Bertram wrote:The VP total is 136 for the CSA and 207 for the Union. The Union gets 12 vp each turn, CSA 9. Morale is 110 for the CSA, 99 for the Union.
With POW and casualty numbers, I can calculate your ratings.
Dixicrat
Ratings data request
With POW and casualty numbers, I can calculate your ratings.
Dixicrat
Finish
The result is a stalemate, neither side has reached his objectives. The Union has more VP, 219 against 145 for the CSA. Morale is 99 (Union) vs. 110 (CSA).
The butchers bill is 6225 men lost in battle for the CSA, 4247 for the Union. The Union captured 200 CSA soldiers.
But that is only half of the tale. The CSA lost about 3000 soldiers to starvation in Little Rock, and my estimate is that Lyon lost almost 5000 men to starvation in Ft. Smith alone.
The end situation sees the Union in possession of Jefferson City and Charleston. Their advance is checked, and with the destruction of the depots, it will be difficult for them to try again this summer for Ft. Smith or Little Rock. On the other hand the CSA can forget any hope they had of taking St. Louis or even keeping a presence in Missouri.
Oh, and Stand Watie did burn that other Ft. Smith .
Dixicrat, I hope you have the numbers to crunch this way . I dont have the files saved, you might ask our "independent 3th" running the turns if he has the safe files. I have overwritten them each time as I got a new one from him.
The result is a stalemate, neither side has reached his objectives. The Union has more VP, 219 against 145 for the CSA. Morale is 99 (Union) vs. 110 (CSA).
The butchers bill is 6225 men lost in battle for the CSA, 4247 for the Union. The Union captured 200 CSA soldiers.
But that is only half of the tale. The CSA lost about 3000 soldiers to starvation in Little Rock, and my estimate is that Lyon lost almost 5000 men to starvation in Ft. Smith alone.
The end situation sees the Union in possession of Jefferson City and Charleston. Their advance is checked, and with the destruction of the depots, it will be difficult for them to try again this summer for Ft. Smith or Little Rock. On the other hand the CSA can forget any hope they had of taking St. Louis or even keeping a presence in Missouri.
Oh, and Stand Watie did burn that other Ft. Smith
.
Dixicrat, I hope you have the numbers to crunch this way
. I dont have the files saved, you might ask our "independent 3th" running the turns if he has the safe files. I have overwritten them each time as I got a new one from him.
I got that exact text, "Stalemate, neither side achieved its objectives....". I thought it was pretty nice, as I was under the impression the victory level was only dependend on the VP difference. But if you got a victory message something seems to be wrong.... Or maybe the scenario designer is just being nice to me.
I'll post some thoughts on the strategy and the scenario tomorrow morning, this is being typed on my laptop, sitting in the train - not ideal for long text.
I'll post some thoughts on the strategy and the scenario tomorrow morning, this is being typed on my laptop, sitting in the train - not ideal for long text.
-
Aphrodite Mae
- Posts: 764
- Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 3:13 pm
- Location: With Dixicrat
About Losing
Finally! A topic in the game that I'm an expert in! Whenever I lose a game to Athena, she's always very sweet and says that it was a stalemate, but that she had more points than me, and so even though I didn't lose, she won. So: Bertram, you didn't lose! But Aryaman, you won.
Now, whenever I lose a game to Dixicrat, I always get the "Your Nation has been humiliatingly vanquished and all of your troops are dead" message. So I think I like to play against Athena better.
Now, whenever I lose a game to Dixicrat, I always get the "Your Nation has been humiliatingly vanquished and all of your troops are dead" message. So I think I like to play against Athena better.
Aphrodite Mae
Bertram wrote:Finish
The result is a stalemate, neither side has reached his objectives. The Union has more VP, 219 against 145 for the CSA. Morale is 99 (Union) vs. 110 (CSA).
The butchers bill is 6225 men lost in battle for the CSA, 4247 for the Union. The Union captured 200 CSA soldiers.
The number of prisoners is also different, my report says I captured 1400 CSA soldiers
As always, thanks for your enlightening en insightfull* comments Aphrodite
Aryaman - I was wondering why it stayed at 200. You captured those men early in the campaign, and I expected after the disastrous battle at Ft. Smith that quite a number of men were captured. But all 2600 men were put on the casualty list, and the number of captured soldiers didnt go up. One of the reasons I found the result so odd. If 1200 died, and the remaining 1400 surrendered, the story is much more believable.
What number of casualties did you have? If the number of men I lost is 1400 less in your game, it is at least consistent. I did keep track (more or less) of the number of casualties and didnt see anything obviously wrong there. If you have the same number of casualties I have, AND 1400 men captured I might have lost more men then I had
.
I will try to keep a turn by turn casualty list in the return game.
* I mean they give an unique insight in your (gaming) relation with Dixicrat
.
Aryaman - I was wondering why it stayed at 200. You captured those men early in the campaign, and I expected after the disastrous battle at Ft. Smith that quite a number of men were captured. But all 2600 men were put on the casualty list, and the number of captured soldiers didnt go up. One of the reasons I found the result so odd. If 1200 died, and the remaining 1400 surrendered, the story is much more believable.
What number of casualties did you have? If the number of men I lost is 1400 less in your game, it is at least consistent. I did keep track (more or less) of the number of casualties and didnt see anything obviously wrong there. If you have the same number of casualties I have, AND 1400 men captured I might have lost more men then I had
.
I will try to keep a turn by turn casualty list in the return game.
* I mean they give an unique insight in your (gaming) relation with Dixicrat
.Bertram wrote:
Aryaman - I was wondering why it stayed at 200. You captured those men early in the campaign, and I expected after the disastrous battle at Ft. Smith that quite a number of men were captured. But all 2600 men were put on the casualty list, and the number of captured soldiers didnt go up. One of the reasons I found the result so odd. If 1200 died, and the remaining 1400 surrendered, the story is much more believable.
What number of casualties did you have?
The rest of the casualties are the same, I wonder if those 200 were not Union prisoners, how do you know they were CSA?
Aryaman - To avoid miscommunication: those 200 are (according to me) CSA soldiers captured by the Union. They were captured in one of the early turns (when your cavalry tried to take Ft. Smith?), and in my view the number never changed after that.
Evaluation:
Strategy
I decided at the start of the game to fall back, keep my force in being, concentrate the troops near Ft. Smith, and try to fight an (hopefully) exhausted en hungry Lyon there. I intended to use raids to cut the supply.
What I missed was the absolute terrible supply condition of the CSA. Therefore this choice was a bad one - there simply isnt enough food for the number of troops I wanted to concentrate.
If I had to do it again I would keep Price at Jefferson. Supply isnt worse there, and he can try to take (and hold) Rolla after some Union supply gets there. That way he both gets supply, and he denies it to Lyon. After Stand Watie gets active he might even have enough troops to do more then make faces at Lexington or even St. Louis. He runs the risk of getting wiped out when Lyon heads back north, but that means Lyon will never get to Ft. Smith, and that is a small victory in itself.
The scenario
The main problem is CSA supply. I can imagine it was not to good historically, but having all troops starve at the depots in Ft. Smith and Little Rock - even though those troops number no more then 2500 men - seems a bit harsh.
I think the main problem is that the front line is at the south edge of the active part of the terrain. The CSA has no terrain "behind the lines" from which it can draw supply. In reality there were of course the large cities along the Missisipi. The Union has St. Louis, which on its own generates enough supply to support the troops. All the other towns north of the terrain where the fighting takes place just add to this.
Maybe it would be enough to add some river transport (the abstract kind) to the south, so the supply can be better distributed. I dont think this is the solution though - I think the fortresses wont stack less supply, so there wont be more in Little Rock and Ft. Smith.
An other solution would be to add some terrain down along the river to the scenario, up to and including one of the bigger places with a depot. Of course somehow the amount of money and manpower should stay about the same, or the south would get an unrealistic advantage.
Apart from the supply I like the scenario. Even though it is quite small and short both sides have some choices to make - for the CSA to stay north or withdraw, and how much to raid, and for the Union to press south at all costs or to protect the lines and the terrain you have got...
Evaluation:
Strategy
I decided at the start of the game to fall back, keep my force in being, concentrate the troops near Ft. Smith, and try to fight an (hopefully) exhausted en hungry Lyon there. I intended to use raids to cut the supply.
What I missed was the absolute terrible supply condition of the CSA. Therefore this choice was a bad one - there simply isnt enough food for the number of troops I wanted to concentrate.
If I had to do it again I would keep Price at Jefferson. Supply isnt worse there, and he can try to take (and hold) Rolla after some Union supply gets there. That way he both gets supply, and he denies it to Lyon. After Stand Watie gets active he might even have enough troops to do more then make faces at Lexington or even St. Louis. He runs the risk of getting wiped out when Lyon heads back north, but that means Lyon will never get to Ft. Smith, and that is a small victory in itself.
The scenario
The main problem is CSA supply. I can imagine it was not to good historically, but having all troops starve at the depots in Ft. Smith and Little Rock - even though those troops number no more then 2500 men - seems a bit harsh.
I think the main problem is that the front line is at the south edge of the active part of the terrain. The CSA has no terrain "behind the lines" from which it can draw supply. In reality there were of course the large cities along the Missisipi. The Union has St. Louis, which on its own generates enough supply to support the troops. All the other towns north of the terrain where the fighting takes place just add to this.
Maybe it would be enough to add some river transport (the abstract kind) to the south, so the supply can be better distributed. I dont think this is the solution though - I think the fortresses wont stack less supply, so there wont be more in Little Rock and Ft. Smith.
An other solution would be to add some terrain down along the river to the scenario, up to and including one of the bigger places with a depot. Of course somehow the amount of money and manpower should stay about the same, or the south would get an unrealistic advantage.
Apart from the supply I like the scenario. Even though it is quite small and short both sides have some choices to make - for the CSA to stay north or withdraw, and how much to raid, and for the Union to press south at all costs or to protect the lines and the terrain you have got...
Return to “1st AACW PBEM Tournament (2008/2009)”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests