User avatar
Mickey3D
Posts: 1569
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:09 pm
Location: Lausanne, Switzerland

Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:14 pm

Ace wrote:They can create a situation where because of ZOC, enemy is forced to take circumnavigate routes

By changing your force you can avoid being blocked by the ZOC : removing some of your supply wagons allow you sometimes to move farther.


It may be just me, but I never loved the forts. They are too positional for me

Same for me, I think March to the Sound of Gun is a much better strategy especially with leader like Lee (give bonus to strategic rating and so increase likehood of MSG)

User avatar
Ace
Posts: 3498
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:33 pm
Location: Croatia

Thu Jan 16, 2014 8:16 am

Soundoff has just ordered assault to FtSumter with 1 brigade. What do you think he will do with rest of Carolina Department. Go East or West? What would you do?
On another note, he said he ordered all brigands to the Gulf. I would wait a turn for Charleston brig to move. Running the fort Sumter could be risky business even with its guns depleted as they are at the start.

User avatar
Ebbingford
Posts: 6112
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:22 pm
Location: England

Thu Jan 16, 2014 10:06 am

I would wait a turn before trying to run past Sumter too.
It also sounds like he is going to stack all his brigs in one stack. I think it is better to keep them all stacked singly, only one will be engaged at a time then, and if they have avoid combat stance they can sometimes survive being attacked.
"Umbrellas will not be opened in the presence of the enemy." Duke of Wellington before the Battle of Waterloo, 1815.

"Top hats will not be worn in the Eighth Army" Field-Marshal Viscount Montgomery of Alamein K.G.


Image

User avatar
Ace
Posts: 3498
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:33 pm
Location: Croatia

Thu Jan 16, 2014 10:21 am

If stacked separately, they have higher evasion status, but if stacked together, damage is spread to more ships, so mostly cohesion is damaged, not hits. Durability rate of brigs is increased this way, especially if the stack is commanded by leader with naval evasion trait.

He has not chosed to select all financial options. They regenerate every 14 turns. I only do not know if they regenerate on the 14th turn after being selected or they regenerate every 14th turn in a year. If the first is true, it is important to select them all as soon as you get them. If the latter is true, it would be best to select them the turn before big purchase. We'll see in the AAR which is true.

User avatar
bugwar
Sergeant
Posts: 95
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 5:04 pm

Schoolin

Thu Jan 16, 2014 2:17 pm

Ebbingford wrote:I think it is better to keep them all stacked singly, only one will be engaged at a time then, and if they have avoid combat stance they can sometimes survive being attacked.



Ace wrote:If stacked separately, they have higher evasion status, but if stacked together, damage is spread to more ships, so mostly cohesion is damaged, not hits. Durability rate of brigs is increased this way, especially if the stack is commanded by leader with naval evasion trait.

He has not chosed to select all financial options. They regenerate every 14 turns. I only do not know if they regenerate on the 14th turn after being selected or they regenerate every 14th turn in a year. If the first is true, it is important to select them all as soon as you get them. If the latter is true, it would be best to select them the turn before big purchase. We'll see in the AAR which is true.


And learning stuff like this is one reason to follow AAR’s.
:thumbsup:

User avatar
Citizen X
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 757
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:34 pm

Thu Jan 16, 2014 5:35 pm

Ace wrote:Soundoff has just ordered assault to FtSumter with 1 brigade. What do you think he will do with rest of Carolina Department. Go East or West? What would you do?
On another note, he said he ordered all brigands to the Gulf. I would wait a turn for Charleston brig to move. Running the fort Sumter could be risky business even with its guns depleted as they are at the start.


I think he will go West with them to get Cairo. Bringing them into the Far West would take too long and the only other option I see is securing Norfolk, wich is not that timecritical. Can't move throug NC anyways.

I usually wait one turn to move that brig, too. And naturally stack them. Not doing this would mean losing them wich the CSN definitly can't afford.

A sidenote on forts. Yes, they are stationary, but then again that is an advantage, too. It could mean to leave a critical position like Fredericksburg only guarded with a division while the rest of the corps can jump to an emergency elsewhere. Relying on them is foolish while having them is a nice addon. :)
"I am here already.", said the hedgehog to the hare.

User avatar
Ace
Posts: 3498
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:33 pm
Location: Croatia

Sat Jan 18, 2014 9:48 am

I think he has set his mind on defense. I do not think he will go on to Cairo.

On another note, did you noticed how Banks did not proclaim total blockade. While it gives saves him some NM and VP, total blockade brings in couple of free blockade ship squadrons. If he is going for Anaconda strategy, blockade is a must do thing.

User avatar
Citizen X
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 757
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:34 pm

Sat Jan 18, 2014 11:30 am

As it seems he didn't move them this turn they most likely are set for Virginia, Norfolk being the most likely destination, maybe a brigade to Wilmington, as he seems tp know his counterpart will attack there, too.

In ACW you wanted to keep ahead with VP as long as possible, thus not lose too many towns. Here the Union has the upper hand in VP from start (most surprisingly). Keeping your purse close on NM and VP is of not so much importance for either side at start. Not more important than getting things going. They are just another currency to build your armies and I believe on spending them. As CSA I usually use everything at hand even drafts and requisitions, all of them. Allthough I tend to wait untill loyalty is 100% in Virginia a few turns later and requisitions I use on some remote area of course.
"I am here already.", said the hedgehog to the hare.

Q-Ball
Lieutenant
Posts: 134
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2013 9:14 pm

Sat Jan 18, 2014 2:16 pm

Soundoff is building 6LB batteries in order to construct forts at Corinth and Norfolk. This brings up a question for the CSA: Where should you build forts?

Building forts is expensive. Using the Redoubt Card is much, much cheaper, but you have to wait until early 1862, and IIRC, the CSA only gets one. But IMO, CSA should have an advance plan to use that.

Building a fort in Norfolk is wise, IMO. In fact, such a good idea building it in 1861 is probably worth the extra expense.

Building in Corinth, however, doesn't strike me as a good idea. Even if you wanted to build there, why not just wait for a Redoubt card, and save the money?

Where would you guys use the Redoubt card, assuming you already built a fort at Norfolk? Here are some candidates for me:

--Hopefield: Helps protect Memphis. Hopefield helps guard the river. Swamp hex, you can rail guns there, depot right behind.
--Bolivar: Controls the junction of Mississippi and Arkansas River. Pretty much can only be landed on amphibiously, takes too long to march to
--New Orleans: 2nd line of defenses if the forts at the head of the passses are taken

THose are my top 3, curious what others think

User avatar
Citizen X
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 757
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:34 pm

Sat Jan 18, 2014 3:57 pm

I start building forts at Norfolk and New Orleans and send some troops there asap. Besides Richmond, thats the two cities I don't want to lose. So New Orleans it is not.

As an amphibious landing can get past all forts and storm an unwary Memphis, I guess this would be a could point. Bolivar certainly is an option, although by the time it sees some action around it might not be as relevant as it appears now. I tend to think that forts should be build at places that have a worth in themselves, because positions might get outmanoeuvred and made irrelevant and starved.

Culpeper could become helpful in defending Virginia, as might be the case with Covington and Charlottesville. I could also add Mobile, Tallahassee and Little Rock.
"I am here already.", said the hedgehog to the hare.

User avatar
Ace
Posts: 3498
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:33 pm
Location: Croatia

Sat Jan 18, 2014 6:47 pm

Maybe, being an old AACW player, he just forgot that in CW2 he can built redoubts as well as forts. Redoubts are lot cheaper. The problem with forts/redoubts/stockades is this: You have to decide do you keep forces outside or inside. For example, if the fort is setup at Norfolk, and you put your troops inside, Union can land units in Norfolk region without opposition - no amphibious landing. That is a big plus for keeping units in the field as opposed to in the fort

Q-Ball
Lieutenant
Posts: 134
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2013 9:14 pm

Sun Jan 19, 2014 10:28 pm

Redoubts are cheaper, only downside is that you have to wait until you get a Redoubt card, which is Jan 1862. In my mind, Norfolk is too important to wait. New Orleans, on the other hand, that's probably OK to hold off and save the $$$$.

Soundoff and Banks are doing the Harpers Ferry thing. The way units unlock, the Union can pretty much be guaranteed to re-take Harpers with the Washington Brigade. When the Valley army unfreezes it gets more interesting there.

I wonder what Soundoff is going to do around Island 10

moni kerr
Lieutenant
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 11:19 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Mon Jan 20, 2014 2:10 am

Norfolk gets the fort first. After that it's usually Paducah for me. Pierre LA looks like a good spot as well to protect the lower Mississippi especially if New Orleans falls. It fronts 3 river regions to the west which gives two shots at any fleet that try run up the Miss. Either a fort or a well entrenched force with heavy guns should do a lot of damage.

I'm starting to make heavy use of the regional decision cards. Eastern TN is vulnerable to partisans plus the Union can see into the regions along the rail line. The development card is useful here for raising loyalty to over 50% CSA thereby preventing the Union from raising partisans as well increasing his FOW in the area. I also use the entrenchment card and the martial law card. It's well worth it in order to limit the spawning of partisans.

User avatar
Ace
Posts: 3498
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:33 pm
Location: Croatia

Mon Jan 20, 2014 5:54 am

There are many regions with loyalty <50%. Do you develop them all - CSA does not have enough development cards? I usually beef up only Knoxville loyalty.

Have you noticed how these two players role play and not min max every decision they make. For example, Soundoff made a draft Rgd on Richmond, when he could have used the same card on Fredericksburg or on even some less important place to minimize loyalty hit effects. Bravo for them.

Banks is planning to retake Norfolk asap. Definitely interesting strategy that would throw me of balance if I were playing the Confederates, but I do not see it how he can do it until more units are mustered. Navy and 1 marine regiment cannot do it alone since Norfolk has at least 3 regiment of infantry and 2 artillery batteries of locked troops guarding it. He will need to buy more units if he wants to play aggressively. I haven't seen him make any artillery purchases. Early on, investing heavily in artillery can reap some great rewards for the Union.

So far, Soundoff has let him cross into Charleston,MI without contesting the river. In the first few months, until first tinclads are launched, CSA can twart such expeditions with its gunboats. Every turn Union plan is thwarted is a small victory for the Confederacy. Thwarting his plans and keeping you opponent on its toes - it is the best strategy you can have.
For example, Soundoff said his militia move to Maryland was pointless because he was thrown out the very next turn. But I think it was not. It has shifted Banks attention from the Fredericksburg, VA (which could have easily fallen to the same Union troops) to the Valley. If I have to chose which is more important to defend, I would always choose Fredericksburg,VA. That is what I call directing your opponent to fight where I want, and not where he wants to.

User avatar
bugwar
Sergeant
Posts: 95
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 5:04 pm

Deep Water Fleets Bypassing New Orleans?

Mon Jan 20, 2014 11:59 am

I saw the following in another forum (Big arrows in the picture are my addition) and it struck me as odd.


Image

That led to the following commentary:


ORIGINAL: bugwar

Is there a historical reference that identifies the channel that allows the back door past New Orleans for ocean going ships?
I have been looking, and the only references I see for bypassing New Orleans by water are with shallow draft (about four foot) craft.


ORIGINAL: Ol Choctaw

That is true. It took shallow draft steamboats to traverse that route. It should not be open to warships and even naval transports.

War ships could not take that route in AACW. I had thought it was the same for CWII but never checked.



Which leads me to the following:
[color="#00FF00"]
In that case, I suppose that there should be a house rule to deny that route to deep draft (Ocean going) ships.
That way the Rebels in New Orleans only have to worry about the Mississippi channel.
[/color]

Thoughts by others on this?

User avatar
Ace
Posts: 3498
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:33 pm
Location: Croatia

Mon Jan 20, 2014 1:06 pm

I thought this route is allowed only for brigs and transports? Can you verify are those regions coastal or shallow?

Q-Ball
Lieutenant
Posts: 134
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2013 9:14 pm

Mon Jan 20, 2014 2:18 pm

The route past Plaquemine is Shallow; it's closed to Ocean-going warships. I was able to get to Baton Rouge, because I had taken both forts at the Head of the Passes. I used Route #1, the Historical Route.

User avatar
Citizen X
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 757
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:34 pm

Mon Jan 20, 2014 2:27 pm

About the houserule, I have always found that it is most fun to keep stuff reasonable in front of a historic and geographical background. Route 2 seems ok to me actually, whereas I personall< wouldn't take oceanships past New Orleans. It is always difficult in games like that if you need houserules for everything. I had the luck of finding a majority of opponents who know this.

Grand Lake is Coastal as is the Mississippi up to Port Hudson. Only the Western Branch next to Plaquemine is shallow. That doesn't mean however that on the real Mississippi you can navigate with hundreds of vessels.

As a sidenote on the picture, New Orleans seems to be undefended. I personally wouldn't try that move against a New Orleans controlling the river. I had too much sorrow to get cut off my lines of communication.
"I am here already.", said the hedgehog to the hare.

User avatar
bugwar
Sergeant
Posts: 95
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 5:04 pm

My Mistake

Mon Jan 20, 2014 3:20 pm

Q-Ball wrote:The route past Plaquemine is Shallow; it's closed to Ocean-going warships. I was able to get to Baton Rouge, because I had taken both forts at the Head of the Passes. I used Route #1, the Historical Route.


Yea, I saw your explanation in the other forum.
I was wrong in my interpretation of your earlier post.
My bad. :crying:

Q-Ball
Lieutenant
Posts: 134
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2013 9:14 pm

Mon Jan 20, 2014 3:53 pm

Citizen X wrote:About the houserule, I have always found that it is most fun to keep stuff reasonable in front of a historic and geographical background. Route 2 seems ok to me actually, whereas I personall< wouldn't take oceanships past New Orleans. It is always difficult in games like that if you need houserules for everything. I had the luck of finding a majority of opponents who know this.

As a sidenote on the picture, New Orleans seems to be undefended. I personally wouldn't try that move against a New Orleans controlling the river. I had too much sorrow to get cut off my lines of communication.


Not to hijack, but this came up in my AAR. In terms of HR, I've tried to keep it reasonable vs. Gunnulf; I actually backed the game up a couple times after an aggressive naval move, like running Ft. Sumter and landing on Charleston. I agreed that was not realistic IRL. We also put a rule in place against Boats going too far up the Tennessee River, or any river for that matter, like the ones into Central Georgia or Texas; IRL, those were not militarily navigable.

In this specific example above, New Orleans was defended. I didn't have to worry about supplies that way, though, because I specifically landed on Berwick and Plaquemine to take care of that. I knew they were unoccpuied, as I had scouted them via ship. You can trace supply Berwick-Plaquemine-Baton Rouge quite well. I put Depots at all 3 points and had plenty. We took New Orleans later via overland march from north of town.

veji1
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1271
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:27 pm

Mon Jan 20, 2014 5:50 pm

Q-Ball wrote:Not to hijack, but this came up in my AAR. In terms of HR, I've tried to keep it reasonable vs. Gunnulf; I actually backed the game up a couple times after an aggressive naval move, like running Ft. Sumter and landing on Charleston. I agreed that was not realistic IRL. We also put a rule in place against Boats going too far up the Tennessee River, or any river for that matter, like the ones into Central Georgia or Texas; IRL, those were not militarily navigable.

In this specific example above, New Orleans was defended. I didn't have to worry about supplies that way, though, because I specifically landed on Berwick and Plaquemine to take care of that. I knew they were unoccpuied, as I had scouted them via ship. You can trace supply Berwick-Plaquemine-Baton Rouge quite well. I put Depots at all 3 points and had plenty. We took New Orleans later via overland march from north of town.


I must say I really like your move around New Orleans QBall, and it had a great sort of historical feeling to it (ie manouver etc...). I suppose if the CSA player wants to prevent the Union from sailing straight up the Mississippi, he could do it with well entrenched guns set to bombard ?

Q-Ball
Lieutenant
Posts: 134
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2013 9:14 pm

Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:31 pm

veji1 wrote:I must say I really like your move around New Orleans QBall, and it had a great sort of historical feeling to it (ie manouver etc...). I suppose if the CSA player wants to prevent the Union from sailing straight up the Mississippi, he could do it with well entrenched guns set to bombard ?


Thanks, and maybe this now does belong here in terms of what the CSA should do in this region defensively?

First, I think building a fort in New Orleans is a must-do. You can probably wait until Jan '62 and use a Redoubt card, but I wouldn't wait past that. I think it's also a good idea to put an extra brigade in one of the down-river forts, like Ft. St. Phillip; this will force the Union to use a large force to take it.

Second, it might be a good idea to put a brigade, plus a 20-lb artillery unit, in Plaquemine sometime in 1862, and have them dig-in.

I think there has to be HR in every game that prevents the Union from making amphib landings in a spot by running past forts. Maybe the rule should be that you must be able to trace "normal" supply there, in order to land there. That would allow landings in places like Jacksonville or ports that don't have forts protecting them. Otherwise, you have to clear the forts in order to land. This would prevent what you can do in-game pretty easily: Run the forts, and land on a spot that you know will have enough local supplies to sustain the troops anyway.

Such a HR would NOT have prevented the landing I made, since I had a supply trace through Berwick, etc, on top of the fact that the Head of the Passes was cleared. But it would have force me to clear all the forts at Charleston first, which I am in the process of doing right now.

Another problem is that shore-based batteries are really vulnerable to bombardment by armored ships. If you run past a 20-lb battery with Ironclads, the 20-lb'ers will take damage, and the Ironclads won't. That's a problem, IMO, and another reason HR need to limit the ability of the Union to move around past batteries. Otherwise, shore-based batteries are close to useless. Again, Ironclads IRL DID go past shore batteries without damage, so that part is OK; what is needed is a restriction on what the Union can do with that. What you shouldn't be able to do is run transports past those batteries, but you can in game.

moni kerr
Lieutenant
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 11:19 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Tue Jan 21, 2014 1:10 am

Ace wrote:There are many regions with loyalty <50%. Do you develop them all - CSA does not have enough development cards? I usually beef up only Knoxville loyalty.

One card available, so make it work. It takes 9 turns, but once it runs it's course it can be replayed. The martial law card appears to be single use each year. The entrenchment card doesn't give a big boost to loyalty and you do need to use 3 inf regiments not militia. The most vulnerable regions are those with towns and railroads. Most of east TN has 40%-41% loyalty so getting them to 51% won't take many repeat efforts.

Have you noticed how these two players role play and not min max every decision they make. For example, Soundoff made a draft Rgd on Richmond, when he could have used the same card on Fredericksburg or on even some less important place to minimize loyalty hit effects. Bravo for them.

To each his own. I don't role play my wargames. I use the tools available although I do try to retain some historical flavour. Mostly the AEGOD game engine does a good job of imposing the historical era. Players who try "blitzkrieg" in AACW or CW2 are just begging to be beaten.

Banks is planning to retake Norfolk asap. Definitely interesting strategy that would throw me of balance if I were playing the Confederates, but I do not see it how he can do it until more units are mustered. Navy and 1 marine regiment cannot do it alone since Norfolk has at least 3 regiment of infantry and 2 artillery batteries of locked troops guarding it. He will need to buy more units if he wants to play aggressively. I haven't seen him make any artillery purchases. Early on, investing heavily in artillery can reap some great rewards for the Union.

I agree, he can't retake Norfolk this early. The garrison by itself should be enough to stop a brigade or even two. With the current game engine he should not be surprised to see a militia garrison spawn in the town when he begins a siege. One more unit to bolster the defense.

Every turn Union plan is thwarted is a small victory for the Confederacy. Thwarting his plans and keeping you opponent on its toes - it is the best strategy you can have.

That's my general CSA strategy as well.

User avatar
Ace
Posts: 3498
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:33 pm
Location: Croatia

Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:44 am

It's been a while since we commented about those two guys fighting it out. So, far most of the fighting has been around Harper's Ferry. Soundoff has managed to take it, but still does not hold total MC of the area. What would you do if you were Banks, would you rail McDowell army to the area and try to overwhelm Beauregard before CSA gets total control of the area?

Q-Ball
Lieutenant
Posts: 134
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2013 9:14 pm

Thu Mar 06, 2014 5:58 pm

Ace wrote:It's been a while since we commented about those two guys fighting it out. So, far most of the fighting has been around Harper's Ferry. Soundoff has managed to take it, but still does not hold total MC of the area. What would you do if you were Banks, would you rail McDowell army to the area and try to overwhelm Beauregard before CSA gets total control of the area?


First thing he has to do is get Patterson's forces out of there; they are stuck somewhere they can't do much good. One of the first orders for Union should be to move Patterson's command into central Maryland; it's too easy to screen them out in the mountains and effectively take them off the board. Getting them to Baltimore would be a good start.

I would not rail a huge amount of guys to Frederick, though you need an army there; the Union priority at this point, to me, has to be holding Alexandria. If the Rebs take Alexandria, defending Virginia in 1862 becomes a whole lot simpler, because you can have 3 Corps at Alex-Leesburg-Harpers, with rivers in front and rail linking 2 of the 3 regions. In 1.03 there is a bonus to holding Alexandria until November, those extra units. So it's a priority, even if you lose Baltimore and/or Annapolis temporarily.

The CSA has a real advantage in 1861 in Virginia, one that I don't think Soundoff is pressing enough yet...though that may change

User avatar
Ace
Posts: 3498
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:33 pm
Location: Croatia

Thu Mar 06, 2014 7:15 pm

Excellent comment, and you may be right.
But, from what I grasped Soundoff's style of play, he is very cautious and meticulous in his preparations. He may miss an opportunity now and then, but he'll never make an error most of us are prone to do. For example, in their AACW match, Banks has lost an entire Army in the Maryland early in 61. I can never see Soundoff making the same mistake, he is much more careful.

Q-Ball
Lieutenant
Posts: 134
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2013 9:14 pm

Sat Mar 08, 2014 5:03 pm

Ace wrote:Excellent comment, and you may be right.
But, from what I grasped Soundoff's style of play, he is very cautious and meticulous in his preparations. He may miss an opportunity now and then, but he'll never make an error most of us are prone to do. For example, in their AACW match, Banks has lost an entire Army in the Maryland early in 61. I can never see Soundoff making the same mistake, he is much more careful.


Well, Soundoff is throwing that caution to the winds a bit, looks like he is moving into Maryland. Not sure why he is chasing Patterson westward, I think that's a waste of effort, since Patterson is in a really bad spot anyway, with no base of supplies nearby. Cutting the B&O west of Patterson's army is a good idea, though.

Washington is a pretty tough take, but Baltimore/Annapolis are very doable. You can't hold them, but you can wipe out some forces and cause trouble.

User avatar
Ace
Posts: 3498
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:33 pm
Location: Croatia

2$ bounty

Thu Mar 20, 2014 6:28 am

It is remarkable how much general accepted strategy has changed from the 1.02 patch. Back then, conscripts were so scarce that you used every penny to raise volunteers. And Soundoff seems to play like this, paying 2$ bounty for them. But, 1.03. is so different. Pretty soon, they will run out of money, or they already did, and will not be able to equip all those conscripts that flocked in the promise of the hefty bounty :)

User avatar
Gray Fox
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1520
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:48 pm
Location: Englewood, OH

Thu Mar 20, 2014 5:25 pm

Here's some questions I have. I didn't read the entire thread, so perhaps they are using some kind of HR that would clarify these.

In Soundoff's AAR post #92, he has four cav elements scouting WV and three of these will perform the strategic objective of cutting a rail line from HF to Morgantown WV. Not one single cav element or any other element is scouting D.C. I only see a Union general with a force of power 32 in that region, of course along with Scott's static force. How about if the cav elements were cutting the rail lines from D.C. to any re-enforcements at the production centers on the east coast and scouted Washington?

Soundoff has approximately 2500 power in forces spread out all over northern VA. One stack is going to chase after a Union force that has taken itself out of the picture. Why? What if you concentrated your forces and assaulted Washington? Banks must be spread way too thin with stacks near NO, Monroe and in Alexandria. Opportunity waits for no CSA player.

Correct me if I am wrong, but in 1861 McDowell's stack in Alexandria will not March to the Sound of the Guns to aid repelling an assault on D.C. How is he "defending the capital" by his presence in Alexandria?

Mission creep. It's when you send one element to blow up a fort, and when that doesn't work you send two or three or more...to blow up a fort in the middle of nowhere. Maybe those troops should actually be present for the assault on D.C.?
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!

User avatar
Jim-NC
Posts: 2981
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:21 pm
Location: Near Region 209, North Carolina

Fri Mar 21, 2014 1:11 am

It's the way he wants to play the game. They may have a house rule or something, or maybe a gentleman's agreement about a charge on Washington. I am not sure, but he is being methodical about his moves (mostly) - don't know where that attack with everything idea came from (the turn with the messed up orders).
Remember - The beatings will continue until morale improves.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

Return to “CW2 AARs”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests