Matrix Games Forums

Well how is that about Balance ? See the balance issue is a complex one. You are in august 62 and territory wise it looks very much like mid 63 in VA... The issue is that sure the Union should have more troops, but it should also be stuck with poor leaders, here of course a clever player can optimize far earlier than in reality, partly because promotions are way too quick.

I remember in AACW one would often here the complaint from Union player in early to mid game "another turn wasted because they are all bloody inactive in VA." Here it is hardly the case.

In an engine that gives such a premium to leadership (this is why NCP was hardly playable, because Napoleon's super rating trickled down too well and made his army and corps virtuall unbeatable), the fact that this game has made leaders so much more flexible than in AACW is an issue.

I would recommend more troops for the Union, but a severe slowdown of promotions (Longstreet 3* in early 62 !), maybe even making all promotions cost VP or NM for example

ORIGINAL: veji1

Well how is that about Balance ? See the balance issue is a complex one. You are in august 62 and territory wise it looks very much like mid 63 in VA... The issue is that sure the Union should have more troops, but it should also be stuck with poor leaders, here of course a clever player can optimize far earlier than in reality, partly because promotions are way too quick.

I remember in AACW one would often here the complaint from Union player in early to mid game "another turn wasted because they are all bloody inactive in VA." Here it is hardly the case.

In an engine that gives such a premium to leadership (this is why NCP was hardly playable, because Napoleon's super rating trickled down too well and made his army and corps virtuall unbeatable), the fact that this game has made leaders so much more flexible than in AACW is an issue.

I would recommend more troops for the Union, but a severe slowdown of promotions (Longstreet 3* in early 62 !), maybe even making all promotions cost VP or NM for example

That is a good point on leadership; there is no doubt the Union player can move things around to get better results than RL. I think that's one of the reasons that the Union should NOT be at a 2-1 advantage as in history. But they need more help.

Michael is ahead in Virginia in terms of territory, but behind anywhere else. He is only at Island 10 on the Mississippi; by this time historically, the Union had already taken most of Tennessee. And he has done zero amphib landings.

Longstreet is a bit of an aberration; most leaders are very slow to promote right now. Many leadlers on my side who were Confederate Corps commanders are not promoted. In fact, several were made Corps commanders without a battle, including Hardee, Bragg, Breckinridge. Overall, promotion is much slower than RF, actually. Longstreet is an exception.

Something interesting I think would be for a player to know if a leader is inactive only AFTER the turn is played. ie the brown or white enveloppes would indicate activity or inactivity in the previous turn, not this one. That would mean tha players could always give orders for movement, offense, etc, but only discover during resolution that this or that leader didn't follow the order, stayed put, or moved a lot slower than expected, or didn't attack the outnumbered ennemy but just sat there. It might be frustrating but it woule emulate a lot better RL, prevent "leader shopping", ie this corps commander is inactive but this one is active so i'll stack the active one with all the troops, etc.

At least as an option it would be a great feature (hidden activity status toggle on/off).

October 1862

RICHMOND UNDER SEIGE!

The Union Army crossed the Rappahannock at Fredricksburg without a fight, and advanced 2 regions to Hanover.....just across from Richmond!

I had a Corps at Fredricksburg, but I made a mistake on the settings, leaving it on "DEFEND-RETREAT". BIG MISTAKE!

So I paid on that one, now Richmond is under siege.

BATTLE OF CHARLOTTESVILLE:

So, I have to shift all my Corps eastward to cover Richmond. About 4 Union Corps advanced on Charlottesville, and met one wing of the ANV. Result: 9 NM gained in a massive victory.

Still, a pyhrric one; I am going to have to abandon Charlottesville probably anyway.

CAPITOL MOVED TO ATLANTA:

I paid the 5 NM and moved the capital....I am still at 122 NM, so plenty there.

KENTUCKY:

We also won a battle in Munfordville, KY.......24,000 men under Johnston defeated a Union force of 20,000. We don't have the supplies, though, to advance on Louisville, so that may be about it. I will probably have to fall back on Nashville before too long.

Dec 1862

EASTERN:

Things really settled recently, and we are in a static state. The crushing loss that Crittenden suffered at Charlottesville seemed to put a damper on the Union offensive, probably until the spring. At the moment, we have about 100,000 men in Virginia, well dug-in along the Mataponi. I don't think he can assault that position directly.

What he can do, though, is move south of Charlottesville. I think he will start that, once weather improves along with supplies. My plan is to keep the Army of N VA (ANV) concentrated in the center, to attack either wing as they move, and cover Richmond.

Grant is in command in the east, and there is no doubt this is the main event for Michael. He is really pressing me here.

BUILDS/BALANCE:

We just did a headcount: CSA is at 235,000, an increase since March of 25,000, and the Union is at 310,000, an increase of 100,000. That trajectory feels about right. The problem I think is that the Union should be at this numerical superiority at the beginning of 1862, not the end (historically, numbers were over 2-1 Union, but I think in game, for gameplay, can't go that far)

So, maybe everything is OK, except the Union needs a better starting point. That could be either a) a pot of initial money, or b) more money received for treasury events, or bit of both. Some recruits, too. Maybe boost Union take by 50% on Treasury events.

The other problem I see is that the CSA is swimming in recruits. I have over 350 sitting around waiting for guns. I haven't used ANY recruitment premiums. I am short on cash. This is a problem. I think the CSA needs a reduction in the number of recruits each turn; this would also improve Union position in early 1862, since early-on the CSA does lack recruits. Reducing recruit flows would push those builds for the CSA into the future. An easy way to fix that is simply to take out 2-4 Plantation structures.

DEC 1862: Out West

WESTERN:

Another battle this turn at Munfordville (Hard, KY). Union attacked my trenches, surprisingly. We repulsed them easily, I wonder if he's trying to consume my suppplies.

I don't have the strength to take Louisville, with 30,000 Union troops here now, and the US Navy can cut the rail line at Bowling Green anytime. It's time to pull out. Kentucky is really exposed with the Tennessee and other rivers in my rear.

I think it's true that in the East, rivers help the Rebs, as they are defensive barriers. In the West, though, they are highways for invasion.

MISSOURI:

We won another battle near Jefferson City, but supplies and cohesion, coupled with bad weather, mean I am falling back to Springfield, again.

The last few turns, Richard Taylor has trained-up all the Missouri Militia troops, so when the weather clears we can probably make some hay again in Missouri.

Union show no interest, however, in doing anything other than keeping me out of St. Louis

I am sending 3* Braxton Bragg out there to command in Missouri. I really need a 3*, and don't want to send my best ones. He's OK, though.

TEXAS:

Carson's force of 5000 or so troops was moving overland from El Paso into Texas. As soon as the bad weather hit, they are falling back, and I can tell they have no food. I don't think Michael will try to invade Texas from that quarter again. The Supply situation out there is terrible.

If I am the Union, I just leave a garrison, and move all the good units to Kansas and points east.

So if I well understood, Michael has thrown the historical Union plan Anaconda out of the window. He's chosen a frontal assault towards Richmond instead.

Do you think you can hold until 1865? If not, then this would be an unbalaced issue.

Jan 1863

Tulius, no question Michael is going all-in in VA. At this point, I think I will lose Richmond in 1863. I think, though, the Confederacy can survive the loss of Richmond, provided there are no other losses elsewhere, which will be the case it looks like.

It's an interesting strategy. I might lose Richmond, and I still think the Union needs help, IMO.

EASTERN:

Union armies crossed the river below Charlottesville, into Bedford, VA. Serious enough a problem that I really had to counterattack and bump him out. We were able to get 90,000 men on that spot, but not without abandoning Charlottesville; another loss of territory!

We also lost an ill-advised attack on my part against Milroy adjacent to Richmond, losing 1 NM

The only bright spot was a successful raid by JEB Stuart. Stuart's 5000 raiders managed to take Alexandria, fight off an attack by a division under Sickels, burn the depot, and tear up the RR. Hancock forced Stuart out, but a successful raid overall with minimal losses. At a minimum, it should force Michael to garrison his depots better.

ELSEWHERE:

Nothing; we are pulling back in KY to Bowling Green, abandoning Munfordville, where we won a fight a couple months back. Supplies are a problem, and as soon as the river thaws the Union Navy can cut me off up there anyway, or land in my rear at Bowling Green. I'm not strong enough to take Louisville, so not worth the risk.

In Missouri, Bragg arrives to take command of the Army of the West. Richard Taylor has trained all the militia, so we have over 1400 AV there now, including Stand Watie's indians. This is enough to cause trouble after the thaw, which is what I am going to do, again.

I am far from having your expertise Q-Ball, but looking at big picture Michaels seems to be ahead of historical schedule.

ORIGINAL: Kamil

I am far from having your expertise Q-Ball, but looking at big picture Michaels seems to be ahead of historical schedule.

That's a good question, and I realize alot of the European players here may not be as familiar with US History. I majored in it in College, so while I'm not an expert, I am a dangerous amateur, I guess!

By late 1862, the Union had secured nearly all of Tennessee except for Chattanooga/Knoxville. All of Missouri and Kentucky was Union, save for Bragg's "Heartland Offensive" in fall of 1862, which was more of a raid. New Orleans was Union, so was Baton Rouge, and Union troops occupied New Bern, Beaufort, SC, and other points along the coast. The only Confederate held point on the Mississippi was Vicksburg.

The only area Michael is ahead is VA; the Union did hold Virginia north of the Rappahannock, and Winchester was sort of the border (it changed hands 72 times during the Civil war, a record).

But Tennessee was a key get for the Union; Nashville fell in March 1862, and Memphis in July 1862. New Orleans was a grave loss for the South, as it was the largest city by population. It was lost in April 1862, IIRC.

1863 saw more gains, with Vicksburg, Jackson, Chattanooga, Knoxville, Little Rock all falling to the Union.

March 1863

We are pressed in Virginia, but still learning the game and how to use raiders and partisans, so I think we had some progress...

Virginia is a mass of partisans, Cav, rangers, etc. We burned 2 depots this turn, cut 3 rail lines, and otherwise created havoc

Still, probably all that will do is make Michael garrison rail lines and depots

Very interesting... Good use of partisans and cavalry, playing as the rebs, one must force the Union to garrison all the way, spending conscripts to buy cheapish troops to do the job as opposed to investing all of them in good front line troops. This tactic would be even more efficient in the western theater, but there he is not there deep on your turf. This virginia has a definitive late 63 look !

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

So if I well understood, Michael has thrown the historical Union plan Anaconda out of the window. He's chosen a frontal assault towards Richmond instead.

Do you think you can hold until 1865? If not, then this would be an unbalaced issue.

Anaconda is impossible in this game. The anything else therefore, is open.

Late March, 1863

Despite the fact that I am not doing well in Virginia, I still think the Union needs help in the early game. The relative strength is finally tipping in Michaels favor (It's 138 now), but I made a number of critical early mistakes that I won't make next play at CSA.

First, I forgot to expand rail in 1861 at all. That halted all offensive action, as I ran out of ammo. I almost ran out completely in Virginia. This is one mistake I won't repeat.

Second, I didn't play very aggressively in VA, while Michael did, in 1861. That was my 2nd mistake.

Finally, I didn't move enough troops to Virginia once Grant showed up. I didn't have the rail cap (see mistake #1), but I should have gone all-in in VA same time he did.

At this point, I think I'll lose Richmond in 1863. My NM is high enough (120), that I can survive that. The fact that he has taken no other city whatsoever means that I can probably survive the production loss and still win by VPs

The 1861 Union, IMO, needs help. I think the trajectory works after that, but the problem is the two powers start equal, or actually with Rebs stronger on the ground. That aint right.

VIRGINIA:

Once again, the only point on the map with any action at all.

Most of Grant's army attacked Longstreet east of Lynchburg; Jackson Marched to sound of guns, and my 55,000 troops beat back 75,000 Federals, winning 6 NM.

I had set Lee, with Magruder and EK Smith's corps, toward Charlottesville; this fell easily.

I am a bit out of position. The problem is he is sliding Corps around my flanks everywhere, so I can't defend all the rail lines

April 1863

This was an eventful turn. While problem most places on the map, we won a huge victory in Virginia.

Battle of Lynchburg:

Church bells are ringing across the South, for the massive victory at Lynchburg!

Jackson and Longstreet, supported by a Corps under Magruder, led an attack on 3 Union corps at Lynchburg (strung together by MTSG). The Union occupied both Lynchburg, and the region to the South, Campbell VA, across the rail line. We bounced the Union between those points like a ping-pong, inflicting something like 35,000 total losses on the Union, including 15,000 prisoners.

In addition to gaining 9 NM from these battles, no less than 6 leaders are promotable to 2*.

Our troops are completely spent now, and there are threats elsewhere along the line, but for now, we at least ended the threat to the west, basically crushing 1/3 of the Union army in Virginia

Battle of City Point:

Union forces crossed the James River. We pushed them back, but this is an ominous development. We are going to be addressing this.

A new Corps is formed around Petersburg under Jubal Early.

April 1863, Western

Ft. Henry:

Disaster here though, as we somehow retreated from Ft. Henry without a fight. Ft. Donelson is now exposed, and should be invested shortly. Not good, but it is 1863.

The Army of Tennessee, at Bowling Green, has to retreat. I cannot allow the Union Navy to get in my rear around Nashville. So, time to go.

I have a trench with guns at Tuscumbia, guarding the upper Tennessee river, but the Cumberland has no defenses beyond Ft. Donelson.

Van Dorn's Raid:

Van Dorn, leading 5000 cavalrymen in 2 divisions under Wharton and McCulloch, invaded Kansas. We wiped out 2 Infantry Regiments at Mound City (good), but halted at the gates of Lawrence, out of ammo. We have to fall back for lack of supplies.

Meanwhile, any move out of Springfield results in my troops suffering cohesion losses, and not really accomplishing much. I have 12,000 troops there, and the Union shows no interest in moving on Springfield. I am thinking of transferring Hindman's division to Tennessee, where it's clearly needed now. It's a sideshow out there.

Assessment:

I still think the Union is underpowered, even though I am losing (sort of). I made some critical errors early in this game, which makes it to me not a real good test of play balance. Here are my errors:

1. 1861 Defensive: I was very passive in 1861; I didn't realize the advantage the South had in-game, and made a pile of tactical and strategic errors such that I lost the Valley in 1861; something no other CSA player has done
2. RR: This was critical; I didn't increase Rail Cap until 1862! At all! And I wasn't checking ammo levels until I ran out of Ammo in Virginia. Since then, I have never had full rail cap due to troops movements, and I've paid for this all game
3. Virginia: I didn't realize until too late that Michael was going all-in in Viginia, completely neglecting any other theater or amphib moves

Finally, Michael is a quick learner and good opponent; we both played WITE, or War in the East, and he was one of the best players in that group, consistently steamrolling his Soviet opponents

Despite all this, and even if I lose Richmond, I probably would still win in VPs and NM; I have a big cushion in both right now. The fact is while the Union is doing well in Virginia, the USA has gone absolutely nowhere anywhere else; we did have to abandon Bowling Green due to US Navy movement, but that's literally the only gain in two years besides El Paso.

June, 1863:

Virginia:

Richmond, I think, is lost. I lost a huge battle at Appomattox, and I don't have the strength and Ammo to counterattack. My replacement pool is empty, which is a problem, and I can't dislodge him.

The problem now, after this loss, and despite my large victories in Virginia, is that he'll be able to pound me into dust until I run out of Ammo and/or replacements.

The all-in strategy in Virginia is a winning one for the Union. Outside of that theater, the USA effort is dismal, but this is decisive.

Battle of Humboldt:

Rosecran's army attack AS Johnston and Polk at Humboldt. I had level 7 trenches, and we each had roughly 30,000 troops, with the USA having a slight advantage. We won the battle, and gained 4 NM, repulsing the US with 9,000 losses in a bloody repulse

Though another army is just across from Nashville, I think we are temporarily OK in this theater; we are well dug-in, and he lacks the strength to dislodge us

Missouri:

I cancelled any further actions, and pulled my units back to Springfield. A division of Infantry under Hindman, and a Division of Cavalry under Wharton, something like 9000 men in all, are heading east. We don't really need them to defend NW Arkansas, and St. Louis is probably out of reach.

Confederate Territory of Colorado:

We are invading Colorado, and are at the gates of Denver, which is garrisoned by a lone Militia unit. I think we are going to take the city.

Our invasion is led by John Baylor, with 5 units of Rangers, an Indian Regt, and a single Texas Cav Regt. We captured a 12-lb battery from the Union at Ft. Morgan, a lucky break, along with a stockpile of food and supplies. We are attacking Denver next turn, then will move to the gold mines.

We're calling this one, with the new patch coming out. Michael is a very good opponent, I hope I can give him a game in the next one.