Is it just me (a different post to my one in the General Forum :-) )

[JudgeDredd]

** NOTE **
I wrote all the post below here and before I clicked Submit, I copied it all.....and just as well, because the website had logged me out!!!


Now...my whinge...

Honestly...I've just sat here, turn after turn, attacking here and there...massing large forces in certain places where I think there could be a breakthrough and as soon as I hit the end turn button, I just put my head in my hands and weep!

Turn after turn, the CSA gets troops from christ knows where...shipped in from seemingly all corners of the globe. The reaction phase just makes attacking a nightmare. I try and attack in several places to split his choices...make him try and defend all places and time after time I'm staring defeat in the face.

The map is littered with red crosses where the CSA have one major battles. There seems to be absolutely nothing I can do. Sure I've made in roads...but not where I need them...only in non-populated areas or where there's no resources.

I've tried moving units behind the front lines to stop them being spotted, but the CSA is so full of cavalry that when I move the units back to the front line, they are spotted again before I get initiative. I've tried to get my best leaders with the best units...everything, and I mean everything I try is to no avail.

Each time I attack I watch (through fingers) that big bugger grey bar in the middle creep to the right

Time and again I watch as a CSA unit with odds of 10 attack and destroy my infantry....and watch my infantry with 80 odds attack and fail to inflict damage.

It's just blood curdling...you just get the sense that behind the scenes you're somehow being cheated...that the AI know exactly where your going to hit them...that the AI knows exactly what your going to hit them with.

I love the idea of the game. It's superb....but the battles are so abstract as to induce a sense of disbelief that things can be going this way...it's like sending your units behind a big curtain and waiting to see what comes back.

And the Raiders???They're a force unto themselves. I have over 2 dozen ironclads and cruisers with my best naval leaders sitting in the raiders area waiting for them, and the most I've been able to achieve is to drop there prvention of supplies from 49 to 28...and there are still 7 raiders. And these ships trying to prevent the raiders means I'm leaving the Missi open now...so whilst I'm being starved of supplies (I'm down to 11!) they are getting over 100 a month to my 80!

I'm losing PPs every single turn (I'm JUST hovering above 800 now) I'm losing 3 per turn because I don't have the 1000 needed to declare emancipation). I'm losing 3 per turn through raiders that I seemingly cannot do anything about.

I've never had a game which is so enticing and yet so infuriating.

I know I've made mistakes at the beginning and I'm paying for them now...but the abstract combat is so, so, so infuriating. I'd rather rub my eyes with silverskin onions than sit and watch the combat play out!

Oh...and I'm actually down to 0 supplies stored now...so I cannot attack anymore in so far as I can't make depots to gain initiative. And my PPs are down to 757!

Rant over...now where am I at...oh dear! [:(]

[Joel Billings]

Are you scouting the areas just before you attack?

As for the raiders, Ironclads do nothing against raiders, only Cruisers.

[heroldje]

I was at that phase at one point... the more you understand the game the better it gets.  You are likely loosing the battles because you are overlooking something.  Its very important to choose teh right generals, the right place, scout, etc etc.
 
Are your cruisers supplied?  If they are not they wont sink raiders.

[JudgeDredd]

lmao.

Hi Joel.

I know you've spent a massive amount of time on this game, and I can only apologise for my rant. I was just a commander in despair...watching things go from bad to worse.

I am making in raods to the east, moving south into orth Smith, Little Rock and Pine Bluff. I'm sitting string in Puducah but cannot move out. All of Kentucky (apart from Bowling Green) is mine.

On the East, I've moved into Munroe, Franklin and Winchester.

And it's at Bowling Green and Staunton that's giving me a headache as I keep battering my head against a brick wall!

Thx for the very, very helpful tip on Ironclads.

As for scouting, yes I do...but more often than not, the CSA screen and I get to find nothing more.

[JudgeDredd]

Here is the Raider status...thankfully last turn I managed to despatch 2 raiders, including the nasty piece of work Semmes.

[JudgeDredd]

And the troop status

[JudgeDredd]

And finally the PP position

[JudgeDredd]

By the way, it says the CSA have 26 cavalry, but to be honest with you....when I see the movement, it seems like they have 260 cavalry!

[JudgeDredd]

Cruisers are supplied

[herwin]

You've let things get out of hand. I usually try to have two cruisers hunting each raider.

[Joel Billings]

You are in trouble because raiders have experience. You should have gone after them sooner with cruisers only (ironclads are for blockade duty or attacking forts).

You don't have enough cavalry. You are outnumbered almost 2 to 1. Very bad situation for the Union. By this time you should have equal cav or more.

Freemont is a lousy TC. Halleck is better as a TC than AC. Only Grant are offensiveAC's of the 4 that you have. Do you have anyone else you can use? Where's Sherman?

[JudgeDredd]

Yeah I know...

For the uninitiated...here are my errors
1. Not understanding the importance of pouncing on raiders
2. Not understanding the importance of blockades
3. Not reading the manual
4. Lack of understanding of who I should hire and fire, especially for TC and AC

I think my main issues are the lack of blockading early on and allowing raiders freedom. This allowed the CSA to keep high supplies whilst mine (along with PPs) dwindled.

Also, as Joel pointed out, Cavalry. Not understanding the importance (again early on) of scouting.

Anyway, I'm battling on. It's January '64 and I understand where the votes are going...I'll be standing down [:D]

On the plus side, I've learned a whole lot about the game and I'll be pumping another game out.

By the way...this is on Normal...so it just goes to show you how bad I was playing! [;)]

[JudgeDredd]

Sherman is in Winchester with troops under his command.

As I said, lack of understanding of the importance of choosing the correct TC/AC's has led to the dire situation I'm in...along with the two dozen other mistakes I've made!

[tbriert]

Judge Dredd -- based on looking at your screenshots, I can tell you that one of your problems is your theater commanders and army commanders.  Assuming that you are playing with historical ratings, you need to make some major changes. 
 
First off, axe Fremont ASAP as theater commander.  Ideally, what you are looking for is someone with a command rating of 20, or as close to it as you can get, and an administrative rating of 4, and as many stars as possible -- 4 stars is best, 3 stars is pretty good.  Fremont's Admin rating is low, which is likely killing you on TC initiative and committing troops in battles, as well as AC initiative.  Sack Fremont, and replace him with Halleck, who has an admin rating of 4.  Moving Halleck to TC will also result in his Command Rating going up to 20, and he already has three stars, so in 2 of the 3 categories for TC, you will be maxed out and only one too low in the 4th.  Also, be mindful admin is a key rating for TC's you should always have someone who is a 4 in that slot.
 
Second, a good choice would be to kick McClellan upstairs to replace Scott.  McClellan gives you another leader with a 4 admin, and after becoming TC, he should be just shy of 20 CPs, ideal for the role.  He is much better at the role of theater commander than Army commander, where his attack rating of 2 factors decisively into every combat you have.
 
Third, get rid of McDowell and promote an eligible corps commander up to Army Commander in his stead.  Ideally, search for leaders with at least a 3, if not a 4, in both attack and INF ratings, as these are key for battles.  One of your biggest problems with McDowell, and to a lesser extent McClellan, is that their overall command points are low, in the mid teens or worse.  These ratings strongly effect how many of your troops get committed to actual fighting in the battles.  The higher the command rating, the more troops committeed.  Keep in mind you are going up against any number of Confederate Army commanders with command ratings of 20+, and defense and INF ratings of 4, giving them a very strong edge in battle against you regardless of the odds.
 
Fourth, in general try to promote promising corps commanders to army command as quickly as possible.  The best traits to look for, as stated before, are high attack values, high command ratings, and high INF ratings.  Good ratings in ART don't hurt either.  Make sure leaders with these qualities are in command of your veteran corps, giving them the best chance for successes in battles and improvement in command ratings.
 
Hope this helps.  Also, check out the AAR I am working on entitled Glory Road.  Perhaps you can learn from some of my mistakes LOL.
 
 

[tran505]

Time to begin anew. This one is all over. Toasted and Roasted!

Some general suggestions. Draft early, but after '62..., do NOT draft often. Draft on turn 1, plus at least once in '62. Twice in '62 is a judgement call, but remember May is the latest you can have your first draft to have the '62 recruitement benefit apply to both turns of the second. You need to ounumber the CSA by at least 3 to 2, and as you get into '64 this should get to 2 to 1. Too many ironclads. Too few cruisers. I think a dozen ironclads are ample; you need a good 25 or so cruisers. I place 9 or 10 on raider hunting duty alone, WITH a full leadership contingent. Probably a bit gunboat heavy as well. And geeeze..., where is your cavalry?

Start over. Turn off all builds except 2 or 3 ironclads and build only supply on turn 1. Draft and bank the 55 recruits you will get; add in the 30 or so you get the next turn. Train train train. Realize the CSA does not get strong until '62 when they get their "drafts". If you can, it is okay to attack in '61 with recruits since sheer numbers WILL be on your side. A conservative Yankee can husband PP's by using the eastern army as an invasion-generator. This keeps your PP's strong and eats into CS supply. Send 1 to 2 reinforcements to Lyons per turn to heat up the Trans-Missisippi. Whack away in the West -- and expect your share of "Strategic Defeats", but make up for those points with amphib ops plus the Arkansas campaign. WHen you feel comfortable, heat up the East as well.

Good Luck! [:D]

- P

[von Beanie]

JudgeDredd,
 
If it is any consolation to you, it is even harder for the Union to win in PBEM with a good CSA opponent. I got to the point where I could smoke the AI as the Union player, but many of the complaints in your first post reappeared when I tried PBEM. This might be a good game with a lot more practice on my part, but it is not close to a realistic simulation of the actual Civil War. The Union is already hamstrung enough by the game system that they shouldn't also be penalized points for losing major battles. Points for geographical objectives alone should determine the victory level. In the PBEM game I just resigned, I was outnumbered by the CSA in four separate large battles in July 1863. This couldn't have happened in the real war, even if the South would have actually had troops entering the battles from the neighboring states! And the abundance of Southern heavy cannon and cannon in the game is something that is mind-blowing given the extreme limitations of the historic iron ore deposits and foundries in the South.
 
I'm guessing Grigsby must be from South Carolina or somewhere else in the former CSA, because this game glorifies the South too much for my taste (it should be renamed "J. Davis' wet dream"). The military outcome of the Civil War was never in doubt, only the political outcome. This game makes the military situation so balanced that the military outcome is doubtful. My best guess is that the manpower attrition isn't modeled realistically because the South seems to have endless manpower resources even as they lose territory. And much like Germany in GGWAW, as the South gets compressed spatially it becomes even harder to defeat because of its reaction abilities. 
 
In conclusion, this system seems like it would be much more appropriate for the western front of WWI than the American Civil War, and in my frustration (I can empathize with your initial post) I've decided to shelve it.
 
 

[JudgeDredd]

Oh I'm not shelving it. I'm very, very frustrated with my performance, but in gaming terms, there's plenty of life in this. tbh my rant, although valid to me, was simply that. I had spent 2 hours in front of the screen watching attack after attack fail...but I have no one to blame for my performance than me and my lack of knowledge of the rules...hence the frustration!
 
I'll finish this game (may as well take it to it's conclusion and get my arse back) and then I'll start again...as Union on Normal. When I beat it, I'll go Union on hard and then when I've beat it, I'll do Union on hardest. Once all those have been achieved, it's time to go to the CSA and try from there. Once those are complete...there are the variable options to try...there's a good few hours left in this game.
 
Perhaps a good CSA player can beat the Union in PBEM...I don't know...but I don't play PBEM anyway.
 
I'm looking forward to trying again as the Union and I can't wait to try as CSA.

[JAMiAM]

Von Beanie, I strongly disagree with your assessment. The game is extremely punishing in terms of player skill differentials. If you are matched up with a player beyond your skill level, you will flounder. No insult to you, nor to anyone else who has ever been on the wrong side of the learning curve. This holds for PBEM, as well as single player, as the AI is relatively competent. At least in terms of its tactical and operational play. Strategically, it still needs a little tuning.

After several weeks of playing this game, a few hundred PBEM turns, and some solo games at normal through hard levels, I make the claim that the game actually favors the USA, given two players of equal skill levels, and moderate to elite level skills. At lower skill levels, perhaps the balance shifts to the CSA, because there are too many things the USA player can do in which to screw up his game. I can't argue with you as to whether or not you like the game - clearly you do not. However, I take issue with the insulting tone which you try to blame your shortcomings in understanding the game system, on a historical bias by the designer.

[PhilipB]

Folks,
 
I have already laid out most of my problems with the game earlier.  I still also think that it is unhistoric, and has too long of a learning curve for a weekly, as opposed to a daily gamer.  I am more sucessfull than I was earlier, but I still think changes must be made to make it more historic.
 
Nova538

[XLegion]

Judge Dread:

Believe me of all the people on this board. I'M THE ONE WHO CAN MOST IDENTIFY WITH WHAT YOU ARE GOING THROUGH!

Why! Because I have played 24 games as the Union player against the AI and have been defeated 24 times. Yes, that's 24 times and I'm not ashamed to admit it. I have felt all of the things you are feeling about playing this game. Joy, wonder, puzzlement, frustration, anger, distrust, and slowly amazement!

I will admit, that on the surface it looks like the AI is cheating like Hell! I'm slowly slowly coming to realize that this is probably not so. I think for combat, I'm going to reserve judgement, as I have seen some really weird results but I do believe that Gary has designed his game with the AI suffering the same disadvantages that the human player faces.

This game is so complex and multi-layered that it is only after those 24 playings that I'm beginning to realize that EVERYTHING matters AND in a big way.

There were a lot of things I was concentrating on at the expense of other things that were in fact losing me the game. For example: The Naval Blockade. Everything I had read about the naval blockade indicated that by as early as the first winter of the war and certainly by the Spring of 1862 the Confederacy was having huge shortages in men and materials due to the blockade.

The game DOES simulate this, but I was kidding myself into thinking that the naval blockade would be so effective as to reproduce the historical results itself. NO, the game does not do this. It is only ONE layer of many layers that all effect victory.

I then concentrated on busting up Southern Resources. Every time I occupied a southern area I would destroy all the factories and resources. Surely this would lead me to victory. IT DIDN'T. So there I was destroying the south, had her completely blockaded and I was still losing!

I then began paying more attention to the 'infrastructure' screen, a screen I had virtually ignored for all of my playings. I then decided on doing three things. 1.) Blockade 2.) Destroy southern resources and 3.) Capturing POPULATION centers.

I then began to see the road to victory. I still have not won yet. (I'm on my 25th game now) BUT, I finally did see significant reductions in southern forces. I have noted that the AI is like a bar room brawler who won't go down. The AI fights like Hell for those population centers and so it is very difficult to get them.

So, on my game #25 I am doing better and STILL I'm unlocking this games secrets.

I still have a love/hate relationship with this game. But, you know what? It's still on my Hard Drive and is likely to be so for years. This is one of the most challenging Strategic Games that I have ever played. And, I would rather play it this way than some dumb strategy game like some of the ones I have played before where Richmond always falls in the summer of 1862.

I have 'historical' concerns with the way Gary has designed his game. In that with a population 1/10th of the North the south could never field armies that large but that is the way Gary has balanced his game. Maybe it's the only way, I don't know.

But believe me when I tell you, this game is worth it for all of it's frustrations.

I have had Mr. Grigsby's 'War in the Pacific' game for years but have never really tackled it. M-m-m-h...........