My first PBEM game was an eye opener!

[Redeemer]

I don't buy the line brigades either, except in an emergency, I buy almost exclusively militia, so that wasn't it. And yes, I know how to change the mobilization options to get more recruits.

[Maqver]

And yes, I know how to change the mobilization options to get more recruits.

I assumed you did. He just probably used this screen and the financial screen more efficiently. Plus he has higher NM and VPs.

I don't buy the line brigades either, except in an emergency, I buy almost exclusively militia, so that wasn't it.

Well, you were smarter than me then. In my first PBEM I bought a lot of line units and got swamped. But I am tending to agree with you...even when I did the militia gambit later I still found that the CSA had more men (and a lot of ships and artillery).

It could be that it is meant to be this way until 1863 or so. It could be that there is an optimizing of the draft and financial screens. It could be that there are veteran tricks to playing the CSA that allows them to have such numbers and supply. (Or conversely, amateur playing by the USA that doesn't allow them to have same or more as should be the case). Anyway, if the CSA has more men, a lot of war supplies for ships and artillery and better generals they are going to win.

[soundoff]

Yup. This has happened to me as well. Ridiculous ain't it?

He probably rush built nothing but militia - they convert to line infantry very quickly - while you probably built a lot of regular line units.

There is also a way the CSA player can get more WS than was historicaly possible as well, IMO, but I haven't figured that one out yet (other than buying the militia as mentioned). My CSA opponent also had a lot of ships and as much artillery!

Also, the CSA player will have had higher NM and probably used his financial and draft screens efficiently.

So the game just turns into rushing a bunch of militia. Next time you play you should try and establish what the policy is on that or hope for a future patch that fixes it.

From my experience, and I only ever play PBEM, there is no way that the CSA should be producing more units than the Union, provided that the Union is not losing heavily with NM well down.

For starters the Union gets 3 wonderful recruiting officers in 61. Burnside, McClernand and Banks. Now I know in 61 commanders are in short supply but stick those three as soon as you can in big cities, New York, Boston and Philly. Mind you they have to be inside the city. Anyway stick one of them inside each of those cities then go and look at the financial screen where you get info on how much money, war supplies and conscripts you are expected to generate the next turn. Take a note of the conscript figure. Then take the three commanders out of the cities and go back and look again. The result will probably surprise you but it will be significantly lower. In one of my current PBEM games those three commanders are in the cites I mentioned. Its Feb 62. Now with them recruiting in the cities I'm expecting to produce 62 conscript companies next turn. Take them out of the cities and that figure falls to 40. And the best of it is that 50% increase is per turn. So times the 22 additional by 24 turns a year and the extra conscripts those three commanders produce is significant, a couple of divisions worth.

On top of that the two things the North is never short of is money and war supplies. So when it comes to calling up drafts....pay a bounty. It will cost but as the North you can afford it. At least 1,000 per conscript. Look how many extra conscripts that produces. If you can go for 2000. Personally I stop there as I dont think the gain when you pay 3000 is worth it.

Just with those two measures given that the south will probably be heavily investing in Brigs in the early turns to overcome the war supply and money problems means that you should be outstripping the CSA easily in number of troops even if they do recruit mainly militia.

As Jarkko says you do have to forget about trying to play historically when you PBEM. For example I go for full mobilization every time as the Union until that NM begins to creep up to 105 then I reconsider.

[Redeemer]

I do the recruiting leaders, though I usually put them in Baltimore, Philly, and Cincinnati, does that make a difference? I thought as long as it was a certain size it didn't matter, but should I put them in the biggest city possible?

I almost always do full mob and then pay for recruits, which varies, some times the 1000, 2000, or 3000, depending on the situation with morale etc., but I always pay for more.

[Maqver]

I do the recruiting leaders, though I usually put them in Baltimore, Philly, and Cincinnati, does that make a difference? I thought as long as it was a certain size it didn't matter, but should I put them in the biggest city possible?

It does matter. You can check the top of the screen to see how much the conscription rate changes for a particular region. I usually put them in Philly, New York and Washington (wait for Scott to go and put Banks in charge of the large detachment).

I almost always do full mob and then pay for recruits, which varies, some times the 1000, 2000, or 3000, depending on the situation with morale etc., but I always pay for more.

Same here. The morale and whether you want to be aggressive early on are factors. With a low morale you will have difficulty winning battles, especially as the CSA morale seems to climb and climb. And I think if you go below 80 then it gets really bad.

[tagwyn]

Send me a PM and tell me who these people are with whom you were playing. Thanks. apy:

[Redeemer]

It does matter. You can check the top of the screen to see how much the conscription rate changes for a particular region. I usually put them in Philly, New York and Washington (wait for Scott to go and put Banks in charge of the large detachment).

I will have to experiment to see if the size of the city matters more or the numbers of conscript companies per state. If it is city size, then Boston, New York and Philly. If it is state conscript, then at the beggining of the game it would be New York, Washington, and I guess Boston, but I can't see the conscript companies for the off map box in the economics screen.

[Redeemer]

I just did an experiment with all three leaders in early Sept 1861. The results are rather surpising since they do not coralate with city size or conscription by region.

Early Sept 1861 from 38 conscripts to
Boston 45
New York 45
Philly 46
Pittsburgh 46
Baltimore 43
Washington 44
Cincy 46
Indianapolis 46
Chicago 45
St Louis 44
Louisville 40
Detroit 45
Cleveland 45
Albany 46

[Banks6060]

I've never been one to favor the more ahistorical strategic approach to a PBEM game. Jagger and I went at it awhile back and we were playing pretty tight until I was unable to play for a time and we just let things kind of fade away. I still have the game saved .

I think our combined AAR is still posted.

Anyway...most of these strategies listed here...the ahistorical ones make me cringe. They certainly force you (especially as the USA) to change things up a bit. But I managed to fare quite well against Jagger with a more historical strategic approach.

Until I get absolutely trounced by someone that uses the ahistorical strategy...I won't every use it.

[tagwyn]

Banks: Find out who Redeemer was playing and challenge them!! I am interested in playing PBEM but it must be on a level playing field with respect to the rules we follow. apy:

[soundoff]

I've never been one to favor the more ahistorical strategic approach to a PBEM game. Jagger and I went at it awhile back and we were playing pretty tight until I was unable to play for a time and we just let things kind of fade away. I still have the game saved .

I think our combined AAR is still posted.

Anyway...most of these strategies listed here...the ahistorical ones make me cringe. They certainly force you (especially as the USA) to change things up a bit. But I managed to fare quite well against Jagger with a more historical strategic approach.

Until I get absolutely trounced by someone that uses the ahistorical strategy...I won't every use it.

In part I'd agree with you Banks6060 except that I do not know of the most adept AACW player who does an historical move against the CSA in Virginia in 61 as was Lincolns original intention.

It seems to me that everyone, and I do mean everyone, when playing the Union automatically takes the -10 NM hit. Now accepting that is about as ahistorical as you can get

[Maqver]

I just did an experiment with all three leaders in early Sept 1861. The results are rather surpising since they do not coralate with city size or conscription by region.

Early Sept 1861 from 38 conscripts to
Boston 45
New York 45
Philly 46
Pittsburgh 46
Baltimore 43
Washington 44
Cincy 46
Indianapolis 46
Chicago 45
St Louis 44
Louisville 40
Detroit 45
Cleveland 45
Albany 46

If you look at Washington before adding one of them to the stack inside, it might read one conscription point (or whatever, it might be two). Once you add them to the stack the consciption will jump to 14 or so.

And I meant Boston instead of Philadeplphia. I put them in Washington, NY and Boston.

It seems to me that everyone, and I do mean everyone, when playing the Union automatically takes the -10 NM hit. Now accepting that is about as ahistorical as you can get

Why would you want to attack a larger army swelled with militia-turned-line infantry with better generals, get beat, lose morale, and then be driven across the Potomac?

[soundoff]

Why would you want to attack a larger army swelled with militia-turned-line infantry with better generals, get beat, lose morale, and then be driven across the Potomac?

You would not....but thats the way the game is set up. If you don't though you are not following the historical route and any subsequent gameplay becomes totally ahistorical as the Union sits behind its defensive lines and waits for decent generals. OK so you know the South has better generals (history and the game tells you so) but was that known at the outbreak of the REAL Civil War.

[Redeemer]

If you look at Washington before adding one of them to the stack inside, it might read one conscription point (or whatever, it might be two). Once you add them to the stack the consciption will jump to 14 or so.

The number for the region and the total both jump. If you look at my numbers, I only show the total and the increase from 38, so putting one in Washington increases the total (and thus the region) by 6, putting him in Pittsburgh increase the total by 8. And keep in mind this is only for that turn at the morale, etc.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[soundoff]

This is because of the murky details of the requirements to fulfill the event. I've tried to clarify this in several different posts. First off, you don't have to "ATTACK". You just have to "MOVE" into one or more of the regions that meet the "Threaten Richmond" definition. This definition includes all the "land" regions surrounding the "Richmond" region iself out to 2 regions, not just the regions immediately adjacent to Richmond.

Currently, this does not include the Richmond region itself, LOL, which I will be changing on the off chance that someone actually takes Richmond and occupies it with the required number of units, admittedly rare, but it could happen. Another minor change that will be made in v1.12b is the necessity to stay in the "Threaten Richmond" area for 2 turns not just 1 turn as it is currently. This cuts down on the ability to "exploit" this event with a pure Cavalry force. The main thing to remember is: You don't have to ATTACK to fulfill this event.

Perhaps not Gray but if the CSA player is half decent the only way you will fulfil this requirement (assuming you cant exploit it) is or will be to attack. To suggest otherwise is simply a smokescreen.

And I should have added, hence this edit, that you can't take Richmond without ATTACKING given that it contains fixed units.

[Gray_Lensman]

<snip>

It seems to me that everyone, and I do mean everyone, when playing the Union automatically takes the -10 NM hit. Now accepting that is about as ahistorical as you can get

This is because of the murky details of the requirements to fulfill the event. I've tried to clarify this in several different posts. First off, you don't have to "ATTACK". You just have to "MOVE" into one or more of the regions that meet the "Threaten Richmond" definition. This definition includes all the "land" regions surrounding the "Richmond" region iself out to 2 regions, not just the regions immediately adjacent to Richmond.

Currently, this does not include the Richmond region itself, LOL, which I will be changing on the off chance that someone actually takes Richmond and occupies it with the required number of units, admittedly rare, but it could happen. Another minor change that will be made in v1.12b is the necessity to stay in the "Threaten Richmond" area for 2 turns not just 1 turn as it is currently. This cuts down on the ability to "exploit" this event with a pure Cavalry force.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[soundoff]

You misunderstand the rules Soundoff... There is no requirement to move into a region and attack even if the other side's units are already occupying the region, unless maybe they have increased the MC to the point that automatically forces the Union units to assume a change in posture. In that event there are enough regions in the defined area that the Union player should be able to find a region to move into that meets the requirements maybe even amphibiously. The CSA can't cover all of the regions with enough forces.

No I have not misunderstood the rules Gray....I accept fully you dont have to actually attack but I still contend the following:

1. If you allow the Union player to do any move on Richmond with the deliberate intention of 'avoiding' battle with the CSA and then getting credit for it then thats AHISTORICAL.

2. You cant take Richmond without ATTACKING, you can be in the same region but you cant take Richmond.

Again I should have said of course you can starve Richmond into submission but then given that its only 61 we are talking about you need the AI not a human player to allow that to happen. Afer all in 61 in the Virginia theatre the CSA can easily match the power of the Union and thats not including the superior commanders it has at its disposal and that more often than not they will be active whereas there opponents will more than likely be inactive and in enemy territory.

[Maqver]

OK so you know the South has better generals (history and the game tells you so) but was that known at the outbreak of the REAL Civil War.

Did militia turn line infantry that quickly happen in the REAL Civil War? There is a qualitative difference from following a pre-determined battle path and the way armies are built in PBEM games. To say it is the same is equivocation, clouding the issue, muddying the waters, stirring the pot, etc usually in attempt to preserve some advantage by making them all equal. But if that is the way the game is set up then that is the way the game is set up. The point is that better generals and a miltia turned line swelled army will lead to ahistorical strategies and responses, such as the Army of the Potomac sitting tight. Other ahistorical strategies might be the CSA player assumining an invading or raiding stance at the war's beginning (despite Davis' "We only want to be left alone" declaration to the world).

BTW - Because of this I agree with you that in a PBEM the threaten Richmond imperative is largely unworkable.

EDIT: The proof is, as you say, is that nobody attempts it. And I think they would want to attempt it (I don't think they are just sitting back and building the "war machine" - though that is a factor, it is a factor driven by that the player knows it would be suicide to attempt it.)

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[soundoff]

Did militia turn line infantry that quickly happen in the REAL Civil War? There is a qualitative difference from following a pre-determined battle path and the way armies are built in PBEM games. To say it is the same is equivocation, clouding the issue, muddying the waters, stirring the pot, etc usually in attempt to preserve some advantage by making them all equal. But if that is the way the game is set up then that is the way the game is set up. The point is that better generals and a miltia turned line swelled army will lead to ahistorical strategies and responses, such as the Army of the Potomac sitting tight. Other ahistorical strategies might be the CSA player assumining an invading or raiding stance at the war's beginning (despite Davis' "We only want to be left alone" declaration to the world).

BTW - Becasue of this I agree with you that in a PBEM the threaten Richmond imperative is largely unworkable.

I think Maqver we are both singing from the same hymn sheet but probably not quite in tune. I totally agree with you. The way the game is set up and what is possible and not possible within it (in the Grand Campaign at least - I cant speak for the Senarios as I dont play them but I do understand they are a lot tighter) mean that an ahistorical strategy is unavoidable

[soundoff]

btw, you better get used to this one... In v1.12b (mid to late February) you will have to meet this requirement again as the Union player, preferably before 1862/06/30, else you will lose 20 NMs as the USA, after 1862/06/30 but before 1862/10/30 you will lose only 10 NMs. This is being changed to prevent the totally ahistoric strategy of just sitting back and building up an unstoppable war machine and at the same time gathering in 21 freebie NM points for various events that occur during 1862. If you want to keep those 21 freebie NM points you will have to MOVE into the "Threaten Richmond" area.

That I'm with all the way. Just because I say how I 'think' it is does not mean to say I agree with it. In my view unless the Union commits to battle a full Army of 20,000 in 61 in Virginia I'd be in favour of an automatic Confederate win. And yes I know it would be hard on the Union player taking what amounts to an automatic defeat but -10 NM in 61 is no-where near severe enough.

[soundoff]

Mind you Gray as tough as I'd be in forcing the Union to attack towards Richmond in 61 I'd equally be as tough towards the CSA in the following respect.

I fully accept their ability to destroy depots and railroads at any time but to actually 'take and hold' towns and cities in Union areas that I'd severely penalise them for given that they were supposedly fighting a defensive war.

[denisonh]

I think the move on Richmond event is a good one and as the Union in my PBEMs have avoided the 10Nm in all but one case. The problem is that as the Union if you move and lose, you will both lose the battle AND the 10 NM unless you retain the ground on which you fight.

My suggestion is that there should be either an increased NM penalty for not even trying or a reduced penalty for at least trying to move towards Richmond.

There was tremendous political pressure to make a move towards Richmond. The tricky part as the Union is doing so without exposing his lines of communication. If you attack along the Potomac as opposed to Manassas, you leave your rear unprotected, but it does and should count towards meeting the requirement as it stands now.

The problem this option presents is that you risk your Lines of communication and a possible attack on Washington.

A real political/strategic problem that simply ignoring should be penalized IMO.

[AndrewKurtz]

My suggestion is that there should be either an increased NM penalty for not even trying or a reduced penalty for at least trying to move towards Richmond.

I like this idea. I usually take the hit and stay put, but a significantly larger NM penalty for not even trying would certainly make me think otherwise.

Combining this with some of the ideas Clovis added in his MOD to force the Union player to deal with Little Mac instead of just dumping him somewhere, you could tie either failure to try or failure itself to increasing Little Macs political value to a HUGELY high number, meaning if McDowell fails, you are forced to give Little Mac a command.

[ncuman]

Grey,
I need clarification on a couple things.

1. You said that currently the number of units that needs to threaten Richmond is 10 units. By units I assume you mean regiments for infantry/cavalry or batteries for artillery. Is my understanding correct?

2. You say you want to change the Richmond event in 1862 so that if the Union continues to not threaten Richmond after June 1862 there will be another NM hit of 20 at a later date. On the surface this seems like a very reasonable idea. The only problem with that is that by my recollection there is a Second General Order event that fires around that time that forces the Union to put significant forces in Washington to prevent a penalty. So it sounds to me that you will be putting the Union in a real bind. On one hand the Second General Order forces the Union to leave troops sitting around Washington to keep Lincoln happy. But on the other hand if the Union doesn't apply significant forces to try to get close to Richmond he will suffer a 20 NM hit. That seems a little unfair if you ask me.

[soundoff]

I like this idea. I usually take the hit and stay put, but a significantly larger NM penalty for not even trying would certainly make me think otherwise.

Combining this with some of the ideas Clovis added in his MOD to force the Union player to deal with Little Mac instead of just dumping him somewhere, you could tie either failure to try or failure itself to increasing Little Macs political value to a HUGELY high number, meaning if McDowell fails, you are forced to give Little Mac a command.

I'd buy into these ideas big time. Having said that (again playing devils advocate) when you provide 'what ifs' as is the way particularly with campaign games there is almost a certain inevitability that the result will be ahistorical as players push the 'what ifs' to the limit

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[soundoff]

And you can bet on it that you'll be risking your Lines of communication as was the case in the real war. There is no way that the North would have tolerated a complete year of inactivitiy in 1862. The political pressure would have been overwhelming. The only way we have of modeling that in game is in NM adjustments.

Gray what is the evidence that the North would have tolerated a year of inactivity in 1861 in the East?....let alone in 62....yet all we have is -10 NM to the North