Ace wrote:I was mostly surprised his plan includes giving up on Island No 10 and FtDonelson without a fight. They are easy to hold while KY is not in the game. By blocking 2 choke points, you can block a wast area of Confederacy.
My experience with 1.02. patch is you have to industrialize as CSA or you are dead meat. You have to bring up those arsenals and ironworks. I even ignore investing in rail network in order to get the money to buy ironworks and arsenals.
In CW2, as opposed to ACW1, you can choose where to industrialize and what to buy. You can really beef up your economy this way.
Ace wrote:I was mostly surprised his plan includes giving up on Island No 10 and FtDonelson without a fight. They are easy to hold while KY is not in the game. By blocking 2 choke points, you can block a wast area of Confederacy.
My experience with 1.02. patch is you have to industrialize as CSA or you are dead meat. You have to bring up those arsenals and ironworks. I even ignore investing in rail network in order to get the money to buy ironworks and arsenals.
In CW2, as opposed to ACW1, you can choose where to industrialize and what to buy. You can really beef up your economy this way.
veji1 wrote:Ace, do you say that because from late 62/63 onwards the CSA starts having trouble supplying his large forces ? Or is it a force building question ?
Ace wrote:I was mostly surprised his plan includes giving up on Island No 10 and FtDonelson without a fight. They are easy to hold while KY is not in the game. By blocking 2 choke points, you can block a wast area of Confederacy.
My experience with 1.02. patch is you have to industrialize as CSA or you are dead meat. You have to bring up those arsenals and ironworks. I even ignore investing in rail network in order to get the money to buy ironworks and arsenals.
In CW2, as opposed to ACW1, you can choose where to industrialize and what to buy. You can really beef up your economy this way.
Ol' Choctaw wrote:I didn’t get the idea that he was giving up on the forts. Just that they were exposed and didn’t hold out long.
That part is true. Unless you build depots and send a division or more they are not going to last. If you do send those forces you may still lose them to stronger Union forces.
Mickey3D wrote:Banks plan seems very ambitious and I'm very interested to see if he will be able to cope with his timeline.
bugwar wrote:Do you think an Eastern victory has a reasonable chance for the rebels given the difficulty in taking D.C.?
Jim-NC wrote:I find it ineresting just how much these 2 know of each other. In many cases, it's as if they are reading each other's thoughts/reports. For example, both players have called for an attack on New Orleans in the same timeframe. So both are preparing for a major clash in the same place at the same time. They even have the same priorities in other areas.
Ol' Choctaw wrote:Winchester-Huntsville gives the same river crossing bonus. The problem is that the Union can send fleets at least as far as Decatur. I have not tested it but I think that warships can’t travel between there and the next river region.
Again, I find it disappointing that Thompson’s Division is not in Southeast Missouri, late June 61. It is not strong enough to capture Cairo but would make the Union nervous none the less.
Ace wrote:I do not think that terrain and fort/city bonuses add up. Either you are outside in the terrain, or you are in fort. So, putting fort in swamp will not increase much ordinary swamp terrain defender bonus.
If you are in lvl 3 entrenchments, and have guns from Decaturville to Decatour, I doubt Union will sail ship all the way to Stevenson if they do not have the port where they can recover cohesion.
Q-Ball wrote:There are many other spots like this where the river was probably navigable by steamboat, but NOT in a military sense. If the Union Navy could actually sail to Austin TX, Macon GA, or Montgomery AL, why didn't they? Probably because they actually couldn't.......
In the same year, the McCall brother established a barge-building operation at Macon. The first steamboat arrived on the river in 1829. During the 19th century, the river provided the principal water navigation route for Macon, allowing the development of the cotton industry in the surrounding region.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests