RE: Late Sep - turn 12

RE: Late Sep - turn 12 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Civil War II >> After Action Report

Message

Ace1_slith -> RE: Late Sep - turn 12 (11/26/2013 6:11:58 PM)
On day 10 I won in front of Santa fe. Note how Smith force coming from north did not participate in the battle together with Sibley. That can always happen if the stacks do not share command structure. [image]local://upfiles/46250/849247DF2A8B4BD5966999E053A9C1F3.jpg[/image]

Ace1_slith -> RE: Late Sep - turn 12 (11/26/2013 6:28:48 PM)
And last, first big battle that went to the Union, and to whom to McClellan. He stayed well hidden in front of Salem. Polk was beaten, but it got away from the battle rather quickly thanks to large portion of cavalry within my force. Note how exhausted Lyon force were, they did not even have enough ammo to participate in the battle. I was overconfident, but given I nearly bagged Lyon I would do it again without the scouting. The reward was worth the risk. [image]local://upfiles/46250/605F37748ED24D1CADE8BBA47EB6053C.jpg[/image]

Ace1_slith -> RE: Late Sep - turn 12 (11/26/2013 7:07:10 PM)
Plan for the next turn: East front He has made crucial error by putting AoP inside fort without port. Without reinforcements, they will simply starve. Longstreet will guard the fort with 12000 men, while rest of AoP will march to Harper's Ferry. I am confident he cannot break out. With AoP cornered, he has only about 10000 men in Washington, and maybe few thousands more North in the reserve. While he holds the fort, I cannot march directly from Alexandria to Washington, so I will go around it. By taking Harper's Ferry, I can bring in Jackson back to Maryland by rail. He will rest this turn, while I redeploy more Johnson's regular brigades to his command, where they 'll be ready to rail to Maryland after this turn. Magruder has finally made it to Pittsburgh. His militias will be ideal for holding Pittsburgh, while elite brigades make the final offenses around Washington. Cavalry are ordered to take Fredericksburg country side and secure its rail. By controlling its rail, next turn I ll be able to strike from Harpers Ferry either at York, Baltimore, Annapolis or Washington. I think I am in driving seat here, and unless he makes some serious redeployments form West to East, he will be in real trouble. I am sensing blood, so I will try to concentrate at Harper Ferry everything I got. I plan to achieve decisive advantage in the area. I am ordering massive build program in Virginia and NC, and I am rushing all my reserves to gap in his lines. My forces for the final push ready to redeploy. 12-15000 men under Beauregard 8-10000 men under Jackson gather in Grafton ready to redeploy East few brigades are also coming from Richmond area I am stripping my coastal defenses. I do not think he will land on my coast while Washington is in this situation, and I also plan to stop my offensives in Illinois and Missouri. War can be won in Maryland if I react quickly. [image]local://upfiles/46250/F9344DA4B3884D8E9BF7617069CD1DB2.jpg[/image]

Ace1_slith -> RE: Late Sep - turn 12 (11/26/2013 7:31:07 PM)
Cairo - St Louis front is not as important as the East. I am consolidating lines, reinforcing Polk and Price with Winder (resting last turn) and McCulloh(taking car of raid last turn at Jefferson city last turn) [image]local://upfiles/46250/36A0C05968264F729FCF6C128BDED950.jpg[/image]

Ace1_slith -> RE: Late Sep - turn 12 (11/26/2013 7:43:51 PM)
In the Far West, I have sent part of my forces to besiege fort Craig, while Smith takes Santa Fe. [image]local://upfiles/46250/FF88E025274A4D5DA781D36796F40E6E.jpg[/image]

Ace1_slith -> Early Oct - turn 13 (11/27/2013 5:17:37 AM)
Early Oct - turn 13 First, some battles from previous turn. He tried to lift the siege of St Louis while McCulloh was distracted in by raid in Jef city. Unfortunately, Jef city is only 3 days away by rail, so he got here in time. I have no idea why he has not set units inside the city to join the combat (sortie out special order). Only 6000 out ohis 13000 men participated in the battle. Price's bonus to militas combat cam in handy here. [image]local://upfiles/46250/DF97F211959F49EA8C31C160CA0A2798.jpg[/image]

Ace1_slith -> RE: Early Oct - turn 13 (11/27/2013 5:23:39 AM)
For those of you who do not know first Ironclad of the war was not CSS Virginia. It was CSS Manassas and it was built in New Orleans. It is now finished and has sailed upstream to join Hollins gunboats to establish control of the river once more. Foote led his ships brilliantly, but he could simply not match my ironclad. [image]local://upfiles/46250/C12CD65C6F434DC79B21309CD522BA99.jpg[/image]

Ace1_slith -> RE: Early Oct - turn 13 (11/27/2013 5:31:46 AM)
Plans for the next turn. I see 4 units being built in York. I ll concentrate there as it may be the place he is least expecting me to strike. I have considerable force in the area and I am expecting him to rail reserves to Washington. So my plan is to go to York, and after York to Philadelphia. I would then split my forces there. with about 1-2 divisions guarding it, cavalry distrupting his rail lines so he cannot quickly rail reinforcements from the West, and the main force turning South to Baltimore and Washington. That is my general idea. Invasion is traveling in 3 main columns: AotP 15.000 men Jackson 10.000 men Richmnond reserves are to meet with Magruder in front of Frederickstown, strength 15.000 men. So, first invasion of the north will be carried out, with 40.000 men (35.000 combatants). [image]local://upfiles/46250/69172B58BF324549BF06251719FC9FF3.jpg[/image]

Ace1_slith -> RE: Early Oct - turn 13 (11/27/2013 5:36:14 AM)
Right next to Cairo I see he is trying to land at Metropoilis. I 'll try to intercept him with boats, as well as contest the region by land. I will also try to pursue Foote gunboats and try to drive them to guns located at FtDover. [image]local://upfiles/46250/7BCF6D9B2B63464FA24B2DD36FD1B657.jpg[/image]

Ace1_slith -> RE: Early Oct - turn 13 (11/27/2013 5:38:19 AM)
He seems to forgot about his unsupplied fort at Pensacola, so I am driving them out. [image]local://upfiles/46250/A641186BD80B40C18D31DDFCE9C85DAF.jpg[/image]

Q-Ball -> RE: Early Oct - turn 13 (11/27/2013 12:52:57 PM)
Good AAR, learning alot about some of the supply and leadership mechanics, which is good Not sure what conclusions we can draw from play balance here because you are clearly more experienced than your opponent. I am still in the "Union needs more help early" camp, but can't consider this one as any evidence. One thing though: Yes, CSS Manassas was the first ironclad active, but it bugs me that the Rebs can attain early control of the rivers out west. That was simply not possible IRL. I posted on that before with the transports, but I can't see CSS Manassas sailing 500 miles upriver like that. First, she was commissioned Sept 12 as a privateer, and you are using her in the upper Mississippi in late Sept. She was seized by Hollins early, but not officially commissioned into the CSA Navy until November. Most CSA ships early-on were privately owned on the river, which complicated command. Like nearly all Confederate ironclads, she had very balky engines and was not capable of such a voyage. She also wasn't close in combat capability to later ironclads like the Union ones or CSS Arkansas. She had only 2 cannon, and her first ramming attempt resulted in disabling one of her engines. At a minimum, I would like to see her locked until the Union can get an ironclad in the river.

Ace1_slith -> RE: Early Oct - turn 13 (11/27/2013 1:07:52 PM)
When I started this AAR, I thought it would serve as great learning experience as well, since tutorials can get you only so far. Once I am finished with this AAR, I 'll gladly take on another PBEM as the Union, so we can compare the balance issue. Fighting against AI is never the same. When you design historic game, you often leave the player the option to do better than its historic counterpart. CSA did start producing ironcovered gunboats before US. They just did not have organization to effectively use it. So do we forbid CSA players to use ironclads and cottonclads because of it, or do we let the player to improve bad decisions made by his historic counterpart. CSS Manassas unlocked in Late Sep, leaving it to the player to decide will it be held in front of NO as it was historically. Historic usage of it may have not been the best one. She is weaker than other CSA ironclads (CSS Virginia for example). Monitors did not have more cannons either, yet they performed very good in combat after they were towed to the site. Not being able to steam upriver is another issue - that would render it unworthy to be represented in the game at all since I do not know how to model it.

veji1 -> RE: Early Oct - turn 13 (11/27/2013 1:47:35 PM)
for me this AAR and Qball support my general view that the Union should have lots more troops but properly suffer ingame of her bad C&C through hidden activity statuses for leaders, making planning offensive operation with baddish leaders in 61 and 62 really hard.

Q-Ball -> RE: Early Oct - turn 13 (11/27/2013 4:43:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: veji1 for me this AAR and Qball support my general view that the Union should have lots more troops but properly suffer ingame of her bad C&C through hidden activity statuses for leaders, making planning offensive operation with baddish leaders in 61 and 62 really hard. I agree with that...I also though think you can't give Union the same advantage as historical (about 2-1 by end of 1861), because in-game the Union player is going to make better leader and command decisions than historical. So, there has to be a balance, or the CSA will get run over. I am not sure, but my gut tells me another 20-40K or so troops for the Union would probably be enough. Another 100K would unbalance the game in the other direction. If you really want a historical feel, it would be to randomize, and hide, all leader abilities until they start to get used. THAT would be pretty wild. Not sure I would want to play that, but that would definitely be historical! After all, everyone thought McClellan was awesome until the bullets flied, and "Granny Lee" was Robert E's nickname until events proved otherwise....I'm not advocating that, just saying.

veji1 -> RE: Early Oct - turn 13 (11/27/2013 6:00:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Q-Ball quote: ORIGINAL: veji1 for me this AAR and Qball support my general view that the Union should have lots more troops but properly suffer ingame of her bad C&C through hidden activity statuses for leaders, making planning offensive operation with baddish leaders in 61 and 62 really hard. I agree with that...I also though think you can't give Union the same advantage as historical (about 2-1 by end of 1861), because in-game the Union player is going to make better leader and command decisions than historical. So, there has to be a balance, or the CSA will get run over. I am not sure, but my gut tells me another 20-40K or so troops for the Union would probably be enough. Another 100K would unbalance the game in the other direction. If you really want a historical feel, it would be to randomize, and hide, all leader abilities until they start to get used. THAT would be pretty wild. Not sure I would want to play that, but that would definitely be historical! After all, everyone thought McClellan was awesome until the bullets flied, and "Granny Lee" was Robert E's nickname until events proved otherwise....I'm not advocating that, just saying. Well I am very much advocating this. Just picture the leaders as a deck of cards : have the 61 CSA leaders as a deck of cards, just reshuffle the stats in teh deck. Same for the 62 stack etc... This would still lead to the CSA 61 and 62 leaders being better than their Union counterparts, but you wouldn't know which...

Ace1_slith -> RE: Early Oct - turn 13 (11/27/2013 6:01:26 PM)
I am not sure Union had 2:1 advantage so early in the war. At the battle of Pea ridge it was the other way around, 1,5:1 in favor of CSA. In 61, CSA had manpower advantage in the West and almost on equal terms in the East. Later, US got to 2,5:1 advantage in men, but closer to 2:1 if we count front line troops with garrisons keeping peace at home and in occupied areas. There is no big battle in which US had more than 2:1 advantage almost all the way to 1865. At Chancellorsville there the biggest disparity in numbers up to '65, and it was 2:1, and only because Lee had detached Longstreet due to supply problems. Since CSA historically failed to capitalize on it, people do forget how close the war was in the first year. Only later, it turned into one way alley.

Jim D Burns -> RE: Early Oct - turn 13 (11/27/2013 10:22:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ace1 I am not sure Union had 2:1 advantage so early in the war. Look at chart 9 for a breakdown of force strengths throughout the war. The Union easily outnumbered the south from the very beginning of the war. It was a testament to southern generalship that they lasted as long as they did and managed to focus their strength at critical times to keep things more or less even in the big battles. And of course the pure incompetency of many union commanders added to the failure of the union to achieve any kind of success early in the war as well. http://www.phil.muni.cz/~vndrzl/amstudies/civilwar_stats.htm Jim

Michael T -> RE: Early Oct - turn 13 (11/27/2013 11:20:27 PM)
I am not an expert on the Civil War by any means, but this game in HtH play very much favours the South in 1861/62. So much so that I think conservative Southern play is a mistake. An all out assault by the South in 61/62 is almost unstopable IMO. Whether the game allows for a big comeback by the North in 64/65 I don't know. But the lead the South can acrue in the early days makes me think its unlikely. I think the devs may need to look at play balance in PBEM down the track.

Q-Ball -> RE: Early Oct - turn 13 (11/27/2013 11:32:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ace1 I am not sure Union had 2:1 advantage so early in the war. At the battle of Pea ridge it was the other way around, 1,5:1 in favor of CSA. In 61, CSA had manpower advantage in the West and almost on equal terms in the East. Later, US got to 2,5:1 advantage in men, but closer to 2:1 if we count front line troops with garrisons keeping peace at home and in occupied areas. There is no big battle in which US had more than 2:1 advantage almost all the way to 1865. At Chancellorsville there the biggest disparity in numbers up to '65, and it was 2:1, and only because Lee had detached Longstreet due to supply problems. Since CSA historically failed to capitalize on it, people do forget how close the war was in the first year. Only later, it turned into one way alley. Jim posted a strength chart, and I will find and post later one that takes out men who are AWOL, but it doesn't change the overall ratio. The South did outnumber the Union at Pea Ridge, but that was the only major battle of the Civil War where that happened. In the remainder of the Western Theater, the Confederates outnumbered in early 1862. AS Johnston struggled to establish a viable line with Polk's forces, Ft Henry/Donelson, and his own 18,000 or so at Bowling Green. In the east, the Union had nearly 200,000 troops in Virginia by March of 1862. The Confederacy was able to even-up the odds by tying down large formations in the Valley, Northern VA, Norfolk, and other places to guard against Confederate offensives. The Union did have to allocate large detachments to guard supply lines and on coast expeditions, so getting 2-1 on the field at all points never did happen, that's true. Southern numbers likely do not include certain state troops, militia, and partisans. 2-1 should not be an in-game objective anyway, because the Union player can play more aggressively than real life one. But the Confederacy overall, at no point, had anything approaching parity in numbers in the field with the Union. The numbers just don't bear that out.

Aurelian -> RE: Early Oct - turn 13 (11/27/2013 11:50:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Q-Ball The South did outnumber the Union at Pea Ridge, but that was the only major battle of the Civil War where that happened. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chickamauga

Ace1_slith -> Late Oct - turn 14 (11/28/2013 4:34:38 AM)
Late Oct - turn 14 No big battles this turn, I'll post few smaller ones: Foote was without ammo and was getting a beating. The problem is I was getting without ammo too. Ships consume a lot of ammo, more than a tooltip tels you. I was not able to catch his land units traveling via river. They simply imediatly disembarked to closest region. I do not know if that is possible any more. [image]local://upfiles/46250/800D6A4A71FF4C0E871368242CD68128.jpg[/image]

Ace1_slith -> RE: Late Oct - turn 14 (11/28/2013 4:36:57 AM)
Van dorn was doing a quick work on his Pensacola stack, earning a promotion in the process: [image]local://upfiles/46250/D4025CBD0AEB4698A8F1E940B749CED8.jpg[/image]

Ace1_slith -> RE: Late Oct - turn 14 (11/28/2013 4:38:41 AM)
He attempted another futile battle at Pittsburg. Even with divisions he suffered command penalties. Detached divisions need 2 generals for optimal command. [image]local://upfiles/46250/5D74B6B1888C4AEDAECB77E3AF8F2D52.jpg[/image]

Ace1_slith -> RE: Late Oct - turn 14 (11/28/2013 4:39:44 AM)
Plans for the Eastern theater: [image]local://upfiles/46250/C00099FF9B5C4266AF7F16E34A143A08.jpg[/image]

Ace1_slith -> RE: Late Oct - turn 14 (11/28/2013 4:42:31 AM)
Eastern theater: [image]local://upfiles/46250/C9BEAA01A2CC43A9BFE294E2999AE85D.jpg[/image]

Ace1_slith -> Early Nov - turn 15 (11/28/2013 4:59:05 AM)
Early Nov - turn 15 [image]local://upfiles/46250/68B97F42F8C34302A29D3DFDD15814F9.jpg[/image]

Ace1_slith -> RE: Early Nov - turn 15 (11/28/2013 5:00:13 AM)
The raiding does not make sence if you get caught, and having wagons gets you caught easily. [image]local://upfiles/46250/9F9748C18585411C81703B95410B2A2F.jpg[/image]

Ace1_slith -> RE: Early Nov - turn 15 (11/28/2013 5:07:36 AM)
He tried to position himself in between York and Frederickstown, not a smart move with only 1 division. With McDowell's 5 division besieged, he can muster about 4-5 divisions in the Wash-Philly area. Sending away his divisions on such futile missions reminds of the movie Downfall in which Hitler rants about Steiner assault. Sapping his strength in needless assaults is not the way to go. [image]local://upfiles/46250/818E5ED30EDD48A18AF2EBA0146970F4.jpg[/image]

Ace1_slith -> RE: Early Nov - turn 15 (11/28/2013 5:10:11 AM)
Another icture to demonstrate irregulars effectivness in the mountains. I had 2 stacks in the area. Only one stack fought, about 600 Texan rangers. They ambushed his regulars and volunteers as they were moving to retake Golden city. [image]local://upfiles/46250/EC9F52458BB04B6993720FE732AF9C02.jpg[/image]

Ace1_slith -> RE: Early Nov - turn 15 (11/28/2013 5:16:13 AM)
Plans for the next turn and rundown of the strengths in the area. I have: Beauregard: 4 divisions Bragg: 1 division Longstreet: 2 divisions He has: McDowell: 4 division - currently less than 2 divisions fighting power since he cannot receive reinforcement Hooker: 1,5 division Washington garrsion: 1,5 division Shields: 1 division In WV, he has 2 divisions opposite to my 1 division. So, US has 2 divisions more in the theater, they are just very very badly placed, with McDowel being besieged a loss from which it cannot be recovered from. I do have better divisions, no militias at all. It gives me faster movement and more operational freedom. [image]local://upfiles/46250/F69570AA352B4114A340279491FC400F.jpg[/image]

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.40625