Shiloh - an Exercise in Command and Co-ordination

[Wilhammer]

My (limited) experience is that if the Army stays together, it will coordinate through each zone they move through together. This makes for one hell of a threat.

In Shiloh, Take Grant's Arnmy of the Tennessee and put the reserve artillery in it.

Create a Corps using Lewis S. Wallace and another using E. McClennand.

(There is a trick and maybe a bug to breaking McClennand out. You can't just divide him in place - you have to double divide. Divide once, then pull the McLennand divisional unit out of the McLennand Command you just created and then divide again to free him up for Corps duty.)

Evenly distribute the Divisions, calvary, and supply between them. Be sure to give each of those Corps one each of the divisions with leaders in them. I have found Sherman with Wallace to be a rock solid combo.

You've got yourself a meat grinder with a lot of tenacity and talent.

The goal is not to focus on the territory to take (or even to protect, let the CSA divert itself in your rear; it won't matter), but to destroy the enemy's forces. You destroy his capacity to fight, and the territory will follow.

Go down towards Corinth one zone at a time, together, using co-ordinated move order. Use the VP sites to focus the battle; to draw the enemy to battle.

Meanwhile;

Deploy all the naval units into Clarksville.

Move the Army of Ohio and Crittenden towards Humboldt, through Forts Henry/Donnelson on turn 1.

Take G. Thomas' Corps from the Army of the Ohio onboard the fleet on Turn 2, and sail to Memphis. Assault Memphis on Turn 3. Bring the fleet to offer bombardment support to the Army of the Tennessee by moving it on Turn 3 to wherever Grant and Company happen to be, and move with them.

By Turn 5 or 6 you should have Corinth under siege, and of had some close but successful battles north of Corinth in turns 3, 4 and maybe 5.

On or about Turn 6, take your 3 Corps (you did move G.Thomas towards Corinth on turn 4, didn't you? Leave the sharpshooter behind to garrison Memphis) and the Army of Tennessee with all its reserve artillery and assault Memphis. You should have 3-5 battles that first give you more losses than the CSA gets, but becomes a route for the CSA by the last round.

Bask in Glory when this turn ends.

Using this method against the AI, I can get a victory by shattering the National Morale most of the time.

Oh, why your are at it in turn 1, for what its worth, buy some replacement Line Infantry and Cavalry; 12 Line Infantry and 10 Calvary is what I buy - that gets me to near 0 conscripts.

[type7]

Great strategy. I've been focusing on playing as the CSA in the Shiloh battle. I usually send a small force to the east and then north to Nashville while the main body slowly advances north to Humboldt then to Ft. Henry.

I haven't seen the AI make an end around to Memphis like your strategy so slowly rolling up the North has been pretty easy. I usually send a cavalry raiding party behind Northern lines to cut railroads and take undefended cities to try and cut off supply too.

[Wilhammer]

Your CSA strategy sounds a lot like the AI's, but I bet it is better co-ordinated.

----------

As for the Memphis strategy - me thinks we wargamers have too much flexibility and god like powers. Then again, if one were to play this strategy in the context of the real war, I don't think a player could get away with it, especially against a human - you would HAVE to defend Tennessee while going into Mississippi, otherwise the CSA is going to take Tennessee from you. However, the above strategy does make it possible to crush enemy operations in a whole theater in that it is designed first to destroy the enemy Army.

Again, in any strategy, destruction of the enemy while limiting your own losses is the key to any victory. Territory only serves that purpose - it is not THE purpose when seeking to win a conflict.

The scenarios and the AI provide a valuable service, though - something to play against while you familiarize yourself with the game mechanics before you take on a human opponent.

-------------

The brilliance of this Command and Co-ordination system that Ageod has programmed is that with poor or inadequate leaders, it is difficult if not impossible to pull off. The opposite situation; enough good quality leaders, makes it easier to pull off.

This system thus brilliantly allows one to simulate quality in way that makes historical sense vs. quantity.

We can fight a successful CSA vs USA simulation without fudging the force levels, like a certain other game or games have done.

My favorite boardgame of all time (which sadly, I no longer have a copy of) was Victory Game's Civil War - and every computer strategy game I have been looking for has been measured against that lofty bookmark. Fortunately, A-ACW (and BoA) have exceeded that measure and reached a new pinnacle in strategic level wargaming.

[Hell Patrol]

Just for fun i demoted Johnston and put him in charge of a large Corps...my VP was -18. I sent him and another Corps towards Bowling Greene while my 3rd Corps quietly marched off to Nashville a day behind. The battles were glorious on the way and in one set of battles involving Johnston my VP went from -18 to 289! The next turn i captured Nashville while repulsing counterattacks outside Bowling Greene. At that point i was inflicting 80% more casualties than i was taking...awesome.
In summary i ended with a VP of 389 and morale of 128 with Nashville in Confederate hands but only achieved another stalemate leure: .
If i could have gotten into BG i surmise it would have been an overwhelming victory...what a great game!

[Pocus]

we love Victory Game Civil War too

[pasternakski]

Copies of VG's ACW pop up from time to time on eBay and are often unpunched. They generally only bring about USD 20-25, as collectors seem more interested in rarities, oldies, and (for whatever reason) mounted mapboards.

Two things I really respect about that design are the handling of leadership and the straightforward ease of play (once you get into it), two areas in which BoA and AACW also excel, of course.

[Wilhammer]

Thanks pasternaski; I'll look into that.

I checked ebay a couple of years ago, and it went for a much higher price.

[Queeg]

I destroyed the Blue Bellies last night by employing the simple strategy of keeping Johnston's army together, moving all the corps in sync, and attacking the Union forces wherever I found them. I also used Wharton's cavalry to cut in behind the Union forces to threaten their supply lines. By the end of the scenario, I had completely destroyed Grant, captured all his supply, artillery and 9000+ prisoners and had 120+ morale and 200+ VPs.

Interestingly Buell never joined Grant but instead went down the Mississippi to Port Gibson (?) and then came at Corinth overland. Just as I was destroying Grant up in Tennessee, here comes Buell to besiege Corinth well in my rear! That certainly surprised (and impressed) me. Fortunately, his supply situation was so bad that he had to retreat, though I caught up with him north of Corinth and beat him up pretty good.

Great game!

[dinsdale]

Again, in any strategy, destruction of the enemy while limiting your own losses is the key to any victory. Territory only serves that purpose - it is not THE purpose when seeking to win a conflict.

Straight from the mouth of Bonaparte himself

Theoretically, the only way to deal with such a juggernaut would be to deploy cavalry to slow you down and screen the defending army, attacking your detachments, depots and attempt to wear you down chasing shadows. Ultimately, I'm not sure this can win unless your supply is dire and you suffer enough losses to even up the eventual battle.

I don't know if it would work in this scenario though, but it should be viable for the campaign.