Is Play the CSA like playing Japan in War in the Pacific?

[vicberg]

So much for Sherman's march across Georgia or through the Carolinas.......

I've removed the restriction. Going with VP loss only. By Eastern, I meant Virginia and Maryland

[Captain_Orso]

Sorry I haven't been able to keep up with this thread. Life is taking priority at the moment.

A few points:

- It should be possible to vary the VP's earned per turn for locations, but it would require scripting. Each turn an event would have to check a specific location to see who owns it. Depending on ownership the event would set VP's earned per turn. That would mean at least one event per location which could earn VP's, and that would be a lot of event.

- Historically the South did build a number of ironclads, and AFAIK all of them are included in the game. I see no reason to remove any of them, although I've heard that they build too quickly, but I'd have to look into that. Build times can be fixed.

- Elite and Veteran Units. Elite units are generally those with at least 1 element with the Strong Morale ability. I don't know what is meant by Veteran units, other than perhaps those with only Line Infantry, ie no conscripts etc. No units can ever advance to Elite, ie gain Strong Morale. Every infantry element can advance to Line Infantry through gaining XP/EL and some random tech upgrades.

- One thing that should be considered about forts is that many of the forts given the South at start were NOT system 2 (pre-war) masonry forts. All of the forts on the Outerbanks were much closer to simple redoubts, and I don't think any had any actual coastal artillery, and some did not have even anything close to a full compliment of any kind of artillery. Also, the exit-point of Fort Clark IIRC is wrong. It only exits into the Abermarle Sound on the inside of the Outerbanks, which prevents deep drought ships from entering, which is wrong. Although the harbor IS actually on the Albermarle Sound side, it is actually directly next to the outlet between the islands and the channel only allowed for ships to sail into the harbor.

- The '61 Papers Push for Offensive event set requires the North to not only own the Manassas region, but to also have => 26% MC.

[Gray Fox]

Just an FYI. If both sides move their capitals, then neither has the risk of taking a 50 NM hit. The new capital is only worth 10 NM, IIRC. After this, with NM normalizing, it's almost impossible to do a sudden NM win. I've lost 7 NM per turn to normalizing in a test against Athena. That means the side with the most VPs wins and would require a long game to the bitter end. So nothing really has to change to get a long game.

[GraniteStater]

Also, the exit-point of Fort Clark IIRC is wrong.

Yes, change that. In an 1862 start, there are three USN frigates parked there, which can't go anywhere.

[Baris]

From my PBEM games it seems entrenchments feels a bit artificial to make campaign last a bit longer that it provided 10+ NM for battles in favour of CSA but it didn't result victory in the end. Maybe USA should have more urgent harsh goals and entrenchments could be soften a bit.

[vicberg]

What I've done so far is:

1) There's 4 types of infantry. Same as WON. Conscript -> Regular Line -> Veteran Line -> Elite. Elites provide strong morale to the entire division. What I've done is reduce all the Union Elite down to veteran.
2) Add a -100 VP modifier to the papers push for offensives in the east. If union doesn't meet requirements, -100 VP.
3) Increase ROF for coastal batteries. They will do more damage
4) Decrease the affects that owning a fort has on blockades. It requires more ships now
5) Add a -100 modifier if Union doesn't have Vicksburg and Chattanooga by historical dates.

So no National Morale hit different than base. Grant/Sherman can go where they please.

The goal is that CSA can win now on VP. Chances are CSA capital will be moved to avoid the automatic loss.

[kc87]

I've been away from the game for a bit. Coming back to it. I'm wondering if playing the CSA is much like playing Japan in War in the Pacific? Japan has no hope. The game designers beefed Japan up seriously in order to make it into a game at all. Japan has a chance but usually only if the Allied player screws up totally OR if Japan attacks constantly. Those are the only two strategies that work and one of them isn't really a strategy.

I'm starting to believe the only real chance for CSA to do anything is to take Washington early in the game. The hold them strategy doesn't work at all.

What I've noticed:

- CSA leadership "advantage" isn't really true at all. At least not until Longstreet/Jackson/Lee come fully into play. CSA has a few marginally better leaders, only 2 3-star leaders and 1 2 star leader to begin the game. Johnston (in the west) isn't really very good either. Union starts getting better leaders in 1862, so this "advantage" goes away quickly.
- Defensive strategies require lots of militia everywhere building up trenches. But that of course means less divisions.
- CSA production is pitiful. Hardly enough to build up divisions/replace let alone keep rail/river etc up to par
- Union has much better strong morale troops that affect full divisions. I'm seeing one or two brigades for the CSA. So more elite divisions in addition to huge manpower/production ability
- Too much to defend.
- Forts don't do much, see different thread.

Strikes me that this game comes down to one strategy and one only. Attack and take Washington or die trying. Shame if I'm right. A single strategy game isn't worth playing.

The game definitely beefed up the CSA for the sake of play ability but it also made conducting offensives in this time period much easier. Huge losses to disease are not correctly represented in this game, and a much larger army would have disease spread uncontrollably rampant. The Army of the Potomac had a supply train that sometimes extended 50 miles, and the map of Virginia in this game simplifies the difficulty of finding routes that could actually accommodate such a large force to be able to maintain its effectiveness and battle readiness. Simply massing a huge Army and plowing through Virginia with a large numerical advantage simply wasn't an option or the war wouldn't have lasted 4 years, it was very difficult to find routes with enough roads that could accommodate multiple Corps and their supply trains in Virginia plus having them be in a position to properly support each other if a battle broke out.

Lee used all of the above to his advantage to put the Confederate Army in a position to win battles. Lee was an Engineer before the war and knew exactly which routes and roads the Army of the Potomac could take and which ones they couldn't, he mathematically knew when the Union Army would be in it's most vulnerable state and would have to give battle to secure it's over-extended supply lines given the route they took and chose his battles carefully. The game mechanic that best represents an advantage like this would be the traffic penalty rule, but i'm not sure if it works correctly. I also wish Virginia had more provinces to better represent what a nightmare it would have been logistically to move and maintain a larger army on the offensive in this time period, the western theater seems to represent this better.

A combination of more provinces in Virginia to transverse, harsher frontage, supply and disease penalties and a weaker industry in the South would go a long way to make a more realistic game imo.

[Jameson]

For some reason I love to play on a side that historically lost. I know eventually I will lose, but the idea of making the union suffer makes me happy enough.

[Straight Arrow]

If you are interested my current opponent is writing an ARR here. Its in German so you may need to use google translate.

Well done Cardinal Ape!

I saw with pleasure that your boys in blue are sitting in the Café du Monde drinking café au lait and eating beignets.

After having you beat me like a rug in the past, I can’t help but have a little sympathy for Sgd. Lewis Armistead. What a shock, to wake up and find the Yankees took New Orleans in December 61.

Again, well done your Hairy Eminence!



By the way Sgd. Lewis Armistead, your AAR is most excellent. It's worth a look y'all.

[vicberg]

Why I posted this thread in the first place is to figure out if the game is competitive. I don't believe it is. I'm not trying to say it's not a good game (it's great). And I'm not trying to say that people don't enjoy playing the losing side. A lot of people enjoy playing Japan even though it's mostly a forgone conclusion unless playing a beefed up mod.

In my second game against Tyler, with my mod reducing the Union elite free brigades down to veteran and adding the additional VP loss for failed offensives, I did a simple strategy. No frills, no ships (only a few monitors, riverclads and brigs), I built troops and attempted overwhelm the CSA in 1862. I chose 1862 because the Union manpower advantage starts coming to bear and they get a number of very good divisional leaders and by mid 1862, the union will have more men, more economy and better overall leaders than the CSA. Good CSA leaders come in 1863+. I smashed his forces in the Shenendoah and then did a left hook threatening Richmond. In the process, my NM jumped to 118 and his around 90 and he hadn't move the capital yet. I did this using McDowell and McClellan. Tyler and I have started our 3rd game.

I'm playing another game against a very experienced CSA player (not sure what his handle is on this forum). Again, taking the same simple strategy. John has been doing the Washington (or at least Alexandria) or bust strategy, which I do believe is the only strategy that gives the CSA any chance at all. Lee has been making numerous attempts to take Alexandria and push through West Virginia into PA. He was pushed back from PA. His attacks against Alexandria have not dislodged the Union. At this point, McDowell is a 2-4-4 leader, which is nice. Union Morale is 100 even after the failed early 1862 offensive. The union have taken the fight for WV into Winchester. Grant has been beating up Beauregard around Columbus. Popes 5 divisions have been beating up Johnston Sr down from Louisville. Again, I have a manpower and economic advantage, better overall leadership (which is where I believe the game isn't historical) and my good divisional generals are coming online, so for the next few campaign months, I get stronger. I outnumber him on all fronts. John has been sending cav/irregular forces into MO with success, but that isn't going to win him the war. It's a diversion from a Union perspective. Not much more than that.

[vicberg]

And here's what I'm talking about. It's June 1862 vs. John. I made quite a few mistakes and am still in a strong position. At Louisville, I had my corps messed up and got a bit hammered due to command loss. In Alexandria, I had a crack division forming up under Berry when I should have had Berry and the division forming up in Washington,, so Berry and the crack division got destroyed unnecessarily.

But even after all of this, look at McDowell's force. All elite divisions. 800-900 cbt per division!. That's much better than ANYTHING the CSA will offer up. Each division leader is a minimum 3 or 4 on attack and/or defense and my good divisional leaders are just starting to arrive. McDowell is a 2-4-4. Kearny is a 4-4-3 and now will make for a superior corp commander soon. Hooker is a 4-4-2. Meager is a 3-4-2. Shields and Greene are both 3-1-3.

[ATTACH]38814[/ATTACH]

[Gray Fox]

Okay, so you posted "A single strategy game isn't worth playing." Now after your tweaks, the CSA player is still trying the single strategy (take D.C.).

So...

[vicberg]

Okay, so you posted "A single strategy game isn't worth playing." Now after your tweaks, the CSA player is still trying the single strategy (take D.C.).

So...

So....the mod isn't achieving the desired results. My game with John is using base game though, no mod. Note all the divisions in pic above with strong morale. I've downgraded those to veterans in the mod.

I have realized the importance of Alexandria to the CSA. With Alexandria, the Potomac front goes down to 3 regions. By 1862, 9 divisions can "most likely" hold that front through MTSG, enabling economy of force for the Rebels. Without Alexandria, the front is 4 regions and that's exponentially harder to hold. So, I can now see and understand why the CSA needs to at least take Alexandria at a minimum.

[GraniteStater]

Well done Cardinal Ape!..By the way Sgd. Lewis Armistead, your AAR is most excellent. It's worth a look y'all.

Das ist "y'all-wohl".

[kc87]

Why I posted this thread in the first place is to figure out if the game is competitive. I don't believe it is. I'm not trying to say it's not a good game (it's great). And I'm not trying to say that people don't enjoy playing the losing side. A lot of people enjoy playing Japan even though it's mostly a forgone conclusion unless playing a beefed up mod.

In my second game against Tyler, with my mod reducing the Union elite free brigades down to veteran and adding the additional VP loss for failed offensives, I did a simple strategy. No frills, no ships (only a few monitors, riverclads and brigs), I built troops and attempted overwhelm the CSA in 1862. I chose 1862 because the Union manpower advantage starts coming to bear and they get a number of very good divisional leaders and by mid 1862, the union will have more men, more economy and better overall leaders than the CSA. Good CSA leaders come in 1863+. I smashed his forces in the Shenendoah and then did a left hook threatening Richmond. In the process, my NM jumped to 118 and his around 90 and he hadn't move the capital yet. I did this using McDowell and McClellan. Tyler and I have started our 3rd game.

I'm playing another game against a very experienced CSA player (not sure what his handle is on this forum). Again, taking the same simple strategy. John has been doing the Washington (or at least Alexandria) or bust strategy, which I do believe is the only strategy that gives the CSA any chance at all. Lee has been making numerous attempts to take Alexandria and push through West Virginia into PA. He was pushed back from PA. His attacks against Alexandria have not dislodged the Union. At this point, McDowell is a 2-4-4 leader, which is nice. Union Morale is 100 even after the failed early 1862 offensive. The union have taken the fight for WV into Winchester. Grant has been beating up Beauregard around Columbus. Popes 5 divisions have been beating up Johnston Sr down from Louisville. Again, I have a manpower and economic advantage, better overall leadership (which is where I believe the game isn't historical) and my good divisional generals are coming online, so for the next few campaign months, I get stronger. I outnumber him on all fronts. John has been sending cav/irregular forces into MO with success, but that isn't going to win him the war. It's a diversion from a Union perspective. Not much more than that.

The Elite units really ruin the immersion for me and do seem gamey, you have this awesome rts game that strives as hard as possible for realism and then there are these funky elite units who magically give bonuses to everyone in their division. If anything it would be nice to see regular units have the opportunity to turn into elite units based on combat experience, maybe a mod could do this?

[Teatime]

The Elite units really ruin the immersion for me and do seem gamey, you have this awesome rts game that strives as hard as possible for realism and then there are these funky elite units who magically give bonuses to everyone in their division. If anything it would be nice to see regular units have the opportunity to turn into elite units based on combat experience, maybe a mod could do this?

This is doable, I have done it in my modded version of the game. There are a few considerations though.

I do think elite units are realistic as a veteran regiment or brigade can definitely make those around them more steady and less likely to rout (ala Stonewall Brigade at 1st Bull Run)

To make it happen you just need to assign a training upgrade for your line units to elite ... one line in each of the line infantry model files

However

1. There is only one set of parameters determing when a unit can "train upgrade" which are designed around frequent upgrading of conscripts to line .. this would be too frequent for line to elite
- To get around that I have actually removed conscripts and just have my Infantry units start with conscript like stats, as they gain experience stars their stats improve to line infantry standards
- I made my elite units just gain the strong morale ability and 1 point of discipline. All other starting stats remain the same as regular infantry. I retain 100% of experience gained when they upgrade so that their other stats are in line with a veteran Line Infantry unit with the appropriate number of stars
- I am still playing with those parameters as I think it is still too frequent even with my current low frequency settings

2. You have to remove all training master abilities from Leaders, otherwise you can just train regular units to elite through the Halleck, Sigel et al infantry schools.
- I changed all those leaders into Drill Masters (the +1 xp per turn) as i never liked that feature anyway.
- I also converted all volunteer regiments into base level Infantry units since I feel that is what they were anyway. The way the Volunteer units enter the game, on the Union side at least, they represent the initial 3 year service volunteer regiments.
- I changed State Militia force pools to M units rather than the V units as well, so basically I have taken V units out of my game. Militia can't be auto upgraded, as the leaders to do it are gone, though they can upgrade to Line if they have a ton of xp


In general the elite flavour brigades are an issue, very nice game touch but anathema for those of us into the history side. Some of those brigades actually represent newly recruited infantry, Stannards (Paper Collar) & Excelsior for example, while some represent the brigading of veteran units, e.g Iron. I have toned back pretty much all of them to line infantry except those that were recognised as actually elite and still considering how some could also be better handled (for example removing removing units that already exist when the brigade is formed (e.g 69th NY Milita which became 69th NY in the Irish Brigade, 2nd Wisconsin which is part of the initial forces created in Alexandria and also pops up in the Iron Brigade).

Probably wrong thread for all this but since it came up here

[Cardinal Ape]

There seems to be a lot of focus on the elite brigades. I'm not really sold on the idea that elite brigades are such a big problem. They really aren't that bad-ass. If you converted them all to normal infantry it would not make that much of a difference. Its more about the quantity and timing of the free forces. Much less about how they give other units in the same division a tiny increase of +5 maximum cohesion. It's the same thing as the charismatic trait; any unit led by Stonewall is quasi elite.

At best these elite units themselves are less than 10% more combat effective than normal infantry. Once infantry begin to upgrade in June of '62 the difference becomes even less and continues to degrade with further model upgrades.

As seen in vicberg's picture the most significant increase in power level is unit experience. I'd consider that army to be a major outlier. Achieving major victories, victories decisive enough to net you four or five stars of experience will turn all of those soldiers into super soldiers. A conscript with five stars of experience has a rate of fire of four.. double that of a normal conscript. I'd guess that if all experience was removed from that army it would lose over a 1,000 power. Not to mention that the NM shift from such battles is worth about four strong morale icons.

Degrading the elite brigades would make it easier for the CSA to threaten D.C. early. But to echo Gray Fox, it is still a one trick pony. I'm curious how your changes to VP's would affect the CSA's ability to play the long game.

Have you considered changing how army commanders pass on their stats to keep Union leadership poor? Maybe if you limited it so that Grant couldn't turn all those 3-1-1's into 5-4-3's it would let those good Southern corps commanders like Jackson shine more in the early war. Keeping their strategic rating lower would also reduce the chance (marginally) for them to MTSG.

On another leadership note, what is up with those events that make McDowell and McClellan active? It seems kinda weird. I mean - doesn't Mac have a strategic rating of one because he wasn't capable of being 'active' for three straight months. In my game I am about to launch the peninsula campaign with Mac, even on veteran activation I have the luxury of knowing he will be active for quite a few turns in a row. Magruder won't give him second thoughts with his trickery; Mac is guaranteed to be active.

I'd also like to reiterate that the CSA leadership is rife with traits that are broken and do nothing. I'd suggest removing some of those and replacing them with something that matters. Maybe the charismatic trait to help offset the Union elites or possibly consider changing the surpsier trait to a flat +1 initiative. The bonus sharpshooters give to divisions is far more powerful than the bonus elite brigades give. Having the chance to silence some Union artillery before they Polk you could make a big difference.

@kc87, agoed doesn't make rts's. A real time strategy game example is Starcraft.

And y'all need to stop calling me hairy. That is just not right - only on the internet would such a thing happen. My hairline started receding when I was 13, at 17 there was almost nothing left. I'm so bald that turtles use me as a mirror. Hairy! WTF.

And yes that was a pun about how Polk took a direct shot from Union artillery.

[GraniteStater]

Yeah......

and I like elite brigades. Rally 'round the flag, boys!

[Teatime]

To get back on topic, definitely agree on those points Col Hairless Ape

Elite Brigades are not OP .. my main issue with them was that some of the brigades flagged as such were historically nothing but fresh faced recruits. e.g Paper Collars one claim to fame is that they managed to get a flanking volley into Pickett's charge!! All the regiments in that brigade were 100 day regiments.

ROF probably gets too much of a boost with experience and should be toned back, that army having those stats in June 62 means they have seen some very heavy and very successful battles.

Playing with leadership traits will definitely aid the Rebs in a major way. Grant, being in the west, is able to exert undue influence on the whole theater. Lee being in the East does not allow him to have the same influence. I have toned those back in my mod, it's not hard to significantly tone back the range and benefit of an army commanders strat ratings.

Sharpshooters and Marines are way OP and the Marines definitely benefit the Union excessively.
- I managed Marines by only allowing them to recruited in brigades of 4 Regiments and only 4 brigades of them in total for the Union, which is still probably at least 1 brigade too many
- 150 sharpshooters in a 9,000 man division giving you +1 initiative is a bit much, especially since all brigades deployed skirmishers, just these are better shots. Always thought the sharpshooter benefit should be increased leader casualties, just ask John Reynolds, Jesse Reno and John Sedgewicks their thoughts on that. However since they are common enough and no division should be without them, if playing the vanilla game, then it basically balances out. Personally I totally removed the sharpshooters. On the Union side I use them to represent breach loading and repeating rifle regiments (in very small quantities). If I can figure out a way to adjust the Sharpshooter ability to result in more funerals for Generals I will add them back in especially for the Rebs.


The whole Victory Condition issue is a tougher one .. especially if you view victory as confirmation of secession and an independent country.

The only way the Rebs probably achieve this is
1. Overpowering early military victories that destroy Union will to fight, and in fact that may have had the reverse effect.
2. Foreign intervention as either a shooting war or mediating a peace for humanitarian reasons. The UK and France did not have the troops to affect the war on the ground and in the age of steamships would have struggled to do much along the US coastline (could not keep the ships on station for any length of time). Their leverage was trade. e.g The UK controlled the Indian Saltpeter supply which was critical to the Union ability to produce gunpowder and a major leverage if they chose to use it.
3. Lincoln not being reelected in 1864, which should be achievable if the Union has low NM.

Have not looked at how is easy it would be to mod in some of those.
- Foreign intervention is there but only as a shooting war, may be able to add some events in around mediation.
- NM is there as a victory path anyway and possibly could be enhanced

[vicberg]

I've already reduced all the elites down. There's a much greater VP loss for not doing the mandatory offensives for the Union. Sharpshooters are also over the top and way too many of them which greatly increases almost every division I build. That will be next area of focus.

The simple strategy of build, manuever and smash the rebel armies is difficult for the CSA to overcome. No invasions. Nothing for blockades. Build and overwhelm. Only thing that can stop it effectively so far is for the CSA to take Washington and keep Union NM down. In my game against John, he's doing a great job meeting my force ratios, but I'm still able to maneuver around his choke points and force withdrawals if I can't smash my way through. It's art of war visited. And the Union almost always causes more damage in my combats with him due to divisional leadership advantages (not necessarily corp or army), Grant's bonuses and better troop quality do to training masters.

One of the things I'm considering is reducing the number of armies that the Union can have and to force McCellen to be the Army of the Potomac for the duration after Lincoln appoints him to the time he removes him. In other words, force historical generals along historical time lines. This can be done by magically transporting and making him the Army commander. No changes allowed. This is similar to the "Theater" commander approach that TEAW used. You can't have Falkenhiem until Molke retires. No choice. Could this allow a CSA takes Washington strategy? No idea yet, but with the Union manpower advantage, it's hard to believe that a Washington can work against a competent Union player building engineers, pontoons along with their massive army. It you waste time on ships and other stuff, perhaps Washington is feasible.

Grant is over the top in the West. His command radius extends to almost all of Kentucky, meaning no need for bad Army commanders. Make Grant Army commander and make all 2 stars corp commands to Grant and they get massive bonuses hundreds of miles away from him. This is part of why the Union is able to roll the CSA in 1806. Never have multiple army commanders in that area. Use Grant and roll.

There's a lot that could be done. A VP victory by CSA in 1865 is a CSA victory in my opinion. Everyone talks history on this forum, but the CSA was able to last until 1865 and it seems that CSA players are applauded for simply making it to 1865. Something is off. And though elite/sharpshooter divisions are an obvious culrpit along with the massive Union training advantage, my thoughts are that Union leadership, which has far and away the largest impact on combat, is out of whack. Too easy to hide the bad commanders. Too great a strategic range giving leadership bonsues. etc..

[vicberg]

More on leaders and Union leadership

Never have multiple armies along the Potomac. Have a single army commander and have all corp reporting to that Commander. That provides best chances for MTSG, mutual support, leadership bonuses, etc. So McDowell in the east until you want to get Grant into the act. No one else is decent. Corps assigned to different armies have a far less chance to MTSG to one another and Armies won't MTSG to another Army. So always have corps and always have them reporting to a single army commander.

So if you need to promote McClellan to avoid NM loss, promote him, Butler, Banks, Fremont and that opens the way for Grant without NM loss. Banks is an Army Commander in New York raising conscripts. McClellan is an Army commander in New York training troops. Butler stays in Ft. Monroe. Fremont hangs in St. Louis. Too easy to hide these guys and get the best out of what you have which is enough along with a "build nothing but troops and a few support units" approach to do the overwhelm in 1862. McDowells strategic distance extends through the Shenandoah. Grants is crazy long. Even John has mentioned that in only one other game has his troops been in this much peril at this point in the game and for me, it's every time I play it. It's a simple Union strategy and very effective.

Reducing the strat distance would go a long ways towards some of this, forcing multiple army commanders, forcing crappy union commanders to become army commanders, etc.. In addition, forcing McClellan as an army command for about a year would definitely slow the union down.

[Teatime]

Try adjusting these parameters in the Settings Folder --> GameLogic file .. They are in the Command and Leader parameters section

ldrGHQStackMinRange = 1 // Minimum GHQ (Army) range
ldrGHQStackCoeffRange = 50 // Strat Value coefficient to get GHQ (Army) range (100% = 100% of strat rating)

Not sure if that effectively gives a 3 or 4 region range for a 6 strat Leader. It won't stop Grant influencing the Kentucky/Tennessee phase of the West but once the Union drive splits into the Mississippi/Chattanooga axes then it will force the Union to have 2 armies for that. In vanilla I recall they were 3 for minimum and 100% for added range from Strat rating (Giving Grant a 9 region range!!!). Perhaps 2 for Minimum and 33% for Strat may actually work better than what I have above.

You could also look at increasing the NM costs for promoting leaders out of seniority .. that will force the promotion of the others first but won't stop them being hidden unless you do limit the number of Armies. I haven't come across anything that would allow you to force that they actually be in command of a field army. Personally I won't take the 20 NM cost of Grant before McClellan but I am happy to wear the 4 NM for Grant before Fremont.. Get that 4 NM back in a turn or 2 with battle victories from having a decent commander in charge. Would definitely think twice before getting a 10 NM hit though.

The Union didn't actually form Corps in the West until about October 1862 but I don't think there is a way of delaying that for the West only.

[vicberg]

Is there anyone who is up on how experience works. There's a line in the GameLogic

expXpGainCoeffLeaderKill = 10 // Leaders get 10% of their subordinate SU xp gain

Does anyone know if this includes Subordinate Corp attached to the Army?

In my game with John, McDowell has become a 3-4-5 and his experience is 6 of 10 stars. This is by Early October, 1862. There have been multiple combats, all of them large, and the Union coming out ahead more than the CSA overall. I know that leaders will get XP for offensive fire, defensive fire and hits. But the above line is questionable. Do they gain XP for all of their subordinate corp as well or only the leaders directly in their stack?

[Gray Fox]

Here are some points to consider. This is what I would mean by the "CSA should take D.C". strategy.

[ATTACH]38887[/ATTACH]

I crushed a maxed out Union Athena in Oct. 1861 and a good CSA player should be able to do the same thing to a Union player who thinks that he has all of the advantages. A Union player that actually had all of his advantages modded away would be a sitting duck.

The elite brigades may give a Division of 800 cohesion an extra 40 cohesion. That's the OP advantage. It's about the damage done from three extra hits.

A sharpshooter's +1 bonus may go toward a line infantry's initiative check that is already 8 or 9. A random number is also involved, so the +1 is really trivial.

The leadership effect on combat really isn't enormous. If Lee (Off 6) were to attack a stack commanded by Thomas (Def 6), then their leadership bonuses would actually cancel out entirely.

If Grant had a command radius of 1 region, that wouldn't stop him from commanding a force like this with two Corps in one single region, like Kent, aimed at Richmond.

[ATTACH]38888[/ATTACH]

As to Marines in brigades, the game has a Regional Decision Card where the Union can "Land Sailors". These are several single sailor elements that are almost just as good as Marines and offer the same advantages to Divisions.

Good luck with your mods.

[Teatime]

I have seen a 3-5-5 McDowell and only then realised you can get +1 to Strat, wasn't sure if it was at 5 or 6 stars but your info confirms it is at 5 Stars

For xp I think it is for battles in which are in charge ... this includes where they MTSG since they are effectively in charge of the battle .. a corps fighting 2 regions away where they do not MTSG then there is no xp gain .. You can tell from the battle report if the Army Commander was in charge.

But if 3 corps of 3 divisions were in the fight that is a lot of XP flowing up if all divisions are engaged.

Someone is probably more knowledgeable on this than me.

[Captain_Orso]

I believe it only pertains to battles of which they actually partake. If the army commander is off in another region during the battle, he gains no XP from it.

IIRC a subunit gains 1 XP per 0.5 hits scored, regardless of through offensive or defensive fire.

[Gray Fox]

My experience is that if I want someone promoted, then I put them directly in command of a good Division. So Grant as Division commander in 1861 performs an amphibious assault on a coastal fort. He gets 100% of the xp's and is immediately promotable and is ready for one of the six Army commands in 1862. Otherwise as Teatime posted, they have to be the on site battle commander and I believe they only get xp's from their stack's performace.

[vicberg]

Here are some points to consider. This is what I would mean by the "CSA should take D.C". strategy.

I crushed a maxed out Union Athena in Oct. 1861 and a good CSA player should be able to do the same thing to a Union player who thinks that he has all of the advantages. A Union player that actually had all of his advantages modded away would be a sitting duck.

There's certainly the possibility. However, Athena isn't a human. Athena's ability to perceive threat is different than a human. I'm not anal enough to keep spreadsheets, etc., so I guess around what I need to build to form up the divisions and if I overbuild, I save those for future divisions. By October 1861, I generally will have 3-4 divisions in the West and around 8-10 division in the East. By mid-1862, I'll generally have around 8-10 divisions in the west and around 10-15 divisions in the East depending on losses.

1861 is the best CSA chance for Washington. That's a given. Once corps get into action (or bad weather) it's all over for that unless bad play by the Union. But what the Union player can do to overcome the lack of MTSG is have multiple stacks in the same region. That overcomes MTSG as all stacks in the region will be included in the combat. I'm not 100% confident on what I just wrote, because there have a been a few circumstances where I've seen another stack not involved, but generally I've seen all stacks in a region (unless in a city or fort) included.

A human player will be able to see the build up quickly and react by building most divisions in the East. So those 8-10 divisions become 11-14 divisions. A different story, especially if stacked together in the same region. A strong CSA attack can definitely take Alexandria and that's critical, IMO, for the CSA. But to take Washington is a different story. Another thing to consider is all the extra troops that provides the Union. There's around 6-8 (I forget) 3 regiment Brigades and about that amount in Washington. 12-16 brigades will form up another 4-5 divisions with decent building strategy.

[GraniteStater]

I've been giving this a lot of thought and Yes, playing the CSA is just like playing Japan in War in the Pacific: AE:

[ATTACH]38925[/ATTACH]

[veb_yw]

Lol