AGEOD Forums

This thread is for your commentary (and discussion with the AAR players) regarding the 'On Battlefields of Yore' AAR. We invite input as to what topics you would like to see covered.

Word on the street is that this is a game to behold, so I'll be looking forward to reading about it

Finally a new Multiplayer AAR!
i will follow this one!

I'm thinking maybe first we visit either corps and "marching to the guns", or overall raiding/counterraiding strategy, unless somebody has a better idea. I don't wan't to start off with cavalry or amphib/anti-amphib tactics, since Banks hasn't seen T-180 (Grand Campaign Cavalry Doctrine), and I want to let him experience my anti-amphib strategy, before reading about it.

EDIT: Or maybe we should start with analyzing the map to death, then a quick summary of the action so far.

Cool!
I will be taking notes!

Nonono, you are hereby banned from these threads, arsan!

Rafiki wrote:Word on the street is that this is a game to behold, so I'll be looking forward to reading about it

I won't given that in the absence of information this looks heavily like two of the experienced players from the Grand Campaign have decided to abandon ship and concentrate on their own AAR leure: leure: leure:

We're not abandoning anything, I hope. We have maybe gotten a little bored with the slow pace of the campaign. Rafiki has wanted me to expand on Runyan's strategy guide for a while now, making some of my opinions and strategies more accessible. Banks is a serious player, strategist, and AAR writer looking for a challenge, who sometimes agrees with my opinions, sometimes not. Together, we all came up with this idea. The GC is and will remain my first AAR priority, but I wanted to get this off the ground. I'll try to have another GC AAR post or two done before the weekend.

No need to fear regarding the GC. It's a long project and will likely pick-up as the vacation season comes to a close. As Jabber mentioned, this is simply a chance for a couple of old warhorses to share their ideas about their strategic perspectives on this great game. Just to add to the knowledge of all those who come to the forum in the future.

I certainly deferr most detailed game knowledge to my opponent and simply delight in the opportunity to be his guinnie pig and he mine.

It will be a fun game to watch I think .

I like the idea, I like the posts thus far.

What I am missing is the discussion of the choices and the reasons for them at a more strategic level. What kind of troops did each side buy? what kind of naval units (if any yet?). Why? How much money was spend on troops, and how was it raised? Any industrialisation?

Bertram

Since it's ongoing, I imagine they are a bit hesitant to reveal too much to eachother...

It's not completely open to each other, since we're discussing as we play. It will become more so as the game progresses. I'm trying not to tell Banks too much that I don't think already knows. He's doing the same.

It's fairly obvious to him by now that I built brigs, lots of them, and they're all in the Gulf at the moment. Also that I like shore batteries in strategic locations. So I will discuss those more in upcoming posts. I'm guessing he industrialized a little in at least PA early on, but stopped when my raiders tore through half the state. I've got the saves, but cataloguing the details might take a while.

Also, there's a lot of unexplored territory we can cover here, and I can already tell it's going to be difficult keeping it organized. One topic tends to lead into several others when I'm writing.

I'd like to see a post from Banks on marching to the guns vs. keeping the army together, but we are still seeing how that's going to play out. So far I'd say keeping the corps together has been working in his favor.

Jabber and Banks,
Great ARR! I can't say enougth. I will follow this ARR and hope to learn from it. Great info about river transport, history tells me who controls those rivers controlls the west, and the supply depots. I hope to learn more about Banks naval Stratedgy. I wait to see how Banks deals with Jabber's nasty raiders.

One thing I have noticed in my games as Union:
1. early april, I print money only. By atleat 4 supply replacements and one of each type and increase rail and river 20/10.

2. late april, print money, replacements; 4 regular inf, 4 cav, 1 mil, Basiclly I try to build each to a level of 4 each execpt for coastal guns. Rail and river 20/10 to fascitate replacements for ANV and Patterson

3. early May: blockade, print money, taxes for the most money, 5% bonds,
draft 1000 bounty if the event where a call for volunteers does not produce the 750 conscripts call for partial mobilization. replacements at 4 each type, re-enforcements. Why early May, have two turns to increase VP and NM.

Jabberwock wrote:It's not completely open to each other, since we're discussing as we play. It will become more so as the game progresses. I'm trying not to tell Banks too much that I don't think already knows. He's doing the same.

It's fairly obvious to him by now that I built brigs, lots of them, and they're all in the Gulf at the moment. Also that I like shore batteries in strategic locations. So I will discuss those more in upcoming posts. I'm guessing he industrialized a little in at least PA early on, but stopped when my raiders tore through half the state. I've got the saves, but cataloguing the details might take a while.

Also, there's a lot of unexplored territory we can cover here, and I can already tell it's going to be difficult keeping it organized. One topic tends to lead into several others when I'm writing.

I'd like to see a post from Banks on marching to the guns vs. keeping the army together, but we are still seeing how that's going to play out. So far I'd say keeping the corps together has been working in his favor.

I hope you two are making screen shots to post when the ARR is completed. I can understand not having them now will the game is going on.

Jabberwock wrote:I couldn't agree more. When I was arguing with one of my GC CinC's about what generals to use for what commands, this was definitely one reason why. Generals used to command any high-risk operations should be promotable, and near the top of the seniority list.

BTW, Burnside doesn't start with a 3 rating for defense. Defense is the first stat to get improved by earning experience.

Another light bulb turned on and very very useful to know. Thankee Jabber Though my thanks are tinged with a certain sadness that advancement is not such a matter of chance as I'd believed and that one can actually predict which stats will be advanced (I assume in which order) even if you do not know by how much Or is that known as well which would be slightly soul destroying?

Sorry to intrude, but I have a beginner question. I've been able to figure out the contextual meaning of "AAR"... but what does the acronym stand for?

Thanks, to whoever responds.

It's After-Action Report. I asked the same question, about 1800 posts ago.

Soundoff:

1st experience star = +1 defense
2nd = +1 offence
3rd = +1 strategy
4th = +1 more defense, etc.

What you don't know is how much experience you're going to earn from a particular battle. I think leaders are on a 10 point scale (don't have the db in front of me, so someone correct me if I'm wrong about that). That means one star at 10 XP, 2nd at 30, 3rd at 60, 4th at 100, etc.

Thanks, Jabberwock and Rafiki.

[color="Blue"]Comments made in main thread moved to this one [/color]

Jabberwock wrote:1st experience star = +1 defense
2nd = +1 offence
3rd = +1 strategy
4th = +1 more defense, etc.

Nope:

• Strategic ratings do not change because of experience.
• A leader’s offensive rating is increased by +1 for each even level of experience (2, 4, 6, etc.)
• A leader’s defensive rating is increased by +1 for each odd level of experience (1, 3, 5, etc.)

http://www.ageod.net/aacwwiki/Experience#Effects_for_leaders

Dixicrat wrote:Sorry to intrude, but I have a beginner question. I've been able to figure out the contextual meaning of "AAR"... but what does the acronym stand for?

If you find yourself wondering about what an acronym stands for, we've collected and explained the most commonly used ones here: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=9217

Rafiki wrote:Nope:

• Strategic ratings do not change because of experience.
• A leader’s offensive rating is increased by +1 for each even level of experience (2, 4, 6, etc.)
• A leader’s defensive rating is increased by +1 for each odd level of experience (1, 3, 5, etc.)

http://www.ageod.net/aacwwiki/Experience#Effects_for_leaders

Thanks!

Banks and Jabber,

Banks, Please keep detailed notes on your naval campaign in the East. This part of the game has always intriged me the most. That is one arm of the conflect that very little details have been discussed. I would like a more detailed disscusion in other threads about this.

Jabber, The use of those land raiders, Cav and Militia, has been talked about but not in any detail. Your part in this ARR has made me rethink the use of river transport in use of radiers.