RE: Early Nov - turn 15 (Full Version)

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



Message


Ace1_slith -> RE: Early Nov - turn 15 (11/28/2013 5:22:11 AM)

In the West he has mustered 3 divisions under Grant. Opposite to him is entrenched Polk with 1,5 division. I do have a lot of captured guns which will come in handy in defense. I have instructed Polk to retreat inside city if beaten. I always have another army led by Johnston in front of StLouis to lift the potential siege of Cairo if the battle goes bad.

Up to now, he has lost 42000 men to my 21000 men. That makes up 3 divisions of men he could have put to good use if he had not squandered them away in numerous assaults.

[image]local://upfiles/46250/E88605989FC54D43ADAE9CACCFEE3F4C.jpg[/image]




Aurelian -> RE: Early Nov - turn 15 (11/28/2013 6:23:22 AM)

Yeah, well, when you have only one or two decent leaders, and you're trying to keep the hordes from pouring north, and at the same time having to head toward Richmond or take a 10 NM hit, (in 1861 and 1862), it gets a bit difficult :)

Now if the invasion had a foreign entry penalty, or a bigger attrition hit, (a great many of Lee's soldiers would not cross in to Maryland. And Davis was concerned about the negative effect an invasion would have on Europe. "All we ask is to let alone.")

Ahh well.... Someone may hit upon a counter. I haven't.




Ace1_slith -> RE: Early Nov - turn 15 (11/28/2013 6:32:52 AM)

The on to Richmond event unnerves players. You have to forget about it. It gives -10 NM while some other Union events give you piece by piece +10 NM. You will never fulfill its requirements in PBEM. Trying to fulfill it will only make it worse. The Europe was interested in short war, they were not interested who is aggressor and who is not, they were looking their own interest. This was not 21st century. If you look how Britain behaved, they were supporting South while it looked they would win their Independence. After Antietam and definitely after Gettysburg, when they concluded Union will definitely win the war, they quickly turned sides, seizing CSA ships which were under construction in UK ports.

Think about it, US was wery cautious to guard its Northern cities. Much of numerical advantage in troops spoken of in previous mails were on guard duty against raider incursions to the North. If we impose penalties for CSA attacking similar to penalties for breaking Kentucky neutrality, US player will have all the freedom in the world to remove his forces from border states and send them to coastal invasions. Did such possibility exist for US. Not until 62.

In AACW1, playing as Union in PBEM, I would take Richmond by October, and invade NO by November. Such power imbalance is not present any more. Union can only defend in 61. Overall, CSA could use little more militias instead of regulars in starting forces. 61 offenses were not a big possibility for either side. Militias composition of forces will do that.
I would wait for the next patch before making a judgment if the Federals need help. Increase WS cost will hurt CSA a lot.

P.S.
And Aurelian, please do not take offense if I criticize some of your moves. I mean no harm, I just want everyone to learn on the mistakes and become better players.




Ace1_slith -> Early Dec - turn 17 (11/28/2013 8:14:45 AM)

Early Dec - turn 17

I lost Late Nov files, so I 'll be skipping to Dec. Nothing important happened in lost turn. Aurelian said he instructed Grant to march to Polk, but he failed to do so, I do not know why. This time he ordered him again and the battle happened. In the meantime, I reinforced Polk with some cav brigades, so he had 2 entrenched divisions against 3 assaulting ones.

[image]local://upfiles/46250/84E09E813E5D46C780CCA61F912239EF.jpg[/image]

Grant took more casualties because I had captured enormous amount of Union guns at Cairo. I had 160 cannon lined up in open terrain against him. The game declared Union victor, yet noone retreated from the field. I looked up into battlelog.txt file generated by the game. It seems Grant decided to stop the assault after suffering more than 20% casualties. But being still stronger he did not want to leave the area. So noone retreating is ok. But if he decided to stop with the assault, the game should not declare that he won the battle, it is confusing.

One more note on Union compostition, besides 3 divisions he has a volunteer brigade and a cannon regiment with no supply wagon. Those two drag his command penalties up to 20%. The CP aply to entire force, so in fact he would be better off without those two units than with them. Effect of 20% CP is the same as Grant having 2 attack rating instead of 6.




Ace1_slith -> RE: Early Dec - turn 17 (11/28/2013 8:30:25 AM)

With winter closing in, I had the last chance to storm StLouis. My ammo was low as well, as I had just enough for 2 battles.


[image]local://upfiles/46250/838B09B82B1243E9B170779124FD9C79.jpg[/image]




Ace1_slith -> RE: Early Dec - turn 17 (11/28/2013 8:34:54 AM)

Hooker division sailed from Philly and landed to Norfolk. I saw ships in Philly last turn, but I did not think he would detach a division for amphibious operations while Washington is threatened. There is a tooltip glich in the battle report window. For my forces it said they suffered from amphibious penalties, while it should say they caught enemy forces on the beach.


[image]local://upfiles/46250/662501E0562F4900A255B7FCAB69F0E2.jpg[/image]




veji1 -> RE: Early Oct - turn 13 (11/28/2013 8:35:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball


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.


I tend to agree with Qball here, as well as with what Michael T said : There is a rebalancing need, with the Union having significantly more men, maybe mainly militia.

If you give the Union 50 000 extra militia (ie 100/120 regs in general) say in 2 events in august 61 and february 62, then they can use those troops to garrison their cities (add an arty and some militia can stop a coup de main). The fact that they are only somewhat efficient on their own states also makes that more realistic : If you have quite a bit of pennsylvania militia protecting Pittsburgh, it becomes a tougher nut to crack. Same for Cincinnati, Cairo, etc...

I think that could really be a simple yet quite efficient solution. It is worth trying and probably easily modded. It allows the Union to build more quality troops for the actual "bringing the war to the south" but gives it lots more soldiers to protect its rear, dig entrenchments, garrison, protect railways, etc...




Ace1_slith -> RE: Early Dec - turn 17 (11/28/2013 8:36:10 AM)

Plans for the next turn:


[image]local://upfiles/46250/3614C4D3A71B40B3A4C96CFCF5C40BD0.jpg[/image]




Ace1_slith -> RE: Early Dec - turn 17 (11/28/2013 8:39:00 AM)

West theater. Johnson did it just bearly, only 6% ammo left.


[image]local://upfiles/46250/9753B77298174E55BF501E7A6D5113B4.jpg[/image]




Ace1_slith -> Late Dec 61 (11/28/2013 2:40:00 PM)

Late Dec 61

Battle of York was a success:


[image]local://upfiles/46250/F72434809F56479789E66CFDCED166B0.jpg[/image]




Ace1_slith -> RE: Late Dec 61 (11/28/2013 2:40:49 PM)

Hooker scored a minor victory at Norfolk:

[image]local://upfiles/46250/D7D92C97CCD643A3A9A239B7FB8936DA.jpg[/image]




Ace1_slith -> RE: Late Dec 61 (11/28/2013 2:42:08 PM)

McClellan tried to intercept my reinforcements linking with Jackson at Annapolis:

[image]local://upfiles/46250/1C84E1B2951B46EBB00B8260E31F1002.jpg[/image]




Ace1_slith -> RE: Late Dec 61 (11/28/2013 2:46:26 PM)

So, this has created a situation where Washington is ocupied only with sceleton force, with McClellan west and McDowell south from it. I would remove the capital to NY at this point and try to regroup, but my opponent clearly had enough. He remained in the capital and prepared for worst.
I concentrated in total 5 divisions assaulting Washington, 2 under Jackson, 1 under VanDorn, and 2 under Magruder. They were not all in the same regions at the begining of the turn, so I could not bring them to unified command, and my decision to split Annapolis stacks between VanDorn and Jackson has nearly cost me a Christmas victory.


[image]local://upfiles/46250/AD66E169C9FF4C7288B7C78BEB7E9768.jpg[/image]




Ace1_slith -> RE: Late Dec 61 (11/28/2013 2:52:34 PM)

I distibuted 2 divisions to Jackson to give him larger CP penalty than VanDorn, so they would arrive at the same time, and before McClellan can return to capital. Since Jackson has fast move attribute, they were supposed to arrive at the same time.
They promised pres Davis he would drink coffe at the white house on Christmas morning.
But, Bragg using his political connections, and although with same seniority, took command over Jackson stack and failed to arrive at the battlefield at time, so VanDorn was left on its own. The first battle was on 22.12.


[image]local://upfiles/46250/1181F165C0AF4AB39E1D314942742063.jpg[/image]




Ace1_slith -> RE: Late Dec 61 (11/28/2013 2:54:41 PM)

Bragg arrived at Christmas morning and engaged in bloody Christmas stalemate:

[image]local://upfiles/46250/CD21E10DB7B14FD8A284355798D2E980.jpg[/image]




Ace1_slith -> RE: Late Dec 61 (11/28/2013 2:56:43 PM)

Under a freezing snow, fighting renews on Boxing day only to be blodily repulsed:


[image]local://upfiles/46250/D9EF38B3123F4EA690F02A3CC70DA654.jpg[/image]




Ace1_slith -> RE: Late Dec 61 (11/28/2013 2:57:56 PM)

Finally on 27.12, Magruder arrives from York and enters the city:


[image]local://upfiles/46250/4E823F8AAD7B4A48AD0875ACBDD7ABE8.jpg[/image]




Ace1_slith -> RE: Late Dec 61 (11/28/2013 2:59:24 PM)

When faced with Confederate hordes, old Abe finally decided enough is enough and grants Confederates their independence.

[image]local://upfiles/46250/52A09755C3BF4257930A0E1CAE36F733.jpg[/image]




Ace1_slith -> RE: Late Dec 61 (11/28/2013 3:01:43 PM)

A rounddown of casualties, captives and NM:


[image]local://upfiles/46250/7D60D88D680C404AAFF15B6D5B1D46C7.jpg[/image]




Ace1_slith -> RE: Late Dec 61 (11/28/2013 3:07:12 PM)

So, this about concludes my first AAR.
I see many of you commented that the CSA is overpowered. I think you may be right at the moment, so if anyone wants to try a game on the CSA side of the fence, feel free to PM me.




Michael T -> RE: Late Dec 61 (11/28/2013 6:30:40 PM)

Well in my game as CSA against Marquo I have Washington besieged and have two sizable Armies almost at Phily.




Q-Ball -> RE: Early Nov - turn 15 (11/29/2013 6:17:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ace1

Overall, CSA could use little more militias instead of regulars in starting forces. 61 offenses were not a big possibility for either side. Militias composition of forces will do that.
I would wait for the next patch before making a judgment if the Federals need help. Increase WS cost will hurt CSA a lot.


That actually is a pretty good solution of tempering all the offensives in 1861, yet not crippling CSA in the long run. The Union is stuck with alot of early Militia, which slowly trains until they are all regulars sometime in 1862.

I would advocate if the South starts with alot of Militia converted to regulars, though, that the South should have another training officer or two like the Union has. Samuel Cooper could be kept on the map until mid-'62 for one, and maybe Bragg and/or Hardee made Training Officers instead of Training master, since both of them were critical in the early training of the forces out west




USSLockwood -> RE: Early Nov - turn 15 (11/29/2013 7:51:08 PM)

Great AAR and thanks to both players for the opportunity to learn!




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
5.53125