USA:The Civil War Scenario: Strategy and Tips for a semi-intermediate player

[HidekiTojo]

Hey all,

When I introduced myself I mentioned that I've been playing this game for a long time, yet I've never progressed beyond understanding the mechanics.

It's kind of like the game is a machine, and I know how the different parts work but not really how to fit everything together to use it properly.

It's hard to organize for me so that's certainly been a factor.

One quick question I want to know what divisions should ideally be comprised of.

But I really need some guidance with the big picture.

[HidekiTojo]

I've been trying some other scenarios, I managed to lose "I can make Georgia Howl" by 9 VP.....

I can't believe I did, one more turn and I would have had Atlanta.

It's SO frustrating that everytime I turn around there's units infiltrating behind my lines. I can't move forward bc then my guys get cut off....

I never managed to figure this out in AACW either.

[H Gilmer3]

This is what is in the AACW wiki - other can say if they like that or not.

1 Leader
11 Infantry regiments
1 Sharpshooter regiment
1 Cavalry regiment
4 Artillery batteries

The big picture is a lot harder. I try to make sure I have forces opposing the South's forces in places to block any movement ... It seems like the South goes along several main thrusts....

But, others are the experts.

[H Gilmer3]

I was always told the smaller scenarios are harder to win.

[ArmChairGeneral]

One quick question I want to know what divisions should ideally be comprised of.

Well, you have brought up one of the oldest, most complex and hotly debated issues on this forum, rivaling brigs vs industry and the raiding question for sheer weight of electronic ink spilled in trying to figure it out. And unfortunately there is no surefire best Division, and the differences mostly center around how much and what types of artillery to include.

The first thing to think about is Frontage. There is only so much physical space in a region that can be used as a battlefield. Once it is full everyone else sits on their hands and watches the guys who fit into the battle space. Artillery are support elements, so they get chosen for and fill frontage differently from the combat troops like infantry, militia and cavalry. Some region's frontage is very small and when attacking a structure, it is even smaller. I think weather alters frontage too, but need to confirm, and the worst case Support frontage is about 4 artillery elements.

The second thing to look at is terrain type, which not only determines the base frontage, but also the range at which units can begin to fire. The longest range land guns use range 7 (again, please confirm) meaning they get 7 chances to shoot before everyone closes to hand-to-hand combat in the final round at range zero (known as Assault phase). Battles start at the distance that the longest range element can start shooting at and move one range closer each phase or "hour." But, range is affected by weather and terrain, with only Clear terrain offering the maximum frontage and range possible. In the worst weather or terrain the max range is 4 (again, confirmation of the numbers is needed), which every artillery type equals or exceeds.

The third consideration is the fact that artillery embedded in a division behaves differently than artillery loose in a Corp or Army stack. Inside the division, they will automatically target whatever enemy elements are engaging the rest of the division. Army or Corps artillery (abbreviated A/C: this subject is so deep it has its own acronyms) fire at the most powerful unit in the battle, usually a division, and usually the same as the unit that your division is engaging, but possibly not, and CAN potentially target artillery or supply units which otherwise usually only get targeted in the Assault phase. A/C artillery can deliver a one-two punch, potentially inflicting hits on more units than if the artillery were embedded in Divisions. Corps and Armies March to the Sound of the Guns (MTSG) joining combats in support of Corps belonging to the same Army. (And Corp can join their Army, you get the idea, Corps and Army under the same chain-of-command.) The frontage rules and targeting mechanisms become quite complex in this case and it is difficult to test to see what composition gives you optimum performance, but artillery that are MTSG pack a significant punch, and can be the decisive difference in battle if everything comes together right.

The fourth consideration is that many artillery elements are built as parts of larger brigades, and so cannot be separated and put loose into an A/C stack. These elements tend to be of the weaker variety, 6 and 12 lbers. If you have more elements than can fill the frontage they are randomly chosen from among those available, so a lot of 6 lbers might make it into the battle while your better equipment sits idle. This is a separate question from Div vs A/C artillery, all cannons have an equal chance of filling frontage no matter where they are stacked.

The fifth consideration is cavalry. Cav are weak in combat, but chase down Routing elements and inflict extra, unopposed hits on fleeing enemies that you will see reported in the message-log rather than in the battle report. Similarly, if you are routing, cav elements will shield your retreating forces from enemy cavalry. This game concept is known as Pursuit.

The final consideration is unit special abilities. Some units have special abilities that they pass on to all elements of their unit, and a division is a unit. Sharpshooters give their entire division initiative bonus, and Elite elements give their division a cohesion bonus (there are a few others, but these are the most important two). Different abilities stack, but multiple of the same ability does not stack, so only one sharpshooter element is needed.

Historically, the recommendation has been to put four artillery in a division, because then you are guaranteed of filling the artillery frontage under the worst case terrain and weather conditions. Then you will want one or two cav elements to prevent/enable Pursuit and to provide good Detection, with one Sharpshooter and the rest infantry of whatever type you have available. The heavier the artillery the better, by mid 1863 6lbers will be dragging down your combat effectiveness.

This makeup will perform very well as an independent division, able to bring its full weight of metal to bear in all terrain and weather. In more open terrain a division with more artillery will probably perform better, but the combat elements will be at greater risk of breaking since they will have correspondingly fewer total hits (infantry have lots of hits, artillery don't) with which to soak up damage, so this is subject to debate. Other configurations might be optimal depending on the military goals of the Division in question, but this will be reasonably effective in a wide range of situations.

The situation becomes much more complex when considering whether to embed artillery into a division that will operate in a Corps or Army stack or to leave them loose at the A/C level and I will leave this question to others and to your own readings of some of the threads, stickies and Wikis that relate to it, since there is no clear consensus. The AACW forum archives are rich sources of material on this, as is the AACW Wiki. Eventually the CW2 wiki will address these topics as well.

Short (and traditional) version:
10-11 Infantry
4 Artillery
1-2 Cav
1 Sharpshooter, and YMMV.

[HidekiTojo]

I appreciate the reply to the divisional composition ArmChairGeneral.

Now I would really be interested in the various strategies for defeating the South for the scenario that covers the whole war.

Just follow the historical strategy? I'm studying to be a P.h.D. (couple years down the line anyway) and I have always enjoyed discussing Strategy. Not many people who want to talk about Union strategy in the ACW but here there's a practical reason to want to know more.

I've read a thread that's on page 2 where someone did a nice semi meaty post about Union and a little bit Confederate overall strategy.

I was hoping for much the same thing and to get as much input as possible from anyone willing to waste their time on my thread

[HidekiTojo]

oh and not to mention that it seems like none of the battles that I fight affect National Morale.....

Wins or Losses: zero affect on NM

occasionally I lose NM, but I never gain it.

[ArmChairGeneral]

You will gain NM by destroy enemy elements outright in battle. This doesn't happen that often, and NM are very valuable.

[minipol]

There are different parts to a grand strategy.
You know attacking is more costly than defending (most of the times).
You want to prevent the CSA from getting a strong foothold in Manassas or Alexandria and Harpersferry.
Defend Washington (CSA has early advantage), then go for these objectives.
Also build a couple of division to land in New Orleans, later you should take other ports.
You will need a good fleet to pummel the forts first.
Closer by, Norfolk is also a good target.

Have troops ready to attack Kentucky when it opens or if you have already enough troops, open the theater there.
Keep Cario, go for Paducah, and the forts there Donelson/Henry and Island 10.

Further West, Rolla, Jefferson city and Springfield are good targets.
In the IT, use cavalry with horse artillery and roll up the forts.
If you use slightly bigger cav stacks here, you can inflict a lot of damage on the enemy.
The more men you kill as the Union, the bigger your advantage.

Also protect your depots and supply lines.
Use cavalry to gain MC in a region and to make sure you can get supplies through

Build fleets to rule the Mississippi and the seas.
Destroy the brigs when you can. Put transport (guarded by some war ships) in the shipping lanes
Build industry to produce war supplies and ammo. Arsenals and armories are good return on investements.

If you see a the CSA entrenched, try to outmaneuver them. Use divisions embedded in the Army at the start, in 1862
you can form corps which is great as they can help each other out in combat.

That's a very small summary of what you can do as the Union.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Use cavalry to gain MC in a region and to make sure you can get supplies through

Gaining MC above 25% allows supply transit and also allows you to use the rail network in the region. +75% MC, and the enemy cannot use rail or transit supplies. Gain control of rail lines with advance scouting parties along your axis of advance to stay mobile and supplied while conducting offensive operations.

Generic tip: scout, scout, scout: you are much better at it than Athena could ever be, and it is one of your biggest advantages as the human player. Stay in G/G posture set to Evade so they will attempt to avoid combat. 2 Cav and 1 HA is a pretty durable scouting configuration unless you run into a division. Even better with a leader.

[Gray Fox]

Ignore the west. Blow up every depot that you don't absolutely need east of Pennsylvania. Hold a line of port cities on the Missouri and Ohio rivers from St. Louis to Pittsburg. Garrison the cities with an entrenched Division each. Let your cavalry run down any partisans. Your riverine fleet should be able to deny retreat to any large Confederate force that wants to tour the midwest. Rail in an army to totally annihilate them. Why Athena wants to throw away 40k troops with their artillery and supplies I will never know. If you get a human to do you that favor, all the better. Defend D.C. with whatever it takes so that a Confederate player doesn't rock your world.

So that's what Clausewitz calls a refused western flank, a firm center based on the garrisoned strong points along the defendable rivers and a strong eastern flank so that you don't lose the war instantly. Build up from your strongpoint in the east and attack the Confederate capital. If the South keeps fighting, then continue to drive down the East coast with an insurmountable NM lead.

Lone Divisions should have intrinsic artillery due to the economy of the Command Point system. However, in your Army/Corps stacks, a Division with a sharpshooter and 16 infantry elements has an advantage over a Division with less infantry when the final assault takes place. Infantry take ground and win battles. More infantry win more battles.

Heavy, long-range, ground pounding artillery loose in a corps stack are going to shred the enemy's cohesion and big infantry Divisions are going to send them packing. An Army and its Corps should attack together in the offense and be set to support each other in the defense. So each Corps should have two of these elite shock Divisions and the rest heavy artillery. Two or more Corps should come under the command of your best Army general who has the same force with a Division of cavalry in his Army's stack. The cav hold onto the enemy so they won't easily retreat away from your meat grinder. This Army/Corps group is the tip of your spear. They need the right mix of support types to operate well, like pontoons, medics and engineers.

Massed heavy artillery and elite shock Divisions gives your force a tactical advantage over anything that Athena can muster, and probably anything that a human following Conventional Wisdom will put together. Power numbers mean nothing. Cohesion is what counts.

Crush your enemies, drive their armies before you and listen to the lamentation of their women.

[GraniteStater]

Wow. Please post an AAR doing this - I absolutely love radical departures from the Same Old Stuff.

[minipol]

I don't find it that shocking. As the Union you can afford forgetting about the West. As the CSA, it's a good opportunity to kill
Union soldiers over and over again. It helps to gain some NM, territory and being a constant drain of replacements.

There is a difference in how most of us organize troops. But I think it's in a large part due to the fact that we might not all know how the combat model works.
For instance, having all infantry and just 1 sharpshooter for initiative makes sense. I know that embedded artillery shoots at the opposing forces, while
artillery in a corps shoots at targets of opportunity. But what does that mean when the battle starts?
Does embedded artillery disappear from the battlefield after the division has done it's fighting? I imagine so.
Does corps artillery stay during the whole battle? If so, then I could see why it's better to mass artillery in the corps and not the division.

Same with cavalry. It increases losses for the enemy if they route, in other words, they chase troops.
Is the result better when they are embedded in a division with other troops or in a separate cavalry division in the army?

I myself have been organizing my divisions as usual but with heavy artillery in the corps, and cavalry in the army.
We really should compare battles organized one way and the other way to know what is most effective.

[Jeffkle]

I do the opposite. I build the West forces until Sherman comes; I take Springfield Mo, in the first 5 turns using partisans, cavalry and Unionists. Lyons sweeps the rest of Mo and by 1982 summer I am off to Fayetteville. I build Iowa forces and take all the forts along the frontier. Grant, Sherman and others pound Ky. until we capture Nashville. Build lines of depots. Use river fleets against Island 10 with mortarboats. Continue down Mississippi to Memphis and stop and hold. So you hold a line built from Fayetteville to Memphis to Nashville. In the East I immediately on first turn send Pa unit to take Harper's Ferry. Same with Morganville build depots. Build depots in Alexandria. Use AOP to block any advances between Alexandria and Harper's Ferry. Once West is at full strength, all I do is build in the East. As better commanders come along, thats when I know to start to force CSA south. Attrition is my main focus.....I lose some but win most. Butler move up the Peninsula and they all intersect at Richmond.....it falls in summer 1863. I rarely add to blockade. I don't build any industry. I just build divisions with the best battery of artillery available, sharpshooter and as much infantry as commander can handle. Usually over 500 power. Athena never uses Lee properly. They do some attempts at cutting supply lines and I handle with cavalry in bunches. Far West I take Tucson with Carson ASAP. I use draft cards, partisans, unionists, rangers and telegraph, also build main cities up with defensive cards.

[GraniteStater]

If it works, it works.

Humans are a whole 'nother ball game, though.

[HidekiTojo]

Ignore the west. Blow up every depot that you don't absolutely need east of Pennsylvania. Hold a line of port cities on the Missouri and Ohio rivers from St. Louis to Pittsburg. Garrison the cities with an entrenched Division each. Let your cavalry run down any partisans. Your riverine fleet should be able to deny retreat to any large Confederate force that wants to tour the midwest. Rail in an army to totally annihilate them. Why Athena wants to throw away 40k troops with their artillery and supplies I will never know. If you get a human to do you that favor, all the better. Defend D.C. with whatever it takes so that a Confederate player doesn't rock your world.

So that's what Clausewitz calls a refused western flank, a firm center based on the garrisoned strong points along the defendable rivers and a strong eastern flank so that you don't lose the war instantly. Build up from your strongpoint in the east and attack the Confederate capital. If the South keeps fighting, then continue to drive down the East coast with an insurmountable NM lead.

Lone Divisions should have intrinsic artillery due to the economy of the Command Point system. However, in your Army/Corps stacks, a Division with a sharpshooter and 16 infantry elements has an advantage over a Division with less infantry when the final assault takes place. Infantry take ground and win battles. More infantry win more battles.

Heavy, long-range, ground pounding artillery loose in a corps stack are going to shred the enemy's cohesion and big infantry Divisions are going to send them packing. An Army and its Corps should attack together in the offense and be set to support each other in the defense. So each Corps should have two of these elite shock Divisions and the rest heavy artillery. Two or more Corps should come under the command of your best Army general who has the same force with a Division of cavalry in his Army's stack. The cav hold onto the enemy so they won't easily retreat away from your meat grinder. This Army/Corps group is the tip of your spear. They need the right mix of support types to operate well, like pontoons, medics and engineers.

Massed heavy artillery and elite shock Divisions gives your force a tactical advantage over anything that Athena can muster, and probably anything that a human following Conventional Wisdom will put together. Power numbers mean nothing. Cohesion is what counts.

Crush your enemies, drive their armies before you and listen to the lamentation of their women.

I am trying this now and for once I am not losing badly.


I didn't do the depots but fortifying the borders and keeping cavalry forces behind to deal with anyone who slips through seems to be working. It's very exciting to not be losing horrendously.

GraniteStater whats the "Same Old Stuff?"

[GraniteStater]

The orthodox approach, mostly as the Union.

Hopeless troglodytes, like me.

[HidekiTojo]

The orthodox approach, mostly as the Union.

Hopeless troglodytes, like me.

I doubt you're a troglodyte, im thinking neanderthal

I was hoping you'd tell me what exactly the orthodox approach happens to be bc I have read quite a lot but i do not know what exactly qualifies as the basic orthodox strategy. Is it simply following historical precedent except better i.e. Anaconda Plan enacted from the very start?


Another question that I have is about the attrition slider: currently historical attrition is disabled for me, can't remember if I did it or if that was the default, either way I would really like to know

As someone still learning the ropes, should I turn historical attrition on? Or should I turn it on later after becoming more experienced?

From what I understand attrition is much worse for the Union based upon their practice of creating new regiments from new soldiers and/or the remains of other existing ones. Now I did know about that already and the attrition slider models this is in a smart way by cutting Union replacements in half.

However as a player who has been trying to get his head around this game since 2007 will this make that process more difficult? Or is it better to enable it and not have to break any bad habits I learn from playing without historical attrition? I would enable it for Athena and I bc that's only fair. Maybe when I become skilled I will be able to overcome the handicap of enabling it only for myself but not right now thats for sure!

[HidekiTojo]

Oh and starting the campaign from later in the war is extremely unappealing for me, I am one of those guys who likes to build the whole war machine up himself not take over one that someone else already did. So that's the main reason why I play the Civil War scenario. Only thing is that the handicap as far as unit organization is concerned really sucks!!!

I am of course referring to being unable to form divisions and corps. I do understand why, and I even feel that it is a pretty good way to represent that utter logistical anarchy before 1862. Still I wish there was a way to do it that doesn't require a ton of micromanaging once divisions and later corps are activated. I can even understand not allowing the formation of corps, but perhaps divisions could be enabled from the start but with a cohesion penalty or something.

thats just a thought, I would like to contribute and I'm very grateful that everyone has responded to my thread answering the questions that they've answered a million times before.

[GraniteStater]

You can't go very wrong with the Anaconda plan.

One way of doing things:

* There are some here pointing out aggressive & speedy strikes by the Union at the start, getting an early Missouri wrapped up (pay attention to Loyalty in MO in an April 61 start - even by early 63, with some fair successes across the map, they still hate you) & some other accomplishments. Worth considering. However, I usually play 'D' before I go looking for dragons.

* In my current game, I started a fair amount of Naval builds very early, mostly because of delivery times. I didn't seem to pay any real price for a slightly smaller Union army into the fall & winter of the first campaigning year - LT level.

* I assert that the Union should secure, from E-W, DC, HF, WVa (just hold onto it at first & make sure no one gets bright ideas about Pittsburgh), the Ohio river line, Cairo (I really hate even being threatened there), St. Louis, the Missouri river line (with Rolla, too, although Rolla is not Super Important, you can even lose it briefly much later and it doesn't really hurt that much), St. Joseph, the true towns in Kansas.

* I do enough in the West and a little bit more to feel comfy & discourage gold-grabbing, etc. Build two Depots in Santa Fe & the redoubt in Mora. That's about it for me, I want to be able to give it benign neglect.

* Use Grant early to get a promotion to 3. Get him an Army & let the NM masses wail, if they wail - his promo usually puts him in the zero NM hit category.

* AFAICS, there is absolutely no incentive or reason for the Union to invade KY before the South - L & L will be available to you by event, can build there without interference - why upset all those folks? If the CSA invades, Loyalty is yours.

* The Union seems to be able to just ignore the newspapers, NM hits, etc., in VA and get away with it. Again, build.

* I will not let Ft Monroe go without a due effort on my part. I hate the South having it. If the result is an entirely ridiculous ahistorical reinforcing, so be it. I don't like it, but there you are. Pickens's loss is annoying, but not a big deal, really.

Then you build, build, build, move South & win - how fast, etc., is up to you. It's not really that easy, even Athena can surprise you and give a decent game on the better settings, but, right at the moment, the Union can get away with 'turtling'.

Currently (1.03), Athena seemed a little less obsessed with Monroe, but alas, once R E Lee activated, it was off to the peninsula's point for her - she's got about 1000 PWR there right now (Fall, 62), whilst three corps are parked in Culpeper & Fredericksburg, rarin' to go.

She's better than AACW, but does not seem to be able to understand that doing too much on the Yorktown peninsula is detrimental to the front door. My brief experience with Colonel level, though, was distinctly different, though - with the Extra Free Replacements, she built some huge stacks that were mighty intimidating.

That's my take.

Oh, try to take New Orleans in decent strength as early as you can - it's the most lucrative city in the South for money. Important to do.

[GraniteStater]

A good CSA player will not let you get away with the above without smacking or needling you. A common practice is to build a Fort at NO right away & put at least a 350 Div there. Also, violating KY early to get Paducah and putting a Fort there (now there's a dead ox in the doorway, believe me I know from experience) is probably worth it to the CSA.

[minipol]

A Fort in NO, I can see the benefits. Do you mean a real fort as in using guns & supply wagons/transport or the redoubt card?
Bot sure about Paducah. If you have taken L & L as the Union, and your divisions are rolling South, is having a few gunboats/ironclads in those waters that dangerous?
It's good to be able to take out ships, but is it really necessary?
The enemy needs a good number of ships to block those supply lines, and when they are spread out, they can be taken out quickly by a larger stack.
As the CSA, I liked having troops entrenched in Cairo with big guns. Lot's of damage to passing Union ships.

[GraniteStater]

A Fort in NO, I can see the benefits. Do you mean a real fort as in using guns & supply wagons/transport or the redoubt card?
Bot sure about Paducah. If you have taken L & L as the Union, and your divisions are rolling South, is having a few gunboats/ironclads in those waters that dangerous?
It's good to be able to take out ships, but is it really necessary?
The enemy needs a good number of ships to block those supply lines, and when they are spread out, they can be taken out quickly by a larger stack.
As the CSA, I liked having troops entrenched in Cairo with big guns. Lot's of damage to passing Union ships.

* Yes, a real fort.

* The CSA invades KY ASAP, and builds a 'real fort'. Haven't tried it yet in CW2, but in AACW, having played against it - extremely inconvenient to the Union. Extremely. I'm not saying it's a 'must', just...owwww!

* 'Course, Cairo is even better.

* If it's still the same, you can build a fort with 6-lbers. The idea behind Paducah is getting it up pronto.

[Gray Fox]

Lord Wellington, the victor at Waterloo, thought that Winfield Scott was the greatest general of his time. Scott's plan to slowly strangle the South was a benign way to get them to rejoin the Union without slaughtering fellow Americans by the tens of thousands or burning great cities to the ground. Lee knew Scott. Both were Virginians and Scott had asked Lee to lead the Union army. Lee figured that Scott would take the long road and that a defensive war had advantages for the South which fit into Jeff Davis' strategy of "Just leave us alone".

However, this is a strategy game. If Athena or a player with neurons wants the Union to save Missouri, invade Kentucky, build a huge blockade fleet, take every coastal fort and whistle The Battle Hymn of the Republic while doing it, then I hope that they don't forget to move their capital to the arctic circle. Otherwise, Bobby E. and I are going to visit D.C. and pound the blue-bellies into dog food.

[GraniteStater]

Beating up Athena is one thing. Humans are a whole 'nother ball game.

And even Athena - well, it may have been AACW, but I had one CSA game where had it on reasonable difficulty settings and whupped the tar out of the Union, took almost every worthwhile Northern city there was, split the North in two, got FI, just about the whole ball of wax.

But not the whole ball. Y'see, Athena holed up in Baltimore, got there quick enough to preclude my taking it, and, well I thought I Had Enough to Deal with This Goddess of War in that urban isolate.

Unh - uh. Ever try to dig an entrenched 4500 PWR stack(s) out of entrenchments She doesn't want to give up? Like prying my cat off the couch.

I just stopped playing at some point, there were other shiny baubles around...nonetheless, even with Everything Going for Me, it was by no means a dead lock I would actually win. It was only late 63, maybe early 64...I didn't have the means to take out New England, some of the upper Midwest and some other places were beyond my power or willingness to risk the overall position. Her NM was in the 70s & stayed there - weakened, hobbled, crippled - down, but not out, not out at all. I didn't have the wherewithal to keep replacing losses suffered by four or five well organized and sustained assaults on Baltimore - so I had to cut those out...

For whatever reason or mechanic or code snippet, I wasn't making a lot of headway on an NM win. The FI had probably stiffened Union resolve. I had just about everything you could ask for and could not drive her to the mat. I have won as the South before, on NM, but this was a good illustration of how a protracted war, even under unfavorable circumstances, favors the North. Come to think of it, I think I got to the Election and Uncle Abe was retained - so I just chalked it up as some fun experience.

And humans are a whole new ballgame. A decent Union player just might illustrate a few points. Yes, the early Leaders are unexciting and the Union needs to dogpile quite a bit in the early going to win battles of note.

But the Union can march five, six or even seven Corps, fleshed out with Support units, well Supplied and led by Hooker as Army Commander, by early 63. Hooker ain't a genius, but he ain't shabby, either. Oh, did I mention that a well organized Union player could well have those Corps averaging 1750 PWR apiece? All with two batteries of Long Toms? And all have Med & Eng, at a minimum? Now they can have Pontoons, so bye-bye river crossings. Also, Meade, Reynolds, Sedgwick, a coupla 3-3-3s who show up and I'm not even talking about Hancock, Gibbon & Co. Meade as a Corps Leader is excellent, Burnside has his virtues...and those Corps are just in VA, never mind what Grant & Sherman are doing at the Mississippi bake sale.

I wouldn't be so blithe about CSA prowess. The CSA is excellent, without a doubt, but The Basic Threat in the game is that if the CSA doesn't put the Big Hurt on, early & often, then, eventually....

*

*

*
IT'S CLOBBERIN' TIME!

And any good CSA player here knows it.

[GraniteStater]

As a follow up FYI, for those who are interested, I couldn't cut Baltimore off, not completely. Even with the British Corps and everything going my way, I couldn't stretch things to completely envelop Wilmington, etc., because even Athena wasn't going to sit back & have a pity party (Athena doesn't get enough credit around here - compared to basic HOI2, she's a genius); if I thinned out to do this, I was gonna get smacked and even 75 NM was enough for her to make it a credible threat.

That Ole Sea Supply sure helps (which is why I go nutso at contemplating any suggestion of CSA Sea Supply - NO).

So I could maintain the status quo, but pushing that rock that one last inch was starting to show diminishing returns...

even Lee & Jackson on steroids does not guarantee anything. Even against Athena.

[ArmChairGeneral]

GS,

Athena does not get enough credit, and she will only get better. Us Rebs just love to blast up the L&N railroad to Louisville and points north as soon as the lights come on, but it will only take a little more "build interest" in pre-Kentucky Cincinnati and Indianapolis or a propensity to actually invade along the Mississippi to permanently put a stop to our shenanigans. And she doesn't freak out and inexplicably leave DC open to an attack from Alexandria just cause we cross into Maryland like in the old days. And even though I am not obsessed with it like CSA Athena reportedly still is, Ft. Monroe was irritatingly still flying the Stars and Stripes in every game I've played, making long-term build up too slow.

Even with a free hand along the Missouri and Ohio Rivers, once that sweet low-hanging Western fruit has been eaten, it is STILL hard to convert that 130 NM into a decisive victory where it counts, DC. I am actually pretty happy with how she is doing at this point in her current life-cycle. I can expect to do much better against her than in history in the early years, I'm better than she is at tactics and scouting and my troops are better led. But woe unto the gallant sons of the south if that calendar makes it to 1865!

BTW, where is the CSA grand strategy thread? She's gonna be able to beat me soon, I'm gonna need some fresh material. Maybe it's time to go All East, and not be satisfied with the Potomac Line.

[G-Burg Bullet]

GS,

Athena does not get enough credit, and she will only get better. Us Rebs just love to blast up the L&N railroad to Louisville and points north as soon as the lights come on, but it will only take a little more "build interest" in pre-Kentucky Cincinnati and Indianapolis or a propensity to actually invade along the Mississippi to permanently put a stop to our shenanigans. And she doesn't freak out and inexplicably leave DC open to an attack from Alexandria just cause we cross into Maryland like in the old days. And even though I am not obsessed with it like CSA Athena reportedly still is, Ft. Monroe was irritatingly still flying the Stars and Stripes in every game I've played, making long-term build up too slow.

Even with a free hand along the Missouri and Ohio Rivers, once that sweet low-hanging Western fruit has been eaten, it is STILL hard to convert that 130 NM into a decisive victory where it counts, DC. I am actually pretty happy with how she is doing at this point in her current life-cycle. I can expect to do much better against her than in history in the early years, I'm better than she is at tactics and scouting and my troops are better led. But woe unto the gallant sons of the south if that calendar makes it to 1865!

BTW, where is the CSA grand strategy thread? She's gonna be able to beat me soon, I'm gonna need some fresh material. Maybe it's time to go All East, and not be satisfied with the Potomac Line.

I certainly concur with this observation on Athena after playing my most recent game. It was the "West" scenario and I played as the CSA. Despite me driving north and taking Nashville, Bowling Green, Louisville and Lexington, Athena just kept plowing south on my left flank to Corinth, Memphis and beyond. She just seemed to ignore the dagger I had thrown deep toward Ohio and just kept rolling toward Vicksburg. She also successfully took NO and was moving up the Mississippi toward V-Burg from the South.

Despite all this, I feel pretty good about the result. I lost, but on VP's by about 50. After playing several of these scenarios now and reading all these posts, it seems to me that unless you knock the USA out right out of the blocks and win in '61 or '62,you'll eventually get ground up.

[minipol]

No you don't but there will be positions that you will have to hold, and spend every penny wisely.
I'm 5 turns from the end of the war, and about 1500 VP's ahead of Athena Union, at about half the casualties.

[G-Burg Bullet]

Wow! Very impressive minipol! I'd love to have seen an AAR to see how you did it.