I really like this game

[reinselc]

Never get too much praise right?

It is really fun. Not too too complex and has enough strategic challenge to make things interesting. I have not tried PBEM, but I would think it would be very difficult to win as the Americans. At least I have a much easier time beating the Colonial AI than I do the English AI.

The British just get so many reinforcements by the end of 1776 if you don't get a Saratoga type result and destroy either Cornwalis in the South, Burgoyne in Canada or a main army that came from the Boston/NY area you are toast. Just surving to 1777 is hard, and the Brits can take every major city in New England relatively easily by the end of 1776.

Has anyone here played a PBEM game recently?

[jimkehn]

reinselc...I am playing one right now as Americans. It has been great fun. Maybe my opponent will chime in with his opinion. As for Americans chances....I just finished a solitaire 1775 campaign and won by 400 points. Everything on normal. And in the PBEM game it is too early to say if Americans have muchuva chance against a Human British Commander. Right now it is looking pretty bleak. However, the French have just arrived. [8D]

[jimkehn]

O, BTW, you can read our AAR in the appropriate section above. "So Far to Go for War". It is written by my opponent and he has done an excellent job. I think you'll like reading it.

[Titanwarrior89]

Yes it is a great game. One of the best. It will be a classic for me.[:)]

[Roads]

Yes I really think it's a great game. There is a lot of depth, but it's elegantly done.

As to winning as the rebels it's easily done against the AI. I'm posting an AAR right now. They key is never to actually fight unless you have the odds in your favor, and always to threaten as many strategic cities as possible. I've never won on points on either side - you can almost always get to an automatic victory before 1783.

And I think the same would be true for human play. The rebels need to keep threatening, to always have an army beyond the horizon, and to be willing to sacrifice a small army to take out a couple of British units. The Brits have huge numbers, but the replacement system works against them - once a battalion is gone it's gone forever. New England is easy for the Brits to take over - but that isn't at all fatal to the rebs as long as you force him to keep lots of troops there to hold it down.

I do think the campaign game favors the British, but that was a design decision. I would be quite surprised to see the Brits win on points ever - if they can keep on a roll they should win an automatic victory by 1780, and if they don't get on a roll the American levies will.

Anyway I agree that it's a great game!

[von Beanie]

I'm not convinced it is as good of a game PBEM as it is versus the AI. I've finally decided that the British side gets too many replacements in the PBEM game for a human player. Frankly, it is too tough to win as the American player versus a reasonably good British player, and it should be fairly balanced. However, I can destroy sizable British forces (at much cost to myself), and the British can still mass large, unstoppable forces because of his replacements. Unless you get lucky and destroy a sizable force at sea or in some other bizarre way, I don't believe it is possible to beat a human British player as easily as the AI.

The thing that is bothering me the most right now is how a reasonably balanced battle can swing wildly to one side or the other. I just had a force of about 8 or 9 pieces completely destroyed by another force just a little smaller in size, and my army posture was set on defend (in an open area, not a city or fort). I sure wish there was a way to set the amount of casualties a side is willing to take before running away. I can't imagine a situation like this where a commander (who actually had better ratings) would stand and watch his whole force be annihiliated when retreat is possible. I would have been willing to accept 50% casualties, but 100% is hard to accept.

[HobbesACW]

I just finished the 1775 (alt) campaign PBEM and I lost as British. It was one hell of a fight with the Americans in front
for much of the game before the British managed to get their nose in front. After some strong late attacks and heavy naval defeats the British finally succumbed in the last few turns. Exciting stuff!

Chris

[von Beanie]

A nice opponent just explained to me why the disasters are happening that I complained about. I'm explaining it here in case you are like me and never read the rulebook:

Even if you set your force on defend, if you enter an area that is controlled by the enemy, the game automatically resets your force to the full attack mode. Consequently, your army can thereby annihilate itself even if you didn't plan it that way or expect to press the attack.

Based on my wargaming experience this is a bizarre procedure and effect that I have not seen before (it is perhaps the result of differing game design ideas between cultures--it does seem sort of French now that I think about it [:D]). I'll now plan my moves in BOA knowing not to try to advance towards an enemy army in an enemy controlled area without a major troop advantage.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: von Beanie
Even if you set your force on defend, if you enter an area that is controlled by the enemy, the game automatically resets your force to the full attack mode. Consequently, your army can thereby annihilate itself even if you didn't plan it that way or expect to press the attack.

"Men, advance on the enemy, but do not attack, only defend." How do you expect that order to be understood and executed by the game?

Based on my wargaming experience this is a bizarre procedure

Where in wargaming is it "bizarre" for troops ordered to advance into enemy-controlled territory to attack?[/quote]

(it is perhaps the result of differing game design ideas between cultures--it does seem sort of French now that I think about it [:D]).

Yes, of course, the old French "advance with hands held high in surrender posture" joke. Hardy har har. I'm certainly amused - for the billionth time.

I'll now plan my moves in BOA knowing not to try to advance towards an enemy army in an enemy controlled area without a major troop advantage.

Heckuvan idea. You mean you will only press an attack if you think you have a chance of winning the battle? BRILLIANT!

[Pocus]

yes this is the idea, expressed in his colorful and usual way by pasternakski... The game features military control, so if you enter (shall I say invade) enemy territory you are expected to be on the offensive, as you want to take control of it... so you are auto switched to offensive. There is no place to hide or run, you must fight!

The limit is very very low: 5%, so you can plan your advance in defensive mode by checking your path, if you are perfectionist (and you should against a living opponent!)

[von Beanie]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

ORIGINAL: von Beanie
Even if you set your force on defend, if you enter an area that is controlled by the enemy, the game automatically resets your force to the full attack mode. Consequently, your army can thereby annihilate itself even if you didn't plan it that way or expect to press the attack.

"Men, advance on the enemy, but do not attack, only defend." How do you expect that order to be understood and executed by the game?

Based on my wargaming experience this is a bizarre procedure

Where in wargaming is it "bizarre" for troops ordered to advance into enemy-controlled territory to attack?

It is bizarre because of the options that are provided. Most veteran gamers assume that you can do something known as a cautious advance--one where you advance and don't necessarily want to fight a battle, just pin an enemy force in their fort if you can. Now look at the options that are offered: the red icon is an assault posture and the description says: "You will attack on sight any opponent in the region..."; then there is the orange icon for the offensive posture that reads: "You will attack on sight any opponent in the region...". The blue icon for the defensive posture reads "You won't engage enemy in the region...but if you are attacked the terrain can provide some advantage..."

I was getting frustrated when I logically set my posture to defend and then advanced into an enemy occupied area. Repeatedly I would find my force going to a full bore attack and destroying itself. When I complained about this to my latest opponent he told me that he had become frustrated when the same thing happened to him. The difference is that he took time to go to the rules manual to figure out why his forces attacked when he didn't intend them to.

It is my opinion that this BIZARRE occurrence is probably a common misinterpretation of the icon descriptions and is frustrating other players. Both me and my opponent had been frustrated by the problem. That's why I'm taking time to point this effect out to others who don't care to read the manual or AARs.

I can't think of another wargame where a CAUTIOUS ADVANCE into enemy territory is impossible.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: von Beanie
I logically set my posture to defend and then advanced into an enemy occupied area.

What can I say? Your logic defeats me.

I can't think of another wargame where a CAUTIOUS ADVANCE into enemy territory is impossible.

I can't think of one where it IS possible.

Look. Your force did not "destroy itself." It walked onto someone else's turf and got its @$$ handed to it.

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

I can't think of one where it IS possible.

Neither can I, off-hand.

The blue icon for the defensive posture reads "You won't engage enemy in the region...but if you are attacked the terrain can provide some advantage..."

Taking account of the scale of the game and the setting I can't see any situation in which that entitlement to terrain bonuses would be appropriate... the 'defensive advance' is something of an oxymoron. As a generalization, which the scale of the game demands, surely it would be difficult to avoid engaging a 'home' army that has orders to attack once they know you are there? Such an attack would most likely be on their terms, not yours.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Hertston

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

I can't think of one where it IS possible.

Neither can I, off-hand.

TOAW III? Set minimize losses and you're good to go.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Hertston
Taking account of the scale of the game and the setting I can't see any situation in which that entitlement to terrain bonuses would be appropriate... the 'defensive advance' is something of an oxymoron. As a generalization, which the scale of the game demands, surely it would be difficult to avoid engaging a 'home' army that has orders to attack once they know you are there? Such an attack would most likely be on their terms, not yours.

I agree - it would be nice though to have a chance of pulling off a defensive battle while advancing. Think Antietam, for example (though I'm getting my periods mixed up). A superior general can outmaneuver an inferior one even on his own turf. In BOA, I think this is represented by the general ratings, which in cases of significant disparity, would effectively overwhelm terrain effects, but I can see the original poster's point.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: Hertston

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

I can't think of one where it IS possible.

Neither can I, off-hand.

TOAW III? Set minimize losses and you're good to go.

But then you retreat if you meet anything tougher than Thumbelina. I thought the idea was to advance and stick. If you wanna do that, you got to bring a heavy enough load and be prepared to fight for the ground you gained.

If your enemy is stupid enough to let you advance an inferior force into your territory (particularly a place he thinks important enough to hold that he has put substantial combat assets there), then smile, wave, and let you dig in right in front of him, it's time to throw down the shovels, yell, "Charge," and take a run at 'em. They must be of one of those nationalities (who shall remain nameless) that equip their generals with a surrender flag and encourage its use at every opportunity.

Makes me think of baseball batters who stand in the box with their hand extended while they spend a couple of minutes digging a trench, adjusting their jock, examining the trademark on their bat, then look out at the poor ole pitcha with a menacing scowl while they menacingly flick the lumber back and forth. They deserve a four-seamer right in the earhole for that...

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski
But then you retreat if you meet anything tougher than Thumbelina. I thought the idea was to advance and stick. If you wanna do that, you got to bring a heavy enough load and be prepared to fight for the ground you gained.

Er, he asked about a "Cautious Advance", which to my mind that is.

If your enemy is stupid enough to let you advance an inferior force into your territory (particularly a place you think important enough to hold that you have put substantial combat assets there), then smile, wave, and dig in right in front of you, it's time to throw down the shovels, yell, "Charge," and take a run at 'em. They must be of one of those nationalities (who shall remain nameless) that equip their generals with a surrender flag and encourage its use at every opportunity.

Heh, I agree with you too actually. Note to the original poster that in AACW the resolution of the map is such that it's fine for things to work as they do. There are enough territories that you can "slip by" an enemy and set yourself up somewhere in his territory, switch to defense and wait if you want. At the AACW scale, I agree with Pasternakski that no enemy is likely to give you the luxury to set up a defense that close (i.e. within the same area) so the rule makes sense.

IIRC (I haven't fired up the game today to check, but...) the scale in BOA was to have significantly larger areas. Within that map scale, I could see some allowance for this, but not in AACW.

Regards,

- Erik

[HobbesACW]

The rule works fine once it's understood. In fact you can move into enemy controlled territory and maintain a defensive posture as long as you have at
least 6% control (11% if crossing a river) or have an irregular/cavalry force.

If the enemy is inside a structure you will not attack unless you are in the assault posture but you will besiege.
Cheers, Chris

(Post updated as I didn't understand the rule [:)] )

[Roads]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski
But then you retreat if you meet anything tougher than Thumbelina. I thought the idea was to advance and stick. If you wanna do that, you got to bring a heavy enough load and be prepared to fight for the ground you gained.

But in BoA you can do this all the time. If you have more than 5% control, which is quite often, you can do it. If your enemy stays in his fort you can do it. Heck this was basically Burgoyne's posture after the battle of Bennington.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Roads
But in BoA you can do this all the time. If you have more than 5% control, which is quite often, you can do it. If your enemy stays in his fort you can do it. Heck this was basically Burgoyne's posture after the battle of Bennington.

Ah, that will teach me to read the manual more carefully! [:o]