Lessons Learned after First Full Campaign
Posted: Thu Dec 05, 2013 6:58 pm
Thought I'd share a few lessons that I've learned after playing my first full campaign as the CSA vs Athena. Please let me know your thoughts - whether you agree or disagree.
1. Organization of your army / divisions / corps is drastically more important than absolute size. A small and well-organized army can be both more efficient and effective than a large, disorganized army. Of course this really isn't as relevant until divisions and corps are able to be formed. Just try to keep your army within the maximum size allowed to help ensure it is utilized to its maximum efficiency.
2. Building support units for an army (HQ support, balloons, pontoons, engineers) should probably be a priority first before adding extra infantry, cavalry, and artillery. Of course the size of an army matters, but these extra units really seem to provide long-term benefits that outweigh a few extra infantry, cavalry, or artillery.
3. A balanced approach to grand strategy decisions is best for the long-haul. I've never used the conscription option, either partial or full, as the CSA for the entire war. I've only once used the voluntary mobilization and I didn't even need to. Nearing the end of 1865, I have nearly 1,000 unused / unallocated manpower still in reserve with more war supply than I could ever hope to use (and this was after building almost every frigate and ironclad possible as the CSA). I credit my balanced investment in industrial infrastructure and blockade runners for my relatively good economic circumstances. Furthermore, I've rarely exercised any decisions that negatively affected my NM (I have done it where I knew my NM was pretty high and I knew it would return to normal during slow times like the winter when I wasn't engaged in large, strategic military endeavors). Now having said that, I'm sure there are times where the sacrifice to morale is justified if the goal is worth it. Money has always been the limiting factor with what I could do, but I've not often been hurting for it (particularly by 1864).
4. Militia units are pretty weak and almost pointless to build, unless they're for forts. I created way too many militia units in border states and they were repeatedly beaten by regular infantry. Considering how many militia the game gives you for "free", I have learned that building additional ones is a waste of resources except where you combine them into coastal forts. I thought that many of my militia would be trained up to better units, but most of the ones I originally built are still just militia. Consequently, if you want something defended well, most likely it's worth it to spend the extra money on a better unit from the outset.
5. Having built very large sea-going fleets as the CSA, I don't believe that it's worth the results. It hasn't really seemed to cut down on the blockade level of the USA, and it's really hard to measure the support level that they've provided my armies during battles (is there a way to show this?). I've tried using the large fleets in blockade boxes, along the US coast, and even in the trade box with Admiral Semmes - I'm not sure what my fleet accomplished besides beating up a few US fleets along the coast (they hardly touched the fleets in the boxes, if at all). I've seen more benefits from a large river-going fleet, but I'm still not sure it's worth it (again, I don't really have measurable results).
6. Building and maintaining the railroad and river transport infrastructure is probably money better spent than creating new supply depots. I've created a couple of supply depots along the Mississippi River, but only because of excess transport ships. Other than that, I've never had a supply issue with any of my units through the entire course of the war (ammo, general supplies, etc.). Furthermore, the rapid response to move an army to a threatened area is absolutely critical in defending - it was a real blessing to move large armies at my whim and I can't overstate how important it was to my success.
7. Partisans are probably the most cost-effective way to create havoc with the enemy. I'm not sure how much I really economically impacted Athena, but I know if it had been a PBEM opponent, they would've torn their hair out. I have probably had around 35-40% of the North in flames in 63, 64, and 65 with how often I've moved partisans around (and every turn I tore up at least 10 more railroad tracks). I'm not sure how much I really impacted the North's ability to wage war, but I'd guess the partisans' affects were pretty substantial. Related to partisans, they don't seem to "burn" areas unless they are set on at least defensive mode (and even then, sometimes they don't seem to do it still). If they're in passive / evasion mode, they just seem to travel through regions. In my opinion, partisans might be overpowered, especially in PBEM games (considering they rarely went very far north and I've been sending them to Boston, Detroit, NYC, etc.).
8. Conservative battle plans have seemed to work better than elaborate ones, especially when my opponent is roughly equal in power. I've used the artillery battle plans mostly when I fight an equal opponent and have tended to have better results than elaborate ones. If, however, my opponent was significantly weaker than me, it rarely seemed to matter what the plans were - they would usually lose pretty badly. I'm still at somewhat of a loss in figuring out which plans work under which scenarios, so I've just made more conservative choices in most circumstances.
I've learned a lot more than these few tidbits above, but I think these encapsulate the grand points of what I've learned pretty well. Hopefully you all find some of this information helpful - please let me know your own thoughts on my lessons learned.
1. Organization of your army / divisions / corps is drastically more important than absolute size. A small and well-organized army can be both more efficient and effective than a large, disorganized army. Of course this really isn't as relevant until divisions and corps are able to be formed. Just try to keep your army within the maximum size allowed to help ensure it is utilized to its maximum efficiency.
2. Building support units for an army (HQ support, balloons, pontoons, engineers) should probably be a priority first before adding extra infantry, cavalry, and artillery. Of course the size of an army matters, but these extra units really seem to provide long-term benefits that outweigh a few extra infantry, cavalry, or artillery.
3. A balanced approach to grand strategy decisions is best for the long-haul. I've never used the conscription option, either partial or full, as the CSA for the entire war. I've only once used the voluntary mobilization and I didn't even need to. Nearing the end of 1865, I have nearly 1,000 unused / unallocated manpower still in reserve with more war supply than I could ever hope to use (and this was after building almost every frigate and ironclad possible as the CSA). I credit my balanced investment in industrial infrastructure and blockade runners for my relatively good economic circumstances. Furthermore, I've rarely exercised any decisions that negatively affected my NM (I have done it where I knew my NM was pretty high and I knew it would return to normal during slow times like the winter when I wasn't engaged in large, strategic military endeavors). Now having said that, I'm sure there are times where the sacrifice to morale is justified if the goal is worth it. Money has always been the limiting factor with what I could do, but I've not often been hurting for it (particularly by 1864).
4. Militia units are pretty weak and almost pointless to build, unless they're for forts. I created way too many militia units in border states and they were repeatedly beaten by regular infantry. Considering how many militia the game gives you for "free", I have learned that building additional ones is a waste of resources except where you combine them into coastal forts. I thought that many of my militia would be trained up to better units, but most of the ones I originally built are still just militia. Consequently, if you want something defended well, most likely it's worth it to spend the extra money on a better unit from the outset.
5. Having built very large sea-going fleets as the CSA, I don't believe that it's worth the results. It hasn't really seemed to cut down on the blockade level of the USA, and it's really hard to measure the support level that they've provided my armies during battles (is there a way to show this?). I've tried using the large fleets in blockade boxes, along the US coast, and even in the trade box with Admiral Semmes - I'm not sure what my fleet accomplished besides beating up a few US fleets along the coast (they hardly touched the fleets in the boxes, if at all). I've seen more benefits from a large river-going fleet, but I'm still not sure it's worth it (again, I don't really have measurable results).
6. Building and maintaining the railroad and river transport infrastructure is probably money better spent than creating new supply depots. I've created a couple of supply depots along the Mississippi River, but only because of excess transport ships. Other than that, I've never had a supply issue with any of my units through the entire course of the war (ammo, general supplies, etc.). Furthermore, the rapid response to move an army to a threatened area is absolutely critical in defending - it was a real blessing to move large armies at my whim and I can't overstate how important it was to my success.
7. Partisans are probably the most cost-effective way to create havoc with the enemy. I'm not sure how much I really economically impacted Athena, but I know if it had been a PBEM opponent, they would've torn their hair out. I have probably had around 35-40% of the North in flames in 63, 64, and 65 with how often I've moved partisans around (and every turn I tore up at least 10 more railroad tracks). I'm not sure how much I really impacted the North's ability to wage war, but I'd guess the partisans' affects were pretty substantial. Related to partisans, they don't seem to "burn" areas unless they are set on at least defensive mode (and even then, sometimes they don't seem to do it still). If they're in passive / evasion mode, they just seem to travel through regions. In my opinion, partisans might be overpowered, especially in PBEM games (considering they rarely went very far north and I've been sending them to Boston, Detroit, NYC, etc.).
8. Conservative battle plans have seemed to work better than elaborate ones, especially when my opponent is roughly equal in power. I've used the artillery battle plans mostly when I fight an equal opponent and have tended to have better results than elaborate ones. If, however, my opponent was significantly weaker than me, it rarely seemed to matter what the plans were - they would usually lose pretty badly. I'm still at somewhat of a loss in figuring out which plans work under which scenarios, so I've just made more conservative choices in most circumstances.
I've learned a lot more than these few tidbits above, but I think these encapsulate the grand points of what I've learned pretty well. Hopefully you all find some of this information helpful - please let me know your own thoughts on my lessons learned.