RE: Early July 1862

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Early July 1862

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> RE: Early July 1862

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Early July 1862 - 11/15/2006 5:55:48 AM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

OK. Time to look at supply again. It is becoming clear that this thing will last into 63. I need to begin conserving cash with armies that aren't fighting. When we get to winter, I can cut supply to noghting and really catch up with some of the investments I haven't been able to make, but I don't need to wait for that since most of the army is stationary anyway. Looks like the 18th needs some extra help though. I'll devote some of the savings to getting them up to high supply priority.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 271

RE: Early July 1862 - 11/15/2006 5:56:55 AM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

The British diplomacy isn't going anywhere anyway. I'll bring it down yet another notch. Closing in on 200 money per turn with those changes. That'll give me some additional flexibility.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 272

RE: Early July 1862 - 11/15/2006 5:58:57 AM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

He's up to something in the east. Maybe that little misadvanture wasn't such a good idea. I might should have let the sleeping dog lie. Oh well, I have troops being raised as we speak. That all I can do right now anyway. We'll just have to see where he goes with this little exercise.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 273

RE: Early July 1862 - 11/15/2006 6:00:02 AM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

And another upgrade. Engineering this time. Hmmmm. What to choose? Can anyone say "no brainer"?

And with that, another turn comes to a close.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 274

RE: Early July 1862 - 11/15/2006 6:06:32 AM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grifman

Reading your perspective on this war and your opponent's is very interesting to say the least. And I won't say any more than that :)

That's the fun of separate threads. It lets us share our thoughts and perspectives so you can laugh at both of us. When this is all over, I look forward to going through his thread and seeing just how wrong I was about a lot of things.

Also, I keeping thinking back to Hard Sarge's comments as we were just getting started.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

Thanks to both of you. It'll be useful to have an example like this when we get the game.

Naw, you not seen the two of them play

That statement was likely more prophetic than even he knew. I find the statement regarding Mac in this thread to be especially humorous. In a lot of ways, I likely resemble him and his style more than I probably should. Luckily, I'm not afraid to let everyone see my errors so that they might learn from them. And my only saving grace is likely that Gil is probably as bad at this game as I am.

(in reply to Grifman)

Post #: 275

RE: Early July 1862 - 11/15/2006 7:06:45 AM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

Well, my impression is that you're both making reasonable decisions given your respective views of the situation. That is, you both have reasons for your decisions. Anyway, it sure is fun to watch. :)

Forge of Freedom is very well suited for PBEM, if this AAR is any guide. I had been worried that the absence of the tactical layer would be missed, but the strategic game is surprisingly deep.

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 276

RE: Early July 1862 - 11/15/2006 7:11:56 AM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

It always starts as a nice quiet day. The siege is going well with another half off the defenses. Half way there.

Crazy Delawares surrenders? Ummmmm.... that's probably not a good sign.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 277

RE: Early July 1862 - 11/15/2006 7:14:25 AM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

Drat! I knew he might be itching to attacking those sieging forces, but how the heck did he get there so fast? Not only was he in Chattanooga, but his army wasn't even together. I felt sure I had a turn before he could possible attack. The threat of disease made me keep my best army out of there. Now I see what a mistake that was.

Lots of green troops raised. I might need them for a different purpose than I first thought.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 278

Late July 1862 - 11/15/2006 7:15:57 AM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

A few things happened, but hard to care after what I just saw. I need to get to the map and look things over.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 279

RE: Late July 1862 - 11/15/2006 7:17:31 AM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

As I feared. He came a long way to pull that off. OK, that changes everything. Time to go back to the drawing board.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 280

RE: Late July 1862 - 11/15/2006 7:18:50 AM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

Looking at the battle report, it could have been a lot worse. We lost a few garbage weapons and a good bit of supply. Getting that supply back up will be the key to surviving and then bouncing back.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 281

RE: Late July 1862 - 11/15/2006 7:19:46 AM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

Looking to the east, we might have a situation there also. He appears to be gearing up for a full offensive.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 282

RE: Late July 1862 - 11/15/2006 7:21:31 AM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

First things first, we need to regroup. I don't need all these armies out here anyway. Let's combine into a couple of fighting units. I'll get rid of my army with the worst stats and then keep one siege army that will be mostly empty for now.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 283

RE: Late July 1862 - 11/15/2006 7:22:26 AM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

Next, I need to get supply back up in a hurry. Time to turn the fire hose back up to full output - or as near to it as I can afford.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 284

RE: Late July 1862 - 11/15/2006 7:25:10 AM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

When all is said and done, here are my remaining armies. Kentucky and Illinois combine for 160K men. I went ahead and spent all my gun inventory and did some more upgrades. I have to get that massive group reeady to fight. Supply is the big need right now though. The Army of Kentucky was decimated - no so much in manpower but in material.

(game still shows a siegework in cumberland - that's a mistake.)

Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 285

RE: Late July 1862 - 11/15/2006 7:26:13 AM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

Just looking at the citry list, I see that I have a negative income. This isn't the time to go on a shopping spree. I need to keep those supply expenses up for a few turns and get back into the fight.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 286

RE: Late July 1862 - 11/15/2006 7:27:57 AM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

I'll ratchet down the Dip spending on England even further and get pretty close to break even on cash income.

And that's all I can do right now. He definitely got the better of me that time. And I'm not convinced he's finished. Time to send it back to him and see what else I'll have to deal with.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 287

RE: Early July 1862 - 11/15/2006 7:30:41 AM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grotius

Forge of Freedom is very well suited for PBEM, if this AAR is any guide. I had been worried that the absence of the tactical layer would be missed, but the strategic game is surprisingly deep.

You are right. I tried to say as much before, but it really is hard to truly grasp that the strategic game is in fact a full game until you really see it.

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 288

RE: Early July 1862 - 11/15/2006 8:32:46 AM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

One thing I have noticed from the AAR reports is that the casualties seem to be much more one-sided than they should be. The only two "battles" I can think of where the "winners" casualties weren't at least 60% of the "losers" were Fredricksburg and Cold Harbor---and both of those were closer to siege assults than battles. A couple of times (Seven Days and Chicamagua) the "winners" casualties exceeded those of the "losers". This doesn't seem to be the results shown so far in the AAR.

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 289

RE: Early July 1862 - 11/15/2006 8:43:22 AM

AU Tiger_MatrixForum

Posts: 1606
Joined: 10/9/2006
From: Deepest Dixie
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

One thing I have noticed from the AAR reports is that the casualties seem to be much more one-sided than they should be. The only two "battles" I can think of where the "winners" casualties weren't at least 60% of the "losers" were Fredricksburg and Cold Harbor---and both of those were closer to siege assults than battles. A couple of times (Seven Days and Chicamagua) the "winners" casualties exceeded those of the "losers". This doesn't seem to be the results shown so far in the AAR.

I noticed that myself.

_____________________________

"Never take counsel of your fears."

Tho. Jackson

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 290

RE: Early July 1862 - 11/15/2006 2:28:09 PM

Grifman

Posts: 156
Joined: 7/6/2002
Status: offline

Agreed, I'm curious as to how casualties are calculated. I'm wondering if combinations of details might give odd results.

To me, all the details (leaders, weapons, training, etc.) themselves should not actually result in the casualties. They should determine the level of victory/defeat - severe, moderate, draw, etc. Each defeat/victory level should have an associated percentage range of casualties based upon history. Then a die should be rolled to determine the result from the applicable range.

Of course, that's just one way to do it. I'd be interested in seeing how it is really calculated.

(in reply to AU Tiger_MatrixForum)

Post #: 291

RE: Early July 1862 - 11/15/2006 2:36:14 PM

marecone

Posts: 469
Joined: 7/31/2006
From: Croatia, Europe
Status: offline

Very nice AAR's. Keep them coming

_____________________________

"I have never, on the field of battle, sent you where I was unwilling to go myself; nor would I now advise you to a course which I felt myself unwilling to pursue."

Nathan Bedford Forrest

(in reply to Grifman)

Post #: 292

RE: Early July 1862 - 11/15/2006 4:09:26 PM

ericbabe

Posts: 11927
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline

The casualty figures for battles include losses in the "pursuit" phase after the battle, in which the defeated side loses additional troops through enemy actions and to straggling/desertion as its forces run away. Battles where the victors lose 0 and the defeated lose, say, 1000 are cases where the defeated side decided that it was outclassed and didn't fight at all, scrambling out of the province before the battle started; in that case there are only pursuit losses reported, and there are no actual combat casualties as such. (FWIW, Gil is bugging me to make the battle report more comprehensive, to show more thorough breakdowns of participants and casualties... a more thorough battle report would make this aspect of the rules more clear.)

(in reply to marecone)

Post #: 293

RE: Early July 1862 - 11/15/2006 4:20:53 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

One thing I have noticed from the AAR reports is that the casualties seem to be much more one-sided than they should be. The only two "battles" I can think of where the "winners" casualties weren't at least 60% of the "losers" were Fredricksburg and Cold Harbor---and both of those were closer to siege assults than battles. A couple of times (Seven Days and Chicamagua) the "winners" casualties exceeded those of the "losers". This doesn't seem to be the results shown so far in the AAR.

some of the ones I have posted show me takeing more losses then I gave out

but Quick battles in a PBEM game are more oneside, with a lot of the losses coming from the end of battle, during the battle they can be pretty close

Opps, should of finished reading all the posts before I posted, sorry

< Message edited by Hard Sarge -- 11/15/2006 4:25:24 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 294

RE: Early July 1862 - 11/15/2006 4:51:34 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

The casualty figures for battles include losses in the "pursuit" phase after the battle, in which the defeated side loses additional troops through enemy actions and to straggling/desertion as its forces run away.� Battles where the victors lose 0 and the defeated lose, say, 1000 are cases where the defeated side decided that it was outclassed and didn't fight at all, scrambling out of the province before the battle started; in that case there are only pursuit losses reported, and there are no actual combat casualties as such.� (FWIW, Gil is bugging me to make the battle report more comprehensive, to show more thorough breakdowns of participants and casualties... a more thorough battle report would make this aspect of the rules more clear.)

"Pursuit Losses"? This isn't the Napoleonic Wars. There was exactly ONE battle in the Civil War that resulted in singificant "pursuit losses" --- Nashville. "Pap" Thomas and his forces virtually destroyed Hood's Army of the Tennessee there. Though I'd say "discintegration" was closer to the mark, with the Army finally having had enough of Hood's bungling coupled with the end of the war being in sight. If this is what is being represented, I'd say it's being WAY overstated.

(in reply to ericbabe)

Post #: 295

RE: Early July 1862 - 11/15/2006 7:05:41 PM

spruce

Posts: 404
Joined: 9/23/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

The casualty figures for battles include losses in the "pursuit" phase after the battle, in which the defeated side loses additional troops through enemy actions and to straggling/desertion as its forces run away.� Battles where the victors lose 0 and the defeated lose, say, 1000 are cases where the defeated side decided that it was outclassed and didn't fight at all, scrambling out of the province before the battle started; in that case there are only pursuit losses reported, and there are no actual combat casualties as such.� (FWIW, Gil is bugging me to make the battle report more comprehensive, to show more thorough breakdowns of participants and casualties... a more thorough battle report would make this aspect of the rules more clear.)

well thanks Eric for the feedback, it seems right now I can understand the difference in casualties much better. And indeed - after battles where finished in ACW - sometimes brigades or regiments found themselves in dire straits and the only thing they could do was run without firing back (meaning a very bad rating of casualties inflicted/casualties taken, and also the chance of surrender). Also lots of desertions and stragglers, but this was more a "continuous" issue for the armies and for sure more prominent when being defeated.

But I agree with you now - the player needs to know how much troops were taken from his armies during combat ... some indication how badly mauled the unit was.

And camps do regrow these stragglers and deserters ... and take time.

That's why it seems nok to only rely on camps to grow your fielded numbers.

< Message edited by spruce -- 11/15/2006 7:11:32 PM >

(in reply to ericbabe)

Post #: 296

RE: Early July 1862 - 11/15/2006 8:06:57 PM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

OK.. we got through that last turn. But... strangely the siege continues without the siegers. There was a recent patch to fix the last siege issue (attacking the fort) but it doesn't seem to have worked quite right. Looks like the devs need to take one more look.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to spruce)

Post #: 297

RE: Early July 1862 - 11/15/2006 8:08:08 PM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

There also seems to be more training going on. Not sure if someone tweaked a value there or if I'm just getting luckier.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 298

RE: Early July 1862 - 11/15/2006 8:17:59 PM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

Out west, he withdrew from Nashville. Obviously he didn't know my supplies were so badly depleted. And my forces did't quite make it all to the same place. He reorganizes and jumps half way across the map, but I can't even walk next door. Perhaps this is how Golliath felt.

This is where we have an interesting conundrum. Normally, I would reoccupy Nashville now - this time with all my forces - and begin the encirclement anew. I can finish my reorg and resupply there as well as anywhere. And clearly he isn't ready to mess with my massive forces. I don't want to take advantage of a bug and liberate the city with half the effort. But I also do not want to be penalized. I send Gil a message suggesting that I enter and finish the siege next turn and then sit there for 2 more turns to "make up" for it not resetting the siege. For now, I'll sit here so we can monitor the bug and report it to the devs and I'll wait for Gil's response to my proposal.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 299

RE: Early July 1862 - 11/15/2006 8:21:23 PM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

Looking east, he is definitely making some threatening moves. I think I have the forces to stop him if he crossed the border so for now I'll just wait and see what he does. I'm tempted to do an amphibeous landing by Norfolk, but sea supply is not reliable and the last thing I need right now is to strand a badly prepared army on a beach.