Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Michael CSA vs Kamil USA

 
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] >> Civil War II >> After Action Report >> Michael CSA vs Kamil USA Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Michael CSA vs Kamil USA - 1/7/2014 10:19:12 PM   
KamilS

 

Posts: 1827
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline 		This is rematch of my game vs Michael.

First game I was playing southern side and got total outplayed. In October of '62 resistance became futile. After capturing Richmond Union army forced crossing at Manchester what made me realise that stopping blue steamroller won't be possible.






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Kamil -- 1/7/2014 11:47:47 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Michael CSA vs Kamil USA - 1/7/2014 10:26:48 PM   
KamilS

 

Posts: 1827
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline 		This time I take north.

Initial plan is defensive one. Holding ground in the east while building-up fleet that would enable offensive operation in Mississippi region. Reality will verify it.



June/July 1861

Missouri

Both sides didn't commit many troops here so far and I am happy to concede some territory if necessary.



Mississippi

5000 men under gen Lyon were send to cause problems near Island 10. Capture it or at least divert some CSA units from other sectors.

So far so good. Next stage fort in the swamps.








Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Kamil -- 1/7/2014 11:30:10 PM >

(in reply to KamilS)
Post #: 2
RE: Michael CSA vs Kamil USA - 1/7/2014 10:33:08 PM   
KamilS

 

Posts: 1827
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline 		Kentucky

To my great surprise Kentucky is not neutral anymore. It sems, that for now territory south of river Ohio is beyond my reach.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to KamilS)
Post #: 3
RE: Michael CSA vs Kamil USA - 1/7/2014 10:44:44 PM   
KamilS

 

Posts: 1827
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline 		West Virginia


After few weeks Michael finnaly decided to retreat from Clarksburg in early July. Some units were already sent east, now rest will follow.



Maryland


Great, unpleasent surprise here.

Potomac was crossed. Hastily assembled defensive forces were not able to stop Michael's advance. Rampaging enemy beaten my units, that were being assembled near Baltimore and city itself was lost.

Fortunately I still hold Fredericktown and soon will make flanking move in the valley.

Washington is defended by 34000 soldiers under Scott (including fixed garrison)

McDowell in Alexandria have close to 9000 men.


My biggest problem is excellent supply situation of CSA forces. His offensive can be self-perpetuating - lots of supply were captured in Baltimore. Annapolis.if falls, will provide him with more.







Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Kamil -- 1/7/2014 11:49:05 PM >

(in reply to KamilS)
Post #: 4
RE: Michael CSA vs Kamil USA - 1/9/2014 2:52:19 AM   
mmarquo


Posts: 1376
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline 		I have seen this before....good luck...

(in reply to KamilS)
Post #: 5
RE: Michael CSA vs Kamil USA - 1/9/2014 8:15:13 AM   
Ol Choctaw

 

Posts: 75
Joined: 9/12/2011
Status: offline 		Michael is going for broke in the east.

Forget West Virginia for the moment and rush everything to support Maryland and DC.

If you can scrape together an invasion force think of using brigs and transports (not heavy warships) up the Rappahannock and land at Fredericksburg. Us your heavy ships to land a few militia and cannon if you have them on the coast somewhere that will disrupt him. Beaufort Bay may be good. He will have moved the forces from Charleston.

He has scraped together everything he has and moved it to Virginia. You can move some of your forces from the Midwest and match him.

If you blunt his attacks now he will be way behind. Use this as an opportunity.


< Message edited by Ol Choctaw -- 1/9/2014 9:19:53 AM >

(in reply to mmarquo)
Post #: 6
RE: Michael CSA vs Kamil USA - 1/9/2014 6:11:41 PM   
KamilS

 

Posts: 1827
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline 		Thanks.

I tried to approach it in such manner.

(in reply to Ol Choctaw)
Post #: 7
RE: Michael CSA vs Kamil USA - 1/10/2014 5:44:37 AM   
Ace1_slith

 

Posts: 340
Joined: 9/24/2013
Status: offline 		Using Shelby in the East does not feel right. He never commanded a force East of Mississipi.

(in reply to KamilS)
Post #: 8
RE: Michael CSA vs Kamil USA - 1/10/2014 11:52:06 AM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ace1

Using Shelby in the East does not feel right. He never commanded a force East of Mississipi.


Nevermind the fact that a) in July 1861 he was actually a captain, not a brigadier general, and b) he didn't command anything larger than a brigade until late 1863

If we're trying to get a game that is close to history, some of the leader decisions in this game are frankly puzzling, like nobody checked Wikipedia even before making a decision

_____________________________


(in reply to Ace1_slith)
Post #: 9
RE: Michael CSA vs Kamil USA - 1/10/2014 1:07:41 PM   
Ol Choctaw

 

Posts: 75
Joined: 9/12/2011
Status: offline 		We did. Had him with his brigade on time. I guess the devs felt he was needed earlier. They really liked his brigade.

Just like M. Jeff Thompson. He should show with a division in late June 61 in SE Missouri. Instead he is at start with no division. You will note Shelby gets his brigade about on time. Until then he is alone.


Just to clarify, Not all leaders have historic rank and not all show when they got division command.

Some achieved greater rank than the game represents and some few never got above colonel.

Grant was the first Lt. Gen. since Washington and no one else in the Union Army achieved that rank until after the war.

Some of the 3 stars in the game were only brigadier generals when they received army command.

Don’t take any ranks or arrival times as set in stone historic There are a lot at variance.

Easy example, the Union would have no admirals until summer 62 and never have more than one three star to lead an army.





< Message edited by Ol Choctaw -- 1/10/2014 2:59:05 PM >

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 10
RE: Michael CSA vs Kamil USA - 1/10/2014 7:30:13 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ol Choctaw

We did. Had him with his brigade on time. I guess the devs felt he was needed earlier. They really liked his brigade.

Just like M. Jeff Thompson. He should show with a division in late June 61 in SE Missouri. Instead he is at start with no division. You will note Shelby gets his brigade about on time. Until then he is alone.


Just to clarify, Not all leaders have historic rank and not all show when they got division command.

Some achieved greater rank than the game represents and some few never got above colonel.

Grant was the first Lt. Gen. since Washington and no one else in the Union Army achieved that rank until after the war.

Some of the 3 stars in the game were only brigadier generals when they received army command.

Don’t take any ranks or arrival times as set in stone historic There are a lot at variance.

Easy example, the Union would have no admirals until summer 62 and never have more than one three star to lead an army.


I can see Shelby appearing with his brigade. And I understand the ranks are really more functional than literal. But some of the decisions are still head-scratchers. A sample:

HARDEE/BRAGG: These guys should enter as 2*; both were Corps commanders on their first battles
E JOHNSON: Never commanded anything like a Corps until 1864.....yet, he gets auto-promote to 2*
FORNEY: Commanded a division at Vicksburg. Corps commander? I have to assume the decision to make him a 2* was based on his OCT '62 promotion to Major General, but are we going on ranks, or actual commands?
VAN DORN: See comment on Hardee/Bragg

Alot of work went into the game, and I don't want to insult those who contributed, but I think some changes are in order with regard to leaders

Regarding Shelby, any player worth his salt is going to do what Michael is doing: Bring Shelby out east, and put him in command of all Cavalry in Virginia. Never mind that Shelby was a hemp farmer from Missouri, and a captain in the Volunteers, with no prior military experience whatsoever; I'm sure it's realistic that they would find this guy and entrust him with one of the Confederacy's most important commands right away.

Anyway, rant over

_____________________________


(in reply to Ol Choctaw)
Post #: 11
RE: Michael CSA vs Kamil USA - 1/12/2014 5:54:06 PM   
KamilS

 

Posts: 1827
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline 		July/August '61


Mississippi


Gen Lyon didn't manage to capture Island 10, moreover very strong Confederate reinforcements made it impossible to continue attack. Retreat to Cairo is only option.







Attachment (1)

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 12
RE: Michael CSA vs Kamil USA - 1/12/2014 5:57:57 PM   
KamilS

 

Posts: 1827
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline 		Kentucky


Surprisingly strong CSA presence in region, but I consider it good news - it means Michael will have less troops in the east.

Holding Cincinnati and New Albany is key, rest is irrelevant.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to KamilS)
Post #: 13
RE: Michael CSA vs Kamil USA - 1/12/2014 6:06:11 PM   
KamilS

 

Posts: 1827
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline 		Maryland


Strengthening of McDowell army in Alexandria was essential. Two repetitive victories will considerably blunt Confederate momentum in the east.

Mixed success in the valley. Winchester was taken, but most important part which was capture of Harper's Ferry failed. Nevertheless I think I ma putting enough pressure on his flanks.


Longstreet and Jackson are pushing north and east while I gather army near Harrisburg and keep strengthening Washington using fleet.






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Kamil -- 1/12/2014 7:07:38 PM >

(in reply to KamilS)
Post #: 14
RE: Michael CSA vs Kamil USA - 1/12/2014 7:40:18 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline 		Good recovery; I would pour every resource you have into the East. Cutting him off from VA is a good start, though it's clear he is "living off the land", or in this case Baltimore; probably enough supplies there to keep him fueled for awhile. So cutting his supplies probably won't force him to retreat.

But looks like he may not be able to push you out of Washington, which is the most important thing

_____________________________


(in reply to KamilS)
Post #: 15
RE: Michael CSA vs Kamil USA - 1/12/2014 8:12:06 PM   
KamilS

 

Posts: 1827
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline 		Yes, his advance is self-perpetuating. Unfortunately there is no control over supply distribution what creates plenty of unnecessarily high supplied cities/depots.

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 16
RE: Michael CSA vs Kamil USA - 1/12/2014 8:13:42 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone™
Status: offline 		Q-Ball, I disagree

Given the forces in the Potomac area you are clearly overwhelmed and Washington might easily fall. In fact I would be surprised if it doesn't.

What I don't get is this: where are your forces?

McDowell is only commanding 14.000 men? And the rest of the forces? The Valley in this situation is totally irrelevant: the enemy is at the gates of Washington

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 17
RE: Michael CSA vs Kamil USA - 1/12/2014 8:31:02 PM   
KamilS

 

Posts: 1827
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline 		In my opinion Union is far stronger than it seems.

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 18
RE: Michael CSA vs Kamil USA - 1/12/2014 8:41:14 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone™
Status: offline 		That's my opinion as well

Still, let's take Beauregard in Annapolis (800 CV) and the bearded guy at Baltimore (400 CV). If they march towards Washington (the big prize), I can't see the CVs you will use to meet / intercept / stop them (combined CV > 1200 ). Are you hiding forces inside structures?

I hope I am wrong Good luck.

Cheers

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to KamilS)
Post #: 19
RE: Michael CSA vs Kamil USA - 1/12/2014 8:41:22 PM   
KamilS

 

Posts: 1827
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline 		August/September '61


Maryland


I am focuseing on the east, because meaningful action takes place here.


Milroy's attack on York was successful what will probably force Michael to withdrawn Jackson west. On the other hand Fredericktown is lost and Confederates have now relatively easy access to Maryland.

More and more units are being send to Harrisburg area.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to KamilS)
Post #: 20
RE: Michael CSA vs Kamil USA - 1/12/2014 8:43:51 PM   
KamilS

 

Posts: 1827
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline 		At the beginning of September there was 30000 men under Scott in Washington and 20000 under McDowell in Alexandria. Overall 2000cv (no divisions yet). Plus 118 pwr strong brigade and 2 balloons on the way.

< Message edited by Kamil -- 1/12/2014 9:45:03 PM >

(in reply to KamilS)
Post #: 21
RE: Michael CSA vs Kamil USA - 1/12/2014 8:48:46 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone™
Status: offline 		Ah, there you have the forces. You scared me

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to KamilS)
Post #: 22
RE: Michael CSA vs Kamil USA - 1/12/2014 9:03:35 PM   
KamilS

 

Posts: 1827
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline 		September/October '62

Maryland


While I was assembling mighty counter-attacking force at York Michael was busy elsewhere. He managed to clear Valley plus made unexpected raid on Harrisburg. This is good news indeed. I have opportunity to trap Jackson there.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 23
RE: Michael CSA vs Kamil USA - 1/12/2014 9:12:22 PM   
KamilS

 

Posts: 1827
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline 		October '62


Maryland


Forces: 50000 men in Alexandria and Washington, 25000 under Grand rushing into action and 33000 converging around Harrisburg.



Unfortunately it was our last turn. We both decided, that Union is far too strong and game will probably end in '63 (or so).




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Kamil -- 1/12/2014 10:26:58 PM >

(in reply to KamilS)
Post #: 24
RE: Michael CSA vs Kamil USA - 1/13/2014 6:55:21 AM   
Ol Choctaw

 

Posts: 75
Joined: 9/12/2011
Status: offline 		Could you expound on that just a bit?

Balance is important.

Many players only play as the Union and they often think they should win easily.

Keeping that balance and making it a challenge on several levels.

(in reply to KamilS)
Post #: 25
RE: Michael CSA vs Kamil USA - 1/13/2014 7:37:30 AM   
veji1

 

Posts: 1019
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline 		gne ? I have a hard time reconciling your statement regarding the Union's excessive strength with what I see on the map.. could you please illustrate ?

_____________________________

Adieu Ô Dieu odieux... signé Adam

(in reply to Ol Choctaw)
Post #: 26
RE: Michael CSA vs Kamil USA - 1/13/2014 3:10:57 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone™
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: veji1

gne ? I have a hard time reconciling your statement regarding the Union's excessive strength with what I see on the map.. could you please illustrate ?


Same here

1) [CSA] going for the kill (Washington)
2) failing = game over?

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to veji1)
Post #: 27
RE: Michael CSA vs Kamil USA - 1/13/2014 3:23:19 PM   
veji1

 

Posts: 1019
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline 		Are you playing with historical attrition ? It does slow the Union down quite a bit once all the war takes place on southern ground.

_____________________________

Adieu Ô Dieu odieux... signé Adam

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 28
RE: Michael CSA vs Kamil USA - 1/13/2014 6:00:59 PM   
KamilS

 

Posts: 1827
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline 		I asked Micheal if he can write his own assessment of situation what will give all of us better insight into balance issues.

This is screen-shot of our set-up.











Attachment (1)

(in reply to veji1)
Post #: 29
RE: Michael CSA vs Kamil USA - 1/13/2014 8:42:41 PM   
KamilS

 

Posts: 1827
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline 		As far as understood Michael wasn't happy with both game design and balance and I think both factors contributed to sudden conclusion to our game.

(in reply to KamilS)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Civil War II >> After Action Report >> Michael CSA vs Kamil USA Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.688