Totally new player questions

[fahbs]

Trying to sort out the doozy of a difficulty curve.

This is what I gather for the way armies/corps/divisions/independent units work in terms of pros and cons:


Independent units:

+ Can spread out a greater number of units, move quicker(?)
- Command point penalty


Divisions:

+ 50% command point discount
- Not as great freedom of movement as independents

Corps:

+ Commander passes down bonuses to every division(?)
- Even less flexibility than individual divisions

Army:

+ Can have corps support each other if battle breaks out, wide command bonus area instead of just their own stack.

- Requires lots of supply for the required headquarters unit?

[Mickey3D]

Trying to sort out the doozy of a difficulty curve.

Independent units:

+ Can spread out a greater number of units, move quicker(?)
- Command point penalty

+ useful to launch cavalry raid.
+ militia garrison against cavalry raid or to repair broken railroads.
- Command point penalty especially when grouped together
- No benefits from other special troops abilities (e.g. sharpshooter) in the same force.

Divisions:

+ 50% command point discount
- Not as great freedom of movement as independents

Divisions alone (i.e. not in a corps) have no command point discount. They are as free of movement as any other unit.

+ Benefits from leader special abilities and special troops abilities (e.g. sharpshooter)
+ A division as big as it can be will always count for 4 CP. So command penality can't be higher than 10% for an independent division (i.e. not in a corps).
+ If in a corps then it benefits from corps commander abilities
- Can be inactive

Corps:

+ Commander passes down bonuses to every division(?)
- Even less flexibility than individual divisions

I don't understand why you think that corps are less flexible ?

+ "March to the sound of the guns" (support between corps)
+ Coordinated move between corps of the same army
+ Bonuses from the corps commander
+ Increased command points (8 CP at least for the corps leader and CP are no more halved)
+ Some special abilities of the army commander can help a corps
+ Possibility to add signal or balloon unit to increase CP
- Can be inactive

Army:

+ Can have corps support each other if battle breaks out, wide command bonus area instead of just their own stack.

- Requires lots of supply for the required headquarters unit?

As far as I know, headquarters does not require lot of supply or do you mean it requires a lot of resources to create it ?

+ Some army commander special abilities can benefit its corps
+ or - Army commander has effect on CP and ratings (strategic/offensive/defensive) of its corps.
+ Use of Aide de Camp
- Can be inactive

Definitely corps and army are very important if you want to win the game : that's why the north will try hard to make Grant, Thomas, Sherman, Hancock and others rise in the hierarchy. The ability to "march to the sound of the gun" is critical especially for the south who is in defense against a larger force.

Independent unit are useful for raid or garrison.

Independent division can be useful for important raid cavalry or attack on some secondary objectives (trick : add a second leader to your division so command point penality will be 0%)

[fahbs]

I don't understand why you think that corps are less flexible ?

I know this all sounds dumb basic stuff. I just really think the tutorial does a really obtuse job of explaining stuff that could have been conveyed a lot simpler.

I was just wondering if there was ever a reason you wouldn't form divisions into corps, or if there were instances where you wanted independent divisions.

As far as I know, headquarters does not require lot of supply or do you mean it requires a lot of resources to create it ?

Yes, the required resources to create it.

+ Use of Aide de Camp

I wasn't too clear on this whole function from the manual and tutorial. Is this the administrative support staff you buy? Additional generals? Headquarters unit?

[arsan]

Hi and welcome!
Mickey advices are very good!
No doubt armies, divisions and corps have lots of benefits (abilities, Command points...).
But on some places (far east, garrisons, secondary fronts...) you will have to use independent commands.
Why??
- Because there are limits on the numbers of division's (if i'm not mistaken its 60 for the USA and 30 for the CSA). Besides you need a one star leader to form them have have a formation cost, so ideally you want to form them more or less permanently, not just to operate for a couple of turns and then dissolve.
- Armies need 3 star leaders and HQ. Boths (specially the second) have a very limited availability (very roughly 8 HQ for the USA and 5 for the CSA or so. And a lot less at game start) so you can't have them everywhere, just on the most important fronts.
- Corps need armies to form, so you can make them up everywhere as armies are just a few.

Finally, there era some uses (cavalry raiding, rail destroying, scouting, little town garrison...) where a lone unit or two can accomplish very good. No need to "spend" a valuable division for it. You will need to concentrate your armies/corps/divisions on the main fronts, as the enemy will do the same.

Regarding speed, lone units are not faster than divisions.
All depends of the units inside a division. If there are arty, they will be slower, but just because arty and supply move slower, not because its a division. An independent brigade with arty or a supply wagon will be as slow.
Also, bear in mind the command penalty % affects also speed.
So an independent stack with several units and a 20% Command penalty will be lower than a lone division (10% command penalty) given both have the same kind of units.
Hope it helps!
Regards!

[Hoosier]

I am not certain this is the best place for this, but the phrase "totally new players" caught my eye. Maybe, as I spend more time on this site, I'll find better places to post my questions. I am 63 years old and do not understand computers very well. I do have wargaming experience, but most of it was back in the eighties playing boardgames with the little cardboard counters. I helped to playtest GDW's "Fire in the East." I do have gaming experience, computer gaming experience, and experience with large-scale, complex games. What I emphatically do not have is experience with games that are both computerized and large-scale/complex. I just got this game for Christmas and am having a lot of trouble figuring it out. It does not seem to me the manual and tutorials really contain everything one needs to know to get started, and in places they do not seem to be all that clear. I am going to compile a list of my basic questions. Maybe in the meantime someone will get on here and direct me to an even better place to post them, in case this is not the best spot.

[Mickey3D]

I am going to compile a list of my basic questions. Maybe in the meantime someone will get on here and direct me to an even better place to post them, in case this is not the best spot.

I think you are at the right place. Just post your question and I'm sure you'll find somebody to answer them.

You can also use the search tool in the menu bar at the top of the page.

There is also these places where you can find useful information :

• wiki
• ACW 101

EDIT> I forgot this one : AACW Basics

[Clovis]

Advice: AACW is regularly patched and the manual isn't updated to integrate last rule changes. I strongly advice you to read the udate text files to get ideas about new or modified features...That's the errata of the computer wargames rules

[Mickey3D]

I know this all sounds dumb basic stuff. I just really think the tutorial does a really obtuse job of explaining stuff that could have been conveyed a lot simpler.

I was just wondering if there was ever a reason you wouldn't form divisions into corps, or if there were instances where you wanted independent divisions.

The whole concept of chain of command is not easy to understand at the beginning but you should soon masterize it.

Regarding division out of corps, I see several reasons :

- As explained by Arsan the number of HQ is limited so you don't always have an army to create corps in which to insert a division or you don't have the 2 stars leaders needed to command a new corps.
- Cavalry division can be a real threat on depot behind the front line (use leader with good strategic rating so cavalry won't be inactive)
- Attack of secondary objectives can be executed by independent division
- USA player will often strengthen fort Monroe defense with an independent division.
- Garrison of important city or depot.

Use of Aide de Camp

I never use Aide de Camp (perhaps because I did not understand them until recently...). An "aide de camp" is a non army commander with strategic rating 5+ that is in the army stack. It adds 1 CP to corps in the same region.

[Le Ricain]

I never use Aide de Camp (perhaps because I did not understand them until recently...). An "aide de camp" is a non army commander with strategic rating 5+ that is in the army stack. It adds 1 CP to corps in the same region.

An 'aide de camp' needs to have 4+ strategic tating.

[Hoosier]

There will be others. In games I have played in the past, somewhere in the instructions there is the following explanation: "Here are the phases of this game and the order in which they occur. Here is what happens in each phase." I don't find that for this one. It seems like there are essentially three phases: the hosting phase, in which everything is pretty much automatic; the planning phase, in which I do what I do; and the resolution phase, in which, again, everything is pretty much automatic. Is that essentially correct? I think this simultaneous resolution thing is great, and I wish it had been technically possible to do it when I was playing games with little cardboard counters.

[Mickey3D]

An 'aide de camp' needs to have 4+ strategic tating.

Sorry , I checked again and Le Ricain is right : strategic rating of 4+ is needed.

Moreover something is not clear (perhaps Le Ricain could help us) : the 1 CP bonus is for all corps or only corps in the same region ?

[arsan]

There will be others. In games I have played in the past, somewhere in the instructions there is the following explanation: "Here are the phases of this game and the order in which they occur. Here is what happens in each phase." I don't find that for this one. It seems like there are essentially three phases: the hosting phase, in which everything is pretty much automatic; the planning phase, in which I do what I do; and the resolution phase, in which, again, everything is pretty much automatic. Is that essentially correct? I think this simultaneous resolution thing is great, and I wish it had been technically possible to do it when I was playing games with little cardboard counters.

Hi Hoosier!
There is no phases here. Things are more streamlined.
You can do anything in the order you want to: movement and attack orders, unit buys, economic and politic decisions, going back and forth between them and from one place on the map to another.
When you have finished with all, just press "next turn" and the game will automatically execute simultaneously all your planed orders and the ones planed by the Ai, moving day by day (each turn represents 15 days).
After that you can review the situation and message log to see the results of the turn and start again to make your plans and give your orders.
Regards!

[Major Dilemma]

Trying to sort out the doozy of a difficulty curve.

This is what I gather for the way armies/corps/divisions/independent units work in terms of pros and cons:


Independent units:

+ Can spread out a greater number of units, move quicker(?)
- Command point penalty


Divisions:

+ 50% command point discount
- Not as great freedom of movement as independents

Corps:

+ Commander passes down bonuses to every division(?)
- Even less flexibility than individual divisions

Army:

+ Can have corps support each other if battle breaks out, wide command bonus area instead of just their own stack.

- Requires lots of supply for the required headquarters unit?

One thing i don't see mentioned too often is the difference in how the regimental command point cost is counted against the capacity of the division or corps/army.

The capacity of a division is simply 18 regiments and is independent of any command point costs as they are expressed per brigade. So then for a division it is an opportunity to assemble forces which have a high per regiment command point cost. This would be units such as the four infantry + one light artillery brigade which costs three command points. This is five regimental units which cost 0.6 command points per regiment. Not a very efficient use of command points but they are five regiments which can be placed into a division. Another unit is the volunteer brigade which includes three line regiments and costs three command points. They have a command point per regiment cost of 1.0 and should be considered for inclusion in a division.

On the other hand regiments which have a very efficient command point cost as expressed as command point cost/regiment would be the two line militia brigades which cost one command point. Freshly formed militia can be combined into groups of two and they pack a powerful punch for the low cost of one command point. Powerful once they get automatically upgraded that is.

Also special brigades which appear on their own from time to time have a very low command point per regiment cost and should be guarded against annihilation and included in your finest Corps or Army organization. Some units even have a zero command point requirement which offers an opportunity to really crank up your power.

Artillery and cavalry are usually one regimental unit costing one command point and are easily included in any division without the high command point effect hampering the overall power of your division.

I think the cutoff between efficient and inefficient is .5/regiment being efficient enough for non divisional command and any brigades costing more than .5 command points per regiment should operate without generals or be included in a division. Of course the major exception to this is the need for Corps and Armies to have a healthy compliment of artillery and some cavalry and a sharpshooter. Artillery, cavalry and sharpshooters are not efficient @ 1 command point/regimental unit but this rule of command point efficiency is intended to be a guide to the assignments of brigades which include line infantry or a mixture of several regiments. Know you can always get line infantry at .5 CP's per line or less..

So then in conclusion I find it helpful in optimizing stack power to assign brigades to the type of force they will best enhance given their command point cost as expressed as command point cost/regiment.

Hope this helps.

[Awwhegoboom]

Further to the previous post by Major Dilema, I do not agree that there is any relevance of individual regiment / brigade command point costs when considering Division composition.

I have in mind that divisions cost a flat 4 command points regardless of make-up. So my first thoughts were:
1) "A division is constructed with a purpose in mind (usually), and therefore the make up of the division is determined by this 'purpose' and not the command point 'efficiency' of its constituent parts".
2) Most Divisions (especially those who fully utilise the 18 'element' allowance) will result in a significant command point saving in comparison to the command point cost of its constituent parts, regardless of make-up. Therefore a Division can almost be considered as 'efficient' by default.

Bearing the above two points in mind, I do not understand why the differing command point 'efficiencies' of various regiments / brigades should be considered at all for Division construction. I have re-read Major Dilema's post again (a few times).

I can see that in respect of Corps stacks and Army stacks, Command point costs for individual regiments / brigades could, potentially, play a part in the overall make-up of these stacks.

To illustrate my thinking, take (for example) a Corps stack containing a Corps commander (**) and two Divisions (both fully utilising the 18 element limit). The command points generated by the Generals will be 16 (this can be modified by other factors, of course). The command cost for the stack will be 8 (again, assuming no other factors apply). This leaves spare command point capacity. Assuming you have no additional / available divisions to include within the Corps, you can decide to include individual regiments / brigades. Thus, selecting 'command point efficient' units, you can get more into the stack before , or without, creating any command point penalty.

However (I have changed my mind again, lol), I would say that, like Divisions, you should construct Army and Corps stacks with a purpose in mind. Therefore, including units into a stack simply on the basis of a comparatively low command point cost should be a secondary consideration at most(IMHO).

Please feel free to shoot me down in flames

Edit:

I have re-read the previous again and had further thoughts.

There are a number of instances where you can be dealing with the construction of a Division. Taking into account that you have considered the make-up of the division to be 'fit for purpose' you could be facing:
1) building the Division from 'at-start' and 'auto reinforcement' units once unlocked.
2) Building the Division directly from the force pool.
3) a combination of the above.

For 1) above, I can agree that if considering which one of two identical brigades to include within a Division, it would make sense to add the brigade with the higher overall command cost, leaving the lower cost brigade outside of the Division being constructed.

For 2) above, I would not consider the command point cost of the individual constituent parts at all. The command point cost of the resulting Division will be the same.

For 3) above, should follow 1) and 2)

Of course, zero command point brigades should be added wherever these units are, first of all, 'fit for purpose'.

[Major Dilemma]

Further to the previous post by Major Dilema, I do not agree that there is any relevance of individual regiment / brigade command point costs when considering Division composition.

I have in mind that divisions cost a flat 4 command points regardless of make-up. So my first thoughts were:
1) "A division is constructed with a purpose in mind (usually), and therefore the make up of the division is determined by this 'purpose' and not the command point 'efficiency' of its constituent parts".
2) Most Divisions (especially those who fully utilise the 18 'element' allowance) will result in a significant command point saving in comparison to the command point cost of its constituent parts, regardless of make-up. Therefore a Division can almost be considered as 'efficient' by default.

Bearing the above two points in mind, I do not understand why the differing command point 'efficiencies' of various regiments / brigades should be considered at all for Division construction. I have re-read Major Dilema's post again (a few times).

I can see that in respect of Corps stacks and Army stacks, Command point costs for individual regiments / brigades could, potentially, play a part in the overall make-up of these stacks.

To illustrate my thinking, take (for example) a Corps stack containing a Corps commander (**) and two Divisions (both fully utilising the 18 element limit). The command points generated by the Generals will be 16 (this can be modified by other factors, of course). The command cost for the stack will be 8 (again, assuming no other factors apply). This leaves spare command point capacity. Assuming you have no additional / available divisions to include within the Corps, you can decide to include individual regiments / brigades. Thus, selecting 'command point efficient' units, you can get more into the stack before , or without, creating any command point penalty.

However (I have changed my mind again, lol), I would say that, like Divisions, you should construct Army and Corps stacks with a purpose in mind. Therefore, including units into a stack simply on the basis of a comparatively low command point cost should be a secondary consideration at most(IMHO).

Please feel free to shoot me down in flames

When constructing divisions command point efficiency matters not at all. However if you put your most efficient brigades into divisions they are not available for your Corps so then it seems to me you would not want to waste such command point efficiency by placing them into divisions. Say a brigade includes 6 lines of infantry for only two command points. There actually is one like this for the south.. If you ignore this efficiency you could well place it into a division and lose the power it promises to provide to a corps or Army or simply as any non-divisional stack you want a general to lead. This efficiency consideration does not benefit divisions but it can really really boost your non-divisional stacks when led by generals, particularly your best corps.

Likewise if you put your three lines of infantry costing 3 command points into your corps you will not receive full benefit of your command point potential in your corps. I have had Lee up over 1800 power (without adding any divisions into his stack) in his corps in 1862. (I keep him in corps rather than army so I can move him and attack with him more freely). I think this 1800 power can not be achieved unless you pay attention to the command point efficiency and keep your most efficient brigades out of divisions.

Hope this explains what i was trying to say.

[ncuman]

Major Dilemma,
I think you are overthinking things. I suppose one could mess around to come up with the best "command point efficiency" for forming divisions. The problem is that the point of forming divisions is to fight (and hopefully win) against your opponent. So rather than forming divisions with efficiency in mind, I think it is better to form divisions with combat power in mind. Meaninging, make sure you have one (but only one) sharp shooter in division, have 3 or 4 artillery units, have 1 or 2 cavalry, and the rest infantry units.

Also, if you are having command point difficulties on the corp level, it is relatively easy to add balloons, signal corp units, or generals to the corp to increase Command Points available. Or form yet more divisions to lower command point usage. And of course sometimes you just gotta bite the bullet and split a corp in two. Unless your corp commander is super amazing (think Stonewall Jackson or Grant) there is really no reason for a corp to be bigger than 3 divisions anyway.

[Awwhegoboom]

Major Dilema..it seems to me that you may have run through the game a few more times than I have.

When constructing divisions command point efficiency matters not at all.

We are in agreement.

However if you put your most efficient brigades into divisions they are not available for your Corps so then it seems to me you would not want to waste such command point efficiency by placing them into divisions.

I understand where you are coming from with this, but I am not completely sold on the idea just yet. I have a couple of questions to ask and points to raise first. I agree that for Corps / Army formation, good use of available command points is important.

Say a brigade includes 6 lines of infantry for only two command points. There actually is one like this for the south..

I will not question your knowledge of southern troop availability. I have not played the CSA yet.

However, is this a 'bought' unit? or an auto-reinforcement? I have not looked at the multi-element brigades available for purchase from the forcepool in terms of their command point cost. Is it a case that these 'multi' brigades offer command point savings as opposed to purchasing a series of individual elements? (I must look next time I boot up the game), or is your arguement based solely on the available 'At Start' and 'Auto re-inforcement' units received? If the former, then how does this sit against the generally accepted strategy of buying hordes of Miltia and waiting for them to upgrade?, i.e. the idea being that the 'fancy' forces available for purchase are there only to tempt the ignorant.

(by the way, happy new year at the time of writting this response)

If you ignore this efficiency you could well place it into a division and lose the power it promises to provide to a corps or Army or simply as any non-divisional stack you want a general to lead. This efficiency consideration does not benefit divisions but it can really really boost your non-divisional stacks when led by generals, particularly your best corps.

Not sold yet, but see comments above / below.

Likewise if you put your three lines of infantry costing 3 command points into your corps you will not receive full benefit of your command point potential in your corps. I have had Lee up over 1800 power (without adding any divisions into his stack) in his corps in 1862. (I keep him in corps rather than army so I can move him and attack with him more freely). I think this 1800 power can not be achieved unless you pay attention to the command point efficiency and keep your most efficient brigades out of divisions.

I would be interested to see a breakdown of the composition of this Corps if possible?

I still stand by the premise that Division / Corp / Army stacks should primarily be built according to the task required of them, with command point efficiency as a secondary consideration. However, I can see that a super-powerfull Corps can be considered as 'fit for purpose', therefore command point efficiency is important.

My concern with your example of a CSA Corps with 1800 power is one of manpower Does the CSA have any other units on the map?

Hope this explains what i was trying to say

Yes Thanks.

[Major Dilemma]

Hi there exactly how to get Lee over 1800 power is something you will have to discover on your own as several of the units are special and need a little work to tweak. Suffice it to say it can be done and if your corps has a total cp capacity of 23 and you pay attention to your special units total capacities as to how many regiments they can contain (not necessarily how many they first appear with) you will achieve similar results.

I like the twofers you can build with the militia units and as they upgrade you have one command point commanding at least 40 power and often over 50.

I have never played the North and so do not know what is available to them. The stock brigades you can buy are not very good although the two lines/one cav/one light artillery surely beat out the two line/one cav since they both require two command points you get an additional light artillery for the same command cost. Any time you can equal or better the standard efficiency target of .5 CP's per regiment you will be able to enhance the concentration of power under your most able commanders.

Contrast that with inadvertently plopping your awfully inefficient three line volunteer brigades (one being a light infantry) costing 3 command points under your best corps commander and you commit criminal waste of command talent. IF you ignore the command point efficiency aspect altogether.

Actually those volunteer brigades work well to anchor down a perimeter around Richmond, expanding your general zone of control around which the union must maneuver. Of course since they start with 15% cp penalty, 5% for each line, it is all the more reason not to stack them. Let them remain separate so they do not combine their penalties, two individual brigades of three lines in each of the two regions and they can do well to broaden your core zone of control in the Richmond area in the woods to the north and south.. I forget the region names but it works for me and allows Richmond to remain totally unmolested. Two star generals with crappy strategy ratings? Let them stay parked near Richmond and they do their job.

I play random stats and banish all generals with a strat rating of less than three to the bayou.. oh and don't forget Holmes, Floyd and Bragg no matter what their strat stat turns out to be.. bye bye bye ! to tha Bayou wit you !!

This game sure is fun ; )

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[soloswolf]

In my experience, single brigades take greater losses than brigades 'inside' divisions. So that a corps composed of separate units will be a bit more vulnerable than one using divisions supplemented with additional brigades.

Also, from what it sounds like, you are describing some of the unique/elite brigades which can be far better served inside divisions giving their strong morale to the whole of the division.

However, I am sure you are finding success with your approach. So keep on havin' fun!

[Awwhegoboom]

It's a cold, cold, cold day before anything gets past Gray_Lensman

Can't say I'm too fussed about the command point exploit within the force pool being 'Killed'. But I will think a little harder about what 'At start' and 'auto re-inforcement' units I use to build divisions or keep lose within Corps.

[Hoosier]

1. Having just gotten this game, I'm not even to the point of worrying yet about corps and armies. I would just like to be able to assign a leader to a unit and have him remain with it and be its leader. It seems the practice here is drag and drop, either the unit or leader on the map or one of the tabs at the bottom of the display, but the vast majority of the time, nothing happens, the leader and the unit remain separate in the same location. How does one activate this? Every so often, for no apparent reason, it will work. 2. The same is true of combining individual units into a force. Time after time, I will drop a unit onto another, either on the map or at the bottom of the display, and nothing will happen. Then, suddenly, for no reason I can discern, two or more units will combine into a force. What determines this? 3. I understand that divisions are formed first by activating the icon which enables a leader to become a divisional commander and then the icon, I forget its name, which shows units combining with a plus sign. The problem is that these icons are almost always ghosted. How does one make it possible to use them? I have also come across "special orders" in the manual which I see nowhere on the screen. Is there another location for special orders that I don't even know about? 4. The same sort of issues apply in terms of the use of the large amount of Union transports I have even at the beginning of Fall 1861, where I stopped for now. It sure looks like I should be able to put units on them and convey them places, but how does one do that? Dragging and dropping does not seem to work. I have also tried to use this to remove Ben Butler from Fort Monroe so he can command something significant, with no success. Not that he was all that great a commander, to say the least, but sometime I might want to transport a good commander by sea, and I'd like to be able to do it. 5. The fact that so many of my leaders do not seem to be able to do very much as yet is, I am suspecting, a non-problem, reflecting the actual difficulties of the Union command at the outset of the war. For that matter, the Confederacy was not without problems of its own. But is there a way to circumvent some of this inability of generals to do much, or is it just inherit in the nature of some of them or in the nature of the situation at the war's beginning?

[Hoosier]

Obviously, in my last posting, "inherit" should be "inherent." "I am the grammarian about whom your mother warned you."

[Eugene Carr]

Assuming the units/officers are unlocked you need to drag one over the other, you should see some blue arrow type things which signify that they will combine.
This also is the case if you drag 1 tab to another when in the same region.

For boarding ships its the same but make sure the ships are in the harbour ie you have dragged them right onto the port and heard the bells ringing.

Best of Luck!

S! EC

[arsan]

Hoosier
Some advice: pay attention to game tooltips. They give tons of very important info.
Grayed out buttons tooltips will tell you why they are grayed.
To put units together just drag one tab into another.
Special order are arranged on three sets. You can change between them with thr tabs above the buttons.
If i were you i will do the tutorials carefully a couple of times more until you get the force management thing right.
And use the forum Search function. It works wonderful. For example there are dozens of post about division making that will teach you a lot.

Regards!

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Rafiki]

For example there are dozens of post about division making that will teach you a lot.

The wiki also covers division creation pretty well: http://www.ageod.net/aacwwiki/Division#Creating_divisions

[Hoosier]

I realize some of you could be ladies, but in my gaming experience, that is pretty rare. I have your suggestions for learning and shall be carrying out at least some of them, probably most. I've gone about starting to learn this game in a way I usually would not. After very little work with tutorials and scenarios, really almost none, I just plunged right into the full-length game and started seeing what I could do with it. I shall be doing some of the tutorials some more and doing some of the scenarios. The thing is, though, it is to some extent precisely the very beginning of the war, 1861, that I find most interesting, not so much fighting the battles as how the armies which fought them were initially created. I wanted a game that was very strategic and involved building forces as well as using them, since that was the first challenge faced by each side in the actual Civil War. That's why I find the game so attractive and why I approached it in this way. It is such a good game it is even fun when you don't know what you are doing, not that it won't be more fun when I do know. Despite how helpful you are being, please hold further help for a few days. I am going out of town and won't be here to read it. I'm also having a little trouble with supply. I've had a couple of units run out of supplies, but that is for a later time. I did find the use of the word "offensive" in whether or not a leader is activated to be confusing, because it also comes into play in the unit's posture. I took it to mean that leader's force could only adopt the passive or defensive postures.

[Major Dilemma]

Got Lee to 2399 power tonight. He's still got a little room to grow. Took Louisville, rested and is laying siege to Cincinnati..