Matrix Games Forums

So you are going into battles with mostly "indie" commanders or even leaderless ones and absorb the out of command penalties as opposed to haveing your troops inactive due to the poor command?
Interesting...[:)]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Am I the only one who is starting to feel that "raiding" is shaping up as an ahistorically large portion of this game?

Hey Mike, another old WITP type goes ACW to I see .....[;)]

I think the problem is they tend to go too deep and to fast per turn. I had a Raider capture Chicago one Game [:D]

It needs some fine tunning.

However, after _ many hours_ with the Union I`ve come to realize that if the AGEOD Guys are going to stay historical with the timeline as well as the CSA order of battle, you have to have some game device to slow the Union down, especially in the West. If you max out the USA money, they can raise so many units they will just overrun the South West in 1862, so the raids serve the purpose of deverting units and repairing rails and the Union raising mostly Cav.

It could be fine tunned a bit and I think they are looking at it. It`s really the best Game I`ve played since the original War In Russia & WITP by Garry G. More important from their posts on their Forums, the AGEOD guys understand that the core of the Game is playing against the AI, and I don`t think we will see the screwing of the historical aspect of the Game for PBEM types as happened with the Matrix WITP.

Just IMO and regards.

Rich L. AKA Black Cat

ORIGINAL: seydlitz

Tomorrow I will recap my orders and builds.

Thanks for the great AAR, playing along with you I think early on you need to buy a lot of Cav. in the West to run the raiders down.

They will get to the Great Lakes, and swing North East before you can get a militia unit in each city.

ORIGINAL: Richard III

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
Am I the only one who is starting to feel that "raiding" is shaping up as an ahistorically large portion of this game?

I think the problem is they tend to go too deep and to fast per turn. I had a Raider capture Chicago one Game [:D]
Rich L. AKA Black Cat

Just from what I've seen here, I'd say "Too Deep, Too Many, Too Often, & Too Effective". I understand the need to reproduce the Union's "Feet of Clay" to some extent (though it looks like "inactive" Generals are doing a pretty good job), but I hope the can find a less "offensive" method to do it. Maybe larger garrison requirements to soak up some of the excess manpower.

Just a quick note to let everyone know that I have been tied up with work the past couple of days. I will be heavy back into the AAR by NLT Saturday.  Sorry for the delay, but real life intrudes.

very nice, look forward to some more seydlitz.
I've been primarily spending my time learning the mechanics and developing my organization of the army.
I have not really spent much time with my Union Navy, that will come later on as I continue to prod through the immense depth of this great game.

Turn 10 Builds and Orders:
No builds this turn so money can build up.
Orders consisted primarily of moving more militia around to guard interior lines against cav raids across the front, and of moving Lyons one territory west towards Jeff City.  I also ordered 3 more blockade squadrons to the Gulf, and began moving naval transports to Washington DC.  One of my naval Monitors has been ordered to Hampton ROads with instructions to bombard Norfolk.

turn 11

battles..

The raider sitrep:

east front

On the Peninsula

Blockade status:

For builds,  I continue my strategy of naval build up.  I order up 4 blockade flotillas from New England, and 4 river ironclads in Ohio.  I also order one supply wagon for Missouri, and 2 cavalary units each for Maryland and Pennsylvannia.
 
That leaves  me a balance of $131, 287 manpower, and 16 war supplies.

turn 12

more news...

cav raid updates:

paducah

Very strange...I`ve never seen a unit destroyed through lack of supplies unless it`s Winter [X(]

Turn 13 news: