how to win the first Bull Run with Mc Dowell

[Clovis]

Against AI in the July 1861 campaign


Simple: just put only 2 us divisions within McDowell army, then march on Manassas.

Even if McDowell is inactive, US will win the battle with numerically inferior troops, because this force doesn't need more Command Point than McDowell has.

I guess Confederate army is suffering penalties for being too numerous than the Beauregard's CP points.

That would explain too why CSA Shenendoah army isn't joining Beauregard forces in Manassas...

Conclusion: there's something wrong here. Maybe in the initial deployment, maybe McDowell ratings... Or, more generally, in the balance between numbers, troops experience and command effects... or with penalties for inactive general ( I believe inactive general should be yet slower to move and more harshly punished for combat).

BUT this game is shining...a dream becoming true.

[ERutins]

Personally, in the July scenario I disassemble just about everything and build a Corps under Hunter. I leave the one weak division in the Army with McDowell. This seems to give enough command points to have everything under control with no penalties and you get the Army - Corps bonus on the next turn when you fight. Move the Corps out to fight, leave the army in a blocking/supporting position in Alexandria.

So far, I've had good luck with this setup - won First Bull Run twice and inflicted a pretty good ratio of losses. It's not going to guarantee you a march on Richmond, but it does seem to give Beauregard a hard time.

[Clovis]

Personally, in the July scenario I disassemble just about everything and build a Corps under Hunter. I leave the one weak division in the Army with McDowell. This seems to give enough command points to have everything under control with no penalties and you get the Army - Corps bonus on the next turn when you fight. Move the Corps out to fight, leave the army in a blocking/supporting position in Alexandria.

So far, I've had good luck with this setup - won First Bull Run twice and inflicted a pretty good ratio of losses. It's not going to guarantee you a march on Richmond, but it does seem to give Beauregard a hard time.

I tried too... Working. Then I decided to degrade Hunter to one star genral status because I didn't wanted to have the possibility to create army corps at the very start of the war, considering in 1861 corps formation were totally impossible given the total lack of organization in the US ( and CSA) armies ... First corps were formed in 1862.

[ERutins]

Good point, but within the current scenario it does seem to be the best way to go.

[Clovis]

Good point, but within the current scenario it does seem to be the best way to go.

Sure

[Clovis]

OK... At start Beauregard's army is suffering a 35% penalty...

I wonder why Neither Longstreet or Evans are present as leaders as their brigade units are here.

How to add leaders??? Going back to scenario files...

[veji1]

I tried too... Working. Then I decided to degrade Hunter to one star genral status because I didn't wanted to have the possibility to create army corps at the very start of the war, considering in 1861 corps formation were totally impossible given the total lack of organization in the US ( and CSA) armies ... First corps were formed in 1862.

Hmm.. Maybe all generals appearing in 1861 should be either 3 stars (army commander) or 1 star, and only get promoted to 2 once they get experience..

Or a simplier way would be to use division HQs to make corps as well, so that you have to wait at leat few turns to get corps organised...

[veji1]

Or simplier, just make it a special rule in the game (not house rule, but hard cap put into the scenario) that no corps can be created until say late november 1861, by this time the armies are getting organised for the first winter anyway, so the corps would be formed for winter rest and be ready to rumble by spring 1862...That way you force the player to use the clumsy armies of 1861, at best rationalising them a bit by creating divisions in mid-late 1861.

Actually that is probably the simplest way of doing it.

[Clovis]

Hmm.. Maybe all generals appearing in 1861 should be either 3 stars (army commander) or 1 star, and only get promoted to 2 once they get experience..

Or a simplier way would be to use division HQs to make corps as well, so that you have to wait at leat few turns to get corps organised...

I think so. But I can do the same gamey thing without using corps ( see my first post)

About the whole point, I'm considering the initial situation is well depicted as CSA and Union forces at start were so badly mismanaged that First Bull Run was a close contest between 2 accumulations of delays, bad orders, panics...

The problem comes from the possibility with current game mechanics to tailor a reduced US ( or CSA) army which will win against a numerically superior foe.

That's unhistorical. I don't imagine McDowell saying to Lincoln going to battle with only a third of the army... There should be a rule imposing an army to have at least 2 corps (with at lesat 2 divisions or 4 brigades) or 4 divisions so the problem would be solved ( by the way, it would too solve the gamey trick to create "paper armies" for unuseful but powerful leaders...

And I'm now using that as house rule...

[marecone]

Leaders and units you have in Bull Run scenario are historical. Down to and including regiments.

What you do with them is left to you as real Lincoln isn't here .

Anyway, setups are historical and that is it. If AGEOD team wanted to totally recreate history then they could have made a movie or game that play by itself and where player has no influence.

As I said, I like much ideas here but don't just go nuts if you can't do what was done historicaly.

Just my two cents as beta and not as representative of AGEOD. (In case Pocus answers something else )

[Clovis]

As I said, I like much ideas here but don't just go nuts if you can't do what was done historicaly.

hey, where I go nuts??

Just seeing a possible gamey trick against AI (and possibly human player) and something unhistorical as you don't create an army to just put 2 divisions in order to get the advantage of an army in game terms without the inconvenient to have a force bigger than your general can master ( or create a corps from the very start of the game)

As I said, AACW is a superb game. Now, there are things to improve certainly, even in terms of game mechanics.

Regards.

[marecone]

I knew this will turn out bad . I didn't want to offend you or anybody else. English is not my native language so some sentences perhaps look strange.
I am sorry.

As I said this is my opinion and guys from AGEOD will probably have last word on this.

Anyway, keep posting as you make some intersting points.


Godspeed

[Clovis]

I knew this will turn out bad . I didn't want to offend you or anybody else. English is not my native language so some sentences perhaps look strange.
I am sorry.

As I said this is my opinion and guys from AGEOD will probably have last word on this.

Anyway, keep posting as you make some intersting points.


Godspeed

OK. BTW I want to congrat you to have done so much to put AACW in such a good shape during the betatest

[marecone]

OK. BTW I want to congrat you to have done so much to put AACW in such a good shape during the betatest

Thanks. We did our best and will countinue to do so. I love ACW sooo much that my whole free time is spent on this game and ACW period reading.


Godspeed

[veji1]

It think the point here is that 1861 is a year of military clumsiness and illpreparationness (Hmm nice word there...), and the engine to some degree already shows that pretty well. Only in spring 1862, with Fort Donelson and Shiloh campaign in the west and Peninsula in the east did the war start to take its form. The idea of witholding the ability to form corps until the end of 1861 would helpe emulate that. Other suggestions could work as well an be implemented simply too.