Throwing Eggs Against the Wall

[Straight Arrow]

I've been playing the CSA in a PBEM game with Cardinal Ape as the Federals.

I have to say, it hasn't been pretty. Johnny Reb has been repeatedly knocked around by Billy Yank. The kill ratio over is 2-1 and I've been out maneuvered in both the Far West and Missouri.

I think my problem stems from a poor understanding Military Control and its effects on movement/combat, as well as lousy use of postures.

I keep moving into an area the enemy is present to force a defensive battle; it does not work.

Can I use postures to make the enemy attack me? The South is almost always outnumbered, so this is critical point.

How can I successfully attack without wrecking my army in the process?

What ratios should I strive for? Someone mentioned 3-1 for assaulting a force in a structure. Is this true?

What about an open field engagement or the ratio assaulting trenches?

Any advice would be deeply appreciated.

[marquo]

Open the Manual PDF and search, "Military Control." You will be amazed at what you learn...

Cheers

[Straight Arrow]

Thanks Marquo,

But, what's the "Manual PDF" and where is it?

[Cardinal Ape]

The instruction manual is named Civil_War_II_Manual[E-Book].pdf and should be located in the Docs folder inside the Civil War II folder.

If PBEM veterans could provide some insight on how to successfully attack that would be great. Launching attacks against the AI with her bad divisions and poor entrenchments is waaay easier.

For instance; if you want to defeat a 2,000 power stack in a wooded region with level 3 entrenchments what would you attack with? What would be your bare minimum and/or ideal amount of power have be to expect victory?

Thanks much.

[Captain_Orso]

I've been playing the CSA in a PBEM game with Cardinal Ape as the Federals.

I have to say, it hasn't been pretty. Johnny Reb has been repeatedly knocked around by Billy Yank. The kill ratio over is 2-1 and I've been out maneuvered in both the Far West and Missouri.

I think my problem stems from a poor understanding Military Control and its effects on movement/combat, as well as lousy use of postures.

I keep moving into an area the enemy is present to force a defensive battle; it does not work.

Can I use postures to make the enemy attack me? The South is almost always outnumbered, so this is critical point.

How can I successfully attack without wrecking my army in the process?

What ratios should I strive for? Someone mentioned 3-1 for assaulting a force in a structure. Is this true?

What about an open field engagement or the ratio assaulting trenches?

Any advice would be deeply appreciated.

What you are asking is how to tactically win a battle in a strategic game, but you have already noted that your opponent is not out-battling you, he's out-maneuvering you; in other words, he's winning advantages/ground without fighting battles.

The secret to defeating an enemy is to attack him at his weakest point. On a strategic level the weakest point of a force is always its supply. This goes for the enemy's force as well as your own. The second weakest point is anything the enemy values, but supply trumps always. Remember, you do not have to own the enemy's supplies to keep them from him, but it helps.

[Gray Fox]

It's all about the base.

I mean the supply base of course. MO has a depot in Springfield and Rolla. If you destroy these, then the Union has a tough time getting anything done. A depot can be rebuilt, but the GS/Ammo that was in the first depot was also destroyed and takes time to stock up again. A single cavalry or ranger or partisan in a region will stop supplies from moving through. So a large Union army can charge across the state and then fall back or starve.

Line infantry fight better than Militia or conscripts. They have a higher discipline number that often allows them to fire first in the combat rounds. So your line infantry is 100% and fires first. The enemy is now 90% and fires back, and so on. This is an obvious advantage. If your Division has 14 infantry, two cavalry and a sharpshooter, then you have more combat regiments than someone with 4 artillery batteries in his Division. Put all of your artillery in a separate Division by themselves. You get enough artillery batteries to make two Divisions of 8-9 batteries each without building any. So one of your 3-stars in an army stack with three Divisions that have as many line infantry as you can get and an artillery Division should be able to go toe-to-toe with any starting Union stack.

A numerically larger force may cause a smaller force to withdraw, but it won't necessarily have a combat advantage. Click on an army and then click on the terrain icon of the map filter on the left side of the screen. Now cursor over a region where you expect that army to fight. The menu shows you how many of your elements get to participate in the combat. You can put your entire military in one stack, but only a few dozen elements will get to fight in any one round. So, put a force together equal to the numbers allowed with your best leader and attack with line infantry, heavy guns and enough cavalry to outmatch your opponent. This is how to win battles.

Why are you fighting for MO? Take D.C. Build an army to take D.C. right from the first opportunity. Your best army stack sitting in Leesburg is a threat that the Union must answer by garrisoning the capital with a counter-force. If he doesn't have a 2k power army entrenched in Prince George under a good leader, then he has left the door open to you. You can take the capital in 1861 if you are ready. A Union army listening to Lincoln's speeches at the White House won't trouble you elsewhere. Good luck!

[Rod Smart]

I have to say, it hasn't been pretty. Johnny Reb has been repeatedly knocked around by Billy Yank. The kill ratio over is 2-1 and I've been out maneuvered in both the Far West and Missouri.

as Gray Fox noted - the heck with those places.

Destroy as many depots and forts/outposts as you safely can, and sit inside the comforts of El Paso and Fayetteville while your opponent foolishly expends resources "conquering" the empty wastes of New Mexico and Kansas.

----------------------------

as my chiropractor says: your posture is all messed up.

If you are advancing against an enemy force, by definition you are attacking. You are hamstringing yourself by attacking in defensive posture.
The way to force a defensive battle is to get them to attack you. Put yourself in a place that the enemy wants/needs to take.

[Straight Arrow]

Gents,

You give some great advice here; I think it could be summed up with two quotes, "Get there first with the most," and "An army marches on its belly."

But my problem still remains, and my question is only partially answered.

Historically, the South fought many battles against long odds and won. For example, at Chancellorsville, one of Lee's greatest victories, the numbers were Federalists 130,000 Confederates 60,000; at Antietam - USA 75,000 to CSA 37.000; at Gettysburg - USA 94,000 to CSA 71.000; at Chickamauga - USA 65,000 to CSA 44,000 and the list goes on.

My point is, it is a fact the CSA fought battles against long odds, often as the attacker, and won. This was particularly true in the first year or two of the war. As the ghosts of McClellan, Burnside and Hooker can testify, the South attacked over and over at poor odds and beat them.

My question reframed is, do the game combat tables allow for the possibility of the CSA attacking at 1-1 or less and winning?

[Rod Smart]

My question reframed is, do the game combat tables allow for the possibility of the CSA attacking at 1-1 or less and winning?

20,000 volunteers and conscripts under a crap general will not have the same power as 20,000 elite line infantry under a great general.

So yes, the CSA can easily attack at 1-1 (manpower) and win. An elite cavalry half-strength division under Forrest will easily destroy all the garrisons and un-entrenched un-led brigades it runs into.

[Skalpafloi]

My question reframed is, do the game combat tables allow for the possibility of the CSA attacking at 1-1 or less and winning?

Yes, but it's hard to pull off if your opponent is savvier than the likes of McClellan and Burnside.

The key there is to look for a decisive battle with Lee/Jackson in open terrain+clear weather, as frontage there is linked to your generals' ratings. Before your opponent can promote his better generals to army command, you can actually attack enjoying a numerical advantage thanks to the frontage advantage, even though you are not outnumbering him on paper.

Doing this is really a high risk/high reward decision, though. As was the case in the Civil War, those battles WILL cost you dearly, whether you win them or not. Ideally, the only time you want to fight this way is the day you take D.C.

[Gray Fox]

Frontage is the game mechanic that determines how many elements actually fight. Terrain, weather and leader's Strategic rating factor into the final numbers for combat (infantry and cavalry) and support (everything else, but almost entirely artillery) elements. If you click on a particular Leader's stack and press the "7" key, you will get the terrain overlay for the map. You can then cursor over a region where you expect that leader to do combat. You will get a menu with the number of combat and support elements that he can command during any round in that region. Let's say that Butler has a Union stack with 540 combat elements and 150 support elements in a clear terrain, clear weather region. Lee attacks with 54 combat and 15 artillery elements. All of Lee's force are going to fight and only a small fraction of Butler's will in any one round. If Lee chews up enough of the Union troops, then the rest will chain rout. So, victory against seemingly impossible odds can be done.

Of course, the most important factor is your own skill. The horse doesn't win the race, the jockey does.

[Straight Arrow]

Ah yes, as the preacher told the Covenanters when the book snapped shut.

"Now you have the theory. It is time to put it to practice."

Thanks for lifting the fog a bit; sometimes this game makes me feel like a blind man tying to find out what an elphant is like from the little bit I can touch.

[Mickey3D]

My question reframed is, do the game combat tables allow for the possibility of the CSA attacking at 1-1 or less and winning?

The value of your stack is dependent on your leader in three ways :

- Frontage : as explained by GF, a good leader as Lee will allow you to deploy more troops than a bad one like Butler.
- Bonus : The leader in charge of your stack will give a bonus to your troops of 5% per point in his defense/attack ability. E.g. it's 25% for Lee (and it will increase with experience).
- Special abilities : E.g. Longstreet will give a bonus to your entrenched force.

So, two stacks made of the same units (if possible) would definitively not behave the same way depending on their commanding officer.

[Jim-NC]

As to your question of fighting a defensive battle. If you move into a region with enemy control (MC), you must assume your troops will switch to offensive. There is a rule in the game that if the region is 100% MC, then the other side will auto switch to offensive to gain some MC.

The goal is to get the enemy to fight on the ground of your choosing.

[Cardinal Ape]

snip
The key there is to look for a decisive battle with Lee/Jackson in open terrain+clear weather, as frontage there is linked to your generals' ratings. snip

I think I made the mistake of assuming that 'open' terrain meant just clear terrain. Open terrain is clear/prairie/desert/wood. Is that correct?

[Skalpafloi]

Clear/Prairie/Desert/Steppes, for the ones that matter, if I read the game files right. But if you want to go overboard with frontage limits in anything other than clear terrain, you are certainly facing a most whacky war

[Cardinal Ape]

Okay, thanks.

I was mainly concerned about woods terrain (Manassas in particular). The old wiki for the original game lists woods as open.

[BattleVonWar]

I really wanted to add in my my opinion. Historically the Union went after the Confederates. Nearly beat them at Bull Run(which changed a lot right then and there eternally) Then a bit later appointed a very cautious leader in the East. Beloved by his men but not the right man to take Richmond.(the right man to create an Army) With R.E. Lee in command of the Union Army, Richmond would have fallen likely in 1862. Union was on the offensive in history. In this game...(players are not forced or pressured to be on the offensive so soon as history forced) That same reckless spirit that won all those battles also lead to Gettysburg.(a CSA Fredericksburg)

Ideally if the Union is massing Armies, a Proclamation from Lincoln stating you are taking to long(to attack) and a morale penalty would suffice to be historical, perhaps accumulate forcing historical battles? As some complain about the CSA performance in game terms.

regardless: I love free will, and the CSA Generals trump the Union generals EARLY only, that's why I would wait to fight till much later in places

Gents,

You give some great advice here; I think it could be summed up with two quotes, "Get there first with the most," and "An army marches on its belly."

But my problem still remains, and my question is only partially answered.

Historically, the South fought many battles against long odds and won. For example, at Chancellorsville, one of Lee's greatest victories, the numbers were Federalists 130,000 Confederates 60,000; at Antietam - USA 75,000 to CSA 37.000; at Gettysburg - USA 94,000 to CSA 71.000; at Chickamauga - USA 65,000 to CSA 44,000 and the list goes on.

My point is, it is a fact the CSA fought battles against long odds, often as the attacker, and won. This was particularly true in the first year or two of the war. As the ghosts of McClellan, Burnside and Hooker can testify, the South attacked over and over at poor odds and beat them.

My question reframed is, do the game combat tables allow for the possibility of the CSA attacking at 1-1 or less and winning?

[Cardinal Ape]

Lee leading the Union armies? The Dukes of Hazard would have to rename their car....

In game there are three events that punish the Union for practicing sitzkrieg, up to -30 NM. Maybe the first one for not taking Manassas should be a bit harsher.

[DrPostman]

Lee leading the Union armies? The Dukes of Hazard would have to rename their car....

In game there are three events that punish the Union for practicing sitzkrieg, up to -30 NM. Maybe the first one for not taking Manassas should be a bit harsher.

Most of the time I avoid the penalties, but sometimes I ignore
them. Still win the game earlier than I want to by the CSA NM
crashing.

You do know that Lee was offered command of all Union armies
at the start of the war, right? It probably would have lasted just
as long with him in command but imagine the combination of Lee
and Grant on the same side. Speaking of how long the war lasted,
did you guys know Lee had a bit of the prophet in him? He predicted
the war's length to within a few weeks!
"They do not know what they say. If it came to a conflict of arms, the war will
last at least four years. Northern politicians will not appreciate the determination
and pluck of the South, and Southern politicians do not appreciate the numbers,
resources, and patient perseverance of the North. Both sides forget that we are
all Americans. I foresee that our country will pass through a terrible ordeal, a
necessary expiation, perhaps, for our national sins."
--Robert E Lee, May 5th, 1861

[Cardinal Ape]

Yup, I did know that. But I have never really taken it as a serious 'what if', hence the joke about the car named after him. Though if Lee was in total charge of the Union army from the start then I would not hesitate to wager that he could have gotten the job done before mid '64. The odds wouldn't be that bad.

The better question is: How much damage could Nathan Bedford Forrest have done to the Union supply lines if he was outfitted with the General Lee? No doubt that it is a question that has puzzled most of the esteemed historians that frequent this forum.

[Durk]

There comes a point where I just cannot read the forum with silent indifference, this is such a time. So, for what it is worth -

I do suspect Forrest would be as interested in running moonshine as were the Dukes in their General Lee. So much for supply. The Union would be rolling in Moonshine.

However, despite the rumors of R. E. Lee's consideration of an offer from the Union, at the time, no officer viewed the Federal Government as more important than the State Government. Fantasy scenarios regarding R E Lee can, at best, have him serving outside Virginia, his national affiliation. He only wanted to defend the political entity to which he had loyalty - Virginia. The idea of THE United States was forged in this civil war.

[khbynum]

At times, neither can I. By all accounts I've read, Forrest didn't drink, though I seem to remember a reference to him taking a nip when a surgeon had to dig a pistol ball out of his back.

As to that car, no true Southern man would ever give a car that name.

[Rod Smart]

The better question is: How much damage could Nathan Bedford Forrest have done to the Union supply lines if he was outfitted with the General Lee? No doubt that it is a question that has puzzled most of the esteemed historians that frequent this forum.

Ask Harry Turtledove

[Straight Arrow]

Khybnum is right.

[color="#FFFF00"]"As to that car, no true Southern man would ever give a car that name."[/color]

My eldest son is a student in a Southern law school; when I last went to visit him, he was watching Gettysburg with a roomful of students. To my amazement, every time Lee came on the screen, they stood up. I do believe, if they had been wearing hats, they would removed them.

Who said the war was over?

[Gray Fox]

Lee's wife was the only surviving child of George Wasnington's step-grandson. It was not beyond his destiny to have become a President of the U.S.A. I suppose he can be forgiven for one or two bad choices.

[Cardinal Ape]

There comes a point where I just cannot read the forum with silent indifference, this is such a time. So, for what it is worth -

I do suspect Forrest would be as interested in running moonshine as were the Dukes in their General Lee. So much for supply. The Union would be rolling in Moonshine.

Thank you for responding.. If that absurd attempt at humor failed to illicit any response from this forum then I'd start issuing Turing tests...

[khbynum]

Turing test, eh? As far as I am concerned you're a troll and that's how I will respond to you in the future.

[Cardinal Ape]

Turing test, eh? As far as I am concerned you're a troll and that's how I will respond to you in the future.

Thank you for taking time out of your day to insult me. I was under the impression that was something only trolls did.

If I have offended because of my lack of seriousness or not being hardcore enough about history then forgive me for trying to have fun in forum about a video game.

[Durk]

You do know, Cardinal Ape, that it is ok to have fun on the forum, but being only frivolous minimizes your presence. This is a game which actually does explore history. It is not simply an imaginary journey into the void. I think that game was called 'No Exit." Do as you wish, but if you wish to be quickly irrelevant to the fine students of history who do engage this game, you possess the tools to do so.