Matrix Games Forums

Hi! I finished the Grey and Blue campaign as confederate (on Intermediate) and wanted to share with you how I got a Confederate Major Victory in July 1863.


1. I placed the 2 starting Brigades in Richmond and fast-marched one north to Warrenton and one west to Staunton (and later further) to defend against the Union invasion. Every turn, I repaired the poor, lonely unit that defends Jefferson City until it was destroyed.

2. I bought one division on the first turn and two divisions on each and every turn after the first.
Except when I could buy corps, the I bought two corps instead.
When I ran out of divisions to buy, I bought Cavalry Divisions.

3. With the rest of the money, I always repaired all my units to strength 8 on every turn (except my corps or HQ, those were repaired to 10).
If you don't do this, you will lose too much XP with them.

4. If I still had enough money after repairing, I bought a HQ.

5. I did not buy any boats, cavalry, balloons, mortars,... nor did I use any diplomacy.

6. If I still had money after repairing and buying HQ (or not enough money to buy a HQ, lol), I researched in this order Corps Organisation, Infantry Equipment, Leadership, Industrial Technology, Production Technology and Cavalry Equipment.

Even when I got a hit on Infantry Equipment or Cavalry Equipment, I bought the second chit anyway. Even if the money is lost because you can only get to level 2, it makes you get that level a lot faster.

(to be honest, I do not know if Industrial Technology and Production Technology are useful if you have a major win in 1963, maybe the money to research it is more than it pays of)

(also, I do not know if Cavalry Equipment is needed)

7. I didn't buy or researched anything in the turns that I had to upgrade my Infantry or Cavalry. Upgrading takes precedent, because your units will fight A LOT better.

8. Every time I was offered a choice to make units with a Decision, I did so (except boats).

9. I used Cavalry to scout.

.... .... .... ....

A. I used the new corps and HQ from the starting turns to set up a defence north of Richmond.

B. I used my first 4 division plus a HQ to take Fort Monroe. After that, those divisions attacked the Yankees north of Richmond and kicked them out of West Virginia.

C. In the west of West Virginia, I defended Sutton, Philippi and Charleston and Guayandotte with 4 brigades, 1 cavalry and 1 HQ.

D. In New Mexico, I forgot to take Fort Bowie but went (slooooowly) all north and took Santa Fe with brigades, cavalry and one HQ.

I had to sent 4 units (without HQ, YUCK) back south when the union attacked from Fort Bowie. So, I recommend to take Fort Bowie at the start and leave 2-3 units there before moving north.

E. In west Missouri, I re-took and defended Fort Baxter, Carthage, Springfield and Poplar Bluff with brigades, cavalry and one HQ.

F. In Illinois, I took Cairo and Metropolis City with 3 divisions, a corps and one HQ.

G. In Kentucky, I took Princeton, Madisonville, Bowling Green, Munfordville, Greensburg, Danville, Richmond and London with 4 brigades, 10 divisions, 3 corps, 3 HQ and 2 cavalry.

H. In Maryland, I took Hagerstown, Frederick, Washington and Annapolis with 5 brigades, 6 divisions, 3 corps, 3 HQ and 1 cavalry (note that this is a smaller force than in Kentucky).

I. The rest of my units, I used to react (with rail-movement) to the different landings in the south.

.

That's all folks, I hope you liked reading this and maybe you picked up a trick or two!

I find it a little bit difficult to believe you could push both Missouri, Kentucky and Ft. Monroe, West Virginia(Virginia) and the Far West altogether . . . I am curious what your opponent was actually doing? He has more Land and Naval Units to begin with than you do and with events/purchases quickly that will eclipse you. I managed to defend West Virginia in my first multiplayer game without breaking a sweat cause the supply is atrocious. Missouri Supply is also atrocious and so neither side did anything but melt HP points there.

Invading Kentucky as the South and Indiana is doable as well as taking Ft Monroe but as the same time?(in return you get no real production morale increase) Perhaps your builds were spot on and your opponents builds were not spot on? I would like to see you replicate this tactic against someone whose builds are perfect.

I loaded up a hotseat to match Union and CSA Builds maxing nothing but and ultimately I ended with events all firing I got somewhere in the ballpark of 76 CSA Land Units and +10 Union Land Units over that ore more ... I don't recall precisely when but I feel that was by the turn of '62 in the Grand Campaign. I don't see you pushing this very far and or taking Real Estate (plus the Union has a ton more coming sooner than later) Unless your Union opponent didn't "build!"


Ultimately Indiana and Missouri just are dreadful for supply and with riverine craft not something the CSA can push against a competent opponent easily or for long. The terrain doesn't favor it.

West Virginia is dreadful...no value in it aside protecting your flank...

Missouri is worthless aside protecting your flank...

The Far West looks fun(but I imagine 1 side has to make major errors here)

Taking Ft. Monroe very doable, and pushing in Virginia most feasible and again you should run into supply issues quickly here. You will have issues with upgrades, reinforcement and anything else when you're entangled with many Union Units. You will have to rotate in a large group of Land Units to make this work and what about your Coastline during all this?

Union Marines should have taken 3-4-5 Ports by this point. They can kill a Brigade or Division with a double strike in 1 turn so. Smack each turn... You would have to have a reactionary force of an HQ/2-3 Divs-1 Cav to stop and react to this!

P.S. I See a player that has made many tactical and strategic errors making all what you're saying possible. What do I know though I am still learning but as far as I can tell the Value in Game is quite literally "killing more units than your opponent by a massive factor." Perhaps even more so than many objectives... Tennessee - Virginia in places, Coastal areas are the most viable areas for good offensives. Kentucky I suppose could be cause there is a lot of clear terrain but a river there and the Union is overloaded with money to buy endless Timberclads and Units (good luck with the Partisans too)

battlevonwar wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 1:16 am I find it a little bit difficult to believe you could push both Missouri, Kentucky and Ft. Monroe, West Virginia(Virginia) and the Far West altogether . . . I am curious what your opponent was actually doing?

I mean, topic author stated in the first sentence that he just played versus standard AI with no bonuses So results are obvious.

battlevonwar wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 1:16 am Invading Kentucky as the South and Indiana is doable as well as taking Ft Monroe but as the same time?

As explained, I took Ft Monroe with the four very first divisions I made, so that is before Kentucky.

battlevonwar wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 1:16 am You will have to rotate in a large group of Land Units to make this work and what about your Coastline during all this?

As explained, I defended against invaders with a small railroaded force.

As the CSA I largely win in the same way. I guess most players do against the AI. And that seems to be the problem of this game.

I mean, I do some smaller things differently. I do invest in a few ships to keep the blockade runners going (money + earlier Great Power intervention). And I prefer a static defence of the coast (I have gotten a pretty good idea where I can expect landings and how to defend against them) to a mobile defence. But for the rest everything, technology and builds, goes to the army, which is spread out over the whole front. There is no schwerpunkt, no strategic focus, just a slow grind forward from New Mexico to the Atlantic coast, until the Union lines break, by which time the inevitable UK intervention makes it pointless to play on.

I have only played once as the Union, but despite mistakes I made, the slow advance over the whole front was even easier. I shall perhaps try it with ramped up difficulty.

I am a big fan of the SC series. Bought all and played them all to death. But I'm missing someting in this game. No meaningful strategic choices to make. Diplomacy is largely pointless. No Turkey or Spain to bribe or invade. No North-Africa to prioritize or abandon. No Sealion to consider. No careful timing and planning for the war against the USSR. No bracing for large scale US and UK landings. Nothing of this can be blamed on the designers, of course. The ACW was never as dynamic as WWII. But perhaps a game designed for WW2, and that still worked well for WW1, is a difficult fit for the ACW.

Bylandt11 wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 10:28 am I am a big fan of the SC series. Bought all and played them all to death. But I'm missing someting in this game. No meaningful strategic choices to make. Diplomacy is largely pointless. No Turkey or Spain to bribe or invade. No North-Africa to prioritize or abandon. No Sealion to consider. No careful timing and planning for the war against the USSR. No bracing for large scale US and UK landings. Nothing of this can be blamed on the designers, of course. The ACW was never as dynamic as WWII. But perhaps a game designed for WW2, and that still worked well for WW1, is a difficult fit for the ACW.

I think there are a ton of strategic choices. Just like in WW2 there are different "theaters" - The West, The Mississippi, KY/TN, Shenandoah and NVa and how you allocate your resources is just as critical as how you allocate to NAfrica or East vs West Front. Even as the Union I don't have enough to be everywhere, especially those damn River Ironclads. In fact, I think this is perhaps what I find strongest about the game is how it mirrors the "verticals" theaters of real life.

Diplomacy is useless IMHO. It might be sort of a home run shot for the CSA although even their big win I have seen thus far (getting KY) isn't that massively impactful.

I actually kind of love how this plays at a 10k meter view. Anything I grouse about are just the things baked into the SC series (naval combat, running that rondel in land combat, the insane supply you can draw from these tiny settlements, Partisans) I have questions about the overall balance and how fast that balance snaps into play. The Germans in SCWW2 are on a "timer" for me. If they don't win by X date they likely won't because the Allies will bury them. I expected the CSA to be on the same sort of timer here but what I didn't expect was that the timer would be going off in early 1862.

Instead of all this fancy footwork if you're playing the AI just mow down D.C.

It shouldn't be impossible... the AI won't stop you... If you want to roleplay I understand or learn game mechanics.

Bylandt11 wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 10:28 am I am a big fan of the SC series. Bought all and played them all to death. But I'm missing someting in this game. No meaningful strategic choices to make. Diplomacy is largely pointless. No Turkey or Spain to bribe or invade. No North-Africa to prioritize or abandon. No Sealion to consider. No careful timing and planning for the war against the USSR. No bracing for large scale US and UK landings. Nothing of this can be blamed on the designers, of course. The ACW was never as dynamic as WWII. But perhaps a game designed for WW2, and that still worked well for WW1, is a difficult fit for the ACW.

Personally, I never was a fan of Diplomacy in Strategic Command. It is too random for me and I don't like too much randomness.

And -just like you- I preferred SC WWII over SC WWI or SC ACW. But, for me, that has nothing to do with the game mechanics. WWII was more "interesting" in my opinion, with lots of different phases over large pieces of land: Poland, Western Europe, Russia, Africa attacks as German, then Western Europe, Russian, Africa and Italy defence,... it had just more phases than WWII or ACW, which makes for a more interesting strategy, regardless of the game engine.

Which is also why the Napoleon Wars would be a good next title because there you also had lots of phases (although they would really have to add cannons, which will not be easy in the game engine, I think).