AGEOD Forums

aariediger

Sidenote, never played with auto-replacements, is that just letting the game buy them for you? Like, how many does it stack up?

aariediger

Actually it is a pbem game. It's late October '62 and I managed to get Grant and a pair divisions into Vicksburg/Jackson pretty well unopposed while my opponent is holed up in Corinth/Nashville. I control the Mississippi from Cairo to Baton Rouge, but not New Orleans. However, my example was just a ...

aariediger

Actually in my example Big Black River is a minor non-navigable river I think, but that's besides the point. Main thing is if Grant assaults, johnston can mtsg and stop him dead in his tracks, in theory. So if you don't want face 'em both at the same time, either gotta chase off Johston first, or ju...

aariediger

Alright, quick question I couldn't find on the forums. So, say Grant is besieging a confederate corps under Pemberton in Vicksburg, while Joe Johnston and some other corps are in an adjacent region, say across big black river in between Vicksburg and Jackson. If Grant assaults Vicksburg, can Johnsto...

aariediger

BTW making McClellan 2-3-0 is an horrendous ideal. It's and invitation for attack, versus a defensive rating of 0. It will pull down every corps' defensive rating as well. It would be like Hood on heroin as army commander. I know! He's just asking to get steamrolled. But, isn't that about right? If...

aariediger

Has anyone actually tested this then? Are we saying there is NO inactive penalty for inactive generals? I know what the manual says, but it sounds like the logs are the things to trust. Also, is it possible that the penalty could be "indirectly" applied through he movement penalty? As in, ...

aariediger

So how does one implement these major factors into the game? On the one side, the Union player, who knows McClellan, and on the other side, a McClellan who doesn't do what the player wishes, when he wants, and then Washington (actually the player, but not in this case), meddling with the plans of M...

aariediger

So, in game terms, you know Mac is poor general and you dont give him command of the army. Lets imagine Lincoln did that. Would he suffer any political and senior problems cor doing so. How the game simulates it? I like a set of modded generals,, where a the player actively chooses to use a 2-3-0 M...

aariediger

Unless I've missed something, the Retreat Rule was put back to 5%, which is also why we have the 5% auto-attack rule. Well, at least Pocus put them together at about the same time, as they are very much related to each other. Under Game Logic, I find these settings // ***** CONTROL & RETREAT **...

aariediger

I've played most of my games with a few house rules that slow the Union down: No river movement button No redeployments of two or three star generals (with one exception, if an army commander is wounded/killed) CSA gets partial mobilization in '61, full in '62 and Union is '62 and '63 Tied emancipat...

aariediger

I might be out of my element here since I just got AACW 2 for Christmas, but back in the day in the first AACW, the bonuses that commanders gave to individual units's fire effectiveness were pretty 'meh' in my opinion. The main thing is having a good stack commander for the bonus frontage in clear/w...

aariediger

You analysis is a very interesting read. But what if the roles were reversed? If Grant would play Black, wouldn't he also have tried longer chances as Foote believes? Grant had more material, so the style he chose was the blunt attack with rooks and Queen, while Lee had to try different things. but...

aariediger

So, I got Hannibal this Chrismas, and fired it up today to give it a shot. Some thoguhts: Eagle Eye: this is like the craziest trait I’ve ever seen! Double frontage? That’s insane! Now, I do wonder how it works. Does it only work in clear terrain/woods like the normal generals boost for attack/defen...

aariediger

I used to do this for AACW 1, and I know it worked there. Actually, the one hang-up preventing me from getting CW2 was I heard you couldn't do just this, or at least nobody had cracked it yet. My uncle and I have played probably a dozen or so games of AACW over the years, clear back when they were s...

aariediger

6-7-2, dispersed move, artillerist I love going for the knock out blow, like a massive Vicksburg campaign to win the war right then and there. But I stretch my guys pretty darn thin to get it done, I usually run with a bunch of 2 division corps backed by a huge number of guns, all rifles if I can ma...

aariediger

When it comes to the 'rules of war', I think the best way to think of them is that they're more like guidelines. The guy I really like is Bevin Alexander, who has a bunch of different ‘principles’, and examples of how they are used. There are simple ones, like cutting off the enemy’...

aariediger

I don't understand the 2:1 problem. If you really wanted to be historical, the north shouldn't be able to buy replacements at all, and be forced to spend their conscript companies on new brigades. One of my favorite Civil War games was Sid Meier's Gettysburg, and in that game the South had much larg...

aariediger

One of the things that was changed and then re-changed a lot in AACW was the way that ships and forts react to each other. Forts were either too strong, or too weak, or naval gunfire could 'nuke' a fort if you had them go back and forth a few times, that sort of thing. I was thinking, that with the ...

aariediger

We would think that, but it happened all the time. Why? Because there was even less of a point in assaulting troops protected by field works. Later in the war, Union veterans under orders to assault would advance a short distance, usually to a relatively safe area with cover, fire, and then move no...

aariediger

Wellington fought a great battle. He picked out a good fall back position after Quatre Bras, and his linear tactics to maximize firepower were the perfect counter to the French columns of attack. He fought well, Napoleon didn't. But, even if Napoleon had 'shown up' at Waterloo, once the Prussians ar...

aariediger

It's the go-to example of what happens when you believe your own myth. The day before, it had rained at Waterloo and the battlefield was a complete mess. Napoleon should have left Wellington to make mud pies and crushed the Prussians first. Napoleon won more battles than Alexander the Great, Freder...

aariediger

And there are no 'laws' of strategy, although we speak of such as rhetorical shorthand. There are principles, every one of which is susceptible to a counter. One of our friends was speaking of Grant's use of a central position to separate and attack two forces in detail - great, it worked. What if ...

aariediger

Whereas Grant, while serving as a QM, was breveted at Chapultepec (could be wrong on the fight) for bravery and intrepidity - QMs didn't usually get involved in scrapping. Wow, he had some hard crits of Lee, huh? And with reason too. While many people see Grant and Lee as similar generals, they had...

aariediger

Yes I have, along with his book Grant and Lee , which somewhat compares and contrasts the two. The main difference that he shows is Grant's success with logistics, compared to Lee's struggles. I may not remember entirely word for word, but Fuller believed Lee, whatever his positive qualities, to hav...

aariediger

At the start of the war, all officers were trained in military theory derived from the Napoleonic Wars. So? We tend to confuse 'Napoleonic warfare' as in the time period (linear tactics, cavalry charges, infantry squares) with Napoleon's methods. The tactics were outdated, but his concepts were not...

aariediger

I think your points are all well made, but I highlight these to add one other point. However much Great Britain may have valued the Confederacy as a trading partner, and whatever their legal rights under international law to preserve that trade, I think they were hamstrung by the concern that any a...

aariediger

We've all studied the war and know how impossible it was to achieve a Napoleonic-style , decisive victory in an era of huge armies supplied by railroads and field fortifications backed by highly mobile field artillery and infantry armed with rifle muskets. Why? Lee had his chances on the Peninsula,...

aariediger

The new President would take over in March, about a month before Grant ends it at Appomattox. Plus, Mac was pro-war, so the only way for the South to win was to get somebody else nominated way back in August, and then have them win in November, and somehow hang on long enough for the talks that migh...

aariediger

Without the existence of a state of war it is probable that the Royal Navy could have legally escorted British flagged shipping to Southern ports for the purposes of trade and used force to prevent interference from Union warships as the latter might have been considered as conducting piracy on the...

aariediger

Hi Aariediger, just to make sure there is no misunderstanding. When I say that the north pressure in the north would have led to ignition, I am talking about war. I am not saying in the long run the north would have been worse of than the south or anything. About your points though correct me if I ...

Search found 87 matches

Re: Buy Army HQ

PBEM

Re: question on MTSGs during assaults

question on MTSGs during assaults

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

NO inactive combat penalty for inactive generals?

Mac

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

House Rules

Re: Who are more important, Corps or Division COs?

AACW vet playing Hannibal

Running Forts and River Direction