Unusual historical start (pseudo AAR)

[HMSWarspite]

Here's an unusual start to the April '61 full campaign (historical generals etc).

Nothing too unusual until the northern papers campaign for offensive action. I am playing the AI, so I have set myself some house rules. Generals will be appointed in seniority order, from the 'local' available generals (so Halleck doesn't get recalled to DC, but I can't just put the best man for the job). A general will only get promoted for cause (i.e. Grant cannot be a 3 star until there are no valid 3 stars, or he wins a big battle/captures somewhere significant). Generals cannot be sacked without cause. Cause = a stupid defeat (when he has superior numbers etc), or 3 refusals to move in a row, when I have everything else in place (being honest here). Now to the war: Early July '61.

In response to the public pressure, McDowell moves his army south from Alexandria to Manassas. The army has no corps, just 5 divisions, so he is at 35% loss. He beats Beauregard, thus winning Bull Run (70:55 engaged, 2110: 4802 men lost - quite a nice little reversal). 3 days later, Beauregard obviously having failed to coordinate his forces properly, McD smashes Huger's Corps (70:32 engaged, 396: 2010 lost). Lincoln (me) breaths a sign of relief that Beauregard got that wrong!. McD then settles down, besieges Manassas, and takes it 4 weeks later. McD a major hero, and can do no wrong!
In mid Sept, Lincoln obviously orders McD 'Forward to Richmond'.

Meanwhile, McClellan has been given a small force to repulse CSA raids into WV, and retake Grafton, which fell in August. He is well on his way to disgrace, having become active long enough to advance on the town and then has been inactive for 4 weeks!

Banks of all people has command of what will be the Army of the Ohio when his staff arrive, with 2 divisions in Cincinnatti. The CSA invade Ky in August, and Banks advances promptly (very unusual in my experience!) to invest Lexington. He encounters AS Johnston, and hands him a reverse (22:21 engaged, 601:1126 lost). ASJ withdraws, and Banks starts the siege. In late October, coincident with his first assault on the town (he is short of heavy artillery, and hasn't breached), ASJ attempts a relief, and wins a battle back (22:22, 1364:589). Banks holds position though.

Halleck was on the verge of being sacked from the command in St Louis (inactive 2 turns with raiders to the NORTH of him!), when he pops into life, and goes chasing them. He is struggling (no cavalry), but he is active!

McD meanwhile advances into the Wilderness. Unfortunately, Patterson (inevitably) makes a mess of advancing to cover Manassas and his right flank and a CSA corps slips in behind him to threaten Manassas. McD (Still active!) decides that he cannot make Richmond with this threat behind, so marches on Fredericksburg to reestablish a supply route, and winter. He has just got there and gone inactive (reverting to type?).

Finally Monitor meets an ironclad in Hampton roads on 19th Oct, and wins (48:67 - sort of inconclusive), thus we obviously have the Monitor/Merrimack battle!

I thought this was a sufficiently unusual start, that I would share it! In summary: McD a major hero, still in favour. McC is unlikely to make it to head of the AotP unless he pulls his socks up. Halleck is moving! and Grant is a 2 star down in Cairo, not having had the chance to do much yet (no room at the top!) . (The far west is normal, Lyons is in Springfield playing tag with Price).

[jimwinsor]

What's going to make your start truly strange is when the McC events start popping up. Ie, the public calling for the unsuccessful McC to take over from the very successful McD.

This is why I remain unsold on the whole McC series of events...either the need or the wisdom of them. Too often game starts will diverge from history like this (which if FINE, this is a game, not a script!) making the McC events rather bizarre nonsequetors.

[HMSWarspite]

What's going to make your start truly strange is when the McC events start popping up. Ie, the public calling for the unsuccessful McC to take over from the very successful McD.

This is why I remain unsold on the whole McC series of events...either the need or the wisdom of them. Too often game starts will diverge from history like this (which if FINE, this is a game, not a script!) making the McC events rather bizarre nonsequetors.

In my game, when the McC scripts came up (the Lincoln ones) he had goofed at Grafton big time, and I am quite in tune with the Lincoln comments! But I know what you mean about the scripted events. I haven't played with random generals yet - do they still happen, 'cos if so that really would be odd (McC a good general rampaging around the south being called on to do something etc!)

[tagwyn]

H: McC is NOT a good general. 1-1-1 !!! He deserved to court-martialed after the screw-up at Antietam!! Could have won the war there; and, leaving Pope to die on the vine at 2nd Bull Run!! Indefensible!!! IMHO.

[HMSWarspite]

H: McC is NOT a good general. 1-1-1 !!! He deserved to court-martialed after the screw-up at Antietam!! Could have won the war there; and, leaving Pope to die on the vine at 2nd Bull Run!! Indefensible!!! IMHO.

You misunderstood: 'if McC were a good general' (with random leaders)