User avatar
Straight Arrow
General
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2014 5:44 pm
Location: Washington State

Mon Jul 25, 2016 4:30 pm

Cardinal Ape wrote:If you are interested my current opponent is writing an ARR here. Its in German so you may need to use google translate. I'm not sure how much he shows of my movements or if there is much to be learned there at all. But he says he has never lost as the South, so one of us braggarts is going down. I have a few complete games backed up somewhere, if you'd like a look throw me PM.


Great game and very skillful play by our hairy eminence.

However, the pace makes Sitzkrieg looks lighting fast.

Check out the ARR; it is most excellent, but soooooo slow.
Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one's youth.

vicberg
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:18 am

Tue Jul 26, 2016 1:42 am

I'd love to play this guy.

vicberg
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:18 am

Tue Jul 26, 2016 2:18 am

A few comments on your game Cardinal with the limited screen shots provided

1) What happened to Grant? Did he die?
2) If CSA is able to secure Alexandria -> Harpers, the way to loosen that up is Norfolk. CSA will generally respond with troops from the Eastern Front, increaseing opportuniies to break the line. Any further south and the CSA may not respond from the East. It's a psyche battle.
3) The Alexandria->Harper's Ferry front line is the most important line in the game for the Rebels. It has to be broken by the Union. If it can't by frontal assault, then maneuver. There's plenty of cities and supply depots in WV to be able to flank south from PA through WV into Shenandoah. If they take this, all production needs to go towards breaking it.
4) Cav raids in the Shenendoah go a long way to loosening up Harper's Ferry
5) I love taking NO, but hate expanding out from it. Terrible terrain and too many ways to cut supply. I like to take it, hold it with a division and use troops to invade Mobile or other places. If they look like they are mounting an assault, my troops are heavily entrenched by then and I can transfer to reinforce NO. The goal is to tie up their troops. Stretch them.
6) You did an awesome job in MO with the exception of the 600 monster division under Shelby. That one needs a small corp to kill and lots of rail.

User avatar
Cardinal Ape
General of the Army
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:59 am

Thu Jul 28, 2016 3:38 am

Straight Arrow wrote:Great game and very skillful play by our hairy eminence.

However, the pace makes Sitzkrieg looks lighting fast.

Check out the ARR; it is most excellent, but soooooo slow.


Thanks. Yes, the game is currently going at a near real-time pace, around two weeks a turn... Sometimes I wonder if I am playing against George R. R. Martin.

It is really tough to play at that pace. And to be honest, if I didn't give him my word that I wouldn't bail on him, I would bail now. I know he has tried to write a few AARs before, but they came to a premature end. Hopefully this one will have a proper finish, though it may take till 2018..

vicberg wrote:A few comments on your game Cardinal with the limited screen shots provided

1) What happened to Grant? Did he die?
2) If CSA is able to secure Alexandria -> Harpers, the way to loosen that up is Norfolk. CSA will generally respond with troops from the Eastern Front, increaseing opportuniies to break the line. Any further south and the CSA may not respond from the East. It's a psyche battle.
3) The Alexandria->Harper's Ferry front line is the most important line in the game for the Rebels. It has to be broken by the Union. If it can't by frontal assault, then maneuver. There's plenty of cities and supply depots in WV to be able to flank south from PA through WV into Shenandoah. If they take this, all production needs to go towards breaking it.
4) Cav raids in the Shenendoah go a long way to loosening up Harper's Ferry
5) I love taking NO, but hate expanding out from it. Terrible terrain and too many ways to cut supply. I like to take it, hold it with a division and use troops to invade Mobile or other places. If they look like they are mounting an assault, my troops are heavily entrenched by then and I can transfer to reinforce NO. The goal is to tie up their troops. Stretch them.
6) You did an awesome job in MO with the exception of the 600 monster division under Shelby. That one needs a small corp to kill and lots of rail.


1) Hmmm? My opponent must be quite behind on the AAR... The last I recall Grant being off the front was when I recalled him to Cairo. Originally, he had been sent to secure the MO build pool in New Madrid. In the battle the CSA forces got boned by the retreat rolls and ended up retreating north... One thing led to another, and after a few turns of trying to chase the force down I realized that I was caught in tunnel vision.

After Grant caught his breath in Cairo, he charged out again and has been active since. I won't spoil the AAR, but I will say that we managed to have the best recreation of the battle of Shiloh that I have seen.

2,3&4) Right from the start I set the goal of taking the historical Union objectives for mid 62'. With a lot of my early forces going west, the VA front went silent after Alexandria. Each time I opened up a new front out west the CSA responded in kind, diverting her forces out west. After Anaconda, the Peninsular campaign began - Your points are fairly accurate predictions, though my opponent did not react like I figured he would. He may be winning the mind battle, if I was more aggressive and risky with my post-landing maneuvers, Richmond might be mine, but I was overly cautious. With the Union having such an economic advantage I don't feel an urgent need to win the war now. One major mistake by me and things could turn right back around.

5) I feel the same way. I ended up taking Vicksburg also. I did it because it was historical and now I have divisions stuck defending it. I really don't think it is worth the effort. Vicksburg makes very little, it is nice to have a clear river, but it's loss doesn't hurt the CSA much. Plus, it threw me through a loop when Union generals started spawning there instead of Cairo and other places.

6) I love some early action with Lyons out west. But Shelby.... speak not of him. Union high command does not recognize the existence of him and his supposed ghost cavalry. Its tough to let him run rampant out west, but as you say, it would take too many resources to put an end to his raids. The Union forces in the theater have been hunkered down on the supply lines while Shelby's troops get fat raiding Iowa.. The goal was to shut down any Confederate recruitment in MO, as long as that is maintained then I'm fine with Shelby rampaging the country side.

vicberg
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:18 am

Fri Jul 29, 2016 12:15 am

I can't tell from his ARR what is actually going on. I agree on Vicksburg. I took it in a game with Tyler. I then realized what a waste it was. The only benefit is that there's a rail line out of Jackson, the ONLY rail line into NO and if taken can stop any possible counter attack on NO. The only reason to take Vicksburg, IMO.

vicberg
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:18 am

Fri Jul 29, 2016 12:17 am

CSA is tough. Double tough. If the Union completely fails, the CSA has the ability to capitalize, but it really requires Union (poor) play to happen.

akmatov
Conscript
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 12:03 am

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

Sat Dec 31, 2016 9:13 am

Considering buying and the discussion of better balance sounded promising. However, it seems to have just stopped and nothing accomplished.

is it the general consensus that the CSA has no possible chance of winning given a claimed overwhelming USA advantage?

User avatar
DrPostman
Posts: 3005
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:39 pm
Location: Memphis, TN
Contact: Website Facebook Twitter YouTube

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

Sat Dec 31, 2016 8:26 pm

akmatov wrote:Considering buying and the discussion of better balance sounded promising. However, it seems to have just stopped and nothing accomplished.

is it the general consensus that the CSA has no possible chance of winning given a claimed overwhelming USA advantage?

It's a game where you win by not losing as badly as they did. It was never a war in the South's favor. The
only chance they had was at the very beginning. After that it was just a slow slide. This is a very realistic
wargame, and if you don't want that you can tweak the settings and make it very easy for the South to
conquer the North. I want a tough game though, so I don't set the AI to anything less than Lieutenant and
I give the AI quite a few advantages.

Return to “Civil War II”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests