Ace (CSA) vs Aurelian (US)

[Ace1_slith]

In the far West, my Texan raiders have travelled from stockade to stockade and this turn, they are ordered to Golden city, Colorado. It seems undefended, so it should be easy.
Texans are ideal for far west because low development does not seem to influence their movement.

[Ace1_slith]

From El Paso, regular infantry operations have started. I'll bypass Union locked forces at FtCraig. Their strategic longterm objectives are Santa Fe, Ft Union, and ultimately Denver.

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: Ace1

There is an easy solution to this. Keep csa gunboats locked a few more turns, and Foote's gunboats free few turns before. Olso Cairo garrison could pop up 2 truns before. I'll suggest it to the Team.

That would do it.

Also makes sense, neither side was really particularly ready in 1861 on the river, but certainly the Union was ready sooner.

Only thing is you have to make sure Union can't do a too-quick landing somewhere. I think if Island 10 is active and garrisoned, that should prevent a quickie move on, say, Memphis

[Ace1_slith]

Late July - turn 8

Previous turn 2 battles:

1. I have taken Parkesburg. Last turn I have sent them in dispersed move to minimize CP cost. Out of 4 stacks, 2 have paricipated in combat eliminatig a garrison. Now 2 starting WW armies will have a place to merge and rest.

[Ace1_slith]

2. battle

In a rather reckless move, Lyon has assaulted me in front of Cairo.
We had similar forces, I was entrenched at level 3 (rgn decision card).
I had 3 generals and lower CP penalty, he had only Lyon.
It was raining, not a weather to plan your attack on.

Here is the result:

He lost 15% of his men in only one round of combat.

[Ace1_slith]

Plans for next turn:

1. I will try to put some pressure on St Louis by advancing from 2 directions, Price state guard via land through Missouri, and McCulloh's Army of the West which has disembarked at Charleston, MO previous turn, will advance north to meet in front of StLouis. Actually, I was planning to land McCulloh in front of Cairo, but due to fierce river combats in the area, it was not safe to do so, river crossing from Charleston to Cairo was now blocked, so I changed my objective. The purpose is to keep pushing, to make use of my early advantage in the Trans-Mississippi area, something CSA historically did have, but never made a good use of it.

[Ace1_slith]

In the far west I am using my fast Texans to capture stockades and concentrate at Golden city against expected Union counterattack:

[Ace1_slith]

Since Mannassas Alexandria front has been quiet, I decided to shift some forces to West Virginia. Beauregard will position himself on the Harper's Ferry - Morgantown rail. There he will be in position to assist Johnson if the attack on Pittsburg fails, or return to Mannassas if everything goes as planed. I have no knowledge of his actual forces in Pittsburg, but they cannot be high since he concentrated at Wheeling against Magruder. I expect his Wheeling force to go after exhausted Magruder for the kill rather than to protect Pittsburg where I expect to find only garrison.
If I fail, Beauregard force will come in handy, either for follow up attack, or for guarding escape route.

[Ace1_slith]

Early August - turn 9

Only 1 battle this turn. My opponent has remained static in WV, not protecting Morgantown or going after Magruder. Pittsburg assault was a success, but unfortunatelly after 2 rounds of combat it was not continued. I will have to go for it on the next turn.
My opponenet went with small volunteer bounty. I think that it is an error, and I'll have to use the advantage before the next call.

[Ace1_slith]

Plan for the East theater

[Ace1_slith]

In the West, McCulloh and Price are concentrating in front of St Louis. Union forces are inside the city, so they can safely rendevue outside the city.

Lyon is battered from last turn, so I can assault Cairo this turn with no fear of counter-attack.

[KamilS]

Respect for you, but on the other hand your opponent seems to be making to many mistakes.

[Ace1_slith]

You played him as well, you should now. Before I say anything, I must say he is very fast PBEM player, returning turns within few hours I have sent the mail to him. In that haste, he sometimes overlooks things, from generals having command penalties, to forgotten cavalries in the far west outside town not receiving supplies.
I would recomend him as an opponent if you are looking for a fast entertaining game, not for a epic juggernaut clash.
Anyway, since I am writing this 6-7 turns after it has happened, I would be happy if he popped up to this thread to give us the view from his side, what was his reasoning for his moves.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Ace1

You played him as well, you should now. Before I say anything, I must say he is very fast PBEM player, returning turns within few hours I have sent the mail to him. In that haste, he sometimes overlooks things, from generals having command penalties, to forgotten cavalries in the far west outside town not receiving supplies.
I would recomend him as an opponent if you are looking for a fast entertaining game, not for a epic juggernaut clash.
Anyway, since I am writing this 6-7 turns after it has happened, I would be happy if he popped up to this thread to give us the view from his side, what was his reasoning for his moves.

What can I say, I have yet to get a handle on the rush north. I wasn't expecting it, and frankly, I fell into a depression.

Yeah, I play fast. Very fast. It's a hold over from when I played face to face chess tourneys. (And they always tried to keep up with me... Doesn't work too well in PBEM.)

I need to slow down and put more thought into this.

But, no matter how many times I lose, I'll keep trying. I did win once

[veji1]

One thing is that experienced "playing to win" PBEM players do lots of things to optimize their forces which are not very in the spirit. Say you have an inactive general : break his stack in small components that you all send to the objective, that way they will travel faster, engage and fight with less penalty... It sucks that this is even possible. One should be stuck with his commanding officers, actually I think detached units without officers should suffer big big penalties : having a command officer should always be better, even if he is Floyd or some other drunkard.

[Ace1_slith]

I admit, I do that a lot, but mainly because they will travel faster. If there was a combat, such divided force would be at a disadvantage since about half of its forces would not join the combat.

There was even a proposal at AGEod forum to introduce dispersed move special order. It would increase movement speed by lowering command penalties, but induce combat penalties, if met by an enemy.

I can even imagine RL situation. Look at the above example. McCulloh is active, but I still want to speed up movement. He orders his subordinate units to detach and find its way to StLouis. Moving small units is ALWAYS faster than moving large columns, in RL and in the game. So increase in speed is justified. Of course, if there is combat, each units fights on its own, with massive penalties as in RL. So I do not see problems with it.
Potential problem with the interface is the possibility to have two corps commanders in the same region, one with empty stack and one with full stack, shuffling units to whichever is the active one. I would consider this gamey and would never do that.

[veji1]

I get what you are saying, but for me this is typically something that should be abstracted within a stack : ie have a "dispersed march" order, just like "force march", that makes the stack faster but with combat penalties. Because the type of micromanagement you are doing makes sense with the engine, but still doesn't feel right.

For me the big issue anyway with stacks, leaders, etc, is that the player should only know if a leader was active or not the NEXT turn. ie, you order a leader to move from province A to B with offensive posture. Based on his strategic rating, he should get there in 11 days. Well next turn what to you see ? that bastard was inactive and still hasn't reached the province at the end of his turn... or he reached it but stayed defensive and didn't attack the weak ennemy stack there...

Otherwise one can too effectively game the system. Particularly in CW2 where there are lots more leaders and armies than in AACW... Not knowing who will be active means for example that either you spread your troops in 2/3 corps and order them to attack, hoping that some will be active and the other might join in even if inactive, or you stick with 1 strong corps, but if inactive, though luck you lost a turn... This would give the player the real incertainty of war, and make all C&C decisions more difficult... I can understand this could frustrate some players, but it really should be an available option, one that most of the experienced players would always use. AND it would help the AI tremendously as she just doesn't know how to optimize C&C like humans.

[Ace1_slith]

I agree on the special orders dispersed march order- less micromanagment is always good. Forced march is not entirely the same, you get cohesion penalties, not just combat penalties.

Second proposal, not knowing whether he was active or not sounds interesting, and would indeed simulate uncertainties of war. I am only afraid we would get tons of complaints from players: He was supposed to attack it last turn, something is wrong with the game, or he was supposed to get there, this is bugged. If it could be done with a reality slider, it would be excellent. I only do not know if it would involve two much work for the developers to implement the changes.

[veji1]

ORIGINAL: Ace1

I agree on the special orders dispersed march order- less micromanagment is always good. Forced march is not entirely the same, you get cohesion penalties, not just combat penalties.

Second proposal, not knowing whether he was active or not sounds interesting, and would indeed simulate uncertainties of war. I am only afraid we would get tons of complaints from players: He was supposed to attack it last turn, something is wrong with the game, or he was supposed to get there, this is bugged. If it could be done with a reality slider, it would be excellent. I only do not know if it would involve two much work for the developers to implement the changes.

I agree that it would have to be an option, but honestly it would be great. First of all because suddenly you are faced with the more realistic feel of not knowing if your subordonates will carry your actions, and having more confidence that a Jackson or a Sherman will do it, than a Burnside. Just like in RL, there is uncertainty and doubt.

Second because for players that play against the AI, this is how the AI works. It doesn't game the leadership system, but players, even when trying to stay realistic and role play, instinctively game it.

It would also have the added effect of hampering the union a lot more at the beginning of the war, allowing for more soldiers to the union to compensate, rather than what we have now which is too few union soldiers to avoid Union steamrolling because a player can too easily the C&C problems that slowed the union down till end of 63 in the east.

[Ace1_slith]

I suggest you post your idea here- it is your idea after all, I have already posted on AGEod beta site:

http://www.ageod-forum.com/forumdisplay ... mprove-CW2



Back to the AAR

Late August - turn 10

Late August saw some big action in three mayor theaters. I'll start with battle in front of Cairo. I've been investing in navy (I have one cottonclad) and have reclaimed river in front of Cairo: