, kind of like real life LOL. The luck factor (who dies-when, who quits--how long) plays a large this game. I have one battle that I never will forget that showed me in grand fashion how large that roll was. Lee is in Atlanta with 24 Pts showing. Grant is in the region next to him with about 40Pts. he can attack with. So with the abloom of someone who thinks he knows what he is doing I (being Grant) throw my 40 Pts. into Atlanta thinking I had Lee by the short hairs. When the battle comes up it says that Lee has 42pts and Pope has 40Pts,=.....HUH wait a Minute what happened to Grant?......In all the excitement I forgot to move Grant in the battle. I am thinking "OH S**T I lost another ome" The results were that the rebs took about 1/3 more losses, retreated and had a bunch of Art. captured. I swear that Pope went from a 3-1-3 to 3-2-4 and his command points went up a bunch. I have never seen the like and the combat die rolls were nothing short of amazing. I had a save before the battle but was having mouse stalling out and Rebooting the system which happened before I could save the game following the end of this remarkable battle. I fixed the mouse problem with an update to my video card driver. I tried the same thing with Pope in command like 6 times and never got close to a win. I waited a turn till grant had about twice the number and attacked with Grant and won but I will never forget that remarkable battle So there must be some other strange and weird things that have happened so lets hear them. Madgamer

hgilmer2 -> RE: The strange,the weird..start here (7/31/2008 12:26:18 PM)
Do you restart a lot? I get discouraged when I have to restart a game due to really weird occurrences and it kind of taints the game for me, then I start over.

Berkut -> RE: The strange,the weird..start here (8/1/2008 3:44:23 PM)
Not really strange per se, bu me and Habs latest PBEM game has me [laying the South and him the North. We have both come to the conclusion that the Union attakcing in the East is largely a waste of time - the South simply has too many advanatages for that to work. This has resulted in a rather odd game, where ALL the action is in the West, and along the rivers, with the Union invading EVERYWHERE. The trans-Missippi has fallen, and Grant massed a large army in Tenessee. Lee goes West to counter, and eventually we both build up in the West. Grant comes across the river, and attacks Lee with about 100pts, to lees 30. Every Southern commander within 4 area codes repsonds, of course, and the resulting battle is simply epic. We both have over 100pts, total commits were something like 130k against 140k. The battle goes on. And on. And on. And on. Grants 4 attack poiunds away at Lees 4 defense, and neither are willing to back off. Ends with a Southern win, but the South takes 23k casualties, and the North 33k. Not really sure that is actually a win. But I've never seen a battle go on that long. Grant just didn't want to give up, and even though he "lost", he probably achieved his objective really. It was interesting, but perhaps illuminating of some issues with the structure of the game mechanics that it came about in the manner that it did. The particular PBEM game is very interesting, but doesn't seem to have much resemblance to the ACW.

Erik Rutins -> RE: The strange,the weird..start here (8/1/2008 3:52:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Berkut We have both come to the conclusion that the Union attakcing in the East is largely a waste of time - the South simply has too many advanatages for that to work. This has resulted in a rather odd game, where ALL the action is in the West, and along the rivers, with the Union invading EVERYWHERE. The trans-Missippi has fallen, and Grant massed a large army in Tenessee. Lee goes West to counter, and eventually we both build up in the West. In my experience, it's very hard to attack in the East until the South is already pressed hard elsewhere. If you do it, use two ACs so that you can press Virginia from at least two directions. I prefer to start along the coasts and start in the West, then when the South starts to slow you down there, press in the East as well. However, a historical strategy that attacks in the East early with massive forces and keeps the South's attention there could help open up the West more by keeping the South from sending their best leaders and extra forces out there. It's not a static simulation, so the decisions each player makes will drastically affect how the war unfolds. I do think the historical Eastern strategy is the more painful one for the Union, but it can work to open up the other theaters. Of course, I think if you went through what the Union historically went through in the East, you'd probably also conclude that attacking there is fruitless, so this ends up quite historical, it's just that players don't often choose to repeat the same strategies that didn't work historically. The net result of going with a weak Eastern strategy though is that you often end up with a lot more forces in the West. quote: Grant comes across the river, and attacks Lee with about 100pts, to lees 30. Every Southern commander within 4 area codes repsonds, of course, and the resulting battle is simply epic. We both have over 100pts, total commits were something like 130k against 140k. The battle goes on. And on. And on. And on. Grants 4 attack poiunds away at Lees 4 defense, and neither are willing to back off. Hm, sounds like there were no parallel or diversionary attacks? It usually helps to try to wait for a turn when you have two ACs that are relatively close with initiative so that all reaction forces can't necessarily focus on just one attack. Regards, - Erik

Berkut -> RE: The strange,the weird..start here (8/1/2008 4:18:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins Of course, I think if you went through what the Union historically went through in the East, you'd probably also conclude that attacking there is fruitless, so this ends up quite historical, it's just that players don't often choose to repeat the same strategies that didn't work historically. The net result of going with a weak Eastern strategy though is that you often end up with a lot more forces in the West. Well, I would very much disagree with that - I don't think you can achieve historical results in the East against a decent Southern player. Historically, the South was not CERTAIN to win battles like First Bull Run, but in WBTS, I don't think that is the case - the Union is going to lose that fight pretty much every time - more importantly, they will typically lose it with a very lopsided casualty count. The historical result of the Eastern campaigns was a ANV that was depleted of troops and eventually attrited to nothing in 1864. The Union, from what I have seen, cannot do this against a competent Southern player. The Wilderness Campaign was not certain to lose, and neither was the attack on Northern Vrginia. Granted, these were losses historically, but in the game, there is no reason to even try - you are going to lose these kinds of fights, and you will do so in a manner that is not even useful, and results in you losing the game via political points. Antietam? Not likely to happen. IMO, historically the South had good (but not great - they lost generally about as many men as the north even when they "won") results in a lot of Eastern battles that could have been won given some better luck or decisions made by the North - in the game, the mechanics simply stack the odds so much in the Souths favor in the East that a historical campaign will simply lose you the game as you take Strategic loss after Strategic loss without even attriting the South at a useful rate - you will end up with the South having more troops overall than the North.

Erik Rutins -> RE: The strange,the weird..start here (8/1/2008 4:39:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Berkut Well, I would very much disagree with that - I don't think you can achieve historical results in the East against a decent Southern player. Historically, the South was not CERTAIN to win battles like First Bull Run, but in WBTS, I don't think that is the case - the Union is going to lose that fight pretty much every time - more importantly, they will typically lose it with a very lopsided casualty count. They don't lose it that badly - the thing is that historically, had Johnston not reacted in time the Union would likely have won. If you don't send Johnston's forces in, the Union will win. If you send them in, you're still one or two leader casualties away from possibly losing. I've seen the Union win this one, it just takes some luck. quote: The historical result of the Eastern campaigns was a ANV that was depleted of troops and eventually attrited to nothing in 1864. The Union, from what I have seen, cannot do this against a competent Southern player. Hm - the ANV was not effectively depleted until after Grant's campaign and he took a lot of losses and had some very hard fights in the process. I don't think you could look at the battles in the East before Gettysburg (which had the ANV doing well enough to invade the north and was fought on northern soil, where the Union gets a bonus) as anything but very tough for the Union. I don't see how the Union, before Gettysburg, could have much hope of successfully attacking in the East. This is hindsight talking of course, but even at the time they were getting disheartended by the string of Confederate victories. quote: The Wilderness Campaign was not certain to lose, and neither was the attack on Northern Vrginia. Granted, these were losses historically, but in the game, there is no reason to even try - you are going to lose these kinds of fights, and you will do so in a manner that is not even useful, and results in you losing the game via political points. Antietam? Not likely to happen. If you actually build up the AOP to its historical size and the CSA player faces you with a force about the historical size of the ANV, with all else being done to replicate history, then you'll get largely historical results in my experience. quote: IMO, historically the South had good (but not great - they lost generally about as many men as the north even when they "won") results in a lot of Eastern battles that could have been won given some better luck or decisions made by the North - in the game, the mechanics simply stack the odds so much in the Souths favor in the East that a historical campaign will simply lose you the game as you take Strategic loss after Strategic loss without even attriting the South at a useful rate - you will end up with the South having more troops overall than the North. I think it really depends how you setup those battles as the Union. With enough of a large force, with plenty of artillery and careful preparations, I think you'll get historical casualty results. With that said, I do agree that the major problem with the Eastern strategy (which is why I don't prefer it) is the political cost/benefit of those Strategic Defeats for the Union. You need to have some serious success out West and along the coast (as they did historically) to offset that. Note also that the Confederacy historically did make quite a few mistakes that a Confederate player is unlikely to repeat, so playing against a good player on either side makes you work harder and make fewer mistakes than your historical counterparts, by and large. Regards, - Erik

JAMiAM -> RE: The strange,the weird..start here (8/1/2008 4:51:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Berkut quote: ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins Of course, I think if you went through what the Union historically went through in the East, you'd probably also conclude that attacking there is fruitless, so this ends up quite historical, it's just that players don't often choose to repeat the same strategies that didn't work historically. The net result of going with a weak Eastern strategy though is that you often end up with a lot more forces in the West. Well, I would very much disagree with that - I don't think you can achieve historical results in the East against a decent Southern player. Historically, the South was not CERTAIN to win battles like First Bull Run, but in WBTS, I don't think that is the case - the Union is going to lose that fight pretty much every time - more importantly, they will typically lose it with a very lopsided casualty count. The historical result of the Eastern campaigns was a ANV that was depleted of troops and eventually attrited to nothing in 1864. The Union, from what I have seen, cannot do this against a competent Southern player. I disagree. The key to the Union successfully prosecuting the war in the East is to take advantage of its advantages, and careful timing. Do NOT attack Manassas directly across the Potomac. Always attack it from Harpers Ferry. Do NOT neglect to scout the region to be attacked, otherwise the reacting Confederates will be unspotted. Do NOT allow your AoP to sit on the front lines, spotted. Try to keep it one region back, sitting on dual depots, in between offensives, so that it regains its unspotted status. Keep screening forces of cavalry and second rate corps in the frontline, under a fort, so that Confederate raiders and scouts are reduced in effect. Keep shuffling these front line infantry garrisons front to rear, so that they too become unspotted, as this affects the scouted level of the region. Then, you too can have historical results of a region or two per year taken from the Confederates, and not suffer the lop-sided losses that you normally get, when going in deaf, dumb, and blind.

Berkut -> RE: The strange,the weird..start here (8/1/2008 6:21:34 PM)
Have either of you seen that result in PBEM games against good Southern opponents? Where the South wins more than it loses, but is atrritted in the process and eventually worn down, with the occasional Northern win eventually resulted in a ANV that has ceased to exist as a fighting force as it falls back towards North Carolina?

JAMiAM -> RE: The strange,the weird..start here (8/1/2008 7:52:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Berkut Have either of you seen that result in PBEM games against good Southern opponents? Where the South wins more than it loses, but is atrritted in the process and eventually worn down, with the occasional Northern win eventually resulted in a ANV that has ceased to exist as a fighting force as it falls back towards North Carolina? Well...in my first game against Erik, me as the South, he had Sherman tying down Lee in Virginia, hitting about every three or four turns. Battles were fairly close, but with Lee winning the large majority of them. By the end of the game, my ANV was getting weak, and it was necessary for me to keep sending it troops that could have been better used in the Mississippi battles. However, Erik was not in as good a position to take advantage of the situation as his early game mistakes had cost him the EP, and he got into a bad downward PP loss spiral and recruitment crunch. In my game against Jon (Pyledriver), me as the Union, by April 1863, I had taken Manassas, Winchester, Staunton, and Lexington. Manassas was an attack that caught the Confederates out of position with the ANV foraging in the winter, too far to react to. Winchester, Staunton and Lexington were overrun by McClellan's death star. Winchester was taken on one turn. On the last turn played, Staunton and Lexington were overrun a turn after a diversionary attack at Norfolk, and Elizabeth City drew the ANV away. Jon became too busy with Alpha-testing War in Russia to continue the game after that turn...[;)] In my game with Habbaku, it's still early. I just finished April 1862. After the Humbolt debacle, Bragg was sent East to lead the ANV. He's sitting at Manassas, completely scouted. Longstreet was sent West to Shiloh, and Stonewall is sitting in Winchester. McClellan swung through an unscouted Frederick and Harpers Ferry with an army of 3 Inf leaders, from Baltimore, and will get the unscouted benefit. A corps from the AoP and one in Harpers Ferry that also had initiative are tying down Jackson in Winchester (a battle I give myself 40:60 odds on) while, IIRC, four corps and McClellan, hit Manassas. If, as I expect, Hab has sent his best leaders to staunch the gap that Grant tore in the West, then McClellan should be able to take Manassas. This attack, I give odds of 60:40. The 2 Inf leaders that were stacked with Mac in Baltimore have invaded Elizabeth City, Norfolk and New Bern at the same time. The ANV cannot be everywhere at once, so something is likely to give. My second game with Erik is still in 1862 and Erik has pursued a peripheral strategy (Anaconda) to good effect. So far, he has only kept me tied down in Virginia to the extent that my forces and his are facing each other down with menacing stares, rather than real combat. I'm feeling stretched everywhere, even though I've been able to send Lee to the West to keep a wary eye on Grant. Sherman recently has captured most of Central Tennessee to the Tennessee River, and Grant has been stopped at the Memphis/Shiloh line. He's scored the EP/BE, and has been hovering just under 1000 since that big PP hit, while mine is in the mid 1000's. Incidentally, he did pull a turn one Manassas in this game, which though a defeat for him, was not too bloody. It tied down Johnston from going elsewhere on turn one, and IMO, is not as bad a decision as many make it out to be. The rest of my PBEM games are against players of lesser skill, and still too early to tell how they are going to develop. Given that the players did not publically challenge me, or publically accept a challenge from me, I don't feel right in divulging their names without prior consent.

Berkut -> RE: The strange,the weird..start here (8/1/2008 8:30:10 PM)
quote: So, if the Southern player plays a very ahistorical game and sends a lot of troops and his best leaders off to the West, maybe an attack in the East has a shot of getting a win? Your post seems to confirm what I suspect - good Southern players are not going to lose a historic campaign in the East, and good Northern players are not even going to try, because the result will be game losing. The game will be decided elsewhere, and likely at very ahistoric force levels as both sides funnel troops away from the East. To the extent that the East will matter, it will be based on the North figuring out that the South has overdone this, and can take advantage of it. Actually, in the previous game where I made progress in Virginia against James, I was facing very good leaders in the East. But what you describe in any case is also what happened historically. The ANV often had pieces taken away and sent elsewhere to help solve crisis situations, even right up to the end. Even with that, the North was not able to make significant progress in Virginia until they did the following: 1. Sent Grant east 2. Massed a huge force and kept attacking Lee despite tactical defeats until his army was worn out, besieged and out of supplies. quote: This doesn't necessarily make for a bad game, but it doesn't feel much like the ACW, in that the historical flow is not possible, and there will be a LOT more troops in the West and scattered around invading things. The game is what you make of it, really. I keep reading from you that "this is not the ACW". Well no, it's a game, but I would contend that if played as the ACW was "played", it would be darn close. Once players go off the historical track, the rest follows. I think most wargamers would be loath to keep sending McClellan against Lee over and over and would be darn upset at a wargame that gave McClellan a good shot at winning that matchup. The problem you're describing is not one with the game itself, but rather one that has to do with hindsight and wargamers choosing not to repeat historical mistakes. Regards, - Erik Note from Erik: ACK! I hit the darn "edit" button instead of the "quote" button again. Apologies, I meant to reply in a separate post!

IronWarrior -> RE: The strange,the weird..start here (8/1/2008 8:36:07 PM)
Hey JAMIAM, I am one of the lesser skilled players in a pbem with you. I'm not ashamed to admit it, I am still very new at the game... but I like to play against better players so I can learn something. Any feedback from our game is appreciated, only way to get better is losing a couple times right? I play for fun and hopefully learn some new tactics and tricks, thanks for taking the time to play a game with a noob [;)]. Bill

madgamer2 -> RE: The strange,the weird..start here (8/1/2008 8:37:28 PM)
I tried, without an extra AC around (against the South AI), a kind of diversion Lee was in Atlanta with 25 pts showing but had more leaders so there were about 36 PTs. There were small troop numbers showing on each side of the area Grant was in next to Atlanta. I sent Sheridan and and a second Cav commander for a total of 18 units one way and Sherman and a second Inf commander the other and Grant with what was left into Atlanta against Lee. The INf. battle was an overrun for me. Grant beat Lee and Took Atlanta. The Cav battle was a strange one as it was Cav against Cav and it went on for 8 rounds with 0 losses for both sides and the South retreated. The next turn The flank Inf and Cav are sitting where Grant attacked from and Grant is in Atlanta with about 35K men. The flank stuff just coul not get to Atlanta because they did not have enough movement. Lee Attacks Atlanta with 40K men and it looks grim but the reaction phase for the North gets the units that could not get to Atlanta to join the battle and now Lee is attacking like 70K(?) or so with his 40K. He looses the battle and his heavy Art. and retreats.....or something like that (its been awhile) The waste of time idea in the East is not just you guys. You have to create something to cause the Rebs to look over there shoulder so to speak. If its to much trouble,time or expense to do an amphib then put your 4 army commander in Ft. Monroe. If he does not put enough in front of you attack the region NW of Ft. Monroe. If you win this will put the Yanks next to the region south of Manasas and the rebs will have to take you for a real threat. I like to put Stoneman in Ft. Monroe as he is really good at raiding. If you happen to get a result that tears up the rails to the Manassas then the north should consider an attack there with no rail lines reinforcement might not arrive in time. Madgamer

JAMiAM -> RE: The strange,the weird..start here (8/1/2008 8:50:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Berkut quote: If, as I expect, Hab has sent his best leaders to staunch the gap that Grant tore in the West, then McClellan should be able to take Manassas. This attack, I give odds of 60:40. The 2 Inf leaders that were stacked with Mac in Baltimore have invaded Elizabeth City, Norfolk and New Bern at the same time. The ANV cannot be everywhere at once, so something is likely to give. So, if the Southern player plays a very ahistorical game and sends a lot of troops and his best leaders off to the West, maybe an attack in the East has a shot of getting a win? Your post seems to confirm what I suspect - good Southern players are not going to lose a historic campaign in the East, and good Northern players are not even going to try, because the result will be game losing. The game will be decided elsewhere, and likely at very ahistoric force levels as both sides funnel troops away from the East. To the extent that the East will matter, it will be based on the North figuring out that the South has overdone this, and can take advantage of it. This doesn't necessarily make for a bad game, but it doesn't feel much like the ACW, in that the historical flow is not possible, and there will be a LOT more troops in the West and scattered around invading things. I suppose I take some issue with the way you're seeing this in terms of a "historic campaign". Historically, there were only about a half-dozen major campaigns in Virginia from 1861 until Grant took over in 1864. Thus, over the course of over 2.5 years, there was an average of about one every 6 months. Win, lose, or draw, this is all the Union player needs to do in the game to "historically" match the results of the war. A good Union player will do this anyhow, as even if he does not succeed in taking territory, he still keeps the Confederate player on his toes, with forces committed to the defense of Richmond that could be better sent elsewhere. If he's done his homework correctly, he might even win one or two of them. For better or for worse, "elsewhere" is where the war was decided. It was the ability of the Union to keep Richmond threatened constantly, that generally prevented the veterans of the ANV from being elsewhere. Likewise in the game. The Union doesn't have to take Richmond early, or even make good progress at doing so. They just need to keep the threat credible.

Berkut -> RE: The strange,the weird..start here (8/1/2008 9:07:53 PM)
quote: The game is what you make of it, really. I keep reading from you that "this is not the ACW". Well no, it's a game, but I would contend that if played as the ACW was "played", it would be darn close. Once players go off the historical track, the rest follows. My disagreement is almost exactly the opposite - I think if players played a historical game they would lose as the Union, badly. They play ahistorically, because they have no choice but to do so, as the game makes the historical Eastern campaigns not possible and even foolish. The ANV will inflict vastly greater casualties on the Union than they suffer, and the PP hit will be devastating. This is NOT what actually happened, and IMO there should at least be a chance for a BETTER than historical outcome for the Union, even if all things are exactly the same, as opposed to almost no chance for a better outcome, and an almost certain chance of a much worse outcome.

Berkut -> RE: The strange,the weird..start here (8/1/2008 9:23:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JAMiAM I suppose I take some issue with the way you're seeing this in terms of a "historic campaign". Historically, there were only about a half-dozen major campaigns in Virginia from 1861 until Grant took over in 1864. And historically, that is seen as a serious error on the part of the Union commanders. Their inactivity while enjoying a considerable (sometimes nearly overwhelming) numeric superiority is largely seen as one of thos incredible errors that players should be using hindsight to avoid. But in this game, trying to attack more and attrit the South is a huge error - even a game losing error. rather than the game using activation is a means of frustrating the Union players desire to use his advantage, it makes the results of attacking so negative that the Union player has to wait for that "perfect storm" of opportunity to even have a chance. I've said this before - in this game, McClellan was right, and the AoP was never ready to face off against the ANV. quote: Thus, over the course of over 2.5 years, there was an average of about one every 6 months. Win, lose, or draw, this is all the Union player needs to do in the game to "historically" match the results of the war. This is a little misleading, since the campaigns are not spread over months, but concentrated into the good weather months. And like I said, the lack of activity by the Union is typically considered to be an error, not something that a should be emulated. quote: A good Union player will do this anyhow, as even if he does not succeed in taking territory, he still keeps the Confederate player on his toes, with forces committed to the defense of Richmond that could be better sent elsewhere. If he's done his homework correctly, he might even win one or two of them. He might, but he isn't going to ge the historic results, which were significant casualties caused, Richmond nearly taken at one point, and two victories over Southern attack s(because the South won't attack either, if they are smart). quote: For better or for worse, "elsewhere" is where the war was decided. not really, it was a combined affair. The war ended when lee surrendered after the fall of Richmond and the attrition of his army by Grant. You can say that happened because of the West, and that would not be incorrect, but you can also say the West happened because of the attrition Lee suffered in the East, even while he was winning most of his battles,and that would not be incorrect either. Both had their impact on the war. In WBTS, I think the East is largely a sideshow. It may be interesting if the Southern player strips it to ahistoric levels and the northern player can take advantage of that. But Lee never actually went West - because he knew he could not. I suspect in the game, he will just about always go west, barring any changes.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.9853516