deep enemy assaults!

[barkhorn45]

am in late summer '61 in april'61 full camp.against ai as union.joe johnston is running rampant thru northern pa attacking reading and then lancaster.i have taken manassas and hold harpers ferry with banks and shields and the former army under patterson is in strasburg
AoNV had a battle with a force under pgt beuragard[which i lost] and now he appears to be slipping around washington[which is well defended] to head north.
I'm sorry but i don't think at this stage of the war that this is realistic,game or not,it's taking the fun out of the game.I know that this is what a human player would do[and for that reason i probably won't play pbem]but seems gamey to me.doesn't it?
i know this is a personal view but i think 15 day turns are to much in a igo ugo game even at this strategic level.
just my opinion but i'm about to give up.

[gunnergoz]

It is frustrating I agree. The good news is that, if you defend in some depth, keeping militia stationed in all the major towns and cities, the Rebs can seldom break through very far. After a while, build up a reserve and go after them. They will soon enough peter out because of lack of replacements and if they are hit hard with good leaders, you can really put a dent in them. After a while they give up and go South again. At least, that's been my experienced, which is admittedly limited. But I know what you mean - just don't give up.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[aryaman]

A simple way to limit deep raids would be to limit SupplyStore and AmmoStore of models
Edit: In fact, although Ammostore can be ok, SupplyStore looks too high from an historical perspective, most units carry at leats 2 turns, that is, 1 month of supply with them, that makes fast units like cavalry very independent of supply lines.

[satisfaction]

A simple way to limit deep raids would be to limit SupplyStore and AmmoStore of models
Edit: In fact, although Ammostore can be ok, SupplyStore looks too high from an historical perspective, most units carry at leats 2 turns, that is, 1 month of supply with them, that makes fast units like cavalry very independent of supply lines.

Interesting point. Does this mean that an individual unit carries 1 month of supplies, not counting any supply wagons/units with them? If so then that seems off base as it minimizes the importance of supply lines (which were usually the most vital factor in determining army movements. Seems this would make the "march to the sea" an everyday thing. Just my $.02 but wonder what the impact would be of making this number 1 turn instead of 2.

[arsan]

I guess the result would be starving Ai units everywhere
And quite a lot player units too.

The two turn inherent supply allows Ai and players enough time to notice that some of his units are not receiving supply and actually have a turn to react and try to solve the problem, moving the unit to supply source or sending a wagon.

With just one turn you will go form 100% supply on a unit to 0%= Dead unit before you can do anything to solve this. Not very fun or playable IMHO

Now if a 7 days turn mod is done sometime it woudl be perfectly Ok and more historical with two turns/15 days inherent supply than now.
For now, one should see the two turn supply on units as a needed gameplay mechanism and an abstraction of the food they have on the backpacks+what they can gather foraging on the march+low level supply means (not shown on the game as big supply trains units).
Just my two cents

Regarding the Ai deep attacks, IIRC, recently Clovis posted a AI tweak that promised to help solving the issue. Now, if only i could find it...

Regards

[satisfaction]

Good points, I figured it had to do with AI. I'm being lazy by not looking, but how far can a unit go from depot supply source and not be out of supply? I'll try and look too when I get a chance and post if anything interesting comes to mind. EDIT: It looks like supply wagons can push supplies to units in same and adjacent regions, can't find anything about how far depots or cities "push" supplies to units. Don't know why, but this topic has caught my interest.

ps I hate units that die because I forgot to supply them, figure cannibalism should be an option.

[cwhomer]

What AI settings are you using? If you give AI a high fog of war bonus and use conservative setting, it should cut down on the deep raids.

[arsan]

Uff! No easy answer to that!
The supply system is hopefully very automated but very complex under the hood.
If i understand it right, on perfect circumstances (railroad connection, perfect weather, 3/3 rail pool available...) supply could be pushed up to 15 regions away if needed (up to 5 per supply phase x 3 phases with maximum rail pool available).
But thing are rarely perfect. A unit could be 2 or 3 regions away from a depot and starve with mountain terrain in between no rails and bad weather.
if you are interested on this do a forum search (lots of in detailed threads about this) or check the wiki
http://ageod.nsen.ch/aacwwiki/Supply

Myself, after sometime playing the game i just let my intuition guide me to know how far i con go and how many man can send there without starving. I'm wrong lots of times but usually one have enough reaction time to solve the supply issue going back or sending wagons/creating depots.

Regards!

[barkhorn45]

It is frustrating I agree. The good news is that, if you defend in some depth, keeping militia stationed in all the major towns and cities, the Rebs can seldom break through very far. After a while, build up a reserve and go after them. They will soon enough peter out because of lack of replacements and if they are hit hard with good leaders, you can really put a dent in them. After a while they give up and go South again. At least, that's been my experienced, which is admittedly limited. But I know what you mean - just don't give up.

the thing is j johnston has a pretty large force ie jackson ,smith and bee and have eliminated the forces at lancaster and reading which in the case of reading were not militia.
it is difficult to assemble a force powerfull enough to deal with him especially considering the caliber of officers the union is saddled with.as i said pgt b.is starting his way north and he appears to have a more substantial force the johnson considering the pasting he gave the aonv when i tried to block him se of manassas-3690 t0 1151 casulties.
as for ai settings they were set for normal

[cwjelen]

Had the same problem playing Confederate: once unlocked the whole northern forces swarm deep into the south, east and west.
If you have some garrison, it makes defeating them quite easy: give them some time to use their supplies and ammo, then finish them of while using your main force to invade enemy territory.

[TheDoctorKing]

Defense in depth is reasonable for the south, forcing the north to proceed carefully and bring lots of transport. The north shouldn't have to have parallel defenses. As the original poster said, it is not historically accurate to have large CSA forces invading the north on a regular basis. They didn't do it, for plenty of good reasons, one of which was their inability to supply themselves up there. Players like to have southern invasions of the north for reasons that are unclear to me. So as players we are stuck with AI forces being silly. I consider this a serious flaw in an otherwise fine game.

[barkhorn45]

it is difficult to garrison every city in the ne i had a 2 element militia and a regular penn. unit in reading and it is gone and they were at a ent.level of 2.
lancaster was similarly garrisoned and they are gone also and j.johnston is now outside of wilmington de.and with beuragard moving north i forsee large parts of penn.and ny becoming confederate.
so what are my options,send the aonv scurring north to chase these forces around[i know this is a GAME but it should be SOMEWHAT historical, but this is about as historically accurate as the movie "pearl harbor"]
i realize that the south COULD have acted this way[as i was told on this forum a long time ago when i questioned the hist.accuracy of allowing full mob.and conscription on day one]but did'nt the south endevour to fight a defensive war to show the world who the true aggressor's were?
even when the conf.decided to invade the north lee's goal was harrisonburg which was less than 80m north of their lines[and it was designed to force the north to fight a battle on lee's terms not to take territory for that sake alone] not hundreds of miles like johnson is doing.
i guess i could move on richmond but then i would activate lee and that would probably lead to the loss of boston.
i stopped playing this game when it was at level 1.10c because of this but i read that this problem was being addressed.at that point there would be cav.or small units[believe it or not there was a supply train running around penn.and i could'nt catch him]but the problem seems to be worse rather than better.

[barkhorn45]

i forgot to add that i was considering purchasing ww1 but i envision a french div.taking berlin unless it is strongly garrisoned.think i'll pass!

[Pocus]

Not the same engine.

[arsan]

Really, i think complaining so bitterly because the AI is actually fighting you and giving you some headaches is pretty funny
It's what an AI should do, you know? Would you prefer her to stay put and wait to die when you come rolling with your big USA Army?
Each game evolves differently. Some better, some worst. Sometimes the AI is more defensive and others more offensive.
Luckily its not always the same.
Surely next time you will cover your front better
Regards

[Major Tom]

Really, i think complaining so bitterly because the AI is actually fighting you and giving you some headaches is pretty funny
It's what an AI should do, you know?

For myself, the problem I have with this AI CSI strategy is not that it causes headaches, but that it is ultimately suicidal, especiallywhen she does it in Winter. I don't want to win the war that way.

[Comtedemeighan]

Are you playing with the current 1.13 patch?

[tagwyn]

A: Athena is a LOT tougher!! Gens Lee and Jackson, et.al. would have loved to be as active as she is. t

[Moff Jerjerrod]

While I do believe that deep offensive penetrations into Northern Territory by the South is historically inaccurate/impossible I don't think the problem you're seeing is as bad as you might think it is.

Let me use my current game as an example.

I started a full campaign game as the North.

After reading about those annoying Western Theatre cavalry raids made by the South I decided to try garrisoning my unprotected towns per this forums suggestions. Sure enough, while I did experience cavalry raids, they were not as successful as they had been in past games I've played. I pretty much was able to contain these pests up until the summer of 1863. It is then that I experienced my first "raid in force" by the South. 12000 men rushed up to Chicago and Milwaukee and took them from me. I was enraged just as you might think.

After shifting forces around and calling up volunteers and creating some more divisions I was able to contain then force my opponent to retreat. Once the lines stabilised I got attacked again in the middle of winter by 23000 man force losing the state of Ohio to the South. Again I was pretty frazzled but after slogging it out I've all but ejected the invaders from Ohio and it's late summer of 1865.

The game is pretty much lost for me but I've had the most fun to date with AACW because these major offensives into my territory have taught me that:

1. I need to be more aggressive raising troops
2. I need to not be afraid of using the draft
3. My supply network could be better
4. I could organise my leaders and units better

I intend to finish this campaign even though I'm going to lose as I'm 1000 points behind in the victory point score but I feel that I owe it to myself to see how this finally turns out.

I then plan on playing another full campaign as the North again, only this time working on my above listed weaknesses.

Be patient, don't give up, and try your best to stop them!

[arsan]

For myself, the problem I have with this AI CSI strategy is not that it causes headaches, but that it is ultimately suicidal, especiallywhen she does it in Winter. I don't want to win the war that way.

On this we agree!
On the last patch Pocus has included new work on the AI to teach her not to campaign in winter. Surely thing will not be perfect but its a good start.
Athena ir learning some new tricks

[TheDoctorKing]

But still no resolution of the actual problem, which is the fact that the CSA AI will consider invasions of the north in any weather. And intelligently so, at least in good weather, since for some odd reason they seem to work pretty well. Moff says he had lots of fun fighting the southern invasions of the north, but that's not a game of the Civil War. That's as much "sandbox" as somebody conquering the world in Europa Universalis III as the Incas (I did it in the last game I played of EU3 before packing it up and giving it to a friend).

Another point - Moff says you shouldn't "be afraid of using the draft" - but of course in historical fact, both sides were terrified of using the draft because of the effect it would have had on civilian morale. I personally think that the draft should be prohibited until around the historical date or if some outcome-driven trigger is passed, like very significant territorial losses for either side. This might be a way to punish the south for foolish ahistorical invasions of the north - the USA can draft without NM penalty as soon as CSA units enter free states. And the CSA can draft without NM penalty as soon as USA controls at least two of the "target cities" - Richmond, Atlanta, Nashville, New Orleans, Charleston.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[arsan]

On the real war there was quite a lot of (probably somewhat foolish and wasteful) CSA invasions: Antietam campaign, Gettysburg campaign, Braggs invasion of Kentucky... even the late war "suicide" campaign of Hood against Nashville (on a time when Tennesee was deep behind the front line and with 60% of the of CSA territory under USA control).
Surely Ai invasions are different or deeper than the historical ones but i don't think you can draw a hard coded line for this. It woudl be pretty boring and predictable.
Specially because the game situation can be very different form the real one. If the CSA is winning why should she limit herself to wait in the trenches and not try a "coup de grace"??
What on the historic situation could look ludicrous can be pretty reasonable on the game campaigns development.
I definitely agree there is room for improvements on all this but not so hardcoded that is leaves the CSA player without the possibility to make his own decisions and mistakes.

Regards

[Moff Jerjerrod]

I'll echo what Gray_Lensman said and that AACW is not a replay of the Civil War as at actually took place. While AACW is far from being a "sandbox" game ala EU series from Paradox, it does allow for challenging situations the player must deal with.

I believe that you can stop the deep penetrations into Northern territory, or at least reduce the frequency of such assualts, by understanding how to defend the avenues to the North with strong ZOC. To do this you need a lot of manpower. To get that manpower you must draft. I know that the historically the draft was a touchy subject and there are penalities in AACW for drafting to represent the historical resistance to using the draft. When I say you must not be afraid to use the draft, I'm refering to the need to defend in depth.

[tagwyn]

A: Are you ignoring me? Athena is "kicking my ****"; LOL. t

[TheDoctorKing]

On the real war there was quite a lot of (probably somewhat foolish and wasteful) CSA invasions: Antietam campaign, Gettysburg campaign, Braggs invasion of Kentucky... even the late war "suicide" campaign of Hood against Nashville (on a time when Tennesee was deep behind the front line and with 60% of the of CSA territory under USA control).
Surely Ai invasions are different or deeper than the historical ones but i don't think you can draw a hard coded line for this. It woudl be pretty boring and predictable.
Specially because the game situation can be very different form the real one. If the CSA is winning why should she limit herself to wait in the trenches and not try a "coup de grace"??
What on the historic situation could look ludicrous can be pretty reasonable on the game campaigns development.
I definitely agree there is room for improvements on all this but not so hardcoded that is leaves the CSA player without the possibility to make his own decisions and mistakes.

Regards

All of the "invasions" that you cite except for Gettysburg were of states that were at least theoretically "Confederate". That is, they were slave states that had made at least some official steps towards seceding and joining the CSA. Confederate public opinion saw these actions as attempts to recoup lost territories, not invasions of the north. The campaigns you cite were controversial mostly after they were over, because they wasted resources and lives.

The two Confederate invasions of free states (Gettysburg and Morgan's raid; there was also a small incursion during the Antietam campaign) were very controversial in the south. The northern fear of "slave power" was very close to the surface and southerners feared provoking the people of the north into using their full strength in the war - something that the north never actually did. Southern soldiers deserted in droves rather than cross the Potomac even into Maryland in 1862, holding that any attack on the north diluted the "purity" of their cause. Southern leaders were also concerned about the impact on foreign public opinion - only through being seen as the aggrieved party, the victim of invasion, did they have any chance of getting support from the British. Lee was roundly condemned in the CSA Congress for deciding to invade Pennsylvania in 1863, even before the invasion ended in defeat.

A CSA victory would not have meant the conquest of the north by the CSA. They sought only to preserve their own independence. They didn't want to be part of the same country as the northerners. Even their incursions into the north were temporary and tactical, intended to outflank defensive lines or interfere with important communication links. They never sought to capture a northern city (aside from some comic-opera plotting to seize Chicago with escaped prisoners), or hold northern territory. The very idea that a southern player or AI might end up conquering Ohio is, as I said, as ridiculous as the possibility that the Incas could conquer Spain in a game of the 16th century.

I think that the main reason that the game designers cling to the possibility of a southern invasion of the north is the reason you cite - it is more exciting for southern players. I think that this is a mistake. The advantage that AGEOD has over its competitors in the historical computer game world is its devotion to historical accuracy. This feature of the game is a major diversion from that accuracy. I say make the game accurate and let the chips fall where they may. Southern players can still have plenty of fun sending those Yankee invaders packing. After all, this is the "War of Northern Aggression", isn't it?

I'm in favor of allowing the southerner to make mistakes. I just think that we should be more aware of the cost of those mistakes. Right now, if a southern army invades a northern state, that northern state raises a cavalry regiment. I think there should be very much more substantial penalties - 1) a big hit in foreign intervention level, recouped if the CSA wins a victory in a major battle on foreign soil, 2) a large free call for volunteers for the north, perhaps delayed a couple of turns to reflect northern public response to anything seen as a major invasion or an attempt to conquer northern soil, 3) a boost to northern NM, small on the first turn of the invasion and very big after three or four turns. The upside for the CSA might be to give out big victory points and NM increases for any victories in the north, and maybe for the (even temporary) capture of northern cities. None of this should apply to CSA entry into slave states (Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri) or western territories, or even states west of the Missouri (Kansas, Oregon, California, I don't think they would have triggered the same violent reaction in the north).

[Redeemer]

I'm in favor of allowing the southerner to make mistakes. I just think that we should be more aware of the cost of those mistakes. Right now, if a southern army invades a northern state, that northern state raises a cavalry regiment. I think there should be very much more substantial penalties - 1) a big hit in foreign intervention level, recouped if the CSA wins a victory in a major battle on foreign soil, 2) a large free call for volunteers for the north, perhaps delayed a couple of turns to reflect northern public response to anything seen as a major invasion or an attempt to conquer northern soil, 3) a boost to northern NM, small on the first turn of the invasion and very big after three or four turns. The upside for the CSA might be to give out big victory points and NM increases for any victories in the north, and maybe for the (even temporary) capture of northern cities. None of this should apply to CSA entry into slave states (Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri) or western territories, or even states west of the Missouri (Kansas, Oregon, California, I don't think they would have triggered the same violent reaction in the north).

I agree somewhat. I don't think that foreign intervention was effected much by the 1862 or 1863 invasions except maybe as a negative after they were repulsed. I would be in favor of a foreign intervention bonus or penalty depending on the outcome of the campaign. Kinda like the NM hit the north takes for the lack of a 1861 offensive. Set some criteria, if the south enters a free state they have to do such and such to gain +something foreign intervention, otherwise it is a -something intervention and maybe tie in a NM event with success or failure for both sides as well. Also, the governor of PA was able to raise 50,000 volunteers because of the Gettysburg campaign, I would like to see this and the desertions from the southern armies (maybe just as a cohesion hit) inacted. But make it worthwhile too. If the South succeeds in whatever criteria set for the invasions, make the intervention and NM bonus well worth it.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Deca]

am in late summer '61 in april'61 full camp.against ai as union.joe johnston is running rampant thru northern pa attacking reading and then lancaster.i have taken manassas and hold harpers ferry with banks and shields and the former army under patterson is in strasburg
AoNV had a battle with a force under pgt beuragard[which i lost] and now he appears to be slipping around washington[which is well defended] to head north.
I'm sorry but i don't think at this stage of the war that this is realistic,game or not,it's taking the fun out of the game.I know that this is what a human player would do[and for that reason i probably won't play pbem]but seems gamey to me.doesn't it?
i know this is a personal view but i think 15 day turns are to much in a igo ugo game even at this strategic level.
just my opinion but i'm about to give up.

First, let me say that I understand your frustration in what you believe to be unrealistic raids/attacks done by the CSA AI.


Having said that, consider some alternate ways of looking at it that might allow you to still enjoy the game rather than frustration & disappointment.



1) As a player, we have have the ability to make strategic & tactical decisions which are ahistorical. What I choose to build, where I choose to fight, and who I choose to fight it with in the manner I choose to fight it.

To give just one of many possible examples:

I give command to my divisions, corp & armies to the generals who are the most capable...NOT to the ones who are the most Senior & despite their Political favor. I willingly take the ramifications of my actions, which is something that might not be possible in real life or at that time.

2) Having knowledge of history gives a tremendous advantage over the AI as well as gives advantages to the human players to achieve results not otherwise possible.

To list one of many possible exmaples:
I know that the "war" will last for 114 turns. Hence, it is something I specifically optimize & plan for. Historical? Fair?


3) Something that might be clear to us now, might not have been as obvious to those during that time. For instance, historians & armchair generals of today have the ability to view the "big picture". They get the luxury of being able to break down the war piece by piece in a manner that would be impossible for anyone at that time. Hence, it is easy for us to say, "it would not have been done" or "they wouldn't have done that"; however, do we really know? If the Civil War was repeated 100 times, do we really know which battles would have taken place?

4) In regards to deep raids into Union territory, it truly is a double edge sword. If the CSA never made any raids into Union territory, then the vast majority of players would never garrison. If the AI was specifically told not to do it...ever...regardless of how little garrison, that would be excessively unfair to the CSA AI. On ther other hand, raids into Union territory are extremely effective in forcing the Union to maintain large quantities of resources protecting/garrisons many of their Towns/Cities and possibly frustrating the human player.


I think raids deep into the Union has been modeled excellently. If I do not protect an area adequately, they CSA punishes me for it....and rightfully so.

Likewise, the CSA AI should indeed circumnavigate battles it cannot win.



Keep in mind the alternative? Everyone plays a game in which we use the exact same commanders, to fight the exact same battles, for the exact same objectives, to have the exact same outcomes, over and over for literally each & every single time we play in which we find ourselves not even playing a game, but reliving the movie "Groundhog Day" (good movie by the way).