Wed Aug 03, 2016 12:46 am
Observations
Playing the CSA is tough. If the Union simply does everything it can to amass troops as fast as possible, it can be a challenge for the CSA. The CSA can do nuisance raiding in attempts to draw off troops, but the union can counter that with Cav Divisions and or small corps to deal with it. Where I've seen the Union fail is NM. This is the key. What John did very well is attack in the beginning which drove down my NM. I also attacked which in turn drove down my NM. Where John went wrong, I believe, is that he should have switched to the defensive, especially when he had Johnston and Jackson camped on Alexandria and Harpers Ferry respectively.
The Union leadership is so bad, the only equalizing factor is trenches. As a Union player, I WANT to see the CSA attacking me. I may lose, but it's the only way to equalize the leadership. I don't want to attack because I have crappy leaders who can't attack hardly at all. This is where the mandatory offensives come into play. Yes as CSA it's good to attack and try to take Alexandria down to Harper's Ferry, but the Union has to attack in 1861 and twice in 1862 or lose -30 NM. That's huge and it forces the Union player's hand. So John attacking me when I had to attack him was in my favor. This game models excellently an aspect of the Civil War. Attacking is more difficult than defending. So force the other guy to attack.
If I were playing CSA and I might consider it, this is where my thoughts lie. The first line of defense and it's worth attacking to get it is the Alexandria-> Harpers Ferry Line. With the Potomac to help, the CSA can defend with lesser numbers of troops and enables pushing troops elsewhere. Put Lee in Leesburg (approriate name) and that's a double tough line to break. The Union can counter with an invasion of Norfolk. There's two choices to defend Norfolk. Put a division into it, having started entrenchments there early or take Ft. Monroe. With Ft. Monroe, Norfolk could be blockaded, but my guess is that the Union could break that blockade, so best bet is to heavily entrench in Norfolk.
[ATTACH]39514[/ATTACH]
If the Alexandria line is broken, the next spot to defend is Culpepper and Frederickburg. They are mutually defensible. So I'd get militia entrenching there from the beginning Level 5+ entrenchments would be difficult to break. The counter is the Union attempts to flank again through WV. The best defense of WV is New Market. The Union can't bypass and one full strength corp could defend there against a LOT. Again a militia entrenching there from the start would help.
[ATTACH]39515[/ATTACH]
It's really the West that's the major pain in the butt for the CSA because there's so much terrain, but thinking about it, there's 3 choke points. IF these choke points can be held, then it will be much more difficult for the Union to break or use it's manpower advantage. 2 of them are in Kentucky, so I'd be seriously tempted to move into Kentucky as early as possible. I think that allowing Kentucky to remain neutral for a year or more actually helps the Union more than the Confederates.
If this line is broken, then I'd go to spot defenses. Nashville, Memphis, Chatanooga, Corinth with militia entrenching from the start. Nashville is a bit exposed as the Union can invade south of it and possibly cut off supply, but with Chatanooga in CSA control, there's a solid supply line into it. So it could be held.
[ATTACH]39516[/ATTACH]
In MO, I think John did quite well here and battling for Jefferson City is a good idea. Ranging out from Jefferson with raiders is a good distraction. Springfiled if Jefferson can't be held and then down to Ozark if Springfield can't be held. In the Far Far West, I think ti's doomed for the CSA unless the Union player doesn't build a chain of depots from Los Angeles down to New Mexico. Then supply is your friend.
-
Attachments
-

-

-
