charlesonmission
Posts: 773
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 5:55 am
Location: USA (somewhere)

Mon Dec 19, 2011 7:14 am

This is an interesting idea, but I don't really know how I would prepare this. Any ideas?

Charles

ERISS wrote:That would be interesting if you could show a summary of the war with strategical map with the advances of armies and clashes of main battles.
For whom is not accustomed to US lands, your regions cards are difficult to translate in a strategical setting.
Maybe I ask for much work..

User avatar
Jim-NC
Posts: 2981
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:21 pm
Location: Near Region 209, North Carolina

Mon Dec 19, 2011 6:10 pm

You could try the map on the most zoomed out, using colored lines to represent the different years. Maybe use asterix for battles (color coded by year). It would take a lot of work to do.

You would almost have to have been planning it(the end map) from the beginning, to plot the major moves as they happen.
Remember - The beatings will continue until morale improves.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

charlesonmission
Posts: 773
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 5:55 am
Location: USA (somewhere)

Tue Dec 20, 2011 5:57 am

Yeah, I think I'm not up to the task to remember what happened exactly when. I did try to outline 1861 to 1864 at the start of the AAR, but again, it would be based on the assumption that one is somewhat familiar with ACW geography.

Charles

Jim-NC wrote:You could try the map on the most zoomed out, using colored lines to represent the different years. Maybe use asterix for battles (color coded by year). It would take a lot of work to do.

You would almost have to have been planning it(the end map) from the beginning, to plot the major moves as they happen.

User avatar
Mortar
Sergeant
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 4:04 am
Location: California

Sat Dec 31, 2011 4:56 am

Holiday greetings to all. I have been away from the game and the forum for the last few weeks, but I wanted to share my thoughts to this game I was honored to play with Charles in a short summary.

I wish we had decided to do the AAR from the beginning, because there was much impressive maneuvering and action in the first years of the game which was probably not easily conveyed by the circumstances and events of the final year which was where the AAR began. I believe we both approached the game with a clear strategy of our own that Charles was the better at seeing through to a successful conclusion. The game has called the match a stalemate, which I can see why from a certain perspective.
The Union has made enough gains to keep morale high for the first years and then steady the last years and is still in a strong enough position to continue the fight for an indefinite period, though the time of the scenario be concluded.
On that note, the South has held key areas throughout the time allowed the scenario, and has a strong basis on which to continue the fight on it's own or achieve independence through other means. In the end it is a prolonged war for either side and thus... a stalemate. Of course, I see it from the perspective that as the Union, my PRIMARY objective is the restoration of the entire Union of States and therefore, a stalemate is as good as a defeat for my side. Continuing ahead...

User avatar
Mortar
Sergeant
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 4:04 am
Location: California

Sat Dec 31, 2011 5:32 am

The game was nothing short of challenging. Charles put up an excellent defense. I wanted to move my forces out to stretch his forces as thin as possible and then I had the intention to focus concentrated attacks at (what I hoped would be) thinned out points when the opportunities arose, but those opportunities did not come as often as I had hoped, and Charles was uncanny in his abiity to shift forces to those points when the attack was called on to be executed.
With all the advantages one has of playing as the Union, there are certain disadvantages that ultimately led to my lack of success. I failed to utilize the union naval superiority effectively, abandoning navies for the most part in favor of a heavily waged land campaign.
I was unfamiliar with playing with the full (lock-down) activation setting prior to this game, and did not make the adjustments needed to my forces to allow for an expeditionary force (or several) to suddenly sit locked in the middle of nowhere for several turns (or months in 2 cases), a few regions from their objective (which grows more populated by the turn) eating all their food and complaining about how cold it's becoming.
I was too reluctant at certain points to pursue frontal assaults, I certainly did assault late in the game and even earlier when the times were favorable, but I was far too concerned with maneuvering in the early game to have been successful. Once he had dug in, every gain was costly no matter what angle I tried to hit from.
So, in short... an amazing game and thank you Charles for the match!

charlesonmission
Posts: 773
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 5:55 am
Location: USA (somewhere)

Sat Dec 31, 2011 5:15 pm

Mortar,

What I was wondering about was, on the initial attack on Charlestown SC, I believe you only used 4 of your 6 divisions with the other 2 remaining on the ships. Was there a reason for this? I still think P.G.T could have held against 6 divisions, but it would have been a close fight.

Charles

Mortar wrote:The game was nothing short of challenging. Charles put up an excellent defense. I wanted to move my forces out to stretch his forces as thin as possible and then I had the intention to focus concentrated attacks at (what I hoped would be) thinned out points when the opportunities arose, but those opportunities did not come as often as I had hoped, and Charles was uncanny in his abiity to shift forces to those points when the attack was called on to be executed.
With all the advantages one has of playing as the Union, there are certain disadvantages that ultimately led to my lack of success. I failed to utilize the union naval superiority effectively, abandoning navies for the most part in favor of a heavily waged land campaign.
I was unfamiliar with playing with the full (lock-down) activation setting prior to this game, and did not make the adjustments needed to my forces to allow for an expeditionary force (or several) to suddenly sit locked in the middle of nowhere for several turns (or months in 2 cases), a few regions from their objective (which grows more populated by the turn) eating all their food and complaining about how cold it's becoming.
I was too reluctant at certain points to pursue frontal assaults, I certainly did assault late in the game and even earlier when the times were favorable, but I was far too concerned with maneuvering in the early game to have been successful. Once he had dug in, every gain was costly no matter what angle I tried to hit from.
So, in short... an amazing game and thank you Charles for the match!

User avatar
Mortar
Sergeant
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 4:04 am
Location: California

Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:48 pm

I originally assaulted with only the 4 divisions, because I knew it was likely that you would reinforce them, but I had no idea with what or from where, knowing you could at that time move forces from either Virginia or even from out west. Honestly, I wanted to hold a reserve so I could either assist the main force if it didn't succeed and was counterattacked, or even take Savannah and establish a base for further operations in the area which is the path I of course had to take. I was not surprised that the attack on Charleston failed and I don't believe those 2 divisions would have tipped the balance, either. Ultimately, I was hoping to distract troops from elsewhere to whatever degree I could by their presence and grab whatever gains could be made in the last minutes of the game.
The whole force spent most of those turns after landing on the coast locked in place, either in Savannah or around it. I had hoped to make more use of them than I was able, unfortunately.

charlesonmission
Posts: 773
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 5:55 am
Location: USA (somewhere)

Wed Aug 28, 2013 2:53 am

Nice to see so many views of this AAR! If you are a beginner, lots of good introduction points at the beginning and through out.

Charles

User avatar
H Gilmer3
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 754
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 2:57 am
Location: United States of America

Thu Aug 29, 2013 4:10 am

Will there be a rematch in AACW2?

charlesonmission
Posts: 773
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 5:55 am
Location: USA (somewhere)

Wed Sep 04, 2013 1:28 am

Not sure, haven't heard from him in a while. But.... it sounds like a good idea.

Charles

H Gilmer3 wrote:Will there be a rematch in AACW2?

Return to “American Civil War AARs”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest