AC/corps Switching and Strategic movement (Full Version)

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



Message

Jutland13 -> AC/corps Switching and Strategic movement (1/7/2009 10:15:43 PM)

In many of my PBEM games, I use and see used vs myself, multiple commanders. For example, I often send Joe Johnson West and promote Bragg to AC. I keep both very close and send one for the offensive and the other for the defensive.
I was wondering would it make sense for commanders to be designated commanders of specific armies and corps designated to specific armies? In turn each army assigned would be assigned to a TC. Independent corps could still be used, but would only receive a partial bonus in combat and gain initiative without AC help. Switching corps from armies, which was done, but often very contentious, would cost political points. This would allow armies to be represented in a more homogenous way and portay more historically how they were used. There would be a PPs cost for detaching them and with switching them around continuously. Further moving entire corps east or west, should cost extra. This was done on a very limited basis. longstreet comes to mind, but this was only after Lee agreed, he would not have gone had he not allowed it. This one transfer also placed a great strain on the rail system, which leads to my second point...

... Strategic movment, especially regarding the South and their ability to move corps all over the map every month to stop anticipated invasions and prop up regions. While I agree this could be done for specific events or periods, I do think the actual system would have broken done after a period of time if this conitnued to be maxed out as represented in the game on an every month basis. Maybe there should be a random chance, which increases or decreases, based on Confederate industry points that certain parts of the rail system break down or become unusable in particular months. This would force the south to repair them with their repair points in cases other than just raids. This breakdown or limitation would have have an increased impact as the war progressed and the more the more heavily the rail system was used, which would be more reflective of the increasing strain placed on the system.



Capt Cliff -> RE: AC/corps Switching and Strategic movement (1/8/2009 7:19:15 PM)

Strategic movement for the south should be limited. I believe the southern rail system was not contiguous, limited car capacity and they were different gauges. I can't remember where I saw this or read it but the south was hurting when moving mass man power around. There was a gap some place in Georgia where the rails did not connect and were also different gauges.

I found this site http://www.csa-railroads.com/ I have just started looking at it.



Doc o War -> RE: AC/corps Switching and Strategic movement (1/9/2009 5:26:51 AM)

Great site for confed RR data- nice pictures also



Jutland13 -> RE: AC/corps Switching and Strategic movement (1/10/2009 11:34:03 PM)

I can only gather that there is not much agreement with my points? Not the first time my ideas were a bit out of tune.



GShock -> RE: AC/corps Switching and Strategic movement (1/11/2009 12:43:46 AM)

quote:

I was wondering would it make sense for commanders to be designated commanders of specific armies and corps designated to specific armies?


The game works quite differently ...such as (simplifying) wherever the AC is that's where his army is. The corps/div structure underneath the AC (but in general all units, therefore UC too) has a different sense regarding whether or not they belong to USA or CSA and whether or not the AC is present. Assigning or decommissioning a commander has its costs as you know and that is how the thing is simulated and reabstracted, with PP.

If you want a more specific answer, you need to be more specific in the question...giving an example of your situation definitely helps (i know u think u gave it but that' s just not enough because u didnt mention the plan or the enemy forces around the theater of operation you mentioned).

As of the rail system i agree with southern limitations, that's why even though the 100/100 setting still has the union double the confederate strat MP, i play 100/50.



Treefrog -> RE: AC/corps Switching and Strategic movement (1/12/2009 1:02:59 AM)

Jutland,
I agree that your first paragraph would produce a more realistic game. However at some point games exhaust the player's desire for realism to achieve playability. Too bad it couldn't be an optional rule.

CSA rapid response railroad moves are probably offset by the fascinating ability of the Union to launch major amphibious anywhere on the Atlantic Coast instantly by virtue of the rules that allow transports to move through areas with other transports at no movement cost.

The game reminds me of a good woman: you may find fault with any individual component or element, but as a package, they can't be beat!!



Capt Cliff -> RE: AC/corps Switching and Strategic movement (1/12/2009 7:32:23 PM)

The fact that the south moved troops via rail to support the 1st Battle of Bull Run is noteworthy. But that's within Virginia and not from Virginia to say Nashville!! It would be nice to see how much of the southern rail capacity was used moving Longstreets Corp to the west, how long it took and how long it took for Longstreet to get "his boy's" ready for battle? Weeks or months?



Erik Rutins -> RE: AC/corps Switching and Strategic movement (1/12/2009 8:23:18 PM)

Note that an AC has to START the turn with an army in order to help it. Also, note that there's the limited command point recovery rule to make re-shuffling subordinates more costly time-wise. Now it sounds like what everyone is looking for here is some kind of additional delay on AC reassignment. Given the length of each turn, I'm not sure it's necessary, but we'll certainly take a look and see what we can realistically do to discourage too much bouncing around.



Capt Cliff -> RE: AC/corps Switching and Strategic movement (1/13/2009 7:34:52 PM)

I found this on Wiki under James Lonstreet.
"In one of the most daunting logistical efforts of the Confederacy, Longstreet, with the divisions of Lafayette McLaws and John Hood, a brigade from George Pickett's division, and Porter Alexander's 26-gun artillery battalion, traveled over 16 railroads on a 775-mile (1,247 km) route through the Carolinas to reach Bragg in northern Georgia. Although the entire operation would take over three weeks, Longstreet and lead elements of his corps arrived on September 17."

Longstreet had been asking to transfer west, according to Wiki. But it took 3 weeks or one turn to move and not move and fight in a camapign or launch into a battle. Just move, in transit. So for one month the southern rail system is hours-de-combat had Longstreets boy's around. Note that they used 16 railroads which most were not connected to each other with gaps at certain cities. So move in August but not attacking or defending that turn. If he had went to Vicksburg I'd say two months before he could fight.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
6.294922