AGEOD Forums

I'm new to this forum, having gotten the game for Christmas this year. I'd first like to say that this is a superb game. It captures the flavor of the war very well from the strategic viewpoint. The resources, both here in the forum and in the wiki are also excellent. That having been said, I've a number of questions, some substantive, some probably trivia.

Firstly, I've played maybe a half dozen campaigns as the CSA on various settings and had thought that I understood the AI's methods, but playing my first campaign as the Union, I find that the AI is MUCH more aggressive as the CSA than she ever is as the Union. (Think Polk invading Ohio and Indiana in 1861 and think fighting the Siege of Chicago in 1862!)

The settings are normal aggressiveness, give the AI extra time, and the 1 point activation bonus. Normal fog of war.

Even with the generally higher strategic ratings of the CSA generals along with the 1 point activation bonus of the AI causing them to activate more frequently, the level of aggressiveness seems to be terribly high. And where in the WORLD does the AI get the resources to create all these forces?? Any insight into this would be appreciated.

The next question is probably 'trivia'. On the unit stats, there is a rating for 'protection' and references to increasing this in the manual and the wiki in various places. Generally, it appears that infantry and cavalry have protection ratings of 1 or 2, while artillery, service units, and naval forces have zero. What is this rating, what does it represent, how do changes to it affect the resolution of the battles and so on?

Third question, somewhat more substantive. As the Union, Transport ships in the Atlantic Shipping Lanes bring back money and war supplies. It appears from what I've seen, that a transport, stacked together with frigates, steam frigates, or other 'warships' provide supply, i.e., the supply levels of the warships are static at whatever level they were at when the transport joined and the supply level of the transport reduces slowly until it's out. So that it appears as though the warships are drawing supply from the transports. I've also seen this behaviour as the CSA in the Gulf Blockade box. Is this working as designed? It would seem that this would be an advantage for the Union, as one could keep the warships on station a lot longer. (Although the same holds true for the CSA, at least in the Gulf blockade, though I'm not sure I'd want to try putting a transport in the Atlantic box.)

Fourth, from what I've seen, the AI pretty much seems to ignore the Naval aspects of the game. Whatever naval forces are there to start, or created by event get used, typically as bombardment of forts, but beyond that, no invasions, no riverine campaigns, no major ship builds, or anything like that. Is this typical? It would seem to me that one of the biggest advantages the Union had was it's fleet. Particularly in the area of blockade. I believe I recall in the manual a passage about blockade of Southern ports reducing the creation of supply, ammo, and war supplies with a complex formula. But playing as the CSA, I do not recall seeing this effect.

Lastly, I've seen a reference in at least one of the posts here to putting transports in the gulf blockade box and reaping tons of money and war supplies. I don't observe this behaviour when I tried it. (The behaviour I do see is that I can pretty much forget about having to resupply the brigs). Is there some 'magic' that has to be associated with this? Maybe putting a warship there, or running the transports to a specific port in one of the Caribbean boxes or something?

Thanks in advance for any help or insight anyone can offer.

Jbeoddy wrote:I'm new to this forum, having gotten the game for Christmas this year. I'd first like to say that this is a superb game. It captures the flavor of the war very well from the strategic viewpoint. The resources, both here in the forum and in the wiki are also excellent. That having been said, I've a number of questions, some substantive, some probably trivia.

Firstly, I've played maybe a half dozen campaigns as the CSA on various settings and had thought that I understood the AI's methods, but playing my first campaign as the Union, I find that the AI is MUCH more aggressive as the CSA than she ever is as the Union. (Think Polk invading Ohio and Indiana in 1861 and think fighting the Siege of Chicago in 1862!)

The settings are normal aggressiveness, give the AI extra time, and the 1 point activation bonus. Normal fog of war.

Even with the generally higher strategic ratings of the CSA generals along with the 1 point activation bonus of the AI causing them to activate more frequently, the level of aggressiveness seems to be terribly high. And where in the WORLD does the AI get the resources to create all these forces?? Any insight into this would be appreciated.

The next question is probably 'trivia'. On the unit stats, there is a rating for 'protection' and references to increasing this in the manual and the wiki in various places. Generally, it appears that infantry and cavalry have protection ratings of 1 or 2, while artillery, service units, and naval forces have zero. What is this rating, what does it represent, how do changes to it affect the resolution of the battles and so on?

Third question, somewhat more substantive. As the Union, Transport ships in the Atlantic Shipping Lanes bring back money and war supplies. It appears from what I've seen, that a transport, stacked together with frigates, steam frigates, or other 'warships' provide supply, i.e., the supply levels of the warships are static at whatever level they were at when the transport joined and the supply level of the transport reduces slowly until it's out. So that it appears as though the warships are drawing supply from the transports. I've also seen this behaviour as the CSA in the Gulf Blockade box. Is this working as designed? It would seem that this would be an advantage for the Union, as one could keep the warships on station a lot longer. (Although the same holds true for the CSA, at least in the Gulf blockade, though I'm not sure I'd want to try putting a transport in the Atlantic box.)

Fourth, from what I've seen, the AI pretty much seems to ignore the Naval aspects of the game. Whatever naval forces are there to start, or created by event get used, typically as bombardment of forts, but beyond that, no invasions, no riverine campaigns, no major ship builds, or anything like that. Is this typical? It would seem to me that one of the biggest advantages the Union had was it's fleet. Particularly in the area of blockade. I believe I recall in the manual a passage about blockade of Southern ports reducing the creation of supply, ammo, and war supplies with a complex formula. But playing as the CSA, I do not recall seeing this effect.

Lastly, I've seen a reference in at least one of the posts here to putting transports in the gulf blockade box and reaping tons of money and war supplies. I don't observe this behaviour when I tried it. (The behaviour I do see is that I can pretty much forget about having to resupply the brigs). Is there some 'magic' that has to be associated with this? Maybe putting a warship there, or running the transports to a specific port in one of the Caribbean boxes or something?

Thanks in advance for any help or insight anyone can offer.

Athena is not ignoring my blockade runners - had my brigs attacked in both blockade boxes. This is latest game on hard settings and giving Athena the extra time to cosider her moves.
I have had to pull my brigs from both boxes to get resupplied.I have also had at least 2 land invasions - one at Suffolk and another at Milton in Fla - although that one was half hearted. The one at Suffolk Va is far more serious.As Richmond is also under pressure.
The AI is going for full mobilization, taxes, etc the very first turn in my games - resources I dont think are an issue for Yanks?
So play CSA and see what Athena is doing - I cant believe that she is not building brigs for CSA - although see bourne invasions she is not going to waste resources etc on that as CSA.

Jbeody,

The Union only seems less aggressive than the CSA because their generals get activated less because of poor ratings. You can give the Union AI some activation bonuses but you can expect to be overrun fairly quick.

You need to look at the message box at the bottom of your screen to see what is going on. The AI regardless which side, immediately does a full press mobilization of both money and manpower. Going from normal to hard setting gives the AI more resources - seems like at least 20%-25%, every turn. So, on a harder setting, the AI gets a ton of stuff.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that she was ignoring the war at sea entirely. And right now, I'm playing a Union Campaign, so I wouldn't expect her to do anything except build brigs.

But I've played perhaps a half dozen campaigns as CSA. I thought then that she was paying attention to the Naval aspects, as I had all I could do to make any inroads at all at sea. But now that I've seen what the North STARTS with, I don't think she ever built a single ship! I NEVER saw any river Ironclads, never saw any brown water blockade, the bluewater blockade didn't seem to increase over what was there initially. Shoot, in one campaign, by 1864 I had a Confederate fleet capable of contesting Hampton Roads with Farraguts fleet. The numbers were equivalent and only the leadership allowed him to come off with a draw.

Given the Unions resources, and seeing what they start with, I'd expect there would NEVER be any chance for the CSA to contest control of the oceans.

The only sea-borne invasions I've seen her make as the Union were at Ft Pickens, and then it was typically one cavalry or a single 2 regiment brigade of infantry. In my early campaigns as the CSA, I'd spend a good bit of time and resources building up forces at Charleston, SC, Mobile, AL, Jacksonville FL, Savannah, GA, New Orleans, LA, and Galveston, TX, expecting to have to fend off Union invasions everywhere and hoping I could hold key ports. Never saw one. And as I said, I've never seen the sort of riverine campaigns that Grant carried out in the west.

I just wondered if the decision to build up forces to fend off an invasion influenced the strategic decisions of the AI, (and if so, how she knew). Or if this was an idiosyncracy of the AI that she responds to the CSA's strategic decisions rather than attempting to 'force' things using the Union's advantages in terms of naval capacity.

Playing as the Union, it would appear that monetary and War Supplies are essentially limitless, with the limiting factor being conscripts. But the Naval forces don't require much in the way of troops, and look like they ought to pay off HUGE if you can reduce the Southern production capacity, particularly in War Supplies. Which, if I've read the manual and the wiki and posts on here correctly, ought to happen if you can blockade the south. As I understand it, you get a general percentage reduction based on the percentages in the two blockade boxes (Atlantic and Gulf) plus specific percentage reductions at ports which are 'brown water blockaded'. Is this not correct? If it is, then paying attention to the Naval side ought to enable one to reduce the south to being able to do no more than buy replacements each turn, and probably not enough of those. (Which was pretty much the historical situation.) Am I missing something here or does it not work that way?

I realize that she does that. (Regardless of which side she's playing.) Doesn't seem to make sense to me, as holding off a few turns, til late May, yields a lot more. But I realize she does it. But as the CSA, this shouldn't make a difference. Where does she get the WAR SUPPLIES to manage this? I mean it appears, from 'hovering' over the forces that I'm seeing 300 or 400 power divisions in the Trans-Mississippi, the Tennessee area, and several in the east (couple at Winchester and two or three more at Manassas). When I play the CSA, I'm lucky to have two CORPS with that much in the the east and usually am playing with 'pickup' forces in the western areas. (Scattered militia grouped together with maybe a cavalry regiment).

And these are just the ones I can see! Where does Polk come up with enough stuff to have a 400 power division invading Indiana and Ohio in Sept 61? And still have enough there to garrison Bowling Greene, Nashville, Lexington, Memphis, Vicksburg, Isle 10, and Henry/Donelson?

Although you make a good point about the LACK of aggressiveness of the Union when I play CSA being due to the horrible characteristics of the leaders. I hadn't thought of it in those terms. I do know that if you set the game for 'high aggression' for the AI she basically goes berserk. (I've seen McDowell charge for Richmond, where he gets cut off from supply, has three corps closing in on him and basically gets annihilated, since he can't retreat through enemy held territory, then 6 months later, McClellan does exactly the same thing. With exactly the same results. Or Sumner make little 'piecemeal' attacks in the west with whatever has happened to get there at the time, usually with cohesion of 2, and gets slaughtered.) So maybe it's just the difficulty of 'fine-tuning the balance' between aggressiveness and what is possible. But I wouldn't have thought that simply having activated generals would be that big of a difference most places. From my experiences playing the CSA, I find it hard to believe that she has the resources to pull this stuff off. There just aren't enough war supplies available early on to enable this, it would seem to me.

Remember thats Athena's strong point (AI) ...maximizing her resources by not missing any tricks, wherever she is buying more industry at early i dunno.
Her weak point of course is seeing ahead n actualy reacting to your plans as she doesnt have eyes and cant quess your intentions.
Especially new patch she is a little too aggresive for these new supply changes.

Jbeoddy wrote:1.- And where in the WORLD does the AI get the resources to create all these forces?? Any insight into this would be appreciated. .

Any Human CSA (and USA) player tries to use heavy economic orders to improve a lot his recruitment (with different approaches).. You can do a Mobilization or a Full Mobilization instead on APRIL 61, paying a lot of money for more volunteers, and so on... Check on your turn if the CSA AI is taking those options at the very beginning!

this can give CSA at least 6 full divisions in july! So 1 extra division in Sept with polk is not too much. He could raise even those 5!

Jbeoddy wrote: On the unit stats, there is a rating for 'protection' and references to increasing this in the manual and the wiki in various places. Generally, it appears that infantry and cavalry have protection ratings of 1 or 2, while artillery, service units, and naval forces have zero. What is this rating, what does it represent, how do changes to it affect the resolution of the battles and so on?

Every 1 point of this has a 5% (aproximate) of evading hits done to the unit. Trench (the morethe better) adds also to this, and some leader skills.

Jbeoddy wrote: As the Union, Transport ships in the Atlantic Shipping Lanes bring back money and war supplies. It appears from what I've seen, that a transport, stacked together with frigates, steam frigates, or other 'warships' provide supply, i.e., the supply levels of the warships are static at whatever level they were at when the transport joined and the supply level of the transport reduces slowly until it's out. So that it appears as though the warships are drawing supply from the transports. I've also seen this behaviour as the CSA in the Gulf Blockade box. Is this working as designed? It would seem that this would be an advantage for the Union, as one could keep the warships on station a lot longer. (Although the same holds true for the CSA, at least in the Gulf blockade, though I'm not sure I'd want to try putting a transport in the Atlantic box.)

Yes this is WAD. No advantage to the union, just more money & power to allow for this. CSA ships can remain also in the sea for months, they dont need to be on "attack" mode all the time, just in a few moments.

Jbeoddy wrote:the AI pretty much seems to ignore the Naval aspects of the game.

Cant help you

Jbeoddy wrote:I've seen a reference in at least one of the posts here to putting transports in the gulf blockade box and reaping tons of money and war supplies. I don't observe this behaviour when I tried it. (The behaviour I do see is that I can pretty much forget about having to resupply the brigs). Is there some 'magic' that has to be associated with this? Maybe putting a warship there, or running the transports to a specific port in one of the Caribbean boxes or something?

As CSA you must put your brigs in the other 2 Boxes, not in the blockade, those are for USA transports.

CSA warships are only useful in the blockade, they sink enemy "ships--- WS & $". Brigs cand be used to sink enemy ships also, but more useful as smugglers, these bring money&WS back

Ah! Your explanation of the protection stat solves that problem! Thanks!

I think for the rest of it I'm just going to have to learn by experimentation. <sigh> I've found that the brownwater blockade isn't as obvious as it seems, and apparently, neither is the bluewater blockade.

As for the other, I think perhaps Athena's aggressiveness may have confused me. I now suspect that she didn't really have all that much and that she got all those offensive units by stripping her defenses. (Probably reading too much into her behaviour with the expectation that she'd do what I do. )

At any rate, you've cleared up one mystery. Thanks again.

Coregonas wrote:As CSA you must put your brigs in the other 2 Boxes, not in the blockade, those are for USA transports.

Just to avoid any confusion; it's the shipping box that is for US transports and not for CSA brigs

I have noticed on both Normal and hard (before the new patch) as CSA that if I don't put ANY ships in the box to attack Union Shipping that I usually get about the same amount every turn as when I do.

I then can use the warships for other purposes....

Might be kinda gamey but I honestly find those blockade boxes a pain in my.......ahhhh nose.

I still need ships to get my WS and put them in the correct box.

I might add that I use the setting where you only get 75% of WS but don't need to constantly Micro-Manage your ships back and forth for supplies as they don't use supply on that setting.

GrudgeBringer wrote:I have noticed on both Normal and hard (before the new patch) as CSA that if I don't put ANY ships in the box to attack Union Shipping that I usually get about the same amount every turn as when I do.

I then can use the warships for other purposes....

Might be kinda gamey but I honestly find those blockade boxes a pain in my.......ahhhh nose.

I still need ships to get my WS and put them in the correct box.

I might add that I use the setting where you only get 75% of WS but don't need to constantly Micro-Manage your ships back and forth for supplies as they don't use supply on that setting.

CSA raiders in the Union shipping box don't bring any resources they just deny the Union some and occasionally sink some transports. If they do enough damage to the transports, they can impact ocean supply.

Jbeoddy wrote:Ah! Your explanation of the protection stat solves that problem! Thanks!

I think for the rest of it I'm just going to have to learn by experimentation. <sigh> I've found that the brownwater blockade isn't as obvious as it seems, and apparently, neither is the bluewater blockade.

As for the other, I think perhaps Athena's aggressiveness may have confused me. I now suspect that she didn't really have all that much and that she got all those offensive units by stripping her defenses. (Probably reading too much into her behaviour with the expectation that she'd do what I do. )

At any rate, you've cleared up one mystery. Thanks again.

Most of the Union's defenses are padlocked in place so her reinforcements primarily go to the front lines. I have an AAR versus Athena in progress that has the Union on hard difficulty and normal aggressiveness. I find Athena's play to be generally solid but she does other reach herself at times. I am using 'iron man' rules that do not allow for redoing a turn. I find that the AI is a lot better when you are have to play on an equal level with Athena (she can't redo her turns).

One of the areas that Athena seems to get into trouble with is the FOG of war. I think you give Athena too many bonuses then she tries to go in deeper after weaker targets. Normal or slight bonus is best I think.

Giving Athena some decent activation bonuses definately improves her play particularly as the Union as she can move and attack a lot more.

I will agree with you that the Naval game needs to be improved, particularly with naval invasions. Athena does a number of these in Virginia and Texas and will try to invade some strategic coastal targets but it really should be trying to take all/most of the coastal forts to strangle the CSA's economy.

Quite true, this is a major thing I need to do, an overhaul of the naval part of the AI. But don't expect these changes before some time though, but this is planned, definitively!

I was just having a few thoughts along similar lines to this post.

Playing my first long campaign as the CSA and am finding a few 'issues' with the feel of the game. (Played a Union one before that got to a point where I felt the tide had turned fatally for the CSA)

Positives, the joy of pirating the Unions shipping is great! The struggle to balance war supplies and what you build works very well and makes a 'pleasant' change to the Union's essentially endless resources.

The war in the East does represent nicely the tension of being so close to each other's capital.

Now, some negatives from my perspective anyway. Land battles - I just don't get the feeling that I have the better quality leaders and men early on (are the men modelled to be better?), losing battles which appear to me to be even or even balanced in my favour. Union commanders seem to out perform their historical records and their stats seem to make little difference. I don't get eh feelign that I can defend and fight outnumbered and succeed as the CSA forces did often.

The AI seems aggressive as said - playing on normal - but it also seems to have some amazing insight into my movements etc - whether this is my paranoid imaginings i'm not sure but it seems to always attack where I'm simultaneously weakening to redeploy etc.

One rather frustrating thing that happened that I cannot realy fathom was around Pickens in the south - we were fighting around the coast, exchanging provinces. Then I notice Hamilton with a few units wandering away inland - apparently randomly. I've by now got Bragg and a few units together so we give chase - intercept orders. Now, Hamilton proceeds inland and basically ends up attacking and taking Atlanta - miles away from his own supply routes etc. He not only beats me to it but moves faster through 3 regions of my territory than my own units do and Bragg gets left behind! When I get there and attack it's actually around 17000 men he has -with supplies as far as I can tell - and gives me a kicking. Now I don't mind losing as I had the wrong posture - but it's more how he got there so fast, how he is sat there apparently taking no losses in ability to fight from being literally 100s of miles from his own supply lines.

So I guess overall the 'feel' as the CSA isn't quite there for me at the moment - i'm being out maneuvered and outfought too frequently when I feel I should be winning, the Union just mobilise every possible thing they can and it seems you are forced to follow suit. Perhaps I have gone into the CSA too quick and it is not as forgiving as the Union with higher resources.

Apologies if that turned into a mini rant!

Drambuie wrote:I was just having a few thoughts along similar lines to this post.

Playing my first long campaign as the CSA and am finding a few 'issues' with the feel of the game. (Played a Union one before that got to a point where I felt the tide had turned fatally for the CSA)

Positives, the joy of pirating the Unions shipping is great! The struggle to balance war supplies and what you build works very well and makes a 'pleasant' change to the Union's essentially endless resources.

The war in the East does represent nicely the tension of being so close to each other's capital.

Now, some negatives from my perspective anyway. Land battles - I just don't get the feeling that I have the better quality leaders and men early on (are the men modelled to be better?), losing battles which appear to me to be even or even balanced in my favour. Union commanders seem to out perform their historical records and their stats seem to make little difference. I don't get eh feelign that I can defend and fight outnumbered and succeed as the CSA forces did often.

The AI seems aggressive as said - playing on normal - but it also seems to have some amazing insight into my movements etc - whether this is my paranoid imaginings i'm not sure but it seems to always attack where I'm simultaneously weakening to redeploy etc.

One rather frustrating thing that happened that I cannot realy fathom was around Pickens in the south - we were fighting around the coast, exchanging provinces. Then I notice Hamilton with a few units wandering away inland - apparently randomly. I've by now got Bragg and a few units together so we give chase - intercept orders. Now, Hamilton proceeds inland and basically ends up attacking and taking Atlanta - miles away from his own supply routes etc. He not only beats me to it but moves faster through 3 regions of my territory than my own units do and Bragg gets left behind! When I get there and attack it's actually around 17000 men he has -with supplies as far as I can tell - and gives me a kicking. Now I don't mind losing as I had the wrong posture - but it's more how he got there so fast, how he is sat there apparently taking no losses in ability to fight from being literally 100s of miles from his own supply lines.

So I guess overall the 'feel' as the CSA isn't quite there for me at the moment - i'm being out maneuvered and outfought too frequently when I feel I should be winning, the Union just mobilise every possible thing they can and it seems you are forced to follow suit. Perhaps I have gone into the CSA too quick and it is not as forgiving as the Union with higher resources.

Apologies if that turned into a mini rant!

I really couldn't understand what your problem here is. If you are complaining about an advanced A.I., that's something you should be enjoying. You can be sure that she doesn't cheat, so you can do everything that she is doing to you right now. In time, you'll eventually prefer hard or very hard options.

In this particular case, i can advise you to ignore the fact that you lost control of Atlanta. Being far away from supply lines can turn into a disaster, thus you can gain lots of VP and NM by destroying the enemy armies. You don't have to attack Atlanta directly, just cut the supply lines, and move into a position and make them attack you. Without supplies, they'll suffer attrition losses and won't have any reinforcements.

As far as winning on the defensive:

Work hard to position yourself with an eye to the future and maintain your entrenchment levels. Don't worry so much about 'losing' battles at this point, just do your best to stay on the right end of the casualty count.

As far as the Atlanta thing, when he captured the city, he got enough supply and ammo to last him for a long time. So that explains that. As far as moving faster, if he was active and you weren't or if his stack was fully commanded and you weren't, that can make a huge difference. He also could have made a forced march. You should have been able to rail/river ahead of him, but there are a lot of factors involved and it's tough to say what caused it.

say solo...for our game are you using attrition 1, 2, or 3 box?

You are just a thread-hackin' fool!

I will double check once i get home, but I have always had it on the 'Historical Attrition for Both Sides' setting. Which should be irrelevant for our game since we are both players and not AI's.

Lol...yeah but it dramaticly changes your approach I contend to the game in your strategy versus the AI I say (before new patch not a lot of difference)... I was like OMG what a difference lol
Pocus has dramaticaly changed the supply differences and both the AI and player need to adjust...the AI not yet obviously lol
Sorry for the intrusion....hmmm new tag (colonel troll)

Thanks for the replies - it's hard to get over what I mean by the 'feel' of the game but that might just be my opinion.

It's certainly a much harder game as the CSA and I appreciate that, don't get me wrong

Welcome to the forums.

Jbeoddy wrote:Firstly, I've played maybe a half dozen campaigns as the CSA on various settings and had thought that I understood the AI's methods, but playing my first campaign as the Union, I find that the AI is MUCH more aggressive as the CSA than she ever is as the Union. (Think Polk invading Ohio and Indiana in 1861 and think fighting the Siege of Chicago in 1862!)

The settings are normal aggressiveness, give the AI extra time, and the 1 point activation bonus. Normal fog of war.

Even with the generally higher strategic ratings of the CSA generals along with the 1 point activation bonus of the AI causing them to activate more frequently, the level of aggressiveness seems to be terribly high. And where in the WORLD does the AI get the resources to create all these forces?? Any insight into this would be appreciated.

As far as I know the AI goes through the same procedure as you to get resources. No bonuses or penalties as far as I can tell. Someone please correct me if I am wrong. Personally I think the AI is a flop. She makes the most fundamental of errors. I won't repeat it so as not to ruin the game for others who do not play PBEM.

With experience you will learn to maximize both your production and the use of those resources. Agaist the AI I always have hundreds of units of spare resources on both sides.

Jbeoddy wrote:The next question is probably 'trivia'. On the unit stats, there is a rating for 'protection' and references to increasing this in the manual and the wiki in various places. Generally, it appears that infantry and cavalry have protection ratings of 1 or 2, while artillery, service units, and naval forces have zero. What is this rating, what does it represent, how do changes to it affect the resolution of the battles and so on?

Good question. Each level of protection gives a -4% to the hit value of the opposing element that unit is engaged with. The base hit value is 4% for each fire point. This gets modified by a bunch of coefficients and I won't go into detail. So the standard case will see the lvl of protection effectively reducing the fire value of opposing element on a 1:1 basis with no other modifiers. This is rarely the case, , however.

Jbeoddy wrote:Third question, somewhat more substantive. As the Union, Transport ships in the Atlantic Shipping Lanes bring back money and war supplies. It appears from what I've seen, that a transport, stacked together with frigates, steam frigates, or other 'warships' provide supply, i.e., the supply levels of the warships are static at whatever level they were at when the transport joined and the supply level of the transport reduces slowly until it's out. So that it appears as though the warships are drawing supply from the transports. I've also seen this behaviour as the CSA in the Gulf Blockade box. Is this working as designed? It would seem that this would be an advantage for the Union, as one could keep the warships on station a lot longer. (Although the same holds true for the CSA, at least in the Gulf blockade, though I'm not sure I'd want to try putting a transport in the Atlantic box.)

This is WAD. Warships will draw supply from the transports.

Jbeoddy wrote:Fourth, from what I've seen, the AI pretty much seems to ignore the Naval aspects of the game. Whatever naval forces are there to start, or created by event get used, typically as bombardment of forts, but beyond that, no invasions, no riverine campaigns, no major ship builds, or anything like that. Is this typical? It would seem to me that one of the biggest advantages the Union had was it's fleet. Particularly in the area of blockade. I believe I recall in the manual a passage about blockade of Southern ports reducing the creation of supply, ammo, and war supplies with a complex formula. But playing as the CSA, I do not recall seeing this effect.

Like I said don't expect too much out the this AI. I suggest trying a pbem game with a real person If your looking for a competent foe.

Jbeoddy wrote:Lastly, I've seen a reference in at least one of the posts here to putting transports in the gulf blockade box and reaping tons of money and war supplies. I don't observe this behaviour when I tried it. (The behaviour I do see is that I can pretty much forget about having to resupply the brigs). Is there some 'magic' that has to be associated with this? Maybe putting a warship there, or running the transports to a specific port in one of the Caribbean boxes or something?

As far as I know only way to draw resources from BB is through brigs. I may, however, be wrong.

Thanks for the welome.

I believe you must be right about the resources. I've looked at the manual and the wiki again and apparently, on the settings I'm using, she only gets a +1 point activation bonus for the generals. (Which isn't that big a deal for the CSA, as their generals activate frequently anyway, having typically higher strategic values early in the war, but is HUGE when she plays the Union.) I'm further along in the game now, late 1862, and I think what happened is that she built those units with little or no artillery, and mostly out of volunteer militia. And did it by 'stripping the rear area defense'. This is likely what threw me. When I played the CSA I always garrisoned some of the Southern ports fairly heavily, in particular New Orleans and Charleston SC. These were targets of Union invasions historically and New Orleans is a HUGE strategic target as well. I wound up invading New Orleans with a two division corps and discovered I could have taken it with an elderly GS5 clerk as there was no garrison beyond a single militia unit. Which leads me to suspect that the other 'targets' are probably in similar shape. Which explains where all those divisions up north on the front lines came from.

As to the 'protection' rating, from your reply and an earlier one, I get the impression that this represents the ability of an infantryman to duck, whereas a cannon or a cavalryman sitting on a big horse, have to stand there and take it. Agree? If so, this seems an eminently reasonable way to represent this.

I'll have to disagree with you on the AI though. I think they did a pretty good job with her. (Disclaimer: I'm a software engineer by profession, so I'm gonna always take the side of the designers, knowing just how hard that is. ) And the patching they do will improve her a lot over time. (In fact, I've seen major improvements just since I've been playing, starting with the one that came in the package and upgrading to 1.09e and then to the 1.10 current. It's a LOT smarter now.) As for the strategic blunders, it looks to me as though it may be biased, if that's the term for it, in the direction of repeating the behaviours of the two sides. That is, Athena seems to be a LOT more aggressive than circumstances would tend to dictate whichever side she is on. As the Union side, I can see this. The Federal commanders were under intense pressure throughout the war to get to Richmond and end it. The Southern commanders tended to be under no such pressure and typically would have resisted it anyway. (Think about what a difficult time Lee had pushing his invasion in 1863 in the face of the Vicksburg disaster. And the 1862 campaign had very limited objectives, basically the thought was that given the opportunity, Maryland would have come in on the Southern side, which proved not to be the case in the event.) But they also tended to be much more 'opportunistic' than the Federals (accurately reflected in the activation rules I think.) Which would lead to heavy counter attacking behaviours, which is what I think I'm seeing.

So other than the possible bias toward historically accurate behaviour of the two sides I think she does quite well, with the exception of the Naval aspect. To me, the single largest advantage of the Union was it's navy. It takes enormous resources to build and maintain a navy and the North had em and the South didn't. The rules seem to state that this can be capitalized on as it was in the actual war, by imposing severe production limits on the CSA by means of the blockade, but as I said, I saw no evidence of this in the games I played as the CSA and can't determine from Athena's behaviour whether it is having that effect in this game. (If not, then I'm wasting a TON of resources )

In my latest game as CSA I Just went for Full mobilzation, 8% War Bonds and Exceptional Taxes. I just got fed up being rolled up by Athena on hard settings. Refusing as I did to employ gamey tactics. With that ammount of resources at CSAs disposal the game takes on a different complxion and I dont waste time building Militia either as I cant wait for them to turn into line infantry. I raise proper infantry regts straight off?
Although I did raise Militia in Missouri - my one exception so far.

Start up a game with AI on any of the difficulties, extra time, any activation bonus, low or no FOW advantage normal aggression. Play as either side.

For the first 6 months just sit in and around your capital and other key areas. Don't do much moving. Build up your forces. Just make sure your stacks can take whatever she can throw at you. Granted she is now more aggressive than Mare in heat, she will overextend herself no matter which side. As soon as she does move your main army between her army and her capital and wait for her to attack. Or if she's already way too far take her capital. Game over before '62 even starts most of the time.

I'm sorry but any AI that let's an army get between her own army and her capital is a complete failure IMO. It's one of the most basic strategic ideas. Lincoln would be turning in his grave just thinking about it. Unless US Grant was already in chage.....

I'll also disagree with the poor assessment of the AI. Athena does a respectable job of handling the ground war. If you play the game without cavalry exploits, the game takes a different turn.

Turbo823 wrote: If you play the game without cavalry exploits, the game takes a different turn.

Turbo, just out of curiousity, what is this cavalry exploit you are referring to?