More about that theater in a minute. First, here's a look at the trans-Mississippi west in the spring of 1864. I'm preparing yet another offensive to take Springfield and Fayetteville, Arkansas. Give me credit for persistence if not competence.
So, was there no Chattanooga Choo-Choo in 1864? Speak up, experts!
More about that theater in a minute. First, here's a look at the trans-Mississippi west in the spring of 1864. I'm preparing yet another offensive to take Springfield and Fayetteville, Arkansas. Give me credit for persistence if not competence.
More about that theater in a minute. First, here's a look at the trans-Mississippi west in the spring of 1864. I'm preparing yet another offensive to take Springfield and Fayetteville, Arkansas. Give me credit for persistence if not competence.
Batter up! While Meade is assaulting Norfolk, Gen. Abner Doubleday enters the game nearby. There's a certain irony there: the two men were rivals of sorts. Again, though, I'm surprised that Doubleday enters this late. Didn't he fight at Gettysburg -- and fire the first shot in defense of Fort Sumter? The game's "generals list" says he's supposed to arrive in August 1862, so I don't understand why he's so late. And even August '62 seems too late if indeed he was at Fort Sumter.
And yes, it's that Doubleday, the guy credited with inventing baseball, though there's considerable doubt about whether he did. I guess he played ball with a friend in the fields of Cooperstown, New York, when he was a teenager. Funny coincidence that I'm reporting this on the same day as the All-Star Game. Here's the venue for tonight's All-Star Game, at AT&T Park in San Francisco.
And yes, it's that Doubleday, the guy credited with inventing baseball, though there's considerable doubt about whether he did. I guess he played ball with a friend in the fields of Cooperstown, New York, when he was a teenager. Funny coincidence that I'm reporting this on the same day as the All-Star Game. Here's the venue for tonight's All-Star Game, at AT&T Park in San Francisco.
Meanwhile, my effort to isolate Stonewall Jackson at Chattanooga continues. Here I'm moving into position.
I haven't encircled the town, but I have tried to cut it off from the rest of the Confederate supply network. Once again, the AI has done a great job of resisting this, repeatedly retaking towns along the periphery of my noose.
I haven't encircled the town, but I have tried to cut it off from the rest of the Confederate supply network. Once again, the AI has done a great job of resisting this, repeatedly retaking towns along the periphery of my noose.
-
LMUBill
- Lieutenant
- Posts: 141
- Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 5:01 am
- Location: Cumberland Gap, Tennessee
- Contact: Yahoo Messenger
The railroad that was ahistorical was the one in the game from Knoxville to Lexington.
The railroad up the valley from Chattanooga to Lynchburg (the only real mountains along the route were just west of Lynchburg and between Salem and Christiansburg, the rest of the route follows the New River, Holston and Tennessee river valleys) existed during the war and was the focus of a lot of fighting. There was even an attempted unionist revolt in East Tennessee and many of the railroad bridges along this route were burned or nearly burned. After the battle of Fort Sanders in Knoxville, Longstreet retreated up the railroad to Virginia and spend the winter of 1863 next to it in Russellville, TN.
Some links about actions along the railroad in East Tennessee....
Samuel P. Carter's raid
The "Bridge Burners"
The route from Knoxville to Lexington was planned before the war but not finished until the 1870's. Many of the investors and engineers involved were former soldiers in the Army of the Ohio who followed the route with Burnside when he went to Knoxville in 1863.
The railroad up the valley from Chattanooga to Lynchburg (the only real mountains along the route were just west of Lynchburg and between Salem and Christiansburg, the rest of the route follows the New River, Holston and Tennessee river valleys) existed during the war and was the focus of a lot of fighting. There was even an attempted unionist revolt in East Tennessee and many of the railroad bridges along this route were burned or nearly burned. After the battle of Fort Sanders in Knoxville, Longstreet retreated up the railroad to Virginia and spend the winter of 1863 next to it in Russellville, TN.
Some links about actions along the railroad in East Tennessee....
Samuel P. Carter's raid
The "Bridge Burners"
The route from Knoxville to Lexington was planned before the war but not finished until the 1870's. Many of the investors and engineers involved were former soldiers in the Army of the Ohio who followed the route with Burnside when he went to Knoxville in 1863.
-
mikee64
- Brigadier General
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:13 am
- Location: Virginia
- Contact: Website
LMUBill -good info as always. You know your RR stuff. Hopefully you can check what I posted on the "help improve" thread and make sure my local knowledge squares with the history; I am not sure how Roanoke/Salem plays into the RR history other than the fact that Roanoke eventualy became a major hub.
Grotius - good AAR. Lots of work with all the pics eh? I am going to point a couple of old friends who still insist on playing VG's TCW via vassal to your AAR in hopes of getting then to switch to "the computer".
Mike
Grotius - good AAR. Lots of work with all the pics eh? I am going to point a couple of old friends who still insist on playing VG's TCW via vassal to your AAR in hopes of getting then to switch to "the computer".
Mike
Edit: LMU, thanks for the great info on the railroads! That helps clear it up for me.
Mike: One reason I posted all these screenies is to help introduce people to the game. I made some newb mistakes, and people can see what *not* to do.
August 1864: I've actually made some progress in Missouri. But his force in Springfield looks formidable.
Mike: One reason I posted all these screenies is to help introduce people to the game. I made some newb mistakes, and people can see what *not* to do.
August 1864: I've actually made some progress in Missouri. But his force in Springfield looks formidable.
By this point I've opened up a pretty good lead in Victory Points, as I now control most of the objective cities. I still don't have Mobile or Charleston, and the CSA holds a number of secondary "strategic" cities too. Actually, I was slow to achieve most of my objectives; Nashville, for example, fell two years later than historically. If the game were to be decided just on points for occupying and holding victory cities, I'd probably lose. Even as is, I'm still pretty far from an auto-victory of 225 National Morale. My NM oscillates between about 205 and 211, depending on the fortunes of war.
I had intended to take a screenshot of the victory screen at this point, but I seem to have taken one of the economics screen instead. Oh well, it's worth showing once. Essentially it illustrates where you can invest in industrialization; the higher the investment, the higher the chance the state will produce more useful goods. I only recently have started investing in places other than Pennsylvania and New York; had I built Kentucky's industry earlier, I might've had fewer supply problems.
I had intended to take a screenshot of the victory screen at this point, but I seem to have taken one of the economics screen instead. Oh well, it's worth showing once. Essentially it illustrates where you can invest in industrialization; the higher the investment, the higher the chance the state will produce more useful goods. I only recently have started investing in places other than Pennsylvania and New York; had I built Kentucky's industry earlier, I might've had fewer supply problems.
I mentioned that Sherman has been campaigning along the Gulf Coast. I devised a devilishly clever pincer plan: I sent Wilson from New Orleans to Fort Pickens (still in my possession) on board Farragut's fleet. He would then take Pensacola and hit Mobile from the rear while Sherman and Lyon assault it from the front. But Wilson, like Grant earlier, arrived at Fort Pickens tired and depleted, and he fought poorly, bogging down in a siege of Pensacola. Lyon, for his part, wandered into the path of a nasty fort garrison in Springfield, west of Mobile.
I sent Farragut (who else?) into Mobile Bay to scout the opposition force at Mobile. (Damn the pixels, full speed ahead!) It's the largest Confederate force I've seen ever! Sherman pushed forward anyway.
I sent Farragut (who else?) into Mobile Bay to scout the opposition force at Mobile. (Damn the pixels, full speed ahead!) It's the largest Confederate force I've seen ever! Sherman pushed forward anyway.
But this is Stonewall Jackson, and he doesn't fold the way his colleagues at Nashville did. He fights me to a stalemate and then withdraws, in an orderly fashion, back north -- leaving behind a small garrison in Chattanooga to cover his retreat. I don't even take the city, despite my superior supply position; that will have to wait another turn.
Jackson got away in part because I was unable to hold every town in the large area I'd encircled. Once again the AI retook one of those towns at just the right moment. Kudos to the devs for teaching an AI how to relieve besieged forces -- a lesson Hitler never learned at Stalingrad, thank goodness. Actually, I can think of at least one Stalingrad wargame in which neither the Soviet nor German AI was much good at avoiding encirclement.
Anyway, Jackson's is a potentially dangerous force, if he can resupply it.
Jackson got away in part because I was unable to hold every town in the large area I'd encircled. Once again the AI retook one of those towns at just the right moment. Kudos to the devs for teaching an AI how to relieve besieged forces -- a lesson Hitler never learned at Stalingrad, thank goodness. Actually, I can think of at least one Stalingrad wargame in which neither the Soviet nor German AI was much good at avoiding encirclement.
Anyway, Jackson's is a potentially dangerous force, if he can resupply it.
Through all this, in the back of my head I keep remembering: it's Election Day next month. Just as in the real war, I've taken Atlanta shortly before the election, which should help Lincoln's re-election prospects. And National Morale is still pretty high, hovering around 211, with 225 still the goal. But I never see the results of the election because of an unexpected turn of events.
Viva Las Vegas!
Viva Las Vegas!
I have to play one more turn before I get credit for the auto-victory, and so I plot some rather conservative moves. Sherman stops and rests short of Mobile; I take Chattanooga but leave Jackson alone; I retreat from my siege of Springfield of Missouri (where I was getting spanked anyway). (In fact, I count the Missouri Campaign as my biggest failure; I achieved no strategic objectives at all, and ended up arguably worse off than when I started.)
And sure enough, it's Victory! The date is late November, 1864, and I never hear the outcome of the Presidential election. I suppose this means Lincoln won.
And sure enough, it's Victory! The date is late November, 1864, and I never hear the outcome of the Presidential election. I suppose this means Lincoln won.
This AAR has gone on way too long already, but a few closing thoughts.
1. What an awesome game! I just had a blast, start to finish. The April 1861 scenario is beautifully designed -- it gives you a few months to learn the interface while you build an army, time in which you can experiment without hurting your position too badly. The command rules are just brilliant: my run-ins with McClellan were just priceless. First I give him the Army of the Ohio over Grant; then he "thanks" me by ditching me in the middle of the Battle of Nashville and running for President against me. And finding the right General for the right job -- like the Cavalryman commanding my amphibious invasions -- proved to be quite fun. :P
2. What an epic! I expected something quick and light. Instead it was deep and immersive -- closer to "War in the Pacific" than I would've guessed. I love the massive scope of this game.
3. I give the game high marks for fidelity to history. Of course wargames aren't supposed to mimic history, but they should produce historically plausible results. This game passes that test with flying colors.
4. Kudos to Pocus for coding a solid AI. It's not Deep Blue, but it gave me a good game. If the devs can fix its command-organization problem, it will put up a tougher fight. Mind you, I haven't seen much of its play on offense; my next game will be as the CSA, so we shall see. AIs typically have more trouble on offense than defense. Even with a command fix, I may give the AI an advantage in combat rolls to make it more of a challenge.
5. Some minor quibbles, aside from the AI. More music would be nice. The included tunes are fine, but there aren't enough. At least they don't play constantly. A strategic map is really needed. Even just a full-screen version of the game map would be better than nothing; if you could populate it with color-coded dots or "front lines," all the better. Not all the General artwork is done, but that's coming. The game map can get a bit cluttered; a "remove units" filter might be nice. Built-in screenshot ability would be nice too. But if those are my biggest complaints, we're talking about a really nice game.
Anyway, thanks for reading this far, if you're still reading. I may post an 1864 strategic map if I have some time, but other than that, I'm done.
1. What an awesome game! I just had a blast, start to finish. The April 1861 scenario is beautifully designed -- it gives you a few months to learn the interface while you build an army, time in which you can experiment without hurting your position too badly. The command rules are just brilliant: my run-ins with McClellan were just priceless. First I give him the Army of the Ohio over Grant; then he "thanks" me by ditching me in the middle of the Battle of Nashville and running for President against me. And finding the right General for the right job -- like the Cavalryman commanding my amphibious invasions -- proved to be quite fun. :P
2. What an epic! I expected something quick and light. Instead it was deep and immersive -- closer to "War in the Pacific" than I would've guessed. I love the massive scope of this game.
3. I give the game high marks for fidelity to history. Of course wargames aren't supposed to mimic history, but they should produce historically plausible results. This game passes that test with flying colors.
4. Kudos to Pocus for coding a solid AI. It's not Deep Blue, but it gave me a good game. If the devs can fix its command-organization problem, it will put up a tougher fight. Mind you, I haven't seen much of its play on offense; my next game will be as the CSA, so we shall see. AIs typically have more trouble on offense than defense. Even with a command fix, I may give the AI an advantage in combat rolls to make it more of a challenge.
5. Some minor quibbles, aside from the AI. More music would be nice. The included tunes are fine, but there aren't enough. At least they don't play constantly. A strategic map is really needed. Even just a full-screen version of the game map would be better than nothing; if you could populate it with color-coded dots or "front lines," all the better. Not all the General artwork is done, but that's coming. The game map can get a bit cluttered; a "remove units" filter might be nice. Built-in screenshot ability would be nice too. But if those are my biggest complaints, we're talking about a really nice game.
Anyway, thanks for reading this far, if you're still reading. I may post an 1864 strategic map if I have some time, but other than that, I'm done.
-
LMUBill
- Lieutenant
- Posts: 141
- Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 5:01 am
- Location: Cumberland Gap, Tennessee
- Contact: Yahoo Messenger
-
mikee64
- Brigadier General
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:13 am
- Location: Virginia
- Contact: Website
Grotius, thinking of new players to the game, there was only thing you posted I had a question on. You said at one point when you raised volunteers that you had plenty of everything but men. But you didn't mention or choose the option to raise more men by using the bounty option. I only mention this because it is a bit tricky with having to right click to change those options and is something a new player could overlook.
Anyway, nice job!
Anyway, nice job!
Hobbes, Gem35, glad you enjoyed it! And yep, Gem, that's me from the Matrix forums. As my post count there indicates, I'm a bit of a wargame nut. :P
Erm, as something of a newb myself, I missed this option altogether! I saw only two possibilities on my drafts screen: call for volunteers, or partial mobilization (conscription, at a cost of NM and victory points). I didn't realize I could right-click (or just click?) in these screens to give me other options. Oops!
Incidentally, manpower was a major issue for me throughout, but especially in 1864, when I suddenly swept down the Mississippi. My success generated a new problem: I had to garrison occupied territory, and militia wouldn't always do the trick. I had revolts and partisans spring up in several towns; for example, I had a partisan pop up in West Baton Rouge even when I had an artillery unit garrisoning it. This need for garrison units really stretched me thin.
I wasn't sure whether or how to tweak Loyalty settings to deal with this. In the end, I used Full Civil Liberties everywhere. The only time I imposed Martial Law was in Texas at the outset. Would I have been better-served to clamp down some in occupied territory?
As my post count there indicates, I'm a bit of a wargame nut. :P
But you didn't mention or choose the option to raise more men by using the bounty option. I only mention this because it is a bit tricky with having to right click to change those options and is something a new player could overlook.
Erm, as something of a newb myself, I missed this option altogether! I saw only two possibilities on my drafts screen: call for volunteers, or partial mobilization (conscription, at a cost of NM and victory points). I didn't realize I could right-click (or just click?) in these screens to give me other options. Oops!
Incidentally, manpower was a major issue for me throughout, but especially in 1864, when I suddenly swept down the Mississippi. My success generated a new problem: I had to garrison occupied territory, and militia wouldn't always do the trick. I had revolts and partisans spring up in several towns; for example, I had a partisan pop up in West Baton Rouge even when I had an artillery unit garrisoning it. This need for garrison units really stretched me thin.
I wasn't sure whether or how to tweak Loyalty settings to deal with this. In the end, I used Full Civil Liberties everywhere. The only time I imposed Martial Law was in Texas at the outset. Would I have been better-served to clamp down some in occupied territory?
Return to “American Civil War AARs”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests