CSA Early Aggressiveness

[elxaime]

Dating back to ACW1, there is a tradition of wildly aggressive Confederate strategies being touted as fool-proof by various expert players. Now that ACW2 is out, the list includes:

1. Taking Fort Monroe, VA
2. Taking Fort Pickens, FL
3. Taking Cairo, IL
4. Taking St. Louis, MO
5. Taking Denver, CO
6. Taking California
7. And of course, the biggie, taking Washington, DC

I have the sense these are not quite as likely in ACW2 - there seem to be Union counters to all of the above. It seems that success for some of these also requires the Union player to be asleep at the wheel. None of the above events occurred in the actual Civil War.

How likely are any of the above to occur in ACW2 between evenly-matched players?

[Durk]

A Confederate player can concentrate his best offensive leaders as division, corps and army leaders and have some decent success. Lexington, Kentucky and Washington as primary objectives.

But you are right, these strategies are less likely. The idea of evenly matched is a bit hard to quantify, but CSA needs to watch its supply. Naval units provide more Union safety.

This is a game of open options. So all options, 1-7 can still happen, but the Union does have good options to counter.

[Ace]

3, 4 and 5 can be taken with some luck and lousy US player. The rest is far harder...

[Captain_Orso]

I depends so very much on how many resources each player is willing to invest in an offensive/defensive. If the South wants to invest nearly everything over a period of time into taking Fort Monroe --including building so many ironclads that the Union cannot break a blockade of the fort-- she will take it. What happens in the rest of the country is another question.

[Gray Fox]

The first six objectives are a waste of effort. Only taking Washington holds the possibility of winning the war. If a Union player follows the conventional wisdom of many here, then in 1861 he would expand industry, build blockade ships, attack down the Mississippi, take coastal forts and invade New Orleans or Charleston. Washington receives a citadel, which actually reduces the number of defending elements from 60 to 25 before lethal overcrowding occurs and then floods the capital with ten useless brigades that ensure such overcrowding. In this case, D.C. would be easy pickings. For purists, the Confederacy would not be attempting to annex D.C. They would be doing this to end the war, as Early tried to do in 1864 under orders from Lee.

[Captain_Orso]

Of course, you can also leave most of the volunteer brigades outside of the fortifications, give them some artillery and and a few leaders and have them dig in and set them to hold at all cost. BTW an engineer unit is locked in the Prince George region, so they can entrench the volunteers pretty quickly.
Once divisions are allowed, build divisions with them.
Once corpse are allowed, put them into a corpse.
When one of McClellan, Hallack or Schurz is available for a few months, train up their volunteers to line infantry.

[Gray Fox]

You cannot build Divisions with these brigades, because they are locked. I usually split them into two very weak armies of a few hundred points each.

McClellan and Halleck should be training conscript regiments into line infantry in my assault divisions in 1861, so that I can campaign in 1862.

[Captain_Orso]

You cannot build Divisions with these brigades, because they are locked.

Yeah *doh* on my part.

I usually split them into two very weak armies of a few hundred points each.

McClellan and Halleck should be training conscript regiments into line infantry in my assault divisions in 1861, so that I can campaign in 1862.

Yes, early in the war getting the field armies up to par is more important. Eventually, because I didn't have time to allow for field divisions to be sitting around training, I drop Halleck on Alexandria and then D.C. and get all the volunteers trained up in time for them to be released.

Even once they are trained up they still cost 3 CP and before, well not even the Union has enough leaders to keep that rabble properly in line, so I just leave them in one big stack.

[elxaime]

Washington receives a citadel, which actually reduces the number of defending elements from 60 to 25 before lethal overcrowding occurs...

If this is the case, wouldn't an elegant fix be to suggest AGEOD craft a new type of fortification, call it a "capital citadel" (or something) and adjust it's parameters to cover sixty elements? These would be event-only fortifications placed in Richmond and Washington DC. I can't imagine it would that complex for a patch and I would venture a good modder can probably do this...

Thanks for the other comments. It confirms my instinct that ACW2 is a stiffer climb for the CSA than ACW1...

[Gray Fox]

I suggested this back in March. No fix yet.

[Merlin]

1. Taking Fort Monroe, VA
2. Taking Fort Pickens, FL
3. Taking Cairo, IL
4. Taking St. Louis, MO
5. Taking Denver, CO
6. Taking California
7. And of course, the biggie, taking Washington, DC

1, 2. Entirely achievable against an unwary or sly Union player. Then, when the Union navy decides you've had too much fun, the blockade sets in and your forces blow away in the breeze.
3, 4. Again, achievable against an unwary opponent. Don't expect to hold them for more than a few turns, though.
5. Surprisingly easy, and if your mad dash for the Rockies achieves complete surprise, you can even hold it for a good few months until the Federal ban-hammer arrives with Sheridan, who will promptly use your forces as a convenient promotion vehicle.
6. Against Athena? Yes. A player? No. This takes until mid-'63 and shifting enough forces out of TX into NM instantly telegraphs your intentions with anywhere from 13-20 turns before you can actually make it into AZ.
7. Yes, if you pile everything you have in the East, your opponent doesn't, and you manage to keep your movements unseen.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Against Athena:

1. Monroe is almost impossible unless you are willing to trade Northern Virginia for it. Too much stuff will be out of position out at the end of the peninsula and not available to fight around Manassas or Richmond.

2., 3. and 6. are theoretically doable but totally unnecessary and wastes of time and energy. Remember, Cairo is only tactically useful, it does not really give you much of a return (the shipyards give you some WS yes, but no VPs or NM for taking it). It would be good to deny the Union a staging point there but you would be better using those troops to take northern KY and putting a stop to Union shenanigans along the Mississippi altogether.

4. This is entirely doable for the CSA, but only in the medium term, and often requires sufficient pressure elsewhere to divert Union resources away from it. You have to have already secured North Central MO and stage the attack from Jefferson City. St. Louis is an important medium to long-term objective for the CSA and can really turn the war in your direction if you succeed. Expect this to be difficult however. I win against Athena as the CSA all the time, but am not able to take St. Louis in every game (or I get it so late that it doesn't matter). The tactical situation in MO is very interesting; some of my most fun and memorable CW2 moments have come from campaigns to take St. Louis.

5. Interesting and possible, and fun to do, but unfortunately proves inconsequential in the long run. Denver just isn't that important. (Tip: once you have it, burn all the stockades in the region; supply and attrition become very problematic for Sheridan and Friends without those stockade chains to operate along.)

I agree with Capt. Orso that the Louisville/Lexington area is both more important and achievable than any of the listed targets (except for DC of course). I would go so far as to say that 1. 2. 3. and 6. would actually be detrimental to your game in most cases.

7. As Fox says, the surest means of victory is DC. Athena usually doesn't let you take it easily, but it can happen if you are prepared and actively looking for the right opportunity. Don't be scared off by the crazy PWR numbers in DC. Those numbers look big but are made up of a lot low quality, poorly led and disorganized troops. (Although once you attack it they become unlocked and can form up properly....)

[pgr]

1. Taking Fort Monroe, VA
2. Taking Fort Pickens, FL
3. Taking Cairo, IL
4. Taking St. Louis, MO
5. Taking Denver, CO
6. Taking California
7. And of course, the biggie, taking Washington, DC

I would agree with some posters above that making a play for these locations is doable....but it might not be worth it (of excepting DC.)

Taking Denver is very doable.... most Union players really don't give a hoot for the far west, and demonstration and copperhead cards can combine for a low investment coup. I really don't see Denver as that valuable....but the gold fields are helpful.

Of course the real problem is holding it once you get it...

[grimjaw]

"Of course the real problem is holding it once you get it... "

That's the issue with more than one of these objectives.

I try to live with the nightmare that is Fort Monroe. Better (and easier) to mount an attack on Baltimore or Annapolis.

Assuming taking Fort Pickens didn't cost you much (rare), and you still aren't in trouble in the Deep South, holding that fort shouldn't be any worse than holding the rest of them.

If Cairo was on the *other* side of the river, that would be something. Better off trying to take the KY/MO cities across the river from it and holding them. It might be worth it to capture Cairo long enough to seize/destroy the artillery, but it seems a waste of resources to try to hold it.

Against Athena I can take St. Louis, but it's a long supply chain without the river. Illinois can, by itself, produce enough men and material to invade and hold Missouri, Arkansas and the Indian Territory.

Denver doesn't seem worth the investment. It's a dead end that doesn't lead to any other major objective, supply/rail line or harbor. You can throw some cards at it and take a city with rebels, but they can be beaten fairly easily.

As the CSA the only way I've ever taken anything in California was with the AI turned off, so I could see approximately how long it took to do unopposed: too long.

Holding the line at DC and at least threatening it occasionally should be the CSA's goal anyway. Might not take it, but you want to keep forces penned up there and out of Virginia.

[penlin]

Of course, you can also leave most of the volunteer brigades outside of the fortifications, give them some artillery and and a few leaders and have them dig in and set them to hold at all cost. BTW an engineer unit is locked in the Prince George region, so they can entrench the volunteers pretty quickly.
Once divisions are allowed, build divisions with them.
Once corpse are allowed, put them into a corpse.
When one of McClellan, Hallack or Schurz is available for a few months, train up their volunteers to line infantry.

Sorry to pick on the misspelling, but this is a classic. Please don’t convert your volunteers into a “corpse”.

[minipol]

I have captured cities I know I can't hold.
I ship the heavy guns out, and then leave. It's fun to have more than 1 stack of heavy guns on the coast or a river