How to get CSA to defend Richmond

[Chivalry]

Playing as the Union with the '61 beginning sec, I can't get the CSA to properly defend Richmond.

I took all my Eastern built units and send them to attack Harper's Ferry.
The CSA responds with their army and leaves Richmond wide open.

I then march DC Buell's army South.

Anyway, I've taken Richmond 3 times this way, and really I dont want to take it that easy as it almost ends the game in Fall of 61

[Le Ricain]

Playing as the Union with the '61 beginning sec, I can't get the CSA to properly defend Richmond.

I took all my Eastern built units and send them to attack Harper's Ferry.
The CSA responds with their army and leaves Richmond wide open.

I then march DC Buell's army South.

Anyway, I've taken Richmond 3 times this way, and really I dont want to take it that easy as it almost ends the game in Fall of 61

Are you playing with the latest version (1.09)? The CSA AI has steadily improved with each patch. Your experience sounds like an early patch.

[Coffee Sergeant]

Also experiencing the same problem (with 1.09). Athena thought it was good idea to send the bulk of the AoTP (CSA) through the mountains of Pennsylvania in winter while I marched to Richmond with a powerful corps. This is maxing out the AI advantage, with medium aggressiveness Perhaps I should try low aggressiveness.

The Union AI is greatly improved though. Still makes some stupid mistakes(never garrisons objectives, for one), but more much aggressive. In my current game he captured northern Va and most of Texas by the end of 1861 (again, maxing out the AI advantage with medium aggressiveness)

[Le Ricain]

In my recent 1.09 April 61 game as the Union, the CSA (finally) defended the East well. A large army under J. Johnston defended Harpers Ferry and then Winchester while the rest defended the rivers north of Richmond with a continuous line. A difficult game, but most enjoyable.

[Jabberwock]

You may want to turn down the AI detect bonus CS. With it all the way up, Athena has no FOW and may decide on one turn to try for a distant objective, then get deeper and deeper into it as the only option available when you counter-punch. Try that instead of tweaking aggressiveness.

[Inside686]

I only played two games as US, one with 1.08 and the other with 1.09 and every time the scenario was the same: I succeeded to take Richmond at early 1962 thus almost ending the game. Every time I encountered strong resistance from General Lee (general Beauregard always moved to north doing nothing) but it was not enough to stop my huge two corps and I easily took Richmond defeating Lee's vain attacks to break Richmond siege.
So I wonder if in the real civil war it was as easy as it is in the game for the Union forces to take the rebel capital but they didn't achieved it because they had incapable general or if rebels are too weak in the game.

[Le Ricain]

I only played two games as US, one with 1.08 and the other with 1.09 and every time the scenario was the same: I succeeded to take Richmond at early 1962 thus almost ending the game. Every time I encountered strong resistance from General Lee (general Beauregard always moved to north doing nothing) but it was not enough to stop my huge two corps and I easily took Richmond defeating Lee's vain attacks to break Richmond siege.
So I wonder if in the real civil war it was as easy as it is in the game for the Union forces to take the rebel capital but they didn't achieved it because they had incapable general or if rebels are too weak in the game.

I suspect that he answer to your question lies with the PBEM fraternity.

[Inside686]

Me too...

[GlobalExplorer]

In my current game with the USA (v1.09) the CSA strategy in Virginia quickly lost cohesion. After I took Harpers Ferry, Winchester, Manassas simultaneously with an invasion around Norfolk the AI sent Jackson / Beauregard with a full stack in the wrong direction (west to the Virginia/WV border, where I had started a smaller invasion of opportunity). Richmond was open since the AI left Fredericksburg guarded by 1 single militia unit which were overcome easily. The only forces left in Richmond seem to be the locked ones + Lee, while I have 4 corps with 6 - 8 strong divisions which will take it with ease. Maybe I was too fast for her, to attack Harpers Ferry, Manassas, West Virginia and Norfolk simultaneously, and since there is too little units left to build any conceivable defensive line, Virginia is lost anyway.

[Inside686]

It looks like my games and I didn't go especially fast. First battle took place at approximately the same moment of the real bull run with the same general and were won easily every time. I think the AI must be adjusted with their defense of Richmond.

[GlobalExplorer]

Looks like the CSA AI must assume some sort of (historically correct) catastrophic failure on the USA side. If however, you attack in order and strength it has no chance in the East and the war will be over sometime in the second year. Right now I am in late January and I will be ready to attack Richmond once the weather improves.

In my case the AI made one large push on Harpers Ferry which was besieged by my weakest corps (mostly Volunteers but also some elite brigades). The battle was a Union victory with similar losses on both sides, so as I did not own the structure I had to retreat. But that was it for the CSA because at that time I had two other corps with all my better divisions resting in Alexandria.

Other things I noticed which the AI doesn't do but I always will:

once the AI has taken an objective it doesnt defend it with a full corps (I always move my corps as little as possible and have them rest / defend objectives at the same time)
no protection of support lines (railway line + depot cities)
no sharpshooters and artillery in every division
no cutting off of support line before attacking a larger force (if possible)

Just from the top of my head ..

[beefcake]

I've seen campaigns go in both directions. In some cases, the Reb army is out of position to the west of Fredricksburg and never gets back to Richmond in time. On the other hand, I've fought campaigns where I thought they did a good job of challenging my advances. Defending in place at Fredricksburg, the Wilderness, and Charlottesburg. In one case, the Army of NV sacrified itself at the gates of Richmond, fighting a series of battles to break my chokehold on that city.

I will try the settings Jabberwock suggested and see what happens. It makes sense that giving Athena a high Fog of War advantage could be causing it to make poor choices instead of guarding the important strategic sites (Atlanta and Vicksburg spring to mind immediately. I have yet to see the AI mount a serious defense for either of those locations).

My $.02 is that the war probably would have been shorter if the USA had stronger leadership in the armies at the beginning. But I also think the war would have continued at least through 1863. The Reb armies were not pushovers and would have continued fighting in spite of the loss of Richmond.

[Inside686]

So maybe it could be considered to reduce McDowell's (and 61's generals') attributes.

[Jabberwock]

I've seen this happen now in v1.09, but I'm using the RR and Leader mods. I was probably wrong, nothing to do with the detect bonus. Also looks like Athena is getting obsessed with Ft Pickens again. Are others that are seeing this using any mods, or is it happening in 'vanilla' 1.09?

[Clovis]

1) Don't use any Fow advantage for the AI. It was right a few patches ago, but now it just give AI running on some distant BUT undefended objectives.

2) Real problem with initial setup isn't the general values but the too high number of supply wagons on the US side. Each gives a 10% bonus in battle, and I guess it's why the Federals win the first big eastern battle in 1861.

[Inside686]

Each gives a 10% bonus in battle

Are you sure about this?

[Rafiki]

Are you sure about this?

Yup

[Coffee Sergeant]

Yup

So if you have 10 supply wagons, you get 100% bonus? I thought it was just 10% for a supply wagon present in the stack, no matter how many there were.

[Rafiki]

Ah, sorry, we might be talking past eachother a bit.

A stack that contains one or more supply wagons gets a 10% bonus, but the number of supply wagons doesn't influence this.

[Jabberwock]

According to ltr: Any bonus is applied to each unit's fire and assault values each round. So 10% is a big deal.

[Eugene Carr]

According to ltr: Any bonus is applied to each unit's fire and assault values each round. So 10% is a big deal.

Reading the wiki it seems wagons are even more valuable than I thought and well worth the high cost but the AI particularly CSA may not be putting them where needed most.

If their bonus is giving Mcdowell et al an unfair advantage at game start does this mean:
1) The 10 % combat bonus should be reduced?
or
2) The CSA should get more supply attached to starting armies?

or a combination of these.

[Coregonas]

I believe (mostly) its ok as it is.


CSA had a lot more problems with supplies than with the skills of his troops / leaders..

If we want we can change to spend 20 conscripts in 1 Wagon, instead of having 3 militia battallions... It is not as costly in the end.

But I believe there are a few forever-locked-Wagons (i.e. Ft Donelson / Norfolk) in the CSA that should be unlocked but seems Lords of the Ageod believe these must remain locked as designed...