Seeing the Elephant: Q-Ball (USA) v Gunnulf (CSA)

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: Ace1

Great AAR. It is fun to read, and gives lot of insites on the way game developes.

Thanks, I appreciate the feedback.

It would be nice to see another AAR or two make it into 1863. I think part of the problem is some players play for a "blood win", and go all-in in the East. If you are playing to win, this is the correct strategy. However, I think that's a boring game. I think a good Union player, looking for an interesting game, will force themselves to defeat the CSA elsewhere.

Aug 1864:

WEST:

We took Mobile. Pemberton's Corps escaped up the river toward Montgomery via steamboat, and that's that. Thomas will clear the place.

Afterwards, we are moving over the bay, and up the rail line toward Montgomery. We can get there in 15 days using the rails; we have the rail line clear all the way to Sparta, AL.

The Army of Tennessee is still very strong, but they are pulling back from Meridian. I think it's a race to Montgomery now; he can't be caught west of there. He can win using rails easily, but I think he has way less rail cap than I do. He'll probably make it anyway, but I hope to have him abaondon central Alabama, then I can use the rail line to the Northeast to flank him out of Chattanooga.

Carolinas:

Charleston has officially fallen. We are moving forces toward Columbia. Pemberton's Corps appears at Savannah, too much to overcome for now.

We have cut the rail lines through South Carolina, so there is no uninterrupted rail connection from Richmond to Atlanta. You can still do it by skipping a region, but the Confederacy is getting smaller, for sure.

East:

In the east, working around his flanks has forced the AnV to abandon everything north of Richmond, including Fredricksburg.

I am still way vulnerable to counterattack, and I would be surprised if he didn't try to crush Newton's men at City Point. But that does allow me to draw closer to Richmond on all sides, and start a siege.

The AnV has nearly 10,000 AV dug-in in Richmond proper; this is unassailable. This will force me to cut them off to the south.

Status:

VPs: I am way ahead in VPs. I think, though, the VP system is whacked; I don't think it's particularly valid. I could have sat on Vicksburg and won on VPs easily, without attempting to reduce the CSA.

Strategic Towns: Of the Strategic towns, the CSA only holds Little Rock, Richmond, and Atlanta. All else is my hands. I had Little Rock, but lost it; I can clear it as soon as I feel like sending a Corps that way. I would rather close out Atlanta first, though.

The CSA production has to be pretty low at this point. We are now collecting over $430 a turn in city income, plus 115 recruits. Even so, I am spending most on replacements lately, as we have fought several battles, and moving causes attrition.

[veji1]

Interesting. you said earlier you had switched to historical attrition. Is it actually happening in your game and does it have an effect ?

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: veji1

Interesting. you said earlier you had switched to historical attrition. Is it actually happening in your game and does it have an effect ?

It seems to....not sure if it's the increased fighting, or attrition, probably both....but I'm spending most money now on replacements and supply wagons. Not much on new units.

So yes, I think it's having an effect

[Q-Ball]

Sept 1864:

Missouri:

Buell's army took Springfield; really, Howard's Corps did the heavy lifting. The CSA was down to 14,000 men.

West:

We had another mini-Chickamauga at Montgomery, AL

I lost the race for Montgomery; Thomas's Corps arrived, finding the entire AoT, about 80,000 angry Confederates. 6 NM lost, and a 3-1 casualty ratio. Ouch!

My Western armies have lost nearly every major battle, yet here we are in Alabama. I've never assaulted dug-in Confederates, and when I move, I leave myself open to counterattack. Maybe I could have played it better tactically, but live and learn.

The AoT is now concentrated at Montgomery; the only real objective left over there is Atlanta. I am not sure what the next step is, I may just halt, leave a screen and use pieces of Grant's army to take the last parts along the coastline.

Carolinas:

We defeated Ewell's small army at Columbia, and took the South Carolina state capital. Camden is next. We also cleared the South Carolina and North Carolina plantations. Georgetown has fallen, so has Beaufort. Blockade is up to 75%.

Economy:

My monthly take is much higher than the CSA now, but I think he still gets the 400-per treasury move, plus volunteers......so he can probably build stuff unless he runs out of WSU.

[veji1]

Again a very interesting read. It will be a useful and very well documented campaign to assess where the game is at present. Gunnulf seems to have given overall priority to force conservation, sacrificing territory to preserve his forces. The question is whether his armies are going to simply starve to death now that you control most of his industry and have cut off Virginia.

Based on this game. I wonder if the Union isn't a tad overpowered if not in terms of numbers, in terms of mechanics. I say so because you seem not to be a reckless player, pretty methodic and not of the optimizing type (ie self imposed rules on invasions, Virginia, etc), and yet you have advance very very fast once you got going (which really was the unlocking of Memphis for you and the end of McClellan), despite Gunnulf having won most of the 10/11 biggish battles you have had. I wonder if a more aggressive Union player wouldn't have flooded the CSA more quickly.

I wonder what the issue could be. Could it be that supply is to easy to come buy ? that armies don't need nearly enough operational pauses to regain cohesion (an issue in nearly all wargames) ? Very interesting anyway.

[Scotster]

Good points, I agree.

[Q-Ball]

I will say I do tend to be conservative; part of that is learning the engine. I'm pretty aggressive in WITP-AE for example, but that just comes from being comfortable with the engine.

That being said, a few things:

1. I have purposely done a couple things that go against "winning" the game more quickly, mostly in Virginia. The "McClellan" house rule, plus really trying to win elsewhere.

2. RE: Battles, I do think the CSA should win the majority of major battles. The primary reason is that attacking entrenched units is usually not a good idea, and the CSA player has many more opportunities to attack non-entrenched units. This is because the USA has to move. I will say nearly every victory to Gunnulf is against a unit that was moving. Good on his part, I think he has taken advantage of this fact. In my first PBEM, against Michael T, I won loads of battles. I lost the war, but won lots of battles.

3. After Memphis, things did move quickly; very quickly. A couple reasons for that:
a. Gunnulf focused on Memphis, and did not have any forts short of Vicksburg at all. This meant quick Union Naval moves downriver. I also did that Baton Rouge landing, I think that really opened things up.
b. Union has huge strategic advantages with Naval power, and you can more freely use it once the Mississippi is open
c. Weather; south of Tennessee, there is no snow, making winter campaigning easier
d. Gunnulf kept his main armies together; not a bad idea, as I could not defeat them head-on. But the price you pay is the flanks. The lack of CSA 2* generals is another problem; this needs to be fixed IMO.

I also do think it's pretty easy to get into CSA rear. One of the most important events in the game is when Cavalry can take towns (early 1863). Before that happens, deep raiding is difficult, since Cavalry can't capture supplies. After that change, Cav units can live off the land easily; it's really a huge change. It probably makes Cav units too powerful.

I think Gunnulf played a good game, and I think as Union you can play more aggressively than I did. I think there are not alot of penalties for moving smaller forces all over the map and taking towns. It's a flaw that could be exploited.

At this point, it's getting into late 1864, at which point the historical Confederacy was falling apart anyway.

[Ace1_slith]

Do you think Grant's stats are too inflated. He was not the best offensive general in the war (Cold Harbor), and his defense performance has left some doubts historically (Shiloh, inactivness at Luka). This also affects balance. His stratetic rating, however can not be high enough, he was the best strateegist of the war, along with Sherman. I think 6/5/3 would be more appropriate.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Ace1

Do you think Grant's stats are too inflated. He was not the best offensive general in the war (Cold Harbor), and his defense performance has left some doubts historically (Shiloh, inactivness at Luka). This also affects balance. His stratetic rating, however can not be high enough, he was the best strateegist of the war, along with Sherman. I think 6/5/3 would be more appropriate.

You could say the same about Lee. Gettysburg, especially the third day, was hardly him at his finest. And his habit of issuing discretionary orders, (take that hill if practicable) failed him too. (Why can't any of you do as Jackson would of done?)

Shiloh, Grant wasn't driven from the field. And did win after all. Certainly Lincoln had no doubts.

Luks, it's my understanding that an acoustic shadow suppressed the sound of the battle, so no one in the AoT heard it. Much like how the artillery fire before Longstreet's Assualt was heard 150 miles away, but some areas within 20 miles didn't hear anything.

I remember a lot of rancor over at the AACW forum when Joe Johnston's ratings came up. Some strongly felt he was over rated, considering his record of retreating

[veji1]

The Grant issue is one of those points where we see how important a role leadership plays in this game, and how skewed it is to some extent because we have the generals stats before our eyes and can optimize our leadership. Put Grant in Virginia in 62 and you have a very very different game. Is it that enjoyable though ?

This is why I have high hopes for a "hidden activation status" toggle that could really make the leadership aspect of the game a bit less predictable. I would even couple it personaly with modding the leaders' ratings so that there is no more strategic rating 6. I would have Lee, Grant, Sherman, Jackson and some cavalry leaders a 5, but no 6. Have leaders like Lee and Jackson who are fast movers, yet could have a bit more of a chance of being inactive.

It is really only my humble opinion, but I think a bit more inactivity from top leaders + hidden activation status would make (for me) a more enjoyable game. Ideally one would probably want to lower a bit the combat penalties for being inactive.

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: Ace1

Do you think Grant's stats are too inflated. He was not the best offensive general in the war (Cold Harbor), and his defense performance has left some doubts historically (Shiloh, inactivness at Luka). This also affects balance. His stratetic rating, however can not be high enough, he was the best strateegist of the war, along with Sherman. I think 6/5/3 would be more appropriate.

I think it's probably a bit high in my opinion......Grant showed little tactical skill in the Overland campaign, and overall his tactical handling was a bit wanting, IMO. However, a "6" is very appropriate for Start rating, because a) he had a pair, so to speak, and b) understood completely what the Union needed to do to win the war.

In the real war, the Union didn't win alot of battles. Union victories were more the result of poor and over aggressive attacks against prepared positions on the part of the CSA leaders, than the result of any tactical brilliance. I literally can't think of any major Union victories where the Union was the attacker, except maybe Cedar Creek and Missionary Ridge. On the Rebel side, I would count both Bull Runs, Seven Days, Chancellorsville, Chickamauga, Cedar Mountain, Richmond KY, Sabine Crossroads. Rebel losses at Gettysburg, Corinth, Pea Ridge, and pretty much anything Hood did, can all be attributable to serious tactical errors on the part of the CSA commander in assaulting a prepared position, particularly one that included Federal artillery.

The leader ratings are all subjective, though, so ultimately I can't quibble too much; it's a judgement call

One thing though that isn't a judgement call are dates leaders appear, and ranks. There are some serious errors here that I have written on before that are confounding. I just don't understand why, for example, William Forney is a more prominent commander than William Hardee. THAT is what drives me crazy, not the leader ratings.

[Jim D Burns]

I really do think players are over-reacting a bit to this outcome. Had they used historical attrition from day one I doubt the Union army would have been able to grow as large as it did by 1863 and things would have been balanced longer and the fight around Memphis would have taken many more months. It’s even possible he’d have had to wait until mid 64 to take Memphis. Historical attrition really starts to hurt in 1863 as the Union army grows in size and buying all those replacement chits every turn translates to a LOT of firepower not on the board that he’s been using vs. Gunnulf here.

Jim

[veji1]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

I really do think players are over-reacting a bit to this outcome. Had they used historical attrition from day one I doubt the Union army would have been able to grow as large as it did by 1863 and things would have been balanced longer and the fight around Memphis would have taken many more months. It’s even possible he’d have had to wait until mid 64 to take Memphis. Historical attrition really starts to hurt in 1863 as the Union army grows in size and buying all those replacement chits every turn translates to a LOT of firepower not on the board that he’s been using vs. Gunnulf here.

Jim

Thanks for that point of view. I try to stay measured in my reaction specifically because as you point it out, this is just a game and started with different settings than what my become the norm, so to speak, for PBEMs from now on.

And it was also my hunch that rather than saying "the Union is too strong", key points might reside more in attrition, supply, movement and leader activation. Thanks for your views.

[Ace1_slith]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: Ace1

Do you think Grant's stats are too inflated. He was not the best offensive general in the war (Cold Harbor), and his defense performance has left some doubts historically (Shiloh, inactivness at Luka). This also affects balance. His stratetic rating, however can not be high enough, he was the best strateegist of the war, along with Sherman. I think 6/5/3 would be more appropriate.

You could say the same about Lee. Gettysburg, especially the third day, was hardly him at his finest. And his habit of issuing discretionary orders, (take that hill if practicable) failed him too. (Why can't any of you do as Jackson would of done?)

Shiloh, Grant wasn't driven from the field. And did win after all. Certainly Lincoln had no doubts.

Luks, it's my understanding that an acoustic shadow suppressed the sound of the battle, so no one in the AoT heard it. Much like how the artillery fire before Longstreet's Assualt was heard 150 miles away, but some areas within 20 miles didn't hear anything.

I remember a lot of rancor over at the AACW forum when Joe Johnston's ratings came up. Some strongly felt he was over rated, considering his record of retreating

Well, I was suggesting Grant to have the same offensive ability as Lee, wasn't I? Plus Lee has rather negative trait that reflects his rashness and influences his battle casualties.

I agree with you about Luka, but his performance at Shiloh was below standard against general who in game we rate as offensive 2, and if Union was not overall 2:1 stronger in numbers, he would suffer a terrible defeat. When you look at Grant, we have to see that his two greatest Campaigns (Vicksburg and Overland) were won without a mayor victory in the field.

I do not want to steal this thread by talking about varios generals. let's just focus on the two most prominent ones.

Speaking of Overland Campaign, who do you think performed better given the resources available (Lee off/def rating 5,or Grant offensive rating 6).
If we compare those two, when did Grant win an offensive victory against enemy twice its size.
Grant's tactical victories came from Union manpower and material advantage, and Grant had strategical wisdom to use it to its full effect.
We have adjusted manpower of both sides to be at 2:1 ratio. We have to enable Southern generals to win battles against opponent larger in size if we want to recreate true Civil War.

[bugwar]

ORIGINAL: Ace1

We have to enable Southern generals to win battles against opponent larger in size if we want to recreate true Civil War.

Wasn't that the case only when the best Southern Generals were opposed by some of the worst Northern Leaders?[&:]

[Ace1_slith]

Hooker was not the Union's worst leader. Before and AFTER facing Lee, he showed he was more than capable general. And Grant was very much outgeneraled by Lee as well. If he had either Jackson or Longstreet (wounded) in these battles to fully implement his orders, the war would drag on for at least a year more. It was only the sheer Union numbers that made them possible to march South after every battle. Show me a battle where Union was outnumbered and won. I can think of only one.

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: Ace1

Hooker was not the Union's worst leader. Before and AFTER facing Lee, he showed he was more than capable general. And Grant was very much outgeneraled by Lee as well. If he had either Jackson or Longstreet (wounded) in these battles to fully implement his orders, the war would drag on for at least a year more. It was only the sheer Union numbers that made them possible to march South after every battle. Show me a battle where Union was outnumbered and won. I can think of only one.

There were 4 major battles that I can think of that the Union was outnumbered, and they won 2 out of 4 (Pea Ridge, Corinth). The others were Chickamauga and Wilson's Creek. The Rebs may have had more men at Franklin as well, can't recall.

I don't disagree on Grant though; his tactical handling was a bit suspect. In his defense, he also was missing key subordinates during the Overland campaign, specifically Hancock (wounded), Sedgwick and Reynolds (dead).

[JeffroK]

Can the Union player take more advantage of his knowledge of history to avoid the mistakes of what happened IRL.

This allows a more considered approach, avoiding some of the stupid mistakes made by his historical counterparts and maximise his forces. In real life, who would run the batteries at Vicksburg, Mobile or the mouth of the Mississippi. The fear of possible losses held back these attacks. In game, the rules tell you basically what will occur, you choose if this is acceptable and run with it.

As for Generals ratings, everyone has there own opinions, should be possible to easily mod the ratings. (I would like a completley random rating for each General [8D] )

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Ace1

Hooker was not the Union's worst leader. Before and AFTER facing Lee, he showed he was more than capable general. And Grant was very much outgeneraled by Lee as well. If he had either Jackson or Longstreet (wounded) in these battles to fully implement his orders, the war would drag on for at least a year more. It was only the sheer Union numbers that made them possible to march South after every battle. Show me a battle where Union was outnumbered and won. I can think of only one.

For someone who was "outgeneraled", he managed keep moving south after the Wilderness. By the standards of the day, he lost. But it didn't faze him. Unlike McClellan/Burnside/Pope. Unlike Lee himself after Sharpsburg. If being outgeneraled means that you refuse to accept any battle as a defeat and move backwards, then I suppose he was. he was outgeneraled all the way to Appomattox.

And numbers don't tell the story. See "Grant takes Command" by Bruce Catton for that. Thanks to things such as expiring terms of service, and attrition, the AoTP was not as large as many people think it was.

[Ol Choctaw]

That is exactly so. Grant fought a campaign of attrition. So long as he still had the troops and the means it did not matter. He had the nerve to persist.

He bulled his way to the end. He could lose more troops and still bleed the south dry before the north was weakened.

Grant was not a great tactician but his strategy succeeded.

Grant as 6-6-4 is a joke. 6 is the top number in strategic ratings so it has to do. Otherwise it would be higher. But 6-4 is just absurd. Maybe 4-2. His assaults never worked. He almost lost at Shiloh on defense. None of his campaigns were exactly beautiful pieces of brilliance, but they worked because he had the resources and he would not give up.

It was his tenacity that won not tactical skills.