Learning as USA..An open Discussion AAR on the April 1861 Campaign

jimwinsor · Post by **jimwinsor** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:13 pm

In that case, it's not as bad as you might think; thanks to the Erie Canal being the game which links the Lakes with the eastern part of the Ohio River.  So, only a little bit irritating.  [:)]

Mike Scholl · Post by **Mike Scholl** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:56 pm

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor

In that case, it's not as bad as you might think; thanks to the Erie Canal being the game which links the Lakes with the eastern part of the Ohio River. So, only a little bit irritating. [:)]

Huh? The "Erie Canal" links Lake Erie with the Hudson River in New York....

jimwinsor · Post by **jimwinsor** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 12:40 am

It's the "Ohio and Erie Canal," my bad!  [:o]

Mike Scholl · Post by **Mike Scholl** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 3:06 am

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor

It's the "Ohio and Erie Canal," my bad! [:o]

I don't think the width or depth of the "Ohio & Erie Canal" would permit passage of a riverine gunboat or ironclad..., but if as a game mechanic it corrects the other game mechanic of having them built in the wrong cities, I suppose it works in a backwards sort of way. At least you can get them to the right place eventually...

seydlitz_slith · Post by **seydlitz_slith** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:59 am

Well you can't get the large ocean vessels out via the canal, so they wind up being a real waste. Hopefully this will be addressed in a later patch, as construction should never be started on a vessel which would be trapped and not used.  After all, the construction counted against the union force pool limit so I can't offset it and build something else.  This is almost as ridiculous as if it had built a blockade flotilla on the great lakes.

Mike Scholl · Post by **Mike Scholl** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 12:50 pm

That was my basic question/worry when you first mentioned the problem. But they seem to be "patching" at an almost record pace, so hopefully you are correct..

jimwinsor · Post by **jimwinsor** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 2:26 pm

Like I said, the latest patch is not SUPPOSED to *build* ocean ships on the lakes or shallow rivers anymore, so, if that is still happening, yeah, I would preserve a save of the incident and report it, definitely.

Gem35 · Post by **Gem35** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 4:30 pm

So far I am at turn 6 and I still feel overwhlemed by all of the game mechanics. The Rebs are alot tougher than my green troops at this stage.
In my screenshot, I have formed a Corps led by Milroy that is trying to hold out in Harper's Ferry. Recon has shown only a few Rebel militia and calvary in the area.
I also am trying to keep regional elements together as best I can.

Richard III · Post by **Richard III** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:03 pm

Interesting Screenie, As the Union, I have sending most of those 1861 one star Generals out West to form independent Divisions or Brigades.

I see you are using 2 of them in the Corps Division structure per the Pic. While historically accurate,
do they really add anything to the Corps Stack combat rolls in that way ? There was a long thread about this over on the Ageod Forums awhile back I think, but I was unclear on the outcome......[&:]

Thanks

Gem35 · Post by **Gem35** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:23 pm

They add to the command rating to support more troops. One thing I am growing tired of already is the stupid inactive rule. How can you(besides disabling it in game options) can you get your Generals to activate? Since I formed this Corps, Milroy has been inactive for at least the last 5 turns.[:@]

seydlitz_slith · Post by **seydlitz_slith** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:23 am

Wait until McClellan becomes the army commander...he only activates on a 1...
The command point issue is one reason why I have not yet made many divisions.  A general who only has 2 points, when made a division commander, then does not have enough cp to actviate the division, which requires 4 points.   When I find an army commander who actually activates, I will probably start to put my command structure together. 
 
The rebs have fewer troops, but their generals activate more often.

seydlitz_slith · Post by **seydlitz_slith** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 2:56 am

turn 10

seydlitz_slith · Post by **seydlitz_slith** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 3:00 am

news cont...

seydlitz_slith · Post by **seydlitz_slith** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 3:05 am

Lancaster...

seydlitz_slith · Post by **seydlitz_slith** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 3:16 am

Richmond

seydlitz_slith · Post by **seydlitz_slith** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 3:25 am

Cairo area...

seydlitz_slith · Post by **seydlitz_slith** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 3:37 am

west

seydlitz_slith · Post by **seydlitz_slith** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 3:38 am

Tomorrow I will recap my orders and builds.

Mike Scholl · Post by **Mike Scholl** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 4:22 am

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

MrBoats · Post by **MrBoats** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:56 pm

Seydlitz,

Thanks a million for all of the hard work. I think I speak for many in appreciating the posts. I'm running a campaign of my own, roughly at the same pace as yours. The temptation is there, as it was historically, to move on Richmond right away, but it's going to be a long war with most of the action in the west.

I'm using a system I devised for WITP in which I break down the turns on a sheet of graph paper. The different "phases" (financial, reinforcement/replacement, etc.) are listed along the top, with the turns running down the side. I go through each phase methodically in each theater before finishing the turn. It seems very easy to skip phases and/or areas without a systematic approach.

As for the cavalry raids: there are far too many, in my opinion. In early attempts at campaigns I saw rebel raiders capture Great Lake ports. I think that's a bit ahistorical, although my fault in the game. I live in Missouri, where guerilla activity was rampant, but I think that most of the raids were strictly hit-and-run affairs .

Lyon is the all-star so far, having captured Rolla and Jefferson City. I think he would have attained Army command had he lived. (I visit Wilson's Creek every now and then, where Lyon was killed in August 1861.) Most of the other Union generals will not move for anything. That should change by '62 -- I HOPE!

Thanks again for the updates. They have helped me a great deal. This game is what a lot of us have been waiting for, and I think that a few tweaks will make it even better.

Dave

Learning as USA..An open Discussion AAR on the April 1861 Campaign

RE: Learning as USA..An open Discussion AAR on the April 1861 Campaign

RE: Learning as USA..An open Discussion AAR on the April 1861 Campaign

RE: Learning as USA..An open Discussion AAR on the April 1861 Campaign

RE: Learning as USA..An open Discussion AAR on the April 1861 Campaign

RE: Learning as USA..An open Discussion AAR on the April 1861 Campaign

RE: Learning as USA..An open Discussion AAR on the April 1861 Campaign

RE: Learning as USA..An open Discussion AAR on the April 1861 Campaign

RE: Learning as USA..An open Discussion AAR on the April 1861 Campaign

RE: Learning as USA..An open Discussion AAR on the April 1861 Campaign

RE: Learning as USA..An open Discussion AAR on the April 1861 Campaign

RE: Learning as USA..An open Discussion AAR on the April 1861 Campaign

RE: Learning as USA..An open Discussion AAR on the April 1861 Campaign

RE: Learning as USA..An open Discussion AAR on the April 1861 Campaign

RE: Learning as USA..An open Discussion AAR on the April 1861 Campaign

RE: Learning as USA..An open Discussion AAR on the April 1861 Campaign

RE: Learning as USA..An open Discussion AAR on the April 1861 Campaign

RE: Learning as USA..An open Discussion AAR on the April 1861 Campaign

RE: Learning as USA..An open Discussion AAR on the April 1861 Campaign

RE: Learning as USA..An open Discussion AAR on the April 1861 Campaign

RE: Learning as USA..An open Discussion AAR on the April 1861 Campaign