
AAR: Save the Union
Moderator: Gil R.
- Shoot Me_I Explode
- Posts: 333
- Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:32 am
- Location: Raleigh, NC
- Shoot Me_I Explode
- Posts: 333
- Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:32 am
- Location: Raleigh, NC
- Shoot Me_I Explode
- Posts: 333
- Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:32 am
- Location: Raleigh, NC
- Shoot Me_I Explode
- Posts: 333
- Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:32 am
- Location: Raleigh, NC
- Shoot Me_I Explode
- Posts: 333
- Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:32 am
- Location: Raleigh, NC
RE: AAR: Save the Union
3
This was it.
This was surpose to be a decisive turn, and it was, just not for me.
Lexington starts us off by falling to the CSA. I was hopeing the 1400 men inside would hold out for another tune and tie the AoT up but they cant.
2 battles are then fough in Appalachia, one being a horriable lopsided 18,000 to 300, the other 20,000 to 8,000. I lose both and my NW drops to -10 while his shoots up to 4.
Now, my armies are not bad. Most of the birgades are around quality level of 2 and most are armed with springfields and mini's. Some very poor or depleated birgades are still have no weapons but they are very few. The corps that moved down from the AoP has i belive 10 birgades in it, all quality 3.4 or better and armed with spencer's or improved springfields.
The only problem I had was the disease that hit me and his raiders stripping supplies from my units. Most of the divisions started the year off with a supply level of 9 but by the time they traveled to Appalachia they were down to 4 and some were at 2 even at normal supply level.
I am really thinking to just surrender this game and just play our new game where I take control of the confederates. I believe my plan was solid. I would surround the AoT and force it into no supply and hopefully bring it to battle when it retreated to a firendly provience. However the AoT finished the siege of lexington then moved into Appalachia as reinforcements so instead of fighting two corps totalling 60,000-70,000 I fought 120,000 men and lost so badly I'm thinking of just surrendering.
That is just so wrong. They start the turn off in a siege of a city, finish the siege, the move into a battle in a different area as reinforcements. There's not even a rail line connecting the two that would being to let me believe an army in the civil war could do that.
To top it all off Britian send 104 naval technology to the south and france sends 40 money.

This was it.
This was surpose to be a decisive turn, and it was, just not for me.
Lexington starts us off by falling to the CSA. I was hopeing the 1400 men inside would hold out for another tune and tie the AoT up but they cant.
2 battles are then fough in Appalachia, one being a horriable lopsided 18,000 to 300, the other 20,000 to 8,000. I lose both and my NW drops to -10 while his shoots up to 4.
Now, my armies are not bad. Most of the birgades are around quality level of 2 and most are armed with springfields and mini's. Some very poor or depleated birgades are still have no weapons but they are very few. The corps that moved down from the AoP has i belive 10 birgades in it, all quality 3.4 or better and armed with spencer's or improved springfields.
The only problem I had was the disease that hit me and his raiders stripping supplies from my units. Most of the divisions started the year off with a supply level of 9 but by the time they traveled to Appalachia they were down to 4 and some were at 2 even at normal supply level.
I am really thinking to just surrender this game and just play our new game where I take control of the confederates. I believe my plan was solid. I would surround the AoT and force it into no supply and hopefully bring it to battle when it retreated to a firendly provience. However the AoT finished the siege of lexington then moved into Appalachia as reinforcements so instead of fighting two corps totalling 60,000-70,000 I fought 120,000 men and lost so badly I'm thinking of just surrendering.
That is just so wrong. They start the turn off in a siege of a city, finish the siege, the move into a battle in a different area as reinforcements. There's not even a rail line connecting the two that would being to let me believe an army in the civil war could do that.
To top it all off Britian send 104 naval technology to the south and france sends 40 money.

- Shoot Me_I Explode
- Posts: 333
- Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:32 am
- Location: Raleigh, NC
- Shoot Me_I Explode
- Posts: 333
- Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:32 am
- Location: Raleigh, NC
RE: AAR: Save the Union
- Shoot Me_I Explode
- Posts: 333
- Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:32 am
- Location: Raleigh, NC
RE: AAR: Save the Union
The units listed below has having drop its 0 levels of supply were the two divisions that moved out ahead of the AoP and captured Parkersburg and Grafton. I have honesly no idea how they got to supply level of 0. They left Maryland at a supply level of 8 and were kept on normal supply level. disease, raiders, mountains contribute to taking that many supply levels away from them? [&:]


- Shoot Me_I Explode
- Posts: 333
- Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:32 am
- Location: Raleigh, NC
RE: AAR: Save the Union
So distressed right now. That plan was perfect if his AoT did not interfear. Now I do not think i can not defeat his armies at all no matter what i do. With a NW of -10 my replacements are horriable while his are great. Looking real close that the south is gona win its independence here unless someone somewhere can tell me a game changeing tactic or move.


RE: AAR: Save the Union
Mayby you have to much good weapons ? Nearly every weapon better than a Minnie has and money/supply upkeep requirement. If you have to much of them, they can pull down your supply and drain your moneyconsiderably.
soeren01, formerly known as Soeren
CoG FoF
PacWar WIR BoB BTR UV WITP WITE WITW
CoG FoF
PacWar WIR BoB BTR UV WITP WITE WITW
RE: AAR: Save the Union
Yap. Also be cerefull not to buy too many weapons of same type. Every weapon has some limits and if you go over it it upkeep will cost much more.
"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
Nathan Bedford Forrest
- Shoot Me_I Explode
- Posts: 333
- Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:32 am
- Location: Raleigh, NC
RE: AAR: Save the Union
Humm, i guess you are right. I checked my weapons screen and I believe i am paying out 60 gold a turn in weapons upkeeps. Guess I let that one get out of hand. I will remember that in my new game. But what is the weapon you give most of your troops to keep the upkeep cost to a minimum.
1

1

- Attachments
-
- CaptureDe..1241214.jpg (155.34 KiB) Viewed 282 times
- Shoot Me_I Explode
- Posts: 333
- Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:32 am
- Location: Raleigh, NC
- Shoot Me_I Explode
- Posts: 333
- Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:32 am
- Location: Raleigh, NC
RE: AAR: Save the Union
3
As you can see I emancipated this turn. I felt his support from europe was getting to high and I needed to stop it. Also I've read off the forums plantations will now turn to mansions so he will not get the benefits from that buildign.
I also lose another major battle, 29k to 7k.
I finish several mints this turn and my economy is right back on track. Even with the lose of Lexington i am produceing 89 horses per turn which is probally enough to sustain me. I'm up to 14666 replacements a turn and emancipation brough my NW up to -6 so they are of some better quality from last turns.
My troops in Cairo are taking a heavy toll on his siegeing units there. Hopefully they can hold out intill i can get an army over there to help.

As you can see I emancipated this turn. I felt his support from europe was getting to high and I needed to stop it. Also I've read off the forums plantations will now turn to mansions so he will not get the benefits from that buildign.
I also lose another major battle, 29k to 7k.
I finish several mints this turn and my economy is right back on track. Even with the lose of Lexington i am produceing 89 horses per turn which is probally enough to sustain me. I'm up to 14666 replacements a turn and emancipation brough my NW up to -6 so they are of some better quality from last turns.
My troops in Cairo are taking a heavy toll on his siegeing units there. Hopefully they can hold out intill i can get an army over there to help.

- Attachments
-
- CaptureDe..1242416.jpg (176.14 KiB) Viewed 282 times
- Shoot Me_I Explode
- Posts: 333
- Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:32 am
- Location: Raleigh, NC
RE: AAR: Save the Union
Here's the battlereport. Not to much to report, only a couple birgades dropped there weapons and none surrendered.


- Attachments
-
- CaptureDe..1244317.jpg (138.53 KiB) Viewed 282 times
- Shoot Me_I Explode
- Posts: 333
- Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:32 am
- Location: Raleigh, NC
RE: AAR: Save the Union
- Shoot Me_I Explode
- Posts: 333
- Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:32 am
- Location: Raleigh, NC
- Shoot Me_I Explode
- Posts: 333
- Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:32 am
- Location: Raleigh, NC
RE: AAR: Save the Union
I moved a small division into Missiori to retake some lost terriority. At 2 gold a terriority i really want them back.


- Attachments
-
- CaptureDes..1435920.jpg (192.8 KiB) Viewed 286 times
- Shoot Me_I Explode
- Posts: 333
- Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:32 am
- Location: Raleigh, NC
RE: AAR: Save the Union
At the end of my turn I get a naval upgrade which really dose not help me. But i chose Ironclad program mainly because Jon has it and if needed i can build cheaper ironclads.


- Attachments
-
- CaptureDe..1442821.jpg (145.28 KiB) Viewed 286 times
- Shoot Me_I Explode
- Posts: 333
- Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:32 am
- Location: Raleigh, NC
RE: AAR: Save the Union
Turn 38
1/6

1/6

- Attachments
-
- CaptureDe..0413634.jpg (159.63 KiB) Viewed 286 times