Army of the Potomac strategy

[ABridgeTooFar]

What do you guys usually do with the AOP. At first it would just sit there in the Potomac River since I can never win as an attacker against the ANV. As a defender I do okay winning around 75% of the detailed combats. As the attacker, fahgetabutit. The AOP morale is just too low to last very long in a firefight.

But that strategy is just too boring so in the last few games I try at least one maybe two offenses each summer. Yes, I get my butt whipped and suffer in VP's but at least I am doing something.

What do you guys do? Any tips or advice. Lately I have been adding some zouaves and medical attachements but I need many more to have any impact.

[Hard Sarge]

one, you really are not going to be able to do too much in 61, you need to rebuild your forces and let the West be the major area of action

you need to upgrade your troops, build new troops and replace the one olds, the old ones can become good, but it is going to take a lot of battles to do it, build new ones

in the large states, build Training grounds (with the upcomeing patch, it is will work better)

build Reseach sites

buy add ons, buy add ons that down what you do or want

(if you have the horses, buy scouts, reseach anything that helps your scouting chances)

let the AOP be the anval, the forces in the West are your hammer, springfields are good, imp Spingfields are great, and the others are super

with the upcoming patch as it is, the Union should have a much better chance at doing something, earlier in the game then most players are having now

[General Quarters]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

you need to upgrade your troops, build new troops and replace the one olds, the old ones can become good, but it is going to take a lot of battles to do it, build new ones

Are you saying that newly built troops have higher ratings? Do they get better over time, or as a result of research or something?

[Gil R.]

Yes, if you purchase infantry they start off at 5.0, whereas mustered/conscripted troops are about half that. I guess you must always muster and conscript...

[General Quarters]

The troops you have at the beginning are mostly rated below 2.50. 1.80 is not uncommon. What is the reason for newly built troops being so much more highly rated? Is it to make it more worth the cost to build them?

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

The troops you have at the beginning are mostly rated below 2.50. 1.80 is not uncommon. What is the reason for newly built troops being so much more highly rated? Is it to make it more worth the cost to build them?

From a game-design point of view, yes. But the rationalized explanation is that purchased troops take three more turns to appear, during which time they've been getting in a lot more training.

[ABridgeTooFar]

HardSarge, I do that whole hammer-anvil thing very similar to history and it works well.  The other stuff sounds great but it all costs a TON of resources.  It sounds like it would take until '64 to be able to pull all that off.  Plus I rarely build many, if any, infantry units (outside of conscription).  I usually build around 4 siege units and 4 regular artillery and maybe a handful of cavalry.  I am not sure that I can afford to rebuild the entire army.

[Erik Rutins]

Purchased/produced units start at 4.00, IIRC. ~2.00 level units (Musters/Conscriptions) can get up to that level in about three battles, if they don't suffer too badly and do reasonably well.

[Hard Sarge]

Well, that is the trade off, you have to build this or skip this, plus it depends on what setting you are using, upkeep costs on, poor ecc, or rich, spending a lot of money on Diplo or not

yes, I think most Union players are not building new Inf

for the most part, the starting troops are poor troops, the Union I believe start at a morale of 4.00 when built, about double what most of the troops you have are, which you do not need to replace all the troops, enough to either stiffen what you have, or to build your Shock Div (if I remember right, the Union begins at 4.00 the CSA starts at 5.00, the new Training ground, will add a .2 for each Training center in that state, so, say you put one in Nofolk, it will help any Inf or Cav built in Richmound)

which of course, it may sound simple, but buy add ons for the good troops, plus remember, Muskst are good weapons, but only if you use them right, if you can get Withworths, you don't give them to a unit you plan on chargeing with

plus with Upkeep costs turned on, you can get rid of old bad troops, when you get newer good troops

the cost of some things you need to buy have been lowered, so camps do not cost as many horses, (which will help the Union player, but cost more money, which will hurt the CSA, plus, they count different then they did)

and again, you do not need to rebuild the whole army, just enough to be worth while, in the West you can take most of the area, with out ever fighting, move and take, and pick your spots, when you see a chance for a good battle, take it, you see a bad battle comeing, move

a lot of times, if you can get the AI to do a chase to engage, you can move, take some land and then fight a defence battle the next turn

plus in this game, remember, it is not doing more damage that counts, it is killing units, if you can shoot a unit dead in place, great, if you can trap it and take it POW, good (killing it, gives you some exp, captureing it, only takes it out)

the more units the enemy loses, the more it has to build new or be under strenghted for the next battle

depending on what FOW level you play on, you can also work with what weapons you have, Springfields are better then Muskets, if the other guys have muskets stand back from them, lousy troops with longer range, does not matter, they can fire and not be hit, the Imp Springfield has a range of 4, that is better then the Minne or the Richmound musket or the miss rifle, with that, only the Lorenz, Enfield or Withworth is a worry

when you do a fire attack, when ever you can, fire into the flank (you have front, left and right flank, left and right rear flank and rear) of the enemy, if you get a chance to get a rear flank or rear shoot from in close, go for it, if you only can fire into the front from up close, don't fire (unless you got the better troops)

this is where Cav and Dragoon Tactics can be so deadly, move, dismound, move in a hex and fire into the rear flank or rear of a Unit, and it can shatter it, if you didn't have to move too much to get there, move away

plus do like they did, work and learn a set of tactics that work for you, and then build your troops to match your tactics

(IE, you build and arm a number of Sniper type troops, and then in battle see a chance to charge the enemy, not with those troops, they are worth far too much to waste on a gamble, if you do plan on chargeing, add some Meds to the unit, and make sure you have a good close range weapon, and so on)

[chris0827]

There's no reason for the AoP to have such low morale. Bull Run was more than three months earlier. The AoP was far from demoralized in Nov. 1861.

[Hard Sarge]

yeap, got to agree, I don't know why nobody don't remember that the CW ended in 61

[chris0827]

Much had been done in the three months since his arrival,five days after the Bull Run disaster. The army of 50,000 which he then found waiting for him- "a mere collection of regiments cowering on the banks of the Potomac, " he called it - had grown to 168,000 well-trained, spirited men, superbly equipped and worshipful of the commander who had accomplished their transformation.
 
Shelby Foote - The Civil War, a narrative 

[Hard Sarge]

and he did wonders with his well trained troops

it is the design

I play with what I am given, like any other game

this is the mind set the Designer had

this is the mind set we get and play with

it fits with what the designer wants to happen

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

and he did wonders with his well trained troops

it is the design

I play with what I am given, like any other game

this is the mind set the Designer had

this is the mind set we get and play with

it fits with what the designer wants to happen

Then why have the designers asked for ideas? They have stated they want to add a historically accurate scenario. Why do you have a problem with that?

[General Quarters]

Gosh, Chris, you jump on this theme at the drop of a hat. Hard Sarge did not say that designers should not ask for ideas, or that they should not develop a historical scenario, or that he had a problem with that. He just expressed his own personal attitude to playing a game. I think you have a right to want the game a way that you would find much more satisfying, and he has a right to be enjoy a game as the designer designed it. I don't see why you have to jump on him.

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

Gosh, Chris, you jump on this theme at the drop of a hat. Hard Sarge did not say that designers should not ask for ideas, or that they should not develop a historical scenario, or that he had a problem with that. He just expressed his own personal attitude to playing a game. I think you have a right to want the game a way that you would find much more satisfying, and he has a right to be enjoy a game as the designer designed it. I don't see why you have to jump on him.

I jumped on him? Are you reading the same thread? I post regarding the condition of the Army of the Potomac on nov 1st 1861 and I get a sarcastic remark. I post a quote backing up my earlier post and am told that since the designers had a different idea then it doesn't matter even though the designers themselves have repeatedly stated they want to create a historical scenario. If the game was perfect then there wouldn't be a patch coming out. No game is too good to improve. Why do some of you feel the need to muzzle those of us that offer suggestions? How do we threaten you? They're still going to have a balanced scenario. You can still play the way you want. Why can't you show some respect to those of us who have different opinions and ideas?

[Hard Sarge]

What a joke, it is a simple ploy, instult and complain, and then when someone says something back, you play the good guy, just asking questions

you quote somebody who pretty much did nothing but lie though out his Combat career and then ask why the game is not based on his statements ? if his troops were so good in Nov of 61, why didn't he end the war ?

the question asked, was what to do with the AOP and how, I offered some ideas based on how the game works

not on how I think the game should work, or how the real war would of been fought, or how I think the real war should of been fought

you want to improve the morale of the Union troops in 61, do so, it is in the game

plus if you follow my posts, if I come across Sarcastic, there must be a reason for it

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

What a joke, it is a simple ploy, instult and complain, and then when someone says something back, you play the good guy, just asking questions

you quote somebody who pretty much did nothing but lie though out his Combat career and then ask why the game is not based on his statements ? if his troops were so good in Nov of 61, why didn't he end the war ?

the question asked, was what to do with the AOP and how, I offered some ideas based on how the game works

not on how I think the game should work, or how the real war would of been fought, or how I think the real war should of been fought

you want to improve the morale of the Union troops in 61, do so, it is in the game

plus if you follow my posts, if I come across Sarcastic, there must be a reason for it

Who did I insult? The quote was from Shelby Foote. That was his opinion of the state of the Army of the Potomac, not George McClellan's.

[Hard Sarge]

Yes I understand who and what the quote was from

just because somebody made a stuipd statement, the designers are suppost to use it as the background for there game ?

my point of view, you are insulting the Designers of the game, since they do not agree with how you see the game should of been made

besides, the War as a game, should not be winnable at the start, just because the Player works out who should be the correct General in Charge, there had to be something besides a bad General here and there was made the War last so long

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

Yes I understand who and what the quote was from

just because somebody made a stuipd statement, the designers are suppost to use it as the background for there game ?

my point of view, you are insulting the Designers of the game, since they do not agree with how you see the game should of been made

besides, the War as a game, should not be winnable at the start, just because the Player works out who should be the correct General in Charge, there had to be something besides a bad General here and there was made the War last so long

The designers themselves say they want to add a historical scenario. Are they insulting themselves? How is Shelby Foote's statement stupid? Do you have evidence that the Army of the Potomac was in a different state than what he describes?