Matrix Games Forums

The one thing I'd add is you probably need to prioritize sending Grant or another decent leader East if the CSA is getting close to DC.

redrum68 wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 2:12 pm The one thing I'd add is you probably need to prioritize sending Grant or another decent leader East if the CSA is getting close to DC.

I suspect if I had fought the Virginia line better there wouldn't have been the need. Within a couple of turns Reynolds and Sherman come it which would have given me the leadership I needed. I tend to want Grant in the West because that is where I think the Union will win the war. Too easy for the South to defend Richmond to commit more resources there than needed to keep it stable.

kennonlightfoot wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 2:42 pm I suspect if I had fought the Virginia line better there wouldn't have been the need. Within a couple of turns Reynolds and Sherman come it which would have given me the leadership I needed. I tend to want Grant in the West because that is where I think the Union will win the war. Too easy for the South to defend Richmond to commit more resources there than needed to keep it stable.

In theory that is true but for the most part, if the Union survive 1862 and hold DC then they just win the war as they end up with such a large income advantage in 1863+ as long as you can minimize CSA convoy income.

Hello, I have read posts above and look at the map after surrender. Thanks from the game. Yeah, mostly very good 'lessons' noted. I could point out biggest issues from my view, if this would help in future games.


Maryland is commanded by a single HQ, and McDowell (4), being literally the worst. Ouh, as redrum noted above. That many units need 3 HQs. And at rating (6), as starting generals can be sacked and replaced. Here, there are guys under Jackson fighting against units not attached to HQ. This is 30% readiness difference, or 40% with prepared attack = annihilation and unnecessary losses.

What is equally unfortunate, there are lvl 2 equipment South units fighting lvl 0 or 1 equipment Union. Infantry eq. is the most important tech, especially with corps in action. From the posts above I gather that Union invested in this tech in the middle of August, in Union turn 7&8. It really should be at turn 2-3... otherwise losses can be crippling.
Inf equipment, corps and industrial is holy trinity, I do not think there can be doubt that they should have priority over anything else.


And all units in production queue are without any inf eq. upgrades. Which means they must take 1 turn for upgrade before getting into action. Or, as in the previous screenshot, they are placed bare on the frontline. Then killed immediately.


Here is Grant, in the middle of nowhere. If there is offensive on Maryland, there is really one place where Grant could be - commanding corps units around Washington in crushing counterattacks.


Here again, Union units without HQ. Ok, I killed one HQ there, but it was not replaced/units not pulled back. So now it is Lee commanding his troops against no one. Thus, Union forces are repeatedly destroyed (if you wondered why it happens).


Maybe there is some overinvestment in technology. It is just mass research, maxed all the time, I guess? 6000 MPPs up to September 1862. CSA put 4000 there, due to lower limits, which means 2k more on army. With industrial gap being not that big up to this point, with Union building marines and ships, and with generals disparity, it actually means that Confederacy has stronger army than Union... I think that if situation in Maryland is somewhat dangerous, teching could be slowed down. Not everything is super important. Especially those cav ones.

Blockade could be better, but it was actually ok, most Unions I've seen make worse. South was getting considerably less in MPPs, as reported. Although maybe building four ironclads was overreaction for the Union... Side note - it appears that 3 marines is enough to beat garrisoning brigade, depending on rolls. Sounds alright. I was surprised by one such landing
Union also could have built a couple of cannons. They are not great, but still it is much better to have 10 divisions + 1 artillery instead of 11 divisions. They de-entrench and lower morale before the attack by infantry. Can be shift-moved into position if needed.
And, of course, I would employ Garibaldi, he is still broken, especially if cotton is sold and when Union takes some ports early to kill European mobilisation, as it was done here.

Also, I was scheduled to receive some decent leaders in September and October. With Sherman and eight Inf. Corps I think I could have held the line and reinforced Kentucky as well.

No, Sherman arrives in October 1863, not 62. No good luck there. Reynolds is ok, but no superhero.

I needed a much better naval strategy including build plan. One of the problems with mostly having played the AI is that it is easy to wipe out the AI navy. But against a player, Beriand's few monitors played hell with my navy. I am not sure if he fielded more than two or not, but I didn't have a good plan for countering. They cost me a lot of FS (Fighting Spirit) by killing gunboats. It might be possible to trap the CSS Virigina (Monitor) in Norfolk with two blocking monitors, but I haven't test that. I built lots of Ironclads, but they were late to show up. Probably should have built more Monitors so they would be in position to limit the damage.

I think I had three. Did not build Virginia. I do not think that sinking a couple of gunships is heavy FS blow, more like scaring everything off the convoy lines for many turns have impact in this situation.

In theory that is true but for the most part, if the Union survive 1862 and hold DC then they just win the war as they end up with such a large income advantage in 1863+ as long as you can minimize CSA convoy income.

Yeah, but the last part of the sentence is now crucial Just surviving 1862, but without ruling the seas, is not enough to quickly turn the tide then. I mean, I think, not like I am super sure.
Also, holding Washington is not really that necessary, if you do not suffer further losses. Of course better to hold it, but 1-2 turns of occupation is no big deal. If all else is good, that is.

Maryland is commanded by a single HQ, and McDowell (4), being literally the worst. Ouh, as redrum noted above. That many units need 3 HQs. And at rating (6), as starting generals can be sacked and replaced. Here, there are guys under Jackson fighting against units not attached to HQ. This is 30% readiness difference, or 40% with prepared attack = annihilation and unnecessary losses.

This is one of those bad habits learned from play the AI. Against the AI there is no reason to pay for HQ's because you get more than enough good leaders by the end of 1862. And playing the AI never gives you a reason to waste MPP on them. By the time in our game in became obvious I needed more HQ's in DC area it was to later to build them.

What is equally unfortunate, there are lvl 2 equipment South units fighting lvl 0 or 1 equipment Union. Infantry eq. is the most important tech, especially with corps in action. From the posts above I gather that Union invested in this tech in the middle of August, in Union turn 7&8. It really should be at turn 2-3... otherwise losses can be crippling.

Another lesson learned. Partially due to it wasn't a problem against the AI. Also, my not having a complete understanding of how the game calculates combat odds. I went with the Infantry Tactics first over Infantry Tech simply because one got immediately applied to everything. But I never know how much each increased combat power. It looks like Infantry Tech is the way to go for Research priority.