Page 1 of 2

The Short War: tripax (Union) vs Battle von War (Confederate)

Posted: Wed May 10, 2017 11:10 pm
by tripax
Authors note:
After spending years in the archives, I have collected a spreadsheet containing the forces involved and lost in all of the battle of the short civil war. I've also kept track of the state of origin of the Union soldiers involved. This research has allowed me to write the most scientifically and mathematically focused treatise on the war to date. This is the product of that work.

This history will be organized largely by state and season. I do not plan on providing images. The section of the book will consist of a history of the battles organized by state or region and presented more or less chronologically by the start of action there. As most of the battle within states can be thought of as a single campaign, these will be presented as a single chapter. This means that some chapters will start chronologically at a time before the end of the previous chapter. In a couple instances, this pattern is not followed and a state's history is presented in multiple chapters. This section of the history of the battles will be followed by a statistical analysis of the battles and then by a statistical analysis of the Union Army as it was recruited. For maps of the conflict, I refer you to your own devices.

Re: The Short War: tripax (Union) vs Battle von War (Confederate)

Posted: Thu May 11, 2017 3:58 pm
by tripax
South Carolina:

Battle of Fort Sumter:
On April 12, 1861 Beauregard took Fort Sumter, capturing the fort batteries (no other Union casualties) and losing 184 infantry men.

Re: The Short War: tripax (Union) vs Battle von War (Confederate)

Posted: Thu May 11, 2017 8:43 pm
by tripax

Missouri in 1861 was dominated by Nathaniel Lyon. Lyon moved West from St. Louis to take control of Jefferson in June, 1861, and Hamilton moved south from Cairo and took control of New Madrid in August. The Union also took Poplar Bluff, which was raided in August but not lost. This restricted Confederate ability to raise militia in the state as well as to supply any possible raids from Eastern Arkansas into eastern Missouri and Southern Illinois.

Lyon continued marching west, and by November, Lyon's two divisions were encamped outside of Springfield. Confederate General Albert Sidney Johnston was encamped at Springfield and Lyon's force was sufficient to hold Johnston in place but was not large enough to be likely to win a battle should Lyon advance on Springfield. In response to the standoff, Union General in command of the West, Halleck in Cairo, Illinois, sent Grant with two divisions to join Lyon. Grant's divisions were called back to Cairo, but Grant himself was briefly put in command of Lyon's force.

Battles of Springfield, Missouri:
On November 12, Grant and Lyon attacked Confederate forces under Shelby at Springfield. Grant led 24,253 infantry, 4266 cavalry, and 36 artillery against Confederate forces of 25,051 infantry, 7851 cavalry, and 47 artillery, losing 1785 infantry and 244 cavalry to 1860 infantry and 396 cavalry losses for the Confederates. In winning the first Battle of Springfield, Grant took control of the region.

Grant then returned to Cairo and Lyon led the Union in the second battle of Springfield on December 24, bringing 25033 infantry, 4793 cavalry, and 35 artillery against 26372 infantry, 7115 cavalry, and 48 artillery. The Union won, this time in a defensive battle, losing 6014 infantry, 736 cavalry, and 2 artillery while the Confederates lost 5475 infantry and 854 artillery.

The Union had control of Springfield, and the Confederacy would have to retreat. In retreating, the Confederacy would lose a great deal of cohesion and dealt with supply troubles which resulted in much straggling. Over the winter, Sumner took command of Lyon's force. On February 17, Sumner was in command of Lyon, and the pair caught a cavalry raid in Springfield, which resulted in congratulations for them both and Lyons promotion. As a result, Sumner would soon sent east to take command of forces at Harpers Ferry and Lyon's division was given to a subordinate so that now Major General Lyon could be in a better position to command all forces in southwestern Missouri and, soon, Northern Arkansas. Before the weather improved enough for Sumner to resign command and travel east, in March 1862, Sumner and Lyon moved towards Fayetteville, Arkansas, capturing a Confederate fort in between the two cities.

Battle of the Mississippi River Confluent:
On April 17, 1862, the greatest river battle was fought in Eastern Missouri between Admiral Foote and Semnes in the Mississippi River Confluent near New Madrid, both forces consisting largely of ironclad riverboats. Footes victory, for which he was congratulated, guaranteed Union control of the upper Mississippi and the Ohio, although no ships were sunk on either side.

In the summer of 1862, Quantrill arrived in Missouri with a force of raiders. Springfield was temporarily lost, although a brigade including light infantry from Illinois retook the city after a siege. W. H. L. Wallace led a small cavalry force to chase Quantril across southwester Missouri, meeting the raiders in a skirmish around Springfield. Control of Springfield and the fort between Springfield and Fayetteville as well as a number of forts in Kansas (as will be discussed later) and played a key role in guaranteeing continued supply to Lyon's force in Fayetteville.

Re: The Short War: tripax (Union) vs Battle von War (Confederate)

Posted: Fri May 12, 2017 4:45 pm
by tripax
West Virginia (part one):
The beginnings of Confederate weakness in the war were apparent as early as May 12, 1861 when a Union force under General Milroy sent from Washington, DC took Harper's Ferry, destroying the Confederate garrison stationed there. In control of the ferry, the Union began to build up its forces in the region.

Battle of Clarksburg:
Further West, on June 15, General Lew Wallace led a force of 9715 infantry, 2789 cavalry and 26 artillery against General Floyd in Clarksburg, WV. Wallace lost 510 infantry, 4 cavalry and 2 artillery, while Flloyed's force of 4847 infantry, 2414 cavalry, and 15 artillery lost 676 infantry and 335 cavalry and was forced to retreat from the region, losing an additional regiments worth of men in the initial stages of the retreat. This began the races of West Virginia where retreating Confederate forces and advancing Union forces fought a series of skirmishes. In late June, a Confederate cavalry screen won a small skirmish in Lewisburg, but in July, Stone moved a force of Marylanders into Clarksburg and found and struck Floyd's retreating force agaim, now under General Thompson. Around the same time, Union General Hurlburt moved on Charleston, WV, defeating a segment of Wise' force there with 4500 Ohio and West Virginia men against about 4000 Confederates. In August, Stone won another skirmish against Thompson in the vicinity of Calhoun. In August, Floyd brought 10,000 against McCall in Lewisburg, who retreated, but the Confederate force was soon forced to retreat out of the state and by the end of the year, the Union had divisions under McCall and Hurlburt garrisoning southern West Virginia.

First Battle of Harper's Ferry:
The force under Wallace and Mannsfield, which had won the battle of Clarksburg in June, quickly returned east to garrison Harpers Ferry. On July 12, Joe Johnston attacked the again augmented Union defenses at Hapers Ferry, still under General Milroy. Milroy had 17510 infantry, 1723 cavalry, and 61 artillery and lost 2552 infantry and 122 cavalry. Johnston had 22, 862 infantry, 6120 cavalry, and 43 artillery and lost 3487 infantry and 762 cavalry, and the Union had won the first battle of Harper's Ferry, and its first major battle in the war. By the end of the battle, Milroy's force was tired but not defeated. New soldiers were sent to replace casualties in his regiments and when they saw how slow Milroy's force worked, gave them the nickname, "Milroy's weary boys", a name which they came to embrace due to the hard labor they were willing to endure even after Milroy moved to command another force.

General McClellan served the initial part of the war on the Ohio/West Virginia border training soldiers who succeeded in capturing New Madrid, Missouri and West Virginia. For his success, he was put into command at Harper's Ferry, with Milroy moved to command the forces in southern West Virginia.

Second Battle of Harper's Ferry:
On October 6, Johnston attacked Harper's Ferry again with 30129 infantry, 6163 cavalry, and 41 artillery against McClellan's reinforced corps of 24,678 infantry, 3830 cavalry, and 72 artillery. Johnston lost the battle, 5557 infantry, and 488 cavalry, while McClellan lost 4797 infantry and 244 cavalry, but won the day.

Re: The Short War: tripax (Union) vs Battle von War (Confederate)

Posted: Sun May 14, 2017 8:33 pm
by BattleVonWar
Hopefully not interrupting but this was quite a strong Union opener. I myself haven't used this opener. Aggressive and forward on almost all fronts. Plus successful along with it. 1861 was sort of the backdrop for 1862.

I thought for sure my slight advantage in numbers and leadership might play in Virginia, particularly in Harpers Ferry. The Terrain and entrenchment kept the Union on the heights overlooking my positions. Also I did begin to abandon West Virginia a little later than I thought I had to because the Union showed up here in force. Ultimately Virginia all the whole aside the mandatory battle for Manassas/Bull Run was all Union.

Along with my huge underestimation of this player's capabilities he shows up in Missouri in force as well where I thought that I also had a little bit of wiggle room through the Winter of 1861-62. Enough perhaps to recruit another season of fresh Troops. This was not to be the case and I do not think I could have held it.

The supply chains were expensive and perhaps I should have thought to putting more force in the East. Threaten D.C. but that doesn't really work so well against a Seasoned Union Veteran. That only works against an amateur. D.C. is almost impossible to capture if you fortify it as you should. Therefore this player won every race so far...

Plus he began preparing supply chains(I did not think I had to) I did not think I would be moving so I did not prepare supply chains until too late. This would cost!

including the Far West which I was too worried about. I was most impressed with what the Union did here and they do so quickly. Unlike any other opponent they were aggressive, which is not usually the case. They usually skimp on their devotion of resources to the Far West and focus on the more vital locations. Tripax devoted huge investments in hit from both flanks here causing me to tear in two more quickly than I thought possible. I have faced an invasion of the Far West and Texas before but not one so well planned out and

1861 would lead to 1862 and the only accomplishments I can give myself was holding the basic front of Virginia/Mississippi/and most of my Coastline. I really wanted to give him a game and I think he was pushing me to make a huge error now. I had two choices here now as 1862 dawned on me. Fight in the Tennessee or fight in the Virginia and Tripax has given me this opportunity. Which one would I choose! Tennessee/Kentucky has Grant/Rosecrans/Buell/etc... and good numbers being put together by Halleck. Meanwhile Virginia has McDowell/McClellan. Just the only issue is in the East it's static and entrenched in the West it's defense and a war of maneuver. Two strong forces eyeballing over the Kentucky/Tennessee border territory and one is just that much more potent. Lee is unfrozen(?) I swear at this point it would of been a kind mercy to get Lee in 1861 for me at least...

Re: The Short War: tripax (Union) vs Battle von War (Confederate)

Posted: Mon May 15, 2017 6:46 pm
by tripax
No worries in interrupting, I'll reply in italics to separate this post from my "book". I was lucky in Harpers Ferry, if I played again, I would have added another brigade from Alexandria and a couple more regiments of artillery to that place. The Union will, in my experience, never win a first Battle of Bull Run, but at the same time will never lose if McDowell is attacked at Alexandria - maybe I am wrong.

In Missouri, I think you retreated rather than face Grant, which might have been a good idea, but if you had countered by opening Kentucky, I would have been in trouble. I was willing to accept the risk, as I thought if you attacked Illinois, I could convince you to overstretch your supply lines. As it was, I had plenty of time to get Grant and his divisions defending Cairo back in time.

As for supply, I spent more time attacking your supply than I did developing mine. I did add a few depots in towns in WV along the Ohio and in Missouri and Kansas along the Missouri. One major innovation is that I built a depot in the Florida Keys - this depot meant that I could recover cohesion there very quickly, which meant that if I wanted to invade you on the coast, I could do it with good cohesion and without you seeing me. But I did't build very many wagons. And by controlling your supply, I didn't have to worry much about my flanks and rear (as any raid you contemplated was more likely to be a suicide raid and less likely to be sent). This meant I had less garrisoning to worry about, and meant that I built almost no militia to garrison WV or MO.

My first Far West chapter is next and my Texas invasion chapter comes a bit later. My Texas invasion was a lot of fun and something I wanted to try against a human. I hope some discussion arises about the possibilities that I took advantage of and that I didn't, but I'll wait to elaborate until I get to that chapter.

In 1862, tables certainly turned with your turning your eye to the East. Our adventure there will certainly be the last chapter, we'll see how it went when I get there.

Re: The Short War: tripax (Union) vs Battle von War (Confederate)

Posted: Mon May 15, 2017 6:54 pm
by tripax
Far West:
The short war saw more action in New Mexico, Arizona, and west Texas than was seen in the Mexican American war. Entire mining towns worth of men fought and died in skirmishes throughout the area. In Early June, 1861, a confederate force of 150 mounted infantry men captured 60 US soldiers being trained into two militia regiments in Valencia, New Mexico. A month later, the Union won skirmishes in East Soccoro, New Mexico and Tucson, Arizona. In August, September and October, the conflict moved to Fort Cumming, Fort Thorn, and Fort Sumner, New Mexico. The largest battles were fought on September 19 and October 16, both between Union forces under Morell and Confederate forces under Sibley. These two, the first and second battles of Fort Thorn, were less bloody than battles further east, but victory in the west meant control of supplies whose loss could mean devastating losses from straggling, exhaustion, and hunger if a force were isolated from tenuous western supply lines. In the first battle, Morell with 3121 infantry and 900 cavalry repulsed Sibley's force of 1951 infantry and 300 cavalry marching from El Paso. Both forces lost 276 infantry. In the second, Sibley turned the tables, defeating a now 3961 infantry and 1800 cavalry under Morell with 4352 infantry and 2070 cavalry. In this battle, both forces lost 522 infantry, while the Union lost 213 cavalry to the Confederate loss of 305. However, in his retreat, Morell lost over a regiments worth of men.

Over the following winter, the Union managed to consolidate its forces in the area. It succeeded at repelling a raiding party from Valencia, NM in January and Morell captured Ft. Fillmore in February. By the spring Canby had arrived from California with a division of men, and combined with forces under Morell and Carson attacked Sibley at the Battle of Fort Bliss, Texas. Canby's force included 9588 infantry, 5044 cavalry, and 35 artillery and lost 984 infantry and 793 cavalry, while Sibley's force consisted of 3681 infantry and 250 cavalry, and lost 1353 infantry and another regiments worth of men in their retreat.

Canby's division did not, however, include a number of regular troops which at the start of the war were stationed along the Pacific Coast. These forces were, instead, gathered in northern California where they met a transport squadron and sailed to Union forts in the Florida Keys where they met with Union General Blenker and were organized into a division. Blenker's exploits with this division are discussed two chapters further down.

Re: The Short War: tripax (Union) vs Battle von War (Confederate)

Posted: Mon May 15, 2017 8:46 pm
by tripax
Kansas and IT:
The Union's dominance in Kansas, The Union was key to its dominance in Missouri. Early in the war, General Griffin took charge of a cavalry division which defeated General Sterling Price and Stand Watie in four battles in July, October, and November 1861. The first three battles were defensive affairs. As a result, by November, Price was forced to retreat, and Union held control of forts in Eastern Kansas which gave the Union a path for supplies and soldiers to support its forces in Southwestern Missouri. Most of the forces which made this march were replacements which joined existing regiments, but this line more than supplemented the supply line to Springfield from central Missouri. On November 7, Griffen led 3319 infantry, 2634 cavalry, and 12 artillery in the largest of the four battles, the battle of Fort Baxter, which was against 2221 Confederate infantry under Price. Again, losses were minimal; 30 union infantry and cavalry died and 246 Confederates died in the Union victory. However, Price was faced with poor weather and supplies which could hamper his retreat and restrict options for any possible attacks or raids north.

In 1862, two more Union cavalry divisions joined Griffin's in harrassing Confederate flanks. Also, the Union began incursions into northern Texas, stressing Confederate defenses and preventing the main confederate infantry force under Shelby in Northwestern Arkansas from receiving supplies from Texas. In April, Griffin fought a minor skirmish in Tishomingo against Watie, after which Confederate cavalry forces retracted to join the infantry column at Fayetteville and Union forced took control of IT and parts of north Texas, including the town of Sherman.

In July, one cavalry division under Alpheus Williams remained on Lyon's western flank, roving between Kansas, IT, and Arkansas, while forces under McCook and William F. Smith marched on towards Dallas. On July 18, Watie repulsed an attack by Williams on Topeka, IT, with both divisions consisting of about 2,400 infantry and cavalry and both losing about 200 of each, but Watie's victory was not indicative of a shift in fortunes and Williams and Caldwell, his subordinate, were both congratulated in the defeat.

In late July, two Union columns began a race with each other for the honor of capturing Dallas. On July 22, Smith arrived first and attacked Dallas with 3035 infantry, 2984 cavalry and 7 artillery against 1875 infantry and 60 cavalry. The race proved to be an error and Smith's tired troops lost the battle and about 500 infantry and cavalry while the Confederates lost only 184 men. Two days later, on July 24, McCook and van Cleve arrived, and the combined force of 5395 infantry, 5188 cavalry, and 29 artillery opened battle on a Confederate force which was now itself tired from the previous battle and the Union captured Dallas, destroying 522 Confederate infantry, and putting the rest to flight. The Confederates began the day with 1695 infantry and 60 cavalry on the field and lost nearly a half regiments worth of men in the retreat.

At this point, the Union controlled almost all of north Texas and all of IT, Kansas, and Missouri. The Union had also invaded Texas along the gulf, and control of North Texas meant that Union successes in the rest of the state could not be countered by troops recruited in the north. For a similar reason, Confederate recruits in Arkansas had their hands full with Lyon's force and were unlikely to march southwest.

Re: The Short War: tripax (Union) vs Battle von War (Confederate)

Posted: Tue May 16, 2017 7:34 pm
by tripax
Virginia (part one):
Virginia was largely a standstill throughout the war. In 1861, forces under McDowell and Beauregard built up in Alexandria and Manassas, and on August 12, 1861, the two forces met in the first battle of Manassas. US forces consisted of 38,896 infantry, 5946 cavalry, and 209 artillery and lost 4046 infantry, 370 cavalry, and 2 artillery in a route. Confederate forces were 27654 infantry, 5989 cavalry and 51 artillery and lost 701 infantry, 258 cavalry and 6 artillery. Union forces retreated successfully in the following week and the standstill continued.

On September 13, MacGruder took control of Leesburg, and Hooker detached from McDowell and attacked with three divisions. MacGruder's force consisted of 7066 infantry, 616 cavalry and 8 artillery and lost 1355 infantry. Hooker had 30,582 infantry, 4110 cavalry and 130 artillery and lost 3068 infantry, 307 cavalry and 16 artillery. Hookers losses were so great, he was discredited and General Miles was congratulated for the victory. Magruders retreat was not as successful as his battle, losing about 1.5 regiments worth of men.

Along the Eastern coast, while the Union held Fort Monroe, Norfolk was held by the Confederates. In an accidental engagement between the Confederate batteries and a Union naval force, the Norfolk artillery sunk three Union ships, the USS Tecumsah, the USS Pocahontas, and the USS Cumberland.

Re: The Short War: tripax (Union) vs Battle von War (Confederate)

Posted: Tue May 16, 2017 10:19 pm
by tripax
In the winter of 1861, a column from California arrived in the Florida Keys and was put under command of General Blenker. General Butler brought down a force consisting of an infantry division from New England under General Hunter, a division of New England militia under General Hamilton, and two divisions of New England cavalry under generals Humphreys and Howe. On December 18, Blenker took Matagorda and about that time, Butler landed at Galveston, putting that city under siege. Butler left Hamilton's militia division in that city and moved on Houston, as it was important to take control of nearby cities to limit the ability of the Confederacy to raise a defense. Butler led almost 7000 men in the battle of Houston against 1770 Confederates in battle on January 16, 1862. The Union won and Houston was put under siege. In early February, Butler repulsed a raid, and on April 17, Butler stormed the city, marking the fall of the largest city in Texas.

In the meantime, on February 8, Hamilton stormed Galveston with his militia division, dying in the process. The militia division had done its task, however, and the individual regiments were put on garrison duty in the various cities and regions around Galveston, Houston, and Matagorda. In April, May, and June, 1862, Union and Confederate forces fought numerous skirmishes in the area. On June 9, Butler took Bastrop, and on June 21, General Park in command of the an infantry and a cavalry division attacked Austin. The Battle of Austin saw 7335 Union Infantry, 2820 cavalry, and 48 artillery, losing 418 infantry, 248 cavalry, and 2 artillery against Confederate forces consisting of 2359 infantry, 74 cavalry, and 7 artillery. The confederacy lost 599 infantry in the battle and about a half of a regiments worth of soldiers in the retreat.

Re: The Short War: tripax (Union) vs Battle von War (Confederate)

Posted: Tue May 16, 2017 11:21 pm
by BattleVonWar
(Forget the early Union Exploits out West! I did not raise an Army early in The Far West, figuring you would like any wise Union Player ignore this and hunker down after Tuscon and perhaps raid a little. In fact I was so complacent here I was reacting rather than dictating. Then suddenly here comes a very strong Union steamroller and whoa, I began late in pillaging forts and placing defensive divisions on objective towns/strategic towns...The Union did a good job considering the vast territories stretch her resources to the brink and supply chains. I thought this would be be an ideal distraction area but it didn't seem to tie up enough Union Troops and retrospect foolish troops I used in ill planned attacks in Virginia could have been placed here to block the Union from at least having a choochoo right through the Heart of Texas. This player must really enjoy the Old West, cause in a way for the first time in a game it was a factor. No Union player I've ever seen bothered to push beyond the seazones in Texas and his confidence in doing so must be in some way a belief in my weak position throughout the rest of the CSA. Started to realize I was in deep trouble here, there are several items the CSA doesn't want to give up for free here. If I would have had the Navy out to block actions since there were no strong Union forces here it would have done more good than it accomplished bottled up in elsewhere. I never though his intentions were to finish off the Entirety of the West until later so really there were no good deployments. I also figured this would weaken my opponent elsewhere if things went well there. Which it did not seem to have that effect at all. It only seemed to strengthen his resolve and give him an edge. Especially when Union Troops began to get closer to Missouri where a good couple of divisions were pinned on the flanks that could have been in Texas and an entire Army was tied down in Arkansas or Missouri the entire war.)

Re: The Short War: tripax (Union) vs Battle von War (Confederate)

Posted: Thu May 18, 2017 12:39 am
by tripax
I think the attack on Texas early has a very good cost-benefit ratio for the Union. Hunter's infantry division consisted of two large mixed brigades from New England. The two cavalry divisions were each 4 or 5 cavalry regiments and 1 horse artillery regiment. Blenker's division was the same as what usually rolls though California to Arizona and New Mexico. By not rolling that division through, the California Column had less trouble with supply. The militia division had about 14 regiments. In total, I think this removes about 1.5 divisions worth of resources from elsewhere in the map. By taking Matagorda, I think I knock out a regiments worth of money every turn by making it impossible to play the export cotton bails card. Within a year, assuming money is a constricting resource for the Confederacy, I think the investment pays off. Plus, if you send a division to counter, I can dig in at Matagorda and I have the two small cavalry divisions which can challenge your supplies, so you have to pay the cost of that division, plus whatever attrition and supply losses I might be able to inflict. If you send more than that, I have control of the seas and can load back into my transports and sail home (this is why I attacked two places side by side with harbors, if one fails, I can try to get into the other and retreat).

So to me, the cost of the attack on Matagorda alone is being about 1.5 divisions short for 5 turns while transporting and taking Matagorda followed by a period of about a year while the cost decreases, followed by the rest of the game where the attack is a net plus. Since you didn't defend Matagorda with anything but the auto-fire Texas defense force, I could go after Houston, Austin, and San Antonio (and eventually Dallas), grabbing those resources and starving Sibley's.

Early in the game, my first concern has to be minimizing the possibility that you'll play a successful all-east strategy in mid-1862. So anything I do in the West or Far West has to be sure to remove as many of your soldiers from Virginia as it does mine. If I take Matagorda as winter set in, the cost to you of not playing the cotton bales card would reduce your possibilities in the all-East strategy by about as much as Matagorda cost me by mid-1862 when people play the all east strategy (plus, I could see you building in Springfield in mid-1861, so I knew your strategy wasn't 100% all East.

An similar alternative to taking Matagorda is to not re-enact 1st Bull Run and instead take two divisions out of McDowell's force in Alexandria and run the forts to New Orleans (or Mobile or Charleston). If you do this as soon as you can build divisions or sooner, the attack is too early to be countered by local Louisiana builds, and if undetected, definitely becomes cost-benefit after a dozen or so turns. The downside of this is there are no retreats and if the Confederacy sends a large force under good generals to counter, the Union has to open up Kentucky and attack aggressively to try to relieve pressure, which I think is a bit complicated, although I plan on trying it out sometime.

Re: The Short War: tripax (Union) vs Battle von War (Confederate)

Posted: Thu May 18, 2017 12:42 am
by tripax
Battle of Fayetteville:
Having subdued most of Missouri in 1861, Lyon marched his force of 27459 infantry, 4946 cavalry and 36 artillery against A S Johnston's force at Fayetteville in early April 1862. Johnston had 18033 infantry, 4132 cavalry, and 43 artillery. However, Lyon's aggressiveness combined with the cold and wet April weather meant that the Confederate forces were not in good condition. Lyon's attack was well organized, and although he lost 5106 infantry and 782 cavalry to Confederate losses of 2782 infantry and 701 cavalry, the Union took the field. Wood, Curtis, and Davis led divisions under Lyon and Curtis was congratulated for his particularly active role in the victory.

Johnston did not retreat far, and encamped within the region and held the city, but Lyon held a slight majority in terms of overall military control of the region. Union cavalry and Kansas and Missouri militia units established control of villages and forts in Eastern Kansas and Western Indian Territory as well as in much of Missouri, establishing a strong supply line. The two forces remained fixed in the area for the rest of the war, but Lyon had no problem keeping his men well fed. The only other action in the area came in late July when Johnston captured a union militia unit which had garrisoned a nearby region but fled into Johnston's lines after being attacked by Watie.

Re: The Short War: tripax (Union) vs Battle von War (Confederate)

Posted: Thu May 18, 2017 3:05 am
by BattleVonWar
(In previous patches The Matagorda Card would run, I'm pretty sure even when in enemy possession. Should have checked the latest patch notes. I liked that slight of hand you did with Lyon-Grant...dropping Grant in then quickly removing him. I expected to see Grant deep into Arkansas but you quickly evacuated him and he was invisible awhile. I had no idea where Grant might be as 1862 developed)

Re: The Short War: tripax (Union) vs Battle von War (Confederate)

Posted: Thu May 18, 2017 4:24 pm
by tripax
I had two divisions in Cairo and nothing anywhere else along the Ohio River. If Kentucky opened up early, I planned to put Grant in Paducah with a division and Buell across the river from Bowling Green with one and a half divisions. Buell with two divisions should look strong enough to prevent your marching on Louisville/Lexington. And Grant's statistics should have prevented your marching on Paducah. If I let Grant lead forces into Arkansas, I could easily have lost Kentucky and Cairo. Thinking about things in this way, I am realizing how much deception I use, even as Union (deception being a trait usually associated with MacGruder and the Confederates).

Re: The Short War: tripax (Union) vs Battle von War (Confederate)

Posted: Thu May 18, 2017 4:29 pm
by tripax
In April 1862, the seeming stalemate in Virginia gave the Union a chance to consider attacks. However, entrenchments and large forces along the front line meant the Union needed to search for avenues outside of Virginia. Rumor had it that the Confederacy had anticipated this and built up large defenses at New Orleans, but Mobile might be open. A large force of two divisions under Keyes, who had been so important in the defense of Harper's Ferry sailed to the Florida Keys, where a depot and a harbor had been built allowing the Union force to rest. Dahlgren in charge of the New England squadron gave the Union a heavy naval presence. In early April they set off from Florida for Mobile, running Confederate forts of Fort Morgan and Fort Gaines.

April 15, Keyes stormed Mobile with 19000 men, storming the city losing only 61 men. Keyes was congratulated and about 500 of 1600 Confederates defending the city were killed or captured. The next day, Keyes finished the job, capturing or killing the remaining confederates, including about 350 reinforcements to the city from the countryside, losing about 500 men. Keyes was again congratulated and was promoted to Major General. Richardson and Davidson were in charge of Keyes' divisions.

In Early May, Leonides Polk was sent to the area to counter the Union force. Mobile's harbor was still guarded by the Confederate forts, and Dahlgren's navy was anchored along the tidal shores of the river clear of the range of the Forts. When Polk approached, he entered into an artillery dual with Polk, destroying almost a regiment worth of Polk's men, but losing 3 transport ships, the Scully, the Mohican, and the Mohawk. Dahlgren would continue to bombard Polk, an effort which contributed to Polk's struggles, but which would result in more transport and scouting boats sinking: the Kennebunkport, the Fundy, the Jones, the Almighty, the USS Ramsey, and the USS Bainbridge.

Battle of Mobile:
On May 7, Polk's force met with Keyes. Polk led 17,833 infantry, 3000 cavalry, and 96 artillery against Keyes 20,099 infantry, 1902 cavalry, and 43 artillery. Polk was easily repulsed, losing 2017 infantry, 309 cavalry, and 2 artillery against 984 Union infantry losses and 122 Union cavalry losses. Union organization in the swampy region around Mobile played an important role in the victory, as the Confederate cavalry advantage was greatly hampered by the marshy ground, even in the fair May weather.

Polk repulsed, Keyes sent Richardson to take Fort Gaines while crossed the mouth of the Mobile River to attack Fort Morgan with Davidson's division in June. In June and July, Union forces fought a series of 3 battled at Gaines and one at Morgan which brought the two forts under Union control, costing over 2000 Union lives and over 3000 Confederate. Davidson's division crossed the mouth of the Bay to support the capture of Fort Gaines in July, and was congratulated in his efforts. Following this, divisions in the area returned to entrenchments around Mobile.

Re: The Short War: tripax (Union) vs Battle von War (Confederate)

Posted: Thu May 18, 2017 6:47 pm
by tripax
Kentucky remained neutral until April 1862. In April, it narrowly chose the Union side, but Confederate militias held Columbus and Madisonville. A brigade of Confederate forces quickly moved to Paducah and Mufordville, besieging the former and capturing the later. On April 29, Major General Ulysses S. Grant brought nearly 20,000 men into Paducah, which met and destroyed the Confederate brigade of 1500, earning Grant a promotion to Lieutenant General and command of an Army in the process. As a result of this, the Confederate attack on Paducah is seen by some to be the greatest error in the Confederate west, as by giving Grant an early chance to show himself, it enabled Grant to play an early leadership role.

Battle of Bowling Green:
In June, July, and August, forces under Rosencrans and Buel moved on Madisonville and Munfordville in a move on Bowling Green. Their forces combined and Buell was assigned the role of Military Governor of East Kentucky with the assignment to improve loyalty. Rosecrans led a force in an attack on Bowling Green, and the Battle for that city was fought on August 9, 1862. Rosecranse led 20191 infantry, 3234 cavalry, and 48 artillery, while McLaws led the Confederate force of 16151 infantry, 3342 cavalry, and 6 artillery. The Confederacy won the day, but Rosecrans' chief subordinate, General Thomas, was congratulated and the Union force remained in the region. Union losses were 3567 infantry and 244 cavalry, while the Confederacy lost 3216 infantry, 370 cavalry, and 2 artillery. A Union naval fleet was effective in support.

Re: The Short War: tripax (Union) vs Battle von War (Confederate)

Posted: Fri May 19, 2017 6:45 pm
by tripax
In June and July of 1862, Union forces moved down the Mississippi into Tennessee. On June 8 and 9, Pope stormed Island 10 supported by Porter's fleet of Ironclads, capturing the fort there. On June 20, Grant took Columbus again supported by the river Navy. On July 23, Pope took Humboldt, and Fitzjohn Porter, his chief subordinate, was congratulated in the battle. All of these battles were against garrisons and resulted in total losses by the Confederates. Union losses were minimal.

Re: The Short War: tripax (Union) vs Battle von War (Confederate)

Posted: Fri May 19, 2017 9:08 pm
by tripax
Maryland was not the sight of major battles, although two skirmishes were fought in Fredericktown, first in May 1861 when the Union garrison repelled a small Confederate raid, and second in July 1862 when the Union garrison retreated before a larger Confederate raid.

Re: The Short War: tripax (Union) vs Battle von War (Confederate)

Posted: Fri May 19, 2017 9:21 pm
by BattleVonWar
(This is when I began to wonder if my 1861 strategy with it's flaws had cost me the game. I was slow to remove myself from Missouri and I was not decisive in pressure Kentucky. Also with the arrival of Strong Union Forces on the Gulf Coast and bypassing fortresses like they were silly putty, economically my situation would soon become very difficult. I began to grasp at straws to try to figure a way to reverse my poor fortunes. I had vastly underestimated The Union in it's ability to both use one hand to hold me off and another to build up it's infrastructure. I lost quite a few divisions worth of men due to attrition and fruitless attacks. Now he was taking my very lifeblood and that's the cotton industry. He was gutting it from the bottom first and then I assume up through every other location possible. Without the ability to even recruit most CSA manpower the only thing I did have was a temporary window. That was superior leadership in one place and slightly superior numbers in one place. Tennessee or Virginia!?

Which could I actually succeed fighting in I am asking myself. NOLA was well defended and there were forces there to defend the Coastal Carolinas but they would not last long if invasions of Norfolk/Suffolk were to proceed. I expected these shortly. I saw a slight weakness in the numbers in Virginia. Just not enough to actually pull anything off. I began to use the improved rail network to move some(but not quite enough of the Army Tennessee East) I figured that the only weak point in Tripax's armor would be here. If there was any hope of a long lived South it would be through the Well Trained Army of Little Mac...His Divisions appeared so very daunting but though Grant was not quite ready to steamroll all the way to NOLA it wouldn't be long and it's not as if things would improve for me if he did this. Cutting off Missouri/Arkansas and completely destroying my Cotton Industry.

Also I had added industry in New Orleans to keep competitive. I had no clue that I would need at least 25,000-35,000+ more men to pull of what I was about to venture into. The only way to have gotten these men would have to make the entirety of the west Barren! For at least a good percentage of this were sitting in POW camps or were diseased/starved out West somewhere... I had no clue this opponent was so very meticulous but after seeing his first year, there seemed to be no other alternative)

Re: The Short War: tripax (Union) vs Battle von War (Confederate)

Posted: Mon May 22, 2017 1:41 am
by tripax
Throughout the war, Confederate forces raided Pennsylvania, frequently destroying rail lines which could have been used to move forces from west to east - although they rarely were except for when McClellan brought along a few brigades from Ohio when he moved to take command at Harpers Ferry. In April 1862, Confederates raided Pittsburgh losing many cavalry men. The success of the Pittsburgh battery were important, as they showed the mettle of that force, and it was then moved to the defenses of Washington, DC.

Re: The Short War: tripax (Union) vs Battle von War (Confederate)

Posted: Mon May 22, 2017 3:43 pm
by tripax
Virginia (part two):
Battle of Alexandria:
In July 1862, the standstill in Virginia ended. On July 18, 1862, the battle of Alexandria was fought between General Lee and McDowell. McDowell won, but was forced to retreat across the Potomac. General Couch was killed and Generals Slocum and Berry were injured. Berry had been in charge of the Alexadria defense corps which was destroyed. Crittendon's corps joined the fight from Leesburg and was cut up badly, losing about half of its men, including losing over 13 regiments worth in his retreat. The battle was fought between 69,766 infantry, 7808 cavalry, and 345 artillery on the Union side and 100,896 infantry, 17,673 cavalry, and 500 artillery on the Confederate. The Union lost 19,434 infantry, 711 cavalry, and 20 artillery (not including Crittendon's retreat), while the Confederacy lost 32,437 infantry, 17,673 cavalry, and some artillery.

At the same time, Confederate cavalry raided the rail lines in Maryland, and it was unclear how broken up the rail lines were and if Sumner at Harper's Ferry would be able to join the forces at Alexandria, so Sumner was ordered to march down the Shenandoah to try to convince Lee to guard his rear. This move nearly worked, and Sumner was successful in taking Winchester.

Battle of Winchester:
At the battle of Winchester on July 22, Sumner's 28,421 infantry, 3688 cavalry and 120 artillery took the city against Forney's 17,493 infantry and 2790 cavalry. Forney retreated almost as soon as battle commenced, Sumner suffered no losses, with Forney losing 276 infantry and 122 cavalry before retreating.

Forney retreated further down the valley, giving Sumner a choice between following Forney or crossing the Blue Ridge and attacking Mannassas, now in Lee's rear.Aware that Lee's strike on Alexandria left him with a single supply route to his rear, Sumner chose to attack Manassas.

Second Battle of Manassas:
Sumner struck at Mannassas, now deep in Lee's rear, winning the second battle of Manassas on August 14, 1862. Sumner's force then consisted of 28,532 infantry, 3656 cavalry, and 119 artillery, losing 5036 infantry, 683 cavalry, and 6 artillery. Holmes at Manassas had 28,375 infantry, 5308 cavalry and 14 artillery and lost 4783 infantry and 335 cavalry. Under Sumner, Generals Butterfield and Stone were congratulated.

Lee, however, was not interested in his rear. On August 1, Stonewall Jackson stormed Alexandria's defenses and marched towards the capital.

When rumor of McDowell's retreat reached Milroy in southern West Virginia, he began to march on Virginia as well with a goal of establishing Union control south of the Shenandoah valley in advance of Sumner's march down the valley. Unaware that Sumner would turn his attention east, Milroy advanced on Convincing, capturing that city on August 1 with over 15,000 men against almost no garrison.

Re: The Short War: tripax (Union) vs Battle von War (Confederate)

Posted: Tue May 23, 2017 5:51 am
by BattleVonWar
(As I moved several Corp and 1 HQ and Lee into Northern Virginia, I expected to take Milroy, Sumner and McDowell HQ(with Corps) Off the front line and back to rear positions. I suspect the weak size of my army present was not threatening enough but this was my Strategic Plan. Longstreet's Corp in Kentucky could have been and was considered to be moved with some rearranged divisions to help but I don't even know if this alone would have been enough. I sat around for awhile considering Hitting Kentucky hard and or maneuvering South to clear Mobile. The entrenched positions in Alexandria were guarded by the best Union troops. The battle there depleted me in Virginia to the point the Union would soon overtake me. The opponent did not overreact, did not withdrawal. Again followed his steady and tried method of on forward. McDowell was for a moment slightly vulnerable, not very entrenched and cohesion seemed low now behind the riverline. Although Confederate forces were now locked down in Alexandria due to their lack of effort in taking the Fortress there. So a continuation battle couldn't proceed.. This lack to take Alexandria at a key juncture would not allow a flanking maneuver of any kind, it left vulnerabilities and many tens of thousand of dead Confederates for little gain. I wanted so direly to hit McDowell without much entrenchment! What 1 more Corp could have meant?)

Re: The Short War: tripax (Union) vs Battle von War (Confederate)

Posted: Tue May 23, 2017 8:07 pm
by tripax
West Virginia (part two):

On July 30, 1862, one of Lee's forces moved on the now undercover Harper's Ferry, which was garrisoned only by a cavalry force under General Kearney consisting of 2803 infantry, 1696 cavalry and 8 artillery. Lee's corps had almost 70,000 men available, and Kearney retreated after a short, sharp engagement, losing nearly half his cavalry and 2000 infantry.

Re: The Short War: tripax (Union) vs Battle von War (Confederate)

Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 12:38 am
by tripax
North Carolina:
In August, 1862, Burnside brought 8078 infantry, 1218 cavalry and 24 artillery to the outer islands of North Carolina, under orders to reclaim federal land, and attacking first at Fort Clark. Burnside and Marston, his chief subordinate, were congratulated, but the Confederate fort did not fall. Union forces lost 1500 infantry, 256 cavalry, and 6 artillery, while the confederate garrison of 1305 infantry and 11 artillery lost 861 infantry.

Re: The Short War: tripax (Union) vs Battle von War (Confederate)

Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 3:09 pm
by Gray Fox
Tough luck! I usually invade Ft. Clark ASAP with Lyons in charge of the Division and Grant as stack commander. The addition of a stack commander gives you a few more percentage points of firepower, which might have made the difference in your case. This also gets Grant his 3rd star and seniority for the 6th Army command. Great AAR!

Re: The Short War: tripax (Union) vs Battle von War (Confederate)

Posted: Sun May 28, 2017 11:57 pm
by Straight Arrow
An excellent read tripax; I'm enjoying your AAR very much.

In the games I've played, I've never see anyone transfer West coast troops to Texas, well done.

Re: The Short War: tripax (Union) vs Battle von War (Confederate)

Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2017 8:40 pm
by tripax
Washington DC:
In August of 1862, the Confederate forces under Lee had finally found success in Virginia and the path to the entrenchments around the US capital were open. While Lee kept his feelings to himself, national Confederate moral had flagged, and it was clear that if the Confederacy was to with the war, the war would need to end quickly. McDowell had retreated across the Potomac, leaving only a small force at Alexandria. Franklin led a corps of defense forces which were inside the city manning the forts, while McDowell's men were digging in, ready to repulse anything that came.

Not asking for more time or men, Lee attacked, ordering his corps to take the capital at all costs. On August 7, the first Battle of Washington was fought with Union forces of 61,850 infantry, 6848 cavalry, 412 artillery against Confederate forces of 69,939 infantry, 10,205 cavalry, and 428 artillery. Except The Union lost 1260 infantry men in an attack by Jackson's corps, but due to miscommunication, Jackson was not supported and Lee lost nearly the entire corps, suffering casualties totaling 17,709 infantry, 1312 cavalry, and 66 artillery. A small, but notable amount of the losses occurred at range, with 8 regiments surrendering before firing a shot. This showed the relevance of the artillery forces defending the capital. These included the Washington artillery, the Gatling guns among the defense, the Pittsburgh artillery which had been railed to the capital, and artillery in Runyon's Artillery division.

The second Battle of Washington on Auguest 13 was more of the same, with a slightly diminished Union force of 60,620 infantry, 6848 cavalry, and 412 artillery against reinforced Confederate forces of 76,147 infantry, 13,634 cavalry, and 382 artillery. Another corps had joined Lee and went in for the attack. Most of Lee's forces did not engage, and this corps again met with disaster. Nearly the entire battle was fought at range, with 40 Confederate regiments being destroyed before reaching Union lines. Confederates managed to kill only 891 Union soldiers while losing 19,293 infantry, 2533 cavalry, and 16 artillery.

In both battles, the corps attacked Franklin inside the city, with McDowell advancing on the flanks. The two fort artillery regiments and the Gatling guns under Franklin performed extremely well. These were regiments which, with the exception of a skirmish in Pittsburgh, had not yet been in battle. Franklin, McDowell, Meagher, Auger, Runyon and Tyler were congratulated for their performance in one of the battles and Slocum was congratulated for his exceptional leadership in both battles.

This battle marked the end of the civil war, although the final battle took place the next day in Manassas (discussed above).

Re: The Short War: tripax (Union) vs Battle von War (Confederate)

Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2017 4:28 pm
by Gray Fox
So as I understand it, Lee chased McDowell out of Alexandria. Franklin retreated into the fortification in Alexandria. Lee then crossed the Potomac and attacked directly into D.C. Is that correct?

Crossing a major river before battle always invites a slaughter. I cross the Potomac upstream and then march into the Union Capital on the dry land side. Did BattleVonWar use synchronized move or did he send in Jackson and hope for MTSG?

Re: The Short War: tripax (Union) vs Battle von War (Confederate)

Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2017 7:54 pm
by tripax
I think he had corps coming from Harpers Ferry and from Alexandria, so not all of them were using synchronized march, if any. All of them were marching towards DC. I don't know if it is possible to find out if a corps MTSG, for instance, if a corps appears in the battle results screen, it must have MTSG, right? But the number of soldiers reported to be in the battle counts all soldiers in the region, but not necessarily including all soldiers engaged. I'm unclear if it includes corps that could have MTSG but didn't, or if a corps could MTSG but not engage. I'm not sure that is a complete answer to that question, but you are right that if Lee hadn't sent a corps to HF, and then used synchronized march, he might have been better off.

In the turn before, Franklin was outside of the structure with level 2 entrenchments. McDowell retreated into the region and entered Franklin's entrenchments, which were, I think, level 3 for the battle, and Franklin entered level 5 (I think) entrenchments waiting for him in the structure. I didn't realize that the units in the structure could be attacked first, and was lucky the two fort artilleries and the gatling guns were with Franklin.

The game finished a month ago, and I don't have the turns available, but I can check next week to be more precise. The slaughter was bad enough that Battle von War resigned, and it wasn't a true NM victory. Because we were curious how the battle had gone so badly, we reran the turn a dozen or so times. In those "simulations", Lee actually won and took DC twice (I think resulting in a Confederate NM victory once), the two forces fought a relatively equal battle once, and Lee lost a corps or more in a decisive Union victory the other times, sometimes in a more lopsided and sometimes slightly less lopsided battle.

For what it is worth, if I had one more turn (because Lee consolidated northwest of DC to prepare for a simultaneous move), Crittendon's corps would have recovered a bit and would have been able to help defend DC, so 15,000 additional Union soldiers would have been available. I had a builds in Philadelphia and New York training up, and could have combined finished units into one and a half divisions, but it would have been very hard to get them into DC fast enough,
but with one more turn might have had a chance.

Anyway, our simulation suggests that when the two players do not play all east strategies, Lee is still strong enough that if he can march close to even numbers on DC in mid 1862 before the Confederate leadership advantage fades and the Union numbers advantage becomes overwhelming, wildly striking DC gives the confederacy a 10% to 20% chance to win the war, even after struggling in other theaters. If Lee did not make that strike, chances are that a good Union player could bleed the Confederacy. Too aggressive (as I was against StraightArrow), and the Union can still exhaust itself against entrenched Confederates. But assuming I've learned from that match, Battle may have made the right move, although perhaps you (GF) are right and consolidating across the Potomac or at least not attacking DC on R/R might have been better.

As a result, McClellan seems to have been right, at least in this game, to imagine Lee led 200,000 men, and to be very careful to protect the capital.