Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: terje439

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

If the Union player is smart he'll get himself in a position where you will have to attack him. That is when things start sliding downhill on a greased skid.........[X(]

Good Hunting.

MR

Exactly, time is on the Union's side, it will allow the Union brigades to be better prepared for the fight, but this is something the AI does not comprehend. The AI is suffering severly from Lincoln's desiree to do something no matter the cost.

Realistically, that's a much more historical attitude.

The Union couldn't have afforded to have sit back and wait it out. The newspapers would have crucified the Union Generals for that. Worse than fighting and losing. The public wanted a quick end to the fighting and Lincoln knew it. It was better to fight and lose than sit back and do nothing.

FoF doesn't make the Union fight. In fact, just the opposite, it forces them to not fight, until a much later date, or face all the negative points for doing so. But then the game also forces the Confederacy to hold Nashville too. Something the Confederates didn't do at all. That gives the game options a bit of turn compared to history.

I'm not sure what the answer is to my flood strategy. We're about to see what my opponent comes up with. This is the second time I've used it. Last game I went into the Confederacy through the Murphreesboro area. This time I wanted to see if I could make it work through the East.

The part of breaking in through the crust has worked. Now it remains to be seen what he can do about Union Armies running loose in the heart of the South.

As the Union player I think all you have to do is make alot of containers early and call up the muster...early and long. Anyplace that you have a 50% or better chance to get brigades you need to muster them. Pull all the brigades out of garrison except along the Union crust area. Ohio River, over to the Shanendoah Valley, on to the Washington area. I put those garrison troops from around Canada in those areas as many as they will hold then start arming them and filling up more and more containers. Once you reach a certain point it's no longer an issue of a CSA invasion. But in the meantime you can hold off pretty much whatever he brings to the party.

If the CSA isn't really careful the US can move troops right before their eyes. With a high rail capacity all you have to do is move a container or 3 across the country and there are enough garrison troops there to fill them and you can fight immediately. Unload the containers from their original locations into cities there or take them with you if you have enough rail capacity.


Good Hunting.

MR
MR

Well I both agree and disagree with you [;)]

About your flood tactic.
That I would counter by spreading my forces, I would love to take on a Union div with one of my own. An extra brigade, higher morale, better generals should see the Northern Agressors run back north most of the times. But then again I tend to operate 3 armies (Virginia, Kentucky/Knoxville, Memphis), spread out some of the subcontainers and you will have a hard time finding somewhere to go.
A container of GARR troops right out of their forts are nothing but targetpractice for the Southern lads [:D]

But I agree with the fact that forcing the North to attack is historically accurate.
When you say that the game forces the North not to fight, I agree when you play a human advisary, but not about the AI, even on full general I will face heaps of Union troops trying to break through my lines not even properly armed!!

ORIGINAL:  terje439

Well I both agree and disagree with you [;)]

About your flood tactic.
That I would counter by spreading my forces, I would love to take on a Union div with one of my own. An extra brigade, higher morale, better generals should see the Northern Agressors run back north most of the times. But then again I tend to operate 3 armies (Virginia, Kentucky/Knoxville, Memphis), spread out some of the subcontainers and you will have a hard time finding somewhere to go.
A container of GARR troops right out of their forts are nothing but targetpractice for the Southern lads [:D]

But I agree with the fact that forcing the North to attack is historically accurate.
When you say that the game forces the North not to fight, I agree when you play a human advisary, but not about the AI, even on full general I will face heaps of Union troops trying to break through my lines not even properly armed!!

Yes, BUT, they stop the Confederate advancing without a fight. That allows for the Union to respond with real forces or to move into the areas you just moved out of. This is simply about having more people than you do.

Move too far and see just how poor those Union farmboys can be when they surround a Confederate unit.


As Stalin said, "quantity has a quality all it's own."

Start breaking out divisions to match mine and I'd think that was a good enough trade. Alot of my divisions have only a single brigade with orders not to fight. The larger units you weakened now have to fight the same amount of Union troops they were going to fight either way.....that's an answer I'll take every time.

Good Hunting.

MR

True if I spread out too thin, however by taking into consideration where to put my containers you will see me draw reinforcements during the first round of battle.
And if I allow myself to be completely surrounded I off course do not deserve to be in command [;)]

Yes, the Union has more manpower, however if you run around with few units all over the place, alot of those Union troops will spend the war in a Southern resort complementary of President Davis [:D]

And again I agree that Quantity holds a certain Quality, but you do not posess THOSE numbers unless I have done something completely weird in my disposition (well...a saturday night might see that happen I guess [8D])

ORIGINAL: terje439

True if I spread out too thin, however by taking into consideration where to put my containers you will see me draw reinforcements during the first round of battle.
And if I allow myself to be completely surrounded I off course do not deserve to be in command [;)]

Yes, the Union has more manpower, however if you run around with few units all over the place, alot of those Union troops will spend the war in a Southern resort complementary of President Davis [:D]

And again I agree that Quantity holds a certain Quality, but you do not posess THOSE numbers unless I have done something completely weird in my disposition (well...a saturday night might see that happen I guess [8D])

No you won't. In PBEM QC you don't get the option of drawing reinforcements. You also don't get the option of setting up the QC grid either.

Good Hunting.

MR

Thought you did in QC but not IC?

ORIGINAL: terje439


When you say that the game forces the North not to fight, I agree when you play a human advisary, but not about the AI, even on full general I will face heaps of Union troops trying to break through my lines not even properly armed!!

Sounds like the AI needs some adjusting.

Good Hunting.

MR

ORIGINAL: terje439

Thought you did in QC but not IC?

Maybe we do use IC in our PBEM. We send an entire turn at once so no breaks to add or subtract units from a fight. You have to that with the "Support" order ahead of time.

That can get you in trouble if you're not careful.


Good Hunting.

MR

HiHi

Hey chaps I think you are both right, MR coz in PBEM you don't get the option to call up reinforcements in QB, Terje coz in solo you do.

Terje I may have picked this up wrong but I think you may be talking from the solo game point of view, the PBEM game plays very different to solo in places, the above + you cant set your troops for QB as in solo, another eg that really damages the Souths game is Raiders, in PBEM they are practically useless, unlike Runners you get no choice of target or the option to 'Cancel Raid' and as a consequence they die like flies.

All the Best
Peter

ORIGINAL: Kingmaker

HiHi

Hey chaps I think you are both right, MR coz in PBEM you don't get the option to call up reinforcements in QB, Terje coz in solo you do.

Terje I may have picked this up wrong but I think you may be talking from the solo game point of view, the PBEM game plays very different to solo in places, the above + you cant set your troops for QB as in solo, another eg that really damages the Souths game is Raiders, in PBEM they are practically useless, unlike Runners you get no choice of target or the option to 'Cancel Raid' and as a consequence they die like flies.

All the Best
Peter

Yes, this AAR is all about solo play as stated in post 1 [:)]
And yes, PBEM is something different I agree.
And raiders? They are useless even in solo play, not at all worth the cost.

But different players, different aproaches/tactics/style of play.