RE: 35th Turn

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: 35th Turn

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: 35th Turn

Page: << < prev 16 17 18 [19] 20 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: 35th Turn - 12/20/2006 9:03:10 AM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

And here's the Disposition of these units. These guys are just spoiling for another fight.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 541

RE: 35th Turn - 12/20/2006 9:04:26 AM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

And here are the weapons. No "Improvised" weapons in the entire army, and just one Musket.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 542

RE: 35th Turn - 12/20/2006 9:08:44 AM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

I also make some more purchases this turn. I can't afford to produce a new unit, but I do buy 5-6 Minie Rifles for ANV units that had "Improvised" weapons or Muskets.

I also build a Mint and Camp in Columbia, S.C., where a Plantation was just completed this past turn, and then build another Mint in Milledgeville and another in Wilmington. (I had a lot of extra Iron lying around.)

I then hit "End Turn" and see that the British naval technology boost has enabled me to choose an upgrade many turns sooner than I would have. I opt for Reinforced Hulls, which should come in quite handy next time I attack the Anapolis harbor.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 543

RE: 35th Turn - 12/20/2006 8:26:59 PM

General Quarters

Posts: 1059
Joined: 12/3/2006
Status: offline

Gil, you do a terrific job of explaining your options, your guesses about what the enemy will do, the reasons for your choices, and your future plans (sometimes for two turns away). This really helps the new player get into the game.

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 544

RE: 35th Turn - 12/20/2006 8:51:29 PM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

Gil, you do a terrific job of explaining your options, your guesses about what the enemy will do, the reasons for your choices, and your future plans (sometimes for two turns away). This really helps the new player get into the game.

Thank you. But as my Montgomery blunder proves, this is also something of an "AAR of incompetence," to coin a phrase.

(in reply to General Quarters)

Post #: 545

RE: 35th Turn - 12/20/2006 9:26:01 PM

General Quarters

Posts: 1059
Joined: 12/3/2006
Status: offline

Notice that I did not say you always make the right choices. They say that good judgment comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgment. I am gaining a lot of experience from following your judgments.

EDIT: Re-reading this it looks pretty serious. I hope it is clear I was goshing. I still don't know how to attach the little smiley faces. :)

< Message edited by General Quarters -- 12/22/2006 3:58:54 AM >

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 546

36th Turn - 12/21/2006 3:41:10 AM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

Thirty-sixth Turn

As expected, this turn Fort Donelson fell, and this turn the Union was driven out of Cumberland River, saving Nashville (for now, at least) and ensuring that Tennessee would continue to produce resources and aid the war effort, instead of becoming a conquered territory.

I was hoping that Fort Donelson would be preserved, so that I could build it up again, but it was destroyed and no trace remains -- my guess is that this happened because I drove out the Union the same turn that it fell. Had I waited a turn, the fort would have been in Union hands and the Union would have been repairing it, but it would have been very easy to retake after I had driven out the invading armies. Still, I can hardly blame myslef for getting my army to rescue Jackson (the more important goal) as soon as I could.

Oddly enough, a battle also took place in Montgomery, about which more later.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to General Quarters)

Post #: 547

RE: 36th Turn - 12/21/2006 3:42:45 AM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

More of the report, showing that the battle in Montgomery left that entire corps empty of men, leading the corps itself and seven division containers to go poof.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 548

RE: 36th Turn - 12/21/2006 3:48:48 AM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

Here are the numbers for the battle over Nashville. I'm not sure why it's claiming that the USA 1st Corps was destroyed in Cumberland River -- I can't imagine that so many men were killed that an entire corps container could be destroyed. (Since you guys can read jchastain's thread, please let me know if this is an error, and that 1st Corps was indeed the one lost at Montgomery.)

The Cumberland River battle was a major success, in which my clearly superior forces -- remember, I'm the one who respects his men enough to arm them with real rifles, not just slingshots and spitballs -- trounced the two invading armies, leading to further loss of National Will for the Union and gain for the Confederacy. This war is going swimmingly right now.

Also, note the minor battle in Lower Tennessee River. This means that one of my divisions FINALLY got there, intending to cut off supplies to the Union forces in Cumberland River. Sadly for them, Sherman's army and the other army were forced by Stonewall Jackson to retreat into this very province, where they ran right into this poor, defenseless little division. Still, I consider it a victory just to have gotten one (or two?) divisions to have obeyed my orders and entered that province. Had Jackson's army not made it to Cumberland River this turn the Union's supplies would finally have been cut off.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 549

RE: 36th Turn - 12/21/2006 3:54:05 AM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

Again I got very lucky with disease, since it struck a lone garrison unit in Columbia. Had it hit the Army of Northern Virginia that would have been very bad.

In other news, I've gained yet another level of British diplomacy, which will have definite benefits. And the CSA 1st Corps now has an "Excellent" command staff, which will make this army even more formidable.

The only bad news is that a SECOND blockade-runner fleet was destroyed. I guess I've been lucky in that I haven't lost any that I can recall (certainly not since early in the game), but this is a devastating blow just when my diplomacy with the Europeans and British is picking up. (This turn, for example, I get to send my lone runner after 70 Money -- the biggest shipment of cash so far this game.)

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 550

RE: 36th Turn - 12/21/2006 4:02:13 AM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

Moving on to the Battle Report, here is some more information. In Montgomery, I figured out what happened: in the very first step of the Movement Phase the Union besieged the undefended city and captured it, but not all of the brigades could fit into the city, so those that remained inside fought the garrison units I quickly rushed there from other provinces. Being out of supply, the enemy brigades were easily destroyed, and two of the CSA garrison units got free Minie Rifles. But Montgomery itself is in the hands of the Union and must be besieged (see below).

The bigger battle, off in Cumberland River, had a nice bonus: Improved Springfields for the 45th Infantry. Also, the CSA 11th Division now has a "Superb" command rating, which is as good as it gets.

And look at the USA Army of Illinois (ignore the naming bug, which was fixed for the released version of the game; we're still playing a pre-release version, since the save files of this PBEM game are incompatible with the version of FOF that is being sold). That army's Command Staff rating was improved to "Bad"?!?!? That's one lousy group of officers -- if I were playing the Union, the Union that is so rich in money and resources, I would have dismissed those officers by destroying the army container and produced a new one, knowing that it's ratings would almost certainly be better.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 551

RE: 36th Turn - 12/21/2006 4:04:39 AM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

I'm not sure why I keep bothering to show Virginia, but here it is. I still don't know just how many men are in Shenandoah, but intend to attack soon. Not in the next turn or two, but three or four turns from now, when I get those two artillery units represented by the pink chits in Norfolk and James River.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 552

RE: 36th Turn - 12/21/2006 4:10:01 AM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

And here's Montgomery, where that Union corps has been reduced to just two green squares (approx. 2000-3000 men, serving in an unknowable number of undoubtedly depleted brigades) and two yellow squares (= two generals). My division arrived there from Jackson, so this turn I add the three garrison units to it and begin a siege. Ideally, I would wait until I had some decent units present: these brigades are all low-quality units that are armed with "Improvised" weapons or, in two cases, Minie Rifles of Union make. If I can spare them, I'll send more forces down, but the sooner I begin the siege, the sooner I can get back my city and the production I'm losing.

I'm lucky that the Union is unable to take the province, since Montgomery is not bordering other Union territory. So the only harm they can do the CSA is to squat in the city until forced to surrender. And since they can't get reinforcements, it's only a matter of time before this happens.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Gil R. -- 12/21/2006 4:41:11 AM >

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 553

RE: 36th Turn - 12/21/2006 4:16:24 AM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

Here's Tennessee. The Union's two armies were driven into the nearest adjacent Union province, Lower Tennessee River.

That small division that's next to Stonewall's army is the 4th Division, which must be the one that fought a small battle with the Union. Since Nashville's garrison is too small -- especially now that Fort Donelson has fallen and therefore there is nothing to prevent an immediate siege of the city anytime the Union enters the province -- I add this division, which as two brigades that total roughly 2000 men.

I've learned my lesson too many times before that attacking the enemy in his own territory can be quite risky, but I think that I should try to attack Sherman's still rather massive army right away, before it can be fully reinforced. Right now there must be some depleted brigades that within a turn or two will no longer be depleted -- but if attacked now they might lose enough men to break and consequently surrender. My guess is that the enemy wants to withdraw out of Stonewall's range, but I'm not going to try to get cute and guess where -- I'm just going to hurl my forces right into Lower Tennessee River and hope that they get there before the enemy armies can withdraw into Ohio.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 554

RE: 36th Turn - 12/21/2006 4:18:09 AM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

Before attacking Sherman, I first decide to mess with the Union by sending the 2nd Division into Covington in the hope of claiming it as CSA territory. From there it can try again to reclaim Grafton and Parkersburg, as should have happened ages ago.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 555

RE: 36th Turn - 12/21/2006 4:20:11 AM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

And now that I'm not trying to cut off Union supply lines I can spare the 14th Division, so I send it to Arkansas-Mississippi River in order to reclaim that province -- and, before too long, restore the income stream that province should be providing me.

If I can continue to spare this division, I'll then be able to send it into Missouri, so that it can claim a few Union provinces for the Confederacy.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 556

RE: 36th Turn - 12/21/2006 4:21:05 AM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

And then I send Jackson's army after Sherman's, with the Raiders following along (not shown).

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 557

RE: 36th Turn - 12/21/2006 4:23:33 AM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

Units improve in Quality by experiencing battle, and these western forces have now fought in (and won) several major engagements. Here's a screenshot showing roughly two-thirds of the brigades in Jackson's army and their Quality levels after the victory over Sherman.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 558

RE: 36th Turn - 12/21/2006 4:24:44 AM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

Last turn I posted the same screenshot, but pre-Cumberland River. Here it is again, to show the units' improvement. (Note that some units actually went down in quality. The reason for this is that these units received replacement troops, which lower the quality of a brigade. So, these brigades did improve along with the others, but to replenish their strength they had to take a minor hit to their Quality level.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Gil R. -- 12/21/2006 4:34:58 AM >

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 559

RE: 36th Turn - 12/21/2006 4:31:43 AM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

We'll soon know if Jackson was able to engage with Sherman again, but the Raiders got there in time. I instruct them to destroy supplies, since those are very good numbers I see, and any Union brigade at 5 Supply or less will be at a penalty if combat does ensue.

Before ending the turn I considered making some purchases. I have 106 Money on hand, and am eager to start beefing up the ANV so that it will be able to do battle with the Army of the Potomac in Shenandoah a few turns from now. That money could purchase a Sharpshooters attribute and some Lorenzs for one of my brigades, and the ANV currently has only one unit with sharpshooters. Moreover, now that my diplomacy with Britain is up to 3 Levels I can purchase Enfields for the first time. Over the next several turns I'll be able to use my money to get some really good weapons for the ANV, but I can't do it now: the loss of that second blockade-runners fleet has left me hamstrung, and my top priority has to be spending 150 Money to build a new fleet. So, next turn I should be up to 150 Money, and the expensive new weapons will have to wait.

So, this turn I make no purchases of any sort.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 560

RE: 36th Turn - 12/28/2006 7:29:44 AM

Joram

Posts: 3198
Joined: 7/15/2005
Status: offline

quote:

Here are the numbers for the battle over Nashville. I'm not sure why it's claiming that the USA 1st Corps was destroyed in Cumberland River -- I can't imagine that so many men were killed that an entire corps container could be destroyed. (Since you guys can read jchastain's thread, please let me know if this is an error, and that 1st Corps was indeed the one lost at Montgomery.)

It doesn't appear to be a bug.

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 561

RE: 36th Turn - 1/27/2007 10:44:14 PM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

It is with regret that I accept jchastain's surrender, since I was hoping to inflict a great deal more suffering on the North for its arrogant, meddling ways. But hostilities are to be ceased, and honor requires that my forces treat all of his men with respect.

Historians will long debate whether the Union could have won this war had it continued. For my own part, in the coming days I plan to read through the Union's AAR to learn how the war was viewed from that perspective. Expect my post mortem soon...

(in reply to Joram)

Post #: 562

RE: 36th Turn - 1/30/2007 4:02:21 PM

elmo3

Posts: 5820
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline

Rematch. We want a rematch!

Edit - Make it best four out of seven...

< Message edited by elmo3 -- 1/30/2007 4:15:00 PM >

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 563

RE: 36th Turn - 2/3/2007 5:33:17 AM

General Quarters

Posts: 1059
Joined: 12/3/2006
Status: offline

A rematch when the new patch is done would be great. It would show how it affects gameplay and whether the old strategies still work.

(in reply to elmo3)

Post #: 564

RE: 36th Turn - 7/27/2007 11:24:38 PM

CeltiCid

Posts: 212
Joined: 7/18/2007
Status: offline

Well, i finally finish reading this AAR.

Absolutly great in terms of teaching some concepts.

A MUST BE READ for all Newbies ;)

Thanks to Gil AND JCHASTAIN for his work here.

< Message edited by CeltiCid -- 7/28/2007 6:21:34 PM >

(in reply to General Quarters)

Post #: 565

RE: 36th Turn - 7/28/2007 5:43:29 AM

jchastain

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: CeltiCid

Well, i finally finish reading this AAR.

Absolutly great in terms of teaching some concepts.

A MUST BE READ for all Newbies ;)

Thanks to Gil for his work here.

And sure enough, the loser gets no respect! heh heh.

(in reply to CeltiCid)

Post #: 566

RE: 36th Turn - 9/29/2007 9:59:11 PM

ravinhood

Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline

quote:

Here are the numbers for the battle over Nashville. I'm not sure why it's claiming that the USA 1st Corps was destroyed in Cumberland River -- I can't imagine that so many men were killed that an entire corps container could be destroyed. (Since you guys can read jchastain's thread, please let me know if this is an error, and that 1st Corps was indeed the one lost at Montgomery.)

35,000 union losses to only 6500 confederate losses? I find that a bit lopsided and unbelieveable there.

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 567

RE: 36th Turn - 9/29/2007 10:18:41 PM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

Remember, this AAR was played using a pre-release version of the game. Battle casualties have since been adjusted to be more realistic, and there hasn't been a complaint about this in ages.

(in reply to ravinhood)

Post #: 568

RE: 36th Turn - 9/30/2007 3:23:23 AM

ravinhood

Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline

Oh that's right...sorry forgot this was pre patch. ;) Where's an AAR since the patches?

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 569

RE: 36th Turn - 9/30/2007 3:49:22 AM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

Yikes. AAR's take an enormous amount of time. If I worked on another AAR, I'd get nothing else done. Best to leave it up to Grey Hunter and anyone else who's got the inspiration.

(in reply to ravinhood)

Post #: 570