RE: AAR RJH (Union) vs Joel Billings (Confederate)

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: AAR RJH (Union) vs Joel Billings (Confederate) - Confederate POV

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] >> Gary Grigsby's War Between the States >> RE: AAR RJH (Union) vs Joel Billings (Confederate) - Confederate POV

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: AAR RJH (Union) vs Joel Billings (Confederate) - Co... - 2/4/2008 10:29:16 PM

WallysWorld

Posts: 172
Joined: 12/21/2006
From: Calgary, Alberta
Status: offline

The scouting of the main map seems fine in terms of what I know and what I don't know. But should I know the exact totals of each unit that the enemy has on the overview screen? Especially with FOW turned on?

(in reply to ph4n)

Post #: 31

RE: AAR RJH (Union) vs Joel Billings (Confederate) - Co... - 2/5/2008 12:35:31 AM

ph4n

Posts: 33
Joined: 4/9/2002
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WallysWorld
The scouting of the main map seems fine in terms of what I know and what I don't know. But should I know the exact totals of each unit that the enemy has on the overview screen? Especially with FOW turned on?

Exactly, it's the knowledge of total strength indirectly via that screen that seems questionable.

The actual on-map scouting/FoW on the other hand seems really interesting; a game where you have to be active to earn your information.

_____________________________

regards,
fredrik

(in reply to WallysWorld)

Post #: 32

RE: AAR RJH (Union) vs Joel Billings (Confederate) - Co... - 2/5/2008 12:35:43 AM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ph4n

Ok, I'll fire away a couple:

1. Regarding the previous question (FoW/knowing enemy overall strength): what is the logic behind that? Shouldn't there be some uncertainty regarding enemy total strength?

2. Is it possible to see the existence of cav/art in a stack (your own or enemy's if scouted) without selecting said stack? From the screenshots I would say no, the cavalry icon is used as a (the) generic force icon. I'm thinking in the way of WaW - if only inf is present, use inf. icon; if armor also, use that.

1. Good question. We elected to leave total forces available in World at War/A World Divided and War Between the States (even with FOW on). With the Civil War it's hard to know what to fog up and what not to fog up given information publicly available to each side in the newspapers. We knew we wanted players to have to work at getting information on where the forces were, with the focus on cavalry. We also knew we wanted a mechanism to fog up the abilities of the leaders (thus the various random and unknown leader options). We didn't really feel the need to fog up the total forces. Now surprisingly I can't remember any of the testers bringing this up as an issue (I could be wrong, but I really don't remember it being raised during testing). If we were to randomize it somewhat, it's hard to say if it would have much impact on the play of the game. Feel free to start a new thread in this forum to discuss this.

2. The symbol you are seeing is the "Leader" symbol (2 horses with a flag). It takes priority and it's the one you're likely to see, as there is usually a leader in areas with units. If you look back at the first map screenshot I posted in this thread you'll see small infantry, cavalry and artillery symbols to the right of the leaders. You will see a symbol in each area where there is at least one unit of the given type. There is a way to turn these off in the preferences, and you'll notice I turned these off in later screenshots.
In order to get details on what's in a stack, you simply mouse over the stack and you'll see information on what's in the area at the bottom of the screen. Notice in the screenshot you can see the known enemy forces in Paducah, 15 Infantry, 11 Militia, 8 Artillery, 3 Mounted, 1 Heavy Artillery, 40 Supplies (and 9 leaders). Notice the ghost symbol. This means that there are more units and/or leaders in the area that you have not spotted. Notice I've also turned on the preference to show leader ratings. So each leader has 3 numbers shown, Attack Rating - Defense Rating - Appropriate Skill Rating (for infantry leader, infantry skill, for cavalry leader, cavalry skill, etc.). These are all between 1-4 with 4 being best. As of yet unknown ratings show up as a "?".

Attachment (1)

(in reply to ph4n)

Post #: 33

RE: AAR RJH (Union) vs Joel Billings (Confederate) - Co... - 2/7/2008 8:40:37 AM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

Good news. Rafael returned sooner than expected and the game is going again. As you can see by the screenshot below, only one Union Army commander got initiative (red arrow), and it was the small army in Harper's Ferry. That army doesn't appear to be big enough to move on it's own, so no Union attacks were made. There is less chance of getting initiative in winter turns, and less chance in 1861, and so far I've been lucky that no major armies have been able to launch an offensive. Things will change in the spring. Another thing worth noting on the political screen is that all of the border states are now aligned with the Union which means their factories can be used by the Union player. Kentucky is still totally neutral, although this will change if the Union players is able to capture London (the only population center in Kentucky not currently controlled by the Union player). These states must still be garrisoned in order to prevent partisans from causing problems, but with less troops than a southern state. The Union has 1023 political points (remember Lincoln wins reelection if they have 1000 in Nov 1864) while I have 1002. If the political points fall below 900, recruiting troops gets more difficult. In January the Union player will be able to call for more troops (called a draft in the game it represents more than just the federal draft) if he's willing to pay the 50 political points. I'd do it if I were the Union player. With the current leaders in place, the Union player is losing 13 PP per turn while the Confederates are gaining 9 PP per turn. My 2 Confederates Raiders can cost the Union a point or two per turn. Of course, winning major battles is worth points, as is capturing territory. Memphis and Nashville are worth 37 and 32 points respectively. My position on the Kentucky-Tennessee border is still very tenuous as my forces their appear outnumbered by at least 1.5 to 1. Of course in Northern Virginia I'm outnumbered by 2 to 1. My recruiting situation will improve in 1862 and hopefully I can improve the odds some before good weather encourages the Union army commanders to move.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Joel Billings)

Post #: 34

RE: AAR RJH (Union) vs Joel Billings (Confederate) - Co... - 2/7/2008 8:58:26 AM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

In the Union November turn a few Union gunboats moved down the Mississippi river and bombarded my heavy artillery positions in Humbolt. The net result was the damaging of 2 gunboat units and the destruction of a third, with only 1 heavy artillery unit damaged. Almost better than this though was that my Army Commander's defense rating became known to me and it was a 4 (the best possible). So in this game at least, Leonidas Polk is looking to be the savior of the west. Not only does he have a 4 defense rating, but his Army Modifier was revealed to be a 0 (as opposed to -1 or -2) so he's as good as they get. I finally was able to activate enough leaders so that I was able to spare promoting Braxton Bragg to Army command. I've been short of a Theatre commander in the west, and AS Johnston looked like the perfect general to promote to this position. With only a 2 defense rating he was going to be average at best as an AC, but as a 4 star general with a reasonable admin rating and high command points, he'll have a 45% chance of getting initiative each turn as a Theatre commander. His getting initiative will help commanders under him get initiative, which will improve their ability to move to a threatened area. So I've finally filled the 6 top command positions and now wait to see how the AC's perform.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Joel Billings)

Post #: 35

RE: AAR RJH (Union) vs Joel Billings (Confederate) - Co... - 2/7/2008 12:16:08 PM

JudgeDredd

Posts: 8573
Joined: 11/14/2003
From: Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

With the current leaders in place, the Union player is losing 13 PP per turn while the Confederates are gaining 9 PP per turn

Can you explain this further pls Joel?

(in reply to Joel Billings)

Post #: 36

RE: AAR RJH (Union) vs Joel Billings (Confederate) - Co... - 2/7/2008 7:32:22 PM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

quote:

With the current leaders in place, the Union player is losing 13 PP per turn while the Confederates are gaining 9 PP per turn

Can you explain this further pls Joel?

To represent that time is not on the Union side, the Union player loses 27 Political Points per turn while the Confederate player loses only 9 PPs per turn. In addition, both players receive PPs each turn equal to the political points of their 6 commanders (2 Theatre commanders and 4 Army commanders). If one of the slots is not filled, the player will gain 1 PP for that slot. On the political screen, the political rating of each player is shown as the second number in the # column (Cooper has a political rating of 2, Bragg has a 4). So with all 6 slots full, I'm gaining 18 points per turn now for my leaders. My net is 18-9 or +9 PPs per turn. The Union leaders are yielding 14 points per turn so their net is 14-27 or -13 PPs per turn. As you can see there is an advantage to appointing leaders with high political ratings to high command.

< Message edited by Joel Billings -- 2/7/2008 8:53:56 PM >

(in reply to JudgeDredd)

Post #: 37

RE: AAR RJH (Union) vs Joel Billings (Confederate) - Co... - 2/7/2008 8:46:04 PM

JudgeDredd

Posts: 8573
Joined: 11/14/2003
From: Scotland
Status: offline

EXcellent. Thx

(in reply to Joel Billings)

Post #: 38

RE: AAR RJH (Union) vs Joel Billings (Confederate) - Co... - 2/8/2008 8:43:50 PM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

January was another slow month due to once again the only Union Army commander with initiative was Halleck in Harper's Ferry. I've got to keep an eye on Halleck as his getting initiative this often may be luck, or it may be a sign that he's got a high attack rating and a good Army Modifier. Luckily he's currently commanding the smallest Union army (at least I think it is the smallest). There was one attack made, a combined naval and amphibious operation against Fort Jackson at the mouth of the Mississippi River. A landing by 5 infantry and 1 artillery unit (10000 infantry and 20 guns) supported by 2 Cruiser fleets looked like it was going to take Fort Jackson. However, with some luck, the garrison of 1 infantry, 1 militia and 4 heavy artillery units was victorious. The 2 Cruiser fleets were damaged, while 3 of my artillery units were damaged along with 2 of the assaulting infantry units. It turns out that my senior leader at the battle, Felix Zollicoffer has a defense rating of 4 (a second leader was killed during the battle), while the leader in charge of the attack, George Cadwalader has a 1 attack rating (he was wounded during the battle). I consider myself very lucky (these leader ratings were unknown before the battle), although the Union navy is not yet strong enough to take on a seriously defended fort (that will change as the Union builds more ships). This invasion was possible because the Union Theatre Commander in Washington had initiative and was able to help some of the unit commanders there to gain amphibious initiative (despite the fact that the Army commander in Washington did not get initiative). The screenshot shows my position in Fort Jackson after my turn. I brought in artillery to replace some of the damaged guns.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Joel Billings -- 2/8/2008 8:46:01 PM >

(in reply to JudgeDredd)

Post #: 39

RE: AAR RJH (Union) vs Joel Billings (Confederate) - Co... - 2/8/2008 8:51:36 PM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

Here's the situation in the east. The army in Washington is fully scouted, but the army in Harper's Ferry is not. I decided instead to raid the area with my cavalry and was able to capture 6 supplies and destroy another 18.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Joel Billings)

Post #: 40

RE: AAR RJH (Union) vs Joel Billings (Confederate) - Co... - 2/8/2008 9:51:36 PM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

Here's the situation in the West at the end of my January 1861 turn. Again, thanks to my cavalry advantage I have both Union armies fully scouted. The Union player is only aware of about half of my troops, so he's probably still guessing about my troop deployments. This is one of the big advantages the Confederate player has early in the war. Bragg is now in charge of my army in Gallatin, and Albert Sidney Johnston is now located in Atlanta as Theatre Commander covering the west, Gulf ports and deep south Atlantic ports (South Carolina and points south). The army in Gallatin is not strong enough to fight a pitched battle against the Union army in Bowling Green. If attacked, it will need reinforcement from my army in Humbolt, or it will have to fight a delaying action. I just don't have the strength at the moment to hold out everywhere (unless of course my leaders turn out to be much better than the Union leaders). With Polk having a 4 defense rating, and only outnumbered by 1.5 to 1, it's much more likely that I could hold Humbolt without reinforcements (or with only limited reinforcements) if I'm attacked.

The Political Point score is Union 1009 - Confederate 1011. The Union player elected not to call for additional troops. I think that's a mistake. Even though he'd lose 50 PPs, he'd still have a few turns to take some territory before he'd drop below 900 PPs and suffer a penalty in recruiting. I think he'll need the troops as my recruiting is going to pick up in 1862. Of course he may be waiting for a major victory before risking the call up.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Joel Billings)

Post #: 41

RE: AAR RJH (Union) vs Joel Billings (Confederate) - Co... - 2/9/2008 1:50:00 AM

jcjordan

Posts: 1900
Joined: 6/27/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

quote:

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

quote:

With the current leaders in place, the Union player is losing 13 PP per turn while the Confederates are gaining 9 PP per turn

Can you explain this further pls Joel?

To represent that time is not on the Union side, the Union player loses 27 Political Points per turn while the Confederate player loses only 9 PPs per turn. In addition, both players receive PPs each turn equal to the political points of their 6 commanders (2 Theatre commanders and 4 Army commanders). If one of the slots is not filled, the player will gain 1 PP for that slot. On the political screen, the political rating of each player is shown as the second number in the # column (Cooper has a political rating of 2, Bragg has a 4). So with all 6 slots full, I'm gaining 18 points per turn now for my leaders. My net is 18-9 or +9 PPs per turn. The Union leaders are yielding 14 points per turn so their net is 14-27 or -13 PPs per turn. As you can see there is an advantage to appointing leaders with high political ratings to high command.

Talking of PP & leaders, if you've got a leader who's losing alot of battles or winning, is there any gain/loss if removing him & replacing him with someone else? IIRC in a version From Road from Sumter to App there was a gain/loss effect in replacing a leader but it's been so long since I've cranked that game up on old desktop.

(in reply to Joel Billings)

Post #: 42

RE: AAR RJH (Union) vs Joel Billings (Confederate) - Co... - 2/9/2008 5:41:44 AM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

Yes, dismissing an AC or TC costs PPs equal to the leader's political rating (1-4) times his rank (1-4). So dismissing a 4-star general with a 4 political rating costs 16 Political Points. Doesn't matter if he's been winning or losing.

(in reply to jcjordan)

Post #: 43

RE: AAR RJH (Union) vs Joel Billings (Confederate) - Co... - 2/12/2008 2:03:32 AM

jcjordan

Posts: 1900
Joined: 6/27/2001
Status: offline

Thanks for the reply but I was thinking more of the effects that if you remove a leader "you make such & such gov mad" type stuff. So it's only the pp cost not other costs like to economy/recruiting/state morale? There was an old CW computer game in the old 8088 & 286 days that seemed to be more of the political simulation of the CW than fighting battles (forget it's name may remember it if someone said it or showed it) so much so that when you were assigning your cabinet at start half the northern states immediately went with the confederacy & you never could even start playing the game w/o some politcal event that po'd some cabinet/gov along with a couple of other major problems to it. I dropped this game very shortly afterwords.

(in reply to Joel Billings)

Post #: 44

RE: AAR RJH (Union) vs Joel Billings (Confederate) - Co... - 2/12/2008 5:46:24 AM

lancer

Posts: 2963
Joined: 10/18/2005
Status: offline

Goodaye Joel,

In the screen posted back a couple which showed the summary of all your leaders and their known / unknown stats there was a tab marked 'Admin'. I'll take a guess and hazard that each leader has stats relating to various non-combat functions.

Are you able to talk a little about what's involved here?

Cheers,
Plugger

(in reply to jcjordan)

Post #: 45

RE: AAR RJH (Union) vs Joel Billings (Confederate) - Co... - 2/12/2008 7:04:30 AM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

At SSI we published No Greater Glory in the early nineties and it had all that political stuff. WBTS simplifies the political aspects of the war into the Political Point system. I worked a lot on that game, and enjoyed it, but WBTS is very different (NGG had much simpler combat and many fewer areas on the map).

In WBTS, there's an impact for dismissing leaders, but it's just the PP cost, but your Political status impacts your overall recruiting ability (and for the Union determines whether Lincoln wins the 1864 election.

(in reply to jcjordan)

Post #: 46

RE: AAR RJH (Union) vs Joel Billings (Confederate) - Co... - 2/12/2008 7:14:45 AM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: lancer

Goodaye Joel,

In the screen posted back a couple which showed the summary of all your leaders and their known / unknown stats there was a tab marked 'Admin'. I'll take a guess and hazard that each leader has stats relating to various non-combat functions.

Are you able to talk a little about what's involved here?

When you click on the admin tab (the words will eventually disappear once we get the tab to function as it should), you get a different set of 6 ratings. They are the Admin rating (used for building forts and depots and for Theatre Commanders ability to get initiative), the infantry and cavalry training ratings, the all important Army Modifier (applied when the leader is an Army Commander), the mortality rating of the leader (it accounts for the age of the commander and how prone the leader was to being hit during the war), and the political rating of the leader.

(in reply to lancer)

Post #: 47

RE: AAR RJH (Union) vs Joel Billings (Confederate) - Co... - 2/12/2008 7:37:02 AM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

In February 1862, McDowell got initiative in Washington, but the Union player decided not to launch an attack on Manassas. No other Army leaders got initiative. He did send another 5 infantry and an artillery unit back to attack Fort Jackson with 2 Crusier fleets in support. I had the same 1 infantry and 1 militia, and only 3 heavy artillery this turn (instead of 4). However, this turn the leader of a nearby force of 1 infantry and 1 militia got intiative and were able to react and reach the battle. This swung the battle in my favor and once again the atack was repulsed with the Union suffering 3 infantry and 1 artillery damaged while I lost 1 infantry and 1 heavy artillery damaged. Fort Jackson held again. Both sides continued to build up forces on the Kentucky-Tenessee and Maryland-Virginia borders. March is the last turn with bad weather. Hopefully the Union generals will be content to sit the rest of the winter. I noticed the Union navy has grown considerably in size, replacing the recent losses and then some.

(in reply to Joel Billings)

Post #: 48

RE: AAR RJH (Union) vs Joel Billings (Confederate) - Co... - 2/13/2008 1:45:58 AM

jcjordan

Posts: 1900
Joined: 6/27/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

At SSI we published No Greater Glory in the early nineties and it had all that political stuff. WBTS simplifies the political aspects of the war into the Political Point system. I worked a lot on that game, and enjoyed it, but WBTS is very different (NGG had much simpler combat and many fewer areas on the map).

In WBTS, there's an impact for dismissing leaders, but it's just the PP cost, but your Political status impacts your overall recruiting ability (and for the Union determines whether Lincoln wins the 1864 election.

Thanks Joel, I think that was the game I was talking about. Looking forward to more screens & AARs. I might enjoy this game more than FOF.

(in reply to Joel Billings)

Post #: 49

RE: AAR RJH (Union) vs Joel Billings (Confederate) - Co... - 2/15/2008 1:16:15 AM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

A lot happened in March and April. I had a post with much detail written but it got erased by accident. My morale has broken but I'll try to give you a few details.

First in March Lyon's army attacked Polk in NW Tennessee. Lyon proved to be a disaster (1 attack rating) and could not take advantage of his manpower superiority (committed about 55000 of his 66000 men versus my 42000). Manpower losses were close but the Union took more gun losses (including some captured). The details are in the screenshot below that lists all the major battles to date.

No other Union leaders had initiative in March. In April, Lyon was sacked and replaced by Grant, and with McClellan once again not getting initiative, things were quiet in the west. In the east McDowell attacked Manassas and Halleck attacked Winchester. Although Halleck proved to be a decent commander (3 attack rating and 0 army mod), his 20000 men were not enough to beat my 28000 men. Only a portion of each side's forces fought in a small battle that sent Halleck retreating to Harper's Ferry. Beauregard turned out to be a 2 defense 0 army mod leader (mediocre but better than Lyon and McDowell), but Stonewall Jackson made the difference.

McDowell turned out to be another terrible commander (1 attack rating), and his 80000+ man army did not do well against the 60000 Confederates under Joe Johnston (3 defense rating). The Union took horrible losses. Longstreet and Ewell, the two major commanders in the battle turned out to be exceptional leaders, and the Union leaders were a mixed bag of average leaders.

The only thing the Union accomplished in April was the capture of 3 areas of swampland in Florida.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to jcjordan)

Post #: 50

RE: AAR RJH (Union) vs Joel Billings (Confederate) - Co... - 2/15/2008 1:17:55 AM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

Here's the situation in the west at the end of April 1862.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Joel Billings)

Post #: 51

RE: AAR RJH (Union) vs Joel Billings (Confederate) - Co... - 2/15/2008 1:26:35 AM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

Here's the situation in the East. Notice the crossed sabers above the units in Manassas and Humbolt (indicating there was a major battle in these areas). Both were considered Strategic southern victories, each adding 20 Political points to the south and costing the north 10 PPs. After the battles of Winchester and Manassas, I sent Stuart's cavalry to raid the depots at Harper's Ferry. He ended up riding to Harper's Ferry and then all the way over to Baltimore before returning. The major raid destroyed 75 supplies and captured 13 supplies. Notice the forces in Manassas shown at the bottom of the screen.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Joel Billings)

Post #: 52

RE: AAR RJH (Union) vs Joel Billings (Confederate) - Co... - 2/15/2008 1:34:54 AM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

Here is the total forces screen at the end of April 1862. The Union navy has grown significantly, but the Union army has been hit hard by the losses in the recent battles (including guns). Of course, I'm still significantly outnumbered, but the Political situation at the moment is good for the south (behind the list of major battles above you can see the PP score, 968 for the north and 1072 for the south). More imporantly, so far the Union army leaders have been a disaster. Of course, with random leaders the ratings of the early Union leaders are skewed lower. As a leader that doesn't start on the map, Grant has a better chance of being good (as do the other up and coming leaders). The Union needs to find a few good army commanders before they lose too many battles.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Joel Billings)

Post #: 53

RE: AAR RJH (Union) vs Joel Billings (Confederate) - Co... - 2/15/2008 1:37:12 AM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

I don't expect any more turns until Sunday at the earliest.

(in reply to Joel Billings)

Post #: 54

RE: AAR RJH (Union) vs Joel Billings (Confederate) - Co... - 2/19/2008 1:51:28 AM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

Rafael continues to have bad luck with his leader initiative. Only Grant got initiative in May. He launched an attack on my forces in Humbolt (NW Tennessee), which were reinforced by 10,000 men sent from Clarksville (2 areas to the east, they were able to reach the battle due to McCollouch having initiative). The forces were roughly even and Grant was repulsed with heavy losses. An amphibious invasion captured Tallahassee and all but cut off Jacksonville. The Union is beginning to find some leaders with potential, but the major battle losses are adding up and putting the Union in a tough political situation. Here's what we know about some of the major leaders so far (? army mod means it could be 0, -1 or -2):

Union

Army Commanders (east to west)
Heintzelman -- 3 attack/? army mod/13 command rating
Halleck -- 3 attack/0 army mod/18 command rating
McClellan -- 3 attack/? army mod/16 command rating
Grant -- 3 attack/? army mod/15 command rating

Potential Army Commanders
Buell -- 4 attack/? army mod/14 command rating
Butler -- 3 attack/? army mod/11 command rating

McDowell and Lyon have already been sacked (each had 1 attack ratings).

Confederate

Army Commanders (east to west)
Joe Johnston -- 3 defense/? army mod/19 command rating
Beauregard -- 2 defense/0 army mod/15 command rating
Bragg -- 3 defense/? army mod/21 command rating
Polk -- 4 defense/0 army mod/21 command rating

Potential Army Commanders
Jackson -- 3 defense/? army mod/12 command rating
Longstreet -- 3 defense/? army mod/11 command rating

(in reply to Joel Billings)

Post #: 55

RE: AAR RJH (Union) vs Joel Billings (Confederate) - Co... - 2/21/2008 8:08:21 AM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

In June, McClellan got initiative and attacked Bragg north of Nashville. McClellan only had a slight manpower advantage, and although the south took more losses (14k to 10k), McClellan fell back after the battle. Rafael has continue to have very bad luck with his leaders and his initiative. I can't remember the last time Freemont got initiative (the theater commander in the east). Based on his rank and command rating, his chance of initiative is equal to 10% times his admin rating. Rafael could discover his admin rank (1-4) by using Freemont to construct a deport or fort. My guess is it's very low. Scott (TC in the west) has occasionally gotten initiative, but Rafael has not been able to coordinate two large armies at once (in April he did get two armies in the east to move, but the Harper's Ferry army was too small and McDowell turned out to be a terrible commander at Manassas). In July things got worse for the north. Grant got initiative and his army was allowed to attack, however Grant got sick and had to temporarily resign. Rafael made the mistake of launching an attack. This is not recommended in the game given the confusion that comes from replacing an army commander on the eve of battle. Not only did the army suffer another bloody defeat in western Tennessee, Buell (the most promising up and coming leader) was wounded and will be out of action for several months. Rafael moved McClellan over to take command of the forces that retreated back into Kentucky, and appointed Sherman to command the forces north of Nashville. Rafael admitted in his note to me that he made a mistake and should have appointed Buell to command (this was before he knew that Buell was wounded). He would have been better reorganizing his forces and not attacking in the west in July.

In the east, Heintzelman attacked Manassas with the forces in Washington, but Halleck with a beefed up army in Harper's Ferry didn't get initiative. This allowed Jackson to join Johnston in Manassas, and the combined forces defeated Heintzelman's forces easily. The only success in July was a small amphibious invasion that took Corpus Christi, Texas. The political score is 816 for the north and 1160 for the south. After the recent battles, the Union manpower edge is only about 1.4 to 1, and the artillery advantage is less than that. Having not called for more troops earlier in the game, the Union doesn't have enough men to get much of a manpower edge unless they are able to move most or all of their armies at once. Unless Rafael's luck changes dramatically, he probably will not be able to pull his political points out of the nose dive they've been in.

(in reply to Joel Billings)

Post #: 56

RE: AAR RJH (Union) vs Joel Billings (Confederate) - Co... - 2/24/2008 2:18:23 AM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

Well it looks like we're not going to be able to go further in this game. A recent change in the engine code to fix a bug has made the game not work with old save games. Given the situation in this game, it's probably just as well since things looked pretty bad for the Union. Early in this game, we found a bug that seemed to have been helping attacking army commanders provide combat bonuses to more units than they should have. We fixed this and in so doing it looks like the combat balance was thrown out of whack a little. This could partially explain why the Union was taking very large losses (and it compounded itself after the first few battles as my surviving units gained experience). We're in the process of making a few adjustments and when we're done we'll try to get another AAR going. Sorry to have to cut the game short, but finding bugs is why we test. Hopefully you got to learn a little about the game. Let me know if there's something you'd like to have discussed in the next AAR that was not covered in this one.

Just so you don't think all games end up with the Union stopped cold, the previous PBEM game had the Union cutting off the Mississippi River in 1861, and a drive into Tennessee that by summer of 1862 had taken most of Tennesse and driven into Mississippi. The south was getting torn up and it was clear that the Union was not going to be stopped.

In this game, aside from having terrible luck with random leaders and initiative, there were some basic mistakes made that negated the power of the Union forces. Also, not calling for additional troops in 1862 led to the Union losing the large manpower edge that it needs to maintain. It's important that the Union take advantage of its amphibious capability to gobble up territory on the Gulf and Atlantic coast, and by so doing, cut off some of the Confederate free trade. In the game, this usually means having 2 army commanders on the east coast in order to be able to conduct these invasions. Once things open up in Tennessee (once Memphis and Nashville are taken), it can be advantageous to move one of these AC's to the west, but until that happens it's best to execute some amphibious operations.

(in reply to Joel Billings)

Post #: 57

RE: AAR RJH (Union) vs Joel Billings (Confederate) - Co... - 2/26/2008 1:26:38 AM

jcjordan

Posts: 1900
Joined: 6/27/2001
Status: offline

Better to quash a game killer bug now than after release unless you're the one on the winning side

(in reply to Joel Billings)

Post #: 58

RE: AAR RJH (Union) vs Joel Billings (Confederate) - Co... - 2/26/2008 9:14:51 PM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

All I can say is wow, after following your AAR Joel I can't wait for WBTS. Looks fun as all get out.

And BTW, the Union forever!

_____________________________

Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med

Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.

(in reply to WallysWorld)

Post #: 59

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Gary Grigsby's War Between the States >> RE: AAR RJH (Union) vs Joel Billings (Confederate) - Confederate POV

Page: << < prev 1 [2]