So I finished my first real game, and although it might have been a fluke, it seemed a little too easy for the Union to amass the necessary victory points to win.
Playing on normal with AI+2 FOW, the game ended in early 1863.
In the east, I cleared the Shennandoa, but didn't get further south than Fredricksburgh with my main army. The AI lost 3 Gettysburgh scale battles, but still had seemingly plenty of troops preventing my march south.
In the west, I cleared Kentucky, the Mississipi forts and took Nashville to trigger the victory. Again, the rebels seemed to have 2 large, intact armies south of Nashville which would have made Grant's advance very difficult.
Elsewhere I took and held New Orleans.
I took some mild morale hits when promoting generals, not too many (I gave McClennan the Virginia Army after the event) and I didn't always raise taxes. All in all, I spent most of the game trying to create enough troops in the East to do something, and in the west to alllow Grant to march south. That took until late 62. He took Nashville after 3 bloody battles (almost even in casualties ~20k) crossing the river and marching to the city
The AI performed quite well, raiding deep into Ohio (about 2/3 north through the state) taking Texas, the West and constantly raiding to the furthest reaches of Missouri. It made only 4 real blunders: 1) Sending too many men to die on the walls of Fort Pickens. 2) Giving up the siege of Harpers Ferry when I was powerless to hold it. 3) Letting an army starve during a winter siege of Cincinnati, and 4) Walking twice into the fully entrenched army at Mannasas and suffering >30,000 casualties each time.
Throughout the game, the AI seemed to outnumber me (I'm not sure how much of that was poor intelligence, but their armies always seemed to be fully filled with green dots.) It constantly threatened my flanks slowing down advances, and conducted a very destructive campaign on my rails.
The problem seemed to be that the Union can accumulate too many morale points for too little. I expected to have to slog for 2 years through Tennesee and Virginia before getting anywhere near victory level.
Has anyone else experienced similar, or could it just have been a very lucky game?
dinsdale wrote:Throughout the game, the AI seemed to outnumber me (I'm not sure how much of that was poor intelligence, but their armies always seemed to be fully filled with green dots.)
Doubtful. The thing is, those green dots are a bit misleading. The AI probably had a lot of unorganized units, leading to a full bar. If they were properly organized into divisions and corps, the bar would be much smaller. That's one of the biggest issues for the AI right now (And one that I know Pocus has some ideas for improving), army organization. The AI isn't making full use of it's possible organization, and that leads to it receiving rather large combat penalties. The problem isn't seen so much in smaller battles, where in my experience, the AI does a very good job. But once you start to build up the truly massive mid to late war armies, you can tend to roll because the player is able to keep those command penalties low or erase them completely.
One thing I've considered is to play for a while, then switch sides to organize the AI armies for it, and resume. I haven't tried it yet though, so I don't know if the AI will keep the organization or revert to it's previous behavior.
I had a confederate division numbering some 10,000 men under a average officer kicking the crap out of anything the union sent against him, no matter how big the union force was, while suffering minimal casulties.
"Saw steamer, strafed same, sank same, some sight, signed smith" From "The Thousand Mile War" by Brian Garfield.
-
von Beanie
- Corporal
- Posts: 40
- Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 7:01 am
Go beyond the training step
Dinsdale--what this means is that you are now trained in the basics of the game and should be ready for PBEM. A human opponent will not make many significant errors, and you'll probably have to really work for a victory. I'm finding that this is an excellent PBEM game--and quite challenging to win.
I didn't mean to turn the discussion to one of the AI, but to the victory levels.
Regardless of the opponent, it did not appear that I could possibly have done enough to warrant a victory.
Tried another game and practically the same victory level, only I avoided taking NO.
Early 1863, Richmond and Nashville have just fallen, the Union has ~170 VPs and needs only a few more to end the game.
Most of the south is untouched, they have armies on both fronts. Assume that I lose 20-30 vps from battles against a more competent opponent, I would still only be New Orleans and a couple of battles away from ending the game.
I'm thinking of bumping the required victory level up, I won't be happy until I've burnt Georgia
Just wondering if others have experienced similar, against the AI or PBEM?
Regardless of the opponent, it did not appear that I could possibly have done enough to warrant a victory.
Tried another game and practically the same victory level, only I avoided taking NO.
Early 1863, Richmond and Nashville have just fallen, the Union has ~170 VPs and needs only a few more to end the game.
Most of the south is untouched, they have armies on both fronts. Assume that I lose 20-30 vps from battles against a more competent opponent, I would still only be New Orleans and a couple of battles away from ending the game.
I'm thinking of bumping the required victory level up, I won't be happy until I've burnt Georgia
Just wondering if others have experienced similar, against the AI or PBEM?
This i in part becomes a discussion of AI but also victory levels.
Well,
I've finnished 3 campaigns now. 2 as US and 1 as CSA.
Both US campaigns seems to have had similar progression line as urs.
I won both US games in summer of 63. Being behind schedule in the west, initial command structures certainly slowing me down and the fact i left Mclelland out there.
East in both campaigns progressed rapidly. Deterioting fast in 62 for the CSA. This was never my intention. My intention in both games was to Dig in behind the Rappahannock and stay there while winning the war in the West.
Problem was that throughout 62 after i had won the Rappahannock line and entrenched there. The AI attacked that line relentlessly. Over a river into fortified positions.
ANV lost some 50-60k men from summer to fall 62, graduately rising my moral as he lost elements and loweing his own. During the winter it didnt help it self by mulling around outside cities getting i assume hit by harsh weather.
Starting in fall 62 i started build up my AotP which i hadnt given any resources up to that point. By spring it had some 150k men in 4 corps.
I started to advance over a broad front ending up with ANV splitting up in 2. 1 ending up besieged in Charlottesville other in Richmond.
in one of my games i passed the 180 moral threshold by eliminating the Charlottesville force destroying elements giving me moral.
In other i had to take Richmond but basicly the recipy was the same.
In general i find the AI to be quite strong. Doing the right kinda manuvers.
But this particular behavior of ANV assulting fortified positions across river taking huge casulties isnt some thing the CSA can really afford.
Since i hadnt build up the AtoP other than what was at hand, a manuver battle would have served the AI much better.
Im aware of programming AIs to find out what to do in what situasion isnt the easiest of task, to a certain point even possible compared to a good human mind.
As to victory levels, in the game where i didnt take Richmond i won purely by destroying more Elements than losing. Overall i hadnt take any strategic territory other than parts of AR/ TN.
U could ofc with merit IMHO argue that with the destruction of the ANV it didnt really matter, the war would have been over any how.
The CSA campaign.
I was vermantly trying to test some issues with scripting of KY events that i had experienced in my US games. So i avoid going into KY until the US side had both taken Lexington and killed my KY militia, but more on that in another post. I didnt lose Bowling Green tho and that is importand for later.
My intial strategic thots was win the war by invading and taking over OH, IL gaining some prescious industrial capacity even the game a bit up.
This was my first CSA campaign and by nature i guess i finasially conservative so my thots was try not to get the inflation up. I was aware, that would hurt my army but i was trying to think in the longer run. Taking moral hits was ok just not inflation. I ended with 3 points in inflation IIRC.
Also my thot was to build lots of RR and rivertransport. Both to transport supply and giving me a mobil army. The thinking being a smaller army, but mobil army at the right spot might be better than a colosus on clay feets. I ended up 4 doubling my RR capacity.
These 2 things did hurt my building of an army and im not sure i would have survived an unslaugther.
Eastern strategy for 61 was to take the Potomac line from Alexandria to Harpers Ferry and entrench there. My fairly small ANV was able to do that before the unset of winter.
West. Thínking was to hold on to MO build lots of militia and try take St Louis if possible. I was through out the game able to hold on to all of MO but i didnt take St louis. In trying i got repulsed a few times. These failed attempts the AI used off set point for its offensives, but in turn i replused its armies.(divisional+ size on both sides)
In TN build up an army to advance into KY after US had taken most and eventually advance into OH or IL. Plan was taking OH while my MO force would take IL.
As thing happend it didnt turn out that way. At the end of game i had cleared KY and made small gains into OH/IN takign some of the Ohio river cities.
After taking the Potomac line in the East winter was about and i got into cities to wait it out. Planing on taking the line as spring came again.
With the dec drafts and economy boosts i did reinforce my ANV by solely using my means to build units in VA. At spring i had some 7 full divisions in 3 corps.
Again as with CSA AI the US AI did seems to spend to many units wandering around in winter taking casulties while not being offensive.
Spring come and i notice that all of AtoP is located in DC and no forces in Baltimore or along the front line to me, except in DC ofc.
So i advance T.J Jacksons corps over the Potomac from Harpers Ferry and get the idea what if i take DC now. According to the victory conditions i can win like that, still holding Bowling Green.
I wasnt really expecting too but some times bold moves are rewarded.
Baltimore is still open so i advance Jackson there while guarding his flank with my 2nd corps. This means i have a continues line of my 3 corps. 2 corps being adjecting to DC. Main corps with Alexandria and 2nd corps across the Potomac next to DC.
Well the Baltimore expedition end in disaster i do take the city easily, but in same turn a single US division moves up. Resulting a battle where im 3 to 1 in pwr, but get thrashed by the single US division and I take some thing like 8 to 1 casulties. Each men in the single US division killing each 1 of my men or so. Hmm oh well.
I withdraw Jackson to Harpers Ferry to rebuild.
Mean while the main US army advances from DC into Alexandra VA leaving DC pretty undefended.
For 3 turns and this is wierd does my main force in Alexandria at offensive posture not attack the US army in the same Area. No battles occur between this 2 armies for 3 turns. Very odd.
Same time seing DC left unguarded except 1 divison i move my 2nd corps into DC to take and win an auto victory.
Some battles occurs over a few turns neither conclusive.
Then at the 3 or 4th turn finally a battle in Alexandria happens. Ending with a huge defeat to me cuz by now the main US army is seemly entrenched. My army retreats of all places to DC. Here it apparently in passive posture gets wacked by the US force here losing 2 of my divisions out right.
Following turn does my 2nd corps still in DC thrash the US force there and takes DC ending in autovictory.
Well actually it isnt recorded as CSA victory only as a stalemate, again odd. Only explanation i cant find is that i have 175 moral not the 200, but still i take the cities that is descriped to win an auto victory.
Its clear IMO a AI fault to leave DC to attack my force in Alexandria leaving DC pretty unguarded, while DC is being flanked. Especially since no battle happend there for that many turns. Whether this is a bug or just a fluke i dont know.
Allowing me to win an "auto" victory. If u look at overall force in the DC area im pretty out numbered, but wins an artificial victory.
These are my obeservations on playing A-ACW. As a note its my first tries with AGEOD games, but i consider my self a fairly adapt player.
I think the capture the whole Command and Control issue of the ACW is done very well.
Im hoping some of the quirks in the AI can be worked out, over time. Possibly altering the victory levels or reducing the amount of moral u get from eliminating enemy elements. I do have so say its still early days so any final judgement in regards to such a change should be taken in that light. Also these are just my observations, nothing more.
Overall im very posetive about the game and plays it with much joy looking forward to any improvments im sure will happend over time.
Kind regards,
Rasmus
P.S i have saved all of the last US campaign and the CSA campaign if its some thing that wana be looked over.
I've finnished 3 campaigns now. 2 as US and 1 as CSA.
Both US campaigns seems to have had similar progression line as urs.
I won both US games in summer of 63. Being behind schedule in the west, initial command structures certainly slowing me down and the fact i left Mclelland out there.
East in both campaigns progressed rapidly. Deterioting fast in 62 for the CSA. This was never my intention. My intention in both games was to Dig in behind the Rappahannock and stay there while winning the war in the West.
Problem was that throughout 62 after i had won the Rappahannock line and entrenched there. The AI attacked that line relentlessly. Over a river into fortified positions.
ANV lost some 50-60k men from summer to fall 62, graduately rising my moral as he lost elements and loweing his own. During the winter it didnt help it self by mulling around outside cities getting i assume hit by harsh weather.
Starting in fall 62 i started build up my AotP which i hadnt given any resources up to that point. By spring it had some 150k men in 4 corps.
I started to advance over a broad front ending up with ANV splitting up in 2. 1 ending up besieged in Charlottesville other in Richmond.
in one of my games i passed the 180 moral threshold by eliminating the Charlottesville force destroying elements giving me moral.
In other i had to take Richmond but basicly the recipy was the same.
In general i find the AI to be quite strong. Doing the right kinda manuvers.
But this particular behavior of ANV assulting fortified positions across river taking huge casulties isnt some thing the CSA can really afford.
Since i hadnt build up the AtoP other than what was at hand, a manuver battle would have served the AI much better.
Im aware of programming AIs to find out what to do in what situasion isnt the easiest of task, to a certain point even possible compared to a good human mind.
As to victory levels, in the game where i didnt take Richmond i won purely by destroying more Elements than losing. Overall i hadnt take any strategic territory other than parts of AR/ TN.
U could ofc with merit IMHO argue that with the destruction of the ANV it didnt really matter, the war would have been over any how.
The CSA campaign.
I was vermantly trying to test some issues with scripting of KY events that i had experienced in my US games. So i avoid going into KY until the US side had both taken Lexington and killed my KY militia, but more on that in another post. I didnt lose Bowling Green tho and that is importand for later.
My intial strategic thots was win the war by invading and taking over OH, IL gaining some prescious industrial capacity even the game a bit up.
This was my first CSA campaign and by nature i guess i finasially conservative so my thots was try not to get the inflation up. I was aware, that would hurt my army but i was trying to think in the longer run. Taking moral hits was ok just not inflation. I ended with 3 points in inflation IIRC.
Also my thot was to build lots of RR and rivertransport. Both to transport supply and giving me a mobil army. The thinking being a smaller army, but mobil army at the right spot might be better than a colosus on clay feets. I ended up 4 doubling my RR capacity.
These 2 things did hurt my building of an army and im not sure i would have survived an unslaugther.
Eastern strategy for 61 was to take the Potomac line from Alexandria to Harpers Ferry and entrench there. My fairly small ANV was able to do that before the unset of winter.
West. Thínking was to hold on to MO build lots of militia and try take St Louis if possible. I was through out the game able to hold on to all of MO but i didnt take St louis. In trying i got repulsed a few times. These failed attempts the AI used off set point for its offensives, but in turn i replused its armies.(divisional+ size on both sides)
In TN build up an army to advance into KY after US had taken most and eventually advance into OH or IL. Plan was taking OH while my MO force would take IL.
As thing happend it didnt turn out that way. At the end of game i had cleared KY and made small gains into OH/IN takign some of the Ohio river cities.
After taking the Potomac line in the East winter was about and i got into cities to wait it out. Planing on taking the line as spring came again.
With the dec drafts and economy boosts i did reinforce my ANV by solely using my means to build units in VA. At spring i had some 7 full divisions in 3 corps.
Again as with CSA AI the US AI did seems to spend to many units wandering around in winter taking casulties while not being offensive.
Spring come and i notice that all of AtoP is located in DC and no forces in Baltimore or along the front line to me, except in DC ofc.
So i advance T.J Jacksons corps over the Potomac from Harpers Ferry and get the idea what if i take DC now. According to the victory conditions i can win like that, still holding Bowling Green.
I wasnt really expecting too but some times bold moves are rewarded.
Baltimore is still open so i advance Jackson there while guarding his flank with my 2nd corps. This means i have a continues line of my 3 corps. 2 corps being adjecting to DC. Main corps with Alexandria and 2nd corps across the Potomac next to DC.
Well the Baltimore expedition end in disaster i do take the city easily, but in same turn a single US division moves up. Resulting a battle where im 3 to 1 in pwr, but get thrashed by the single US division and I take some thing like 8 to 1 casulties. Each men in the single US division killing each 1 of my men or so. Hmm oh well.
I withdraw Jackson to Harpers Ferry to rebuild.
Mean while the main US army advances from DC into Alexandra VA leaving DC pretty undefended.
For 3 turns and this is wierd does my main force in Alexandria at offensive posture not attack the US army in the same Area. No battles occur between this 2 armies for 3 turns. Very odd.
Same time seing DC left unguarded except 1 divison i move my 2nd corps into DC to take and win an auto victory.
Some battles occurs over a few turns neither conclusive.
Then at the 3 or 4th turn finally a battle in Alexandria happens. Ending with a huge defeat to me cuz by now the main US army is seemly entrenched. My army retreats of all places to DC. Here it apparently in passive posture gets wacked by the US force here losing 2 of my divisions out right.
Following turn does my 2nd corps still in DC thrash the US force there and takes DC ending in autovictory.
Well actually it isnt recorded as CSA victory only as a stalemate, again odd. Only explanation i cant find is that i have 175 moral not the 200, but still i take the cities that is descriped to win an auto victory.
Its clear IMO a AI fault to leave DC to attack my force in Alexandria leaving DC pretty unguarded, while DC is being flanked. Especially since no battle happend there for that many turns. Whether this is a bug or just a fluke i dont know.
Allowing me to win an "auto" victory. If u look at overall force in the DC area im pretty out numbered, but wins an artificial victory.
These are my obeservations on playing A-ACW. As a note its my first tries with AGEOD games, but i consider my self a fairly adapt player.
I think the capture the whole Command and Control issue of the ACW is done very well.
Im hoping some of the quirks in the AI can be worked out, over time. Possibly altering the victory levels or reducing the amount of moral u get from eliminating enemy elements. I do have so say its still early days so any final judgement in regards to such a change should be taken in that light. Also these are just my observations, nothing more.
Overall im very posetive about the game and plays it with much joy looking forward to any improvments im sure will happend over time.
Kind regards,
Rasmus
P.S i have saved all of the last US campaign and the CSA campaign if its some thing that wana be looked over.
set in late 1864 to gain victory. I had overrun the Carolinas, Georgia and cleared the Mississipi before I had enough to win!It definitely gets tougher as time goes by. If you don't win it by '63, the morale loss you start to experience means that you have to do a whole lot more to win. In one game, I made the mistake of stopping my advance after capturing Washington DC, because the battles to take it had nearly shattered my army. I waited too long and had to sit through the winter watching that hard won NM value start to drop lower and lower. It took a very tough spring offensive in both theaters to finally finish them off.
Return to “AGEod's American Civil War”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests