Humbled, Humbled

[dthornburg]

Sounds like a sensible strategy. Thanks Erik.

[PyleDriver]

jjarred, I beat the AI on hard, but I cant beat Joel...lol...Richmond next turn we'll see if I can...

[8D]
Jon

[dpazuk]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Another strategy to try is this, works for either side but I'll describe it as the Union - as the Union's cavalry improves, mass it under a good cavalry commander (Sheridan if you can spare him) and use it to Raid the area of a Confederate army you are about to attack. Keep raiding until you destroy their rail lines and hopefully those around them. Then attack. This will limit the ability to reinforce them during reaction and give you a more free hand in dealing with just the enemy forces nearby.

Regards,

- Erik

Brilliant!

Thanks Erik. I was wondering what one could do to limit and/or counter enemy reaction.

Simultaneous attacks in the same area seemed logical, but I don't know why I didn't think of this most obvious use of cavalry. I have definately been neglecting my cavalry by not utilizing it to it's full effect.

Knowing where the enemy is (scouting), isolating enemy troop concentrations (cutting the South in two, then three, and hampering the enemy's ability to move reaction forces (raiding) is key.

[Grotius]

I'm loving the fact that the AI is tough! I'm still on my first game, on Normal, vs the Union AI...and it's a close one. We're roughly tied in PPs, around 880 each, in the fall of 1862. I've won a couple strategic victories and I'm thinking maybe I have a chance to win now. But on the map the situation sure doesn't look great. I'm just loving it.

[Joel Billings]

I could usually win on hard level, although I haven't played it in a few months and things did change during development. I did play a lot though. I'm sure Jan and Jon can beat the computer on hard, but I'm not sure if any of the other testers can. I know several testers can win on Challenging. I think the AI will give people a lot of fun game time, especially since once you get good then you can try random leaders to mix things up as well.

I do want to clear up one thing. Raiding areas to damage rail will likely not impact reaction moves, because the rail can be repaired during the reaction phase. Cav raiding damaging rails is our abstract way of dealing with cavalry cutting supply lines (since it costs supplies to repair the rails). We didn't intend for raiding to slow reactions. However, there is a way to slow reacting armies. If you are in a position to move some forces into an area that enemy forces might have to move through, it will cost an extra MP for the units to move through the area. Jon did this in our game. He moved a small force from New Bern to Goldsboro which meant that my units moving south from Raleigh and points north to Wilmington had to pay an extra MP to move through Goldsboro. That was enough to keep some of my units from reacthing the main battle. That reminds me to say that for the south it sure is nice to have some infantry skill 4 leaders in positions to react to enemy attacks (they can cover a lot of ground, especially if they are good leaders that have a good chance of getting initiative).

[jjarred]

Pyledriver:
 
You have my respect...I get 'stomped' like a spider at a 'Womens Tap-Dance Convention' on normal level.  One day, I just hope to beat the normal AI.
 
Take Care.&nbsp;&nbsp; : < )

[rjh1971]

ORIGINAL: jjarred

Eric,

Has anyone on the test team or otherwise been able to stand up to Hard or Impossible? Just curious, like a really gonna get to those levels anytime soon, NOT!!!

I onced played the Union with a partisan & leader help of +4 for the AI (that would be impossible iirc), and even though I took most of the Southern territory and was clearly winning, at least if you consider what was left of the South, by september 64 I was just below 800 pp and still hadn't declare the emancipation, only once I got an strategic victory and when I did my pp points were under a 1000.
I was going to lose the elections so I didn't finish it.
It was dispairing I was winning but losing at the same time.

Maybe Joel, Jan or Jon might have done it.

[JanSorensen]

I havent played on impossible. Winning on Hard is hard enough I guess I should play the released version to see if I can beat that on Hard as well - its been a long time since I played.

[morganbj]

Shoot!&nbsp; I think the AI is a piece of cake....
&nbsp;
...I'm also delusional.
&nbsp;
Actually, I've been creamed more than strawberry shortcake.
&nbsp;

[morganbj]

Oh, it's nice to know I'm not an idiot.&nbsp; At least not alone as one.&nbsp; We band of brothers,&nbsp;we who watch our troops dissolve, and our land go enemy.&nbsp; And we come back for more...and love it.
&nbsp;

[Berkut]

Does the AI cheat at all?

[JanSorensen]

ORIGINAL: Berkut

Does the AI cheat at all?

Yes, it does.
- It ignores fog of war (its foggy enough on its own)
- It activates alot more leaders than a human player is able to (but uses them less wisely)
- On normal mode it is able to transport twice as many units on raid/sea as a human player may (but does so less wisely)
- On challenging / Hard it gets combat/training/initiative bonuses.

So, using normal mode it does cheat but not by much - and it cheating is not the reason its beating those new to the game - its simply a pretty good AI.

[jjarred]

With so many AI's in other games I have played, after one figures out the AI patterns; It is very easy to beat it...which is inevitable in the end for most of us if you play a game long enough...but as I read the strategies being offered by the Game developers and Game testers, with this AI; I am getting the impression,&nbsp;"What would works for one person may not happen for another." That the veriables and such in the game will make the final results potentially different.&nbsp; I am amazed how well I get snookered by the AI.
&nbsp;
Didn't&nbsp;think my initial post would draw so many good comments and ideas for strategy...thank you all, helps me with the game alot.&nbsp; I haven't won the normal yet, but there is always hope.
&nbsp;
Take care.&nbsp;&nbsp; : < )&nbsp;

[tran505]

My second playthough is going much better. Lessons learned include:

* Scout early and scout often. Attacking blind is a very bad thing.
* Artillery matters -- make about 1/3 of your force artillery. Nothing wrong bringing some gunboats, either.
* Cavalry is an extremely useful tool to capture unoccupied areas -- even when they do NOT have initiative. I captured most of Kentucky with cavalry in 1861. Move the cav in, and immediatly, you can use roads and railways to bring in inactive infantry and leaders. I think the "first turn" video actually demonstrates this in West Virginia.

P

[GBS]

I havn't noticed the effect of Partisons on the union as they take southern territory, especially Kentnucky and Tennessee.. I am playing as the bCSA.

[Treefrog]

The game is sufficiently complicated that even if you are both brilliant and intuitive, the little friction factors in the rules will get to you.&nbsp; Not much a problem at lower challenge levels but practically fatal at more challenging levels.
&nbsp;
I endorse Erik's suggestion of trying Federal Cavalry, but would upgrade operations from deep raids to deep incursions.&nbsp; Federal cavalry leaders will move into an area even without initiative, as will artillery leaders.&nbsp; This combination is great for spoiling attacks where there is a small CSA force in a rail region that reinforcements for a big regional battle must pass through to reinforce.&nbsp; By attacking such a railhead the CSA has a choice of committing infantry to kill your artillery (which you can produce tons of) or perhaps the cavalry, which you just raise some more of.&nbsp; The alternative is that he just lets you attack that area, which perhaps you conquer, in which case the next Federal turn you can bring in infantry during strategic movement.&nbsp; Sweet.