A Series of Unfortunate General Swaps

[Longshanks]

Unfortunately there is a problem with the game with respect to switching generals on an Army HQ, which caused me to lose 10 NM in a recent PBEM turn. Here's what happened:

I had VanDorn and Jackson in the same region, both three stars, Van Dorn currently with the Army HQ. Jackson outranks VanDorn in seniority, so I want to move the Army HQ to Stonewall (duh).

When clicking on the two of them (I have placed them in their own stack), the pop up message says: You will lose 5 NM if Van Dorn is replaced unless he is replaced by a general with a better seniority this turn. So, believing I complied with this message, I made the switch.

Instead, I lost 5 NM for stripping Van Dorn and apparently 5 NM for giving the army to Jackson when Beauregard (who was elsewhere) had a higher seniority, or for some other unknown reason. No warning about this.

The lesson learned is to ignore the frickin' pop up messages which lie like carpetbaggers. It seems if you are going to swap out an HQ it doesn't matter that the new guy receiving the HQ is a higher seniority, in spite of what the pop up sez.

Update: In the notes under messages, I finally got the notice: Bory is upset that you passed him over. -10NM and -226 VPs.

Jackson better win me the war. Not sure I would have made the switch if I had known that, as I get a new HQ in 4 turns anyway.

[SleeStak]

Longshanks,

Jackson's unmodified stats at 3 stars are pretty good but I believe he has the quickly angered characteristic. This means that he and his subordinate corps lose cps (four I think). Because of that, I never promote him to three stars.

Something of a spoiler but you can see the list of generals and their stats here: Link

and you can also see what the characteristics mean here: Link

Good luck

[Fingolfin]

Quickly Angered isn't much of an hindrance on the other hand, of course i wouldn't promote him at the head of the ANV beccause of it, but in all other theaters, building strong enough corps to bother about CP limits is quite utopic anyway

[Longshanks]

Quickly Angered isn't much of an hindrance on the other hand, of course i wouldn't promote him at the head of the ANV beccause of it, but in all other theaters, building strong enough corps to bother about CP limits is quite utopic anyway

He's controlling 3 big corps without any noticable penalities in my current PBEM. Even if there was some cp penalty, it's worth it for the significant stats boost he brings.

I agree, not for NVA, but in my game he's in Tennessee. MUCH better than Sidney J.

[SleeStak]

With three stars and High off/def skills, he does wonders for your forces with frontage in the right terrain. Plus, the rebels get fewer good three star generals and usually have to make a compromise out west unless they've had a general that has really advanced through experience.

But, for me, losing a Division per corp and maybe your best corp general is not worth the morale challanges you usually face when promoting Stonewall. Plus, Stonewall as a corp commander in the East getting Lee's stat advantages makes him murder on the North where his advantageous traits (all stack oriented) can be used to their best advantage as a corp commander.

I don't usually use army commanders to do alot of fighting though, relying on my corp commanders to carry the load and my army commanders to support the corps off the front lines. Just one of the many decisions that make this a challenging, nuanced game.

[Longshanks]

As a follow up, I have had excellent results with Jackson in charge so far. He really pumps up the otherwise mediocre groups of western corp commanders. They run to each other's aid like frat boys to the beer keg.

However, summer of 63 is rapidly approaching and the usual tide of bluebellies will test him and his corps commanders to the fullest. It's Jackson vs Grant in the West.

All you rebs out there send "worst wishes" mail to GraniteStater, my opponent!

[charlesonmission]

Frontage, I've heard loads about it, but how does one calculate/analyse it?

Charles

With three stars and High off/def skills, he does wonders for your forces with frontage in the right terrain. Plus, the rebels get fewer good three star generals and usually have to make a compromise out west unless they've had a general that has really advanced through experience.

But, for me, losing a Division per corp and maybe your best corp general is not worth the morale challanges you usually face when promoting Stonewall. Plus, Stonewall as a corp commander in the East getting Lee's stat advantages makes him murder on the North where his advantageous traits (all stack oriented) can be used to their best advantage as a corp commander.

I don't usually use army commanders to do alot of fighting though, relying on my corp commanders to carry the load and my army commanders to support the corps off the front lines. Just one of the many decisions that make this a challenging, nuanced game.

[GraniteStater]

There's threads on the subject, but conceptually, it's how many elements (regiments, batteries; sub-units) can participate on the 'firing line' at any given time. If you have too many for that particular terrain and weather, the algorithm swaps elements in and out. There's also a consideration for Support elements and combat elements. IIRC, Arty is a Support element. So are Supply Wagons, Engineers, etc.

The reason why most people do not put more than four Arty elements in a Division.

[Ethan]

Frontage, I've heard loads about it, but how does one calculate/analyse it?

Charles

Take a look here.

And check out this interesting thread too, from post #10.

I hope it is useful for you!

Enjoy playing!

[SleeStak]

Ahhh Frontage, In the outstanding thread that Ethan posted (#10) take a look at the modifier section. In open terrain (clear/prairie/desert/wood) Your overall general (the one that is displayed in the combat results report as the general) can add a huge number of troops to your frontage through their leadership bonus.

Generally, each terrain location starts with 180 combat element points for terrain and 60 support element points. This can be modified by the terrain itself or weather. Each combat element uses a certain number of those points (usually four in good weather). So you can usually support a frontage of 45 combat elements and 15 support (artillery) elements.

In open terrain, you also get a Leadership bonus. If your forces have an offensive stance, the formula for combat elements is 25*((Rank in stars of your main general) * (Off Stat Number)). If you have a defensive stance, it is 25*((Rank in stars of your main general) * (Def Stat Number)). For support elements, the formula is 10*((Rank in stars of your main general) * (Off/Def Stat Number)).

Stonewall's stock numbers at 3 stars are 5/4/4 so he could add 25 * (3 (his rank in stars) * 4 (his off and def stats)) for a grand total of 300 additional combat element points or an additional 75 combat elements. He also adds an additional 30 support elements. This means that Stonewall can field at one time, in combat, in his frontage in open terrain a whooping 120 combat elements and 45 artillery elements. That is almost ten divisions participating in combat at the same time.

You can see why it might be better to have your main general a corps leader instead of an army leader. Your corp leader is going to benefit from the army modifiers and each additional off/def point the tree star corp leader adds means an additional 75 combat elemenet support points and 30 support element support points or about 19 combat elements and 7 artillery pieces. And if you think Stonewall is good, you should check out Grant.

I've found the real challenge to using frontage to your advantage in open terrain is to accumulate that many combat elements together at one time. Especially for the South, it can be a challenge to come up with ten divisions. The otherside to this is that, if you have a smaller force than your opponent, fight them in rough terrain where they can not take advantage of the leadership bonus and their combat elements use up more points (in swamp/marsh, you can only have ten combat elements and three artillery pieces fighting no matter how big your force is). Just one more angle to examine in a complex game.

(editted to add this) In the post that Ethan linked, check out the thread linked under the heading "The Data". That thread has an excel spreadsheet linked that lays out the frontage numbers. Very valuable if you like to crunch numbers

[Ethan]

Some very, very interesting observations!

Cheers!

[Longshanks]

And if you think Stonewall is good, you should check out Grant.

No question Grant is superior. However, Grant is usually fighting Sidney Johnston who is a patsy against Grant, or Bory, who is a bit better, but limited. However vs Stonewall, Grant is only slightly better. Throw in Stonewall's corps' entrenchments behind some Tennessee rivers and he's a piece of business. He's held Grant off for months in my PBEM game ... although the Union masses will soon descend from the mid-63 mobilization and then I'll be challenged.

Still my experience is this: Jackson - good as corps commander, better as army commander. You don't have to agree, of course, but I'll be promoting him in the future, even if I take a 10 NM hit for it.

[SleeStak]

I mostly meant that Grant had better stats. In fact, I never meant to malign Stonewall in any way. Stonewall was an outstanding commander in the war and is an outstanding commander in the game. He will undoubtly give you good service leading an Army. There are many good reasons to promote him to army command. For me, losing a division per corps is just too dear. Really just a question of approach though.

[GraniteStater]

'Shanks is paying a price for his choice, though. Jackson's Army in the Memphis area has stalled Grant, but two other developments are starting to bear fruit:

* The bulk of Jackson's Army is defending Memphis and SW TN and northern MS. I have managed to push towards Chattanooga and Thomas took it two Turns ago. The thrust towards Memphis has been repulsed once; defeated in an assault, however, there is a problem for the defense: Memphis is at the leftmost end of his Army's defensive line and he can MTSG with only one Corps in support. This is something I have settled on recently - don't attack in the middle of Army/Corps lines, attack the ends, where a limited number of MTSG can aid the defense. Eventually, Memphis falls (we're in early August 63).

* Jackson in TN means he is not in VA. Fill in the blanks - Lee and JJ and Co. are good, very good, but now I have Meade, Reynolds, et. al., on the offensive. Two Corps are at 1400 PWR apiece. Hooker, with an independent corps, has landed in the Petersburg area and three columns are descending on Richmond in strength while the ANV is caught up in F-burg and C-ville - IIRC, I have cut his RR and am physically in position to block or interdict the relief. The writing is on the wall.

And, now that I can Draft - it's BWAHAHA time. I haven't bothered with New Orleans yet, instead going for Charleston, SC, which I am threatening in good numbers.

'Shanks was good enough to agree to a 62 start, which is why I decide to take the amphib and target Charleston - because I did not immediately go for N. O. at the start, I assume he built a Fort there.

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

You can look and see if he built a fort. It shows up through the fog of war.

[GraniteStater]

Hmm...OK. Thanks.

[Longshanks]

heh, heh... I got G-S fired up, didn't I?

I still have a few little surprises. Two turns ago, Jubal Early ran up to Pittsburgh, took it, blew the depot and returned to VA in good order. More little vacations in the cool north coming up!

Joe Johnston is on the offensive in the Shenandoah. I took two of his depots in his supply chain.

All them bluebellies along the James is gonna get soooooo hungry. Meanwhile in besieged Richmond, we're still having balls with belles.

Still, Jackson is better than Sidney Johnston out there in the West, which was my original point. I need Longstreet in VA waaayyyyy more than Jackson.

[GraniteStater]

[Longshanks]

Although this is not an AAR, and the discussion is about Jackson as an Army Commander, I thought the rest of you might want to see the situation we've been discussing.

So, here 'tis:



Interlocking Corps in West Tennessee

The is the result of interlocking corps:



Note this is the SECOND battle of Memphis. Both have had similar results. In the Second Battle of Fort PTG Beauregard (Memphis), Hardee (the two-star listed in the battle report) marched to the sound of the guns with his corps of three divisions, thus doubling my force in Memphis. Grant has now lost twice there.

[GraniteStater]

Aah, but a trifle disappointing. PGT had been driven to the opposite bank of Ole Man River - I thought that he might get back in time, which he did, but I couldn't pass up the chance to get an Objective on the cheap, so to speak. Also, I tried using Synchronize, but think I botched something.

M'sieu Shanks is using the rivers and Corps support in the area quite well. I haven't attempted an attack on Jackson, because two Corps could support him.

[Fingolfin]

Without a clue about corps' composition, my path would be to go for Corinth with Rosy and Wallace

[GraniteStater]

Without a clue about corps' composition, my path would be to go for Corinth with Rosy and Wallace

Not enough punch, plus Jackson can expect help from two Corps. When he first settled in, I was definitely contemplating that (before he got all fortified), but LS has occupied ground very well here - the Army HQ stack (not inconsiderable, BTW) and the the two Corps to Jackson's left all mesh.

OTOH, Thomas is in Chattanooga and SW Tennesee is all he has left of the state, other than Knoxville.

We started in '62. LS has done very well in positioning; it has taken me fourteen months to threaten Richmond (I may take it this Turn) and he has barred the gate, as can be seen, in Greater Memphis. My amphib has been with Burnside and Banks in SC/Savannah/Charleston, p'raps an error, taking N.O. can be huge, it's a big $$ source for the CSA.

My NM has been slipping lately, I think the folks at home are tiring of the glacial progress. Still, IMHO, it has been progress and I have reasons for hope.

Against P. Cleburne, in Apr 61 starts, I had (a) lost DC in mid-62, Game One, and (b) lost on NM by mid-63, Game Two. So at least 'Shanks is not quite so formidable - but he's good, damn good.

[Fingolfin]

At least he doesn't have any entrenched artillery with Jackson's HQ, which can make a huge difference

BTW, that quite puzzles me as I tend to see army stacks as my main artillery reserve, but perhaps I'm biased by my french "Grande Batterie" narrow view

[Fingolfin]

At least he doesn't have any entrenched artillery with Jackson's HQ, which can make a huge difference

BTW, that quite puzzles me as I tend to see army stacks as my main artillery reserve, but perhaps I'm biased by my french "Grande Batterie" narrow view

EDIT : would you both inform us of your game forthcoming developments ? I woud be glad to know if '62 start provides enough of a challenge for the Union player for handicap contests

[GraniteStater]

Well, 'Shanks is doing OK and more, I would say. I wasn't half bad in my first ever time as the CSA, ever, against him (last game, an Apr 61 start) and I had surrendered by this point.

[Longshanks]

EDIT : would you both inform us of your game forthcoming developments ? I woud be glad to know if '62 start provides enough of a challenge for the Union player for handicap contests

Well, since you asked so politely .... We just had three battles in one turn in Richmond VA.

1. he destroyed the garrison, took a wad o' prisoners and got a big boost in his NM. -3NM for me.
2. Then he beat up on Jubal Early due to a stoopid pathing mistake by me. -3NM.
3. Then Marse Roberts got there with the better part of two corps which he had assembled the previous turn in the region to the west of Richmond. I retook Richmond. +5NM. I could hear his heart break in NH all the way down here in VA.

In all, I lost 11,907 and 17 units and he lost 14,224 men and 7 units. Expensive victory for me. And he ain't gone, having retreated a region toward the peninsula.

BTW, that scenario starts the CSA out in very poor shape, with a horrible transportation system, no real source of WS or $$ that you normally have in a campaign game by now, a big USA landing in SC to deal with, and few resources. It took me 6 months to just fix the economy.

[Fingolfin]

Thanks

I didn't realize that you were on a "real" North/South confrontation, serious business indeed

That logistical situation must be quite a burden, from what i saw as a CSA player to this day, interior lines are the only available asset to achieve local superiority for a counteroffensive.

Without it entrenchements magic and positionnal savviness are the south bread and butter I guess...

[Longshanks]

[quote="Fingolfin"]Thanks

I didn't realize that you were on a "real" North/South confrontation, serious business indeed
[quote]

It's safe to say we really enjoy kickin' each other's behinds. We played one game and started another as soon as the first one ended. GraniteStater is very enjoyable as an opponent. I recommend you play him some time. Plus, you can kick his behind for me...my foot's gettin' tired!

PS. We had another set-to in Richmond (4th battle in two turns) when Meade came back and tried to retake it. Marse Roberts would have none of that of course. +2NM.

[Longshanks]

For those of you interested in such matters....

Jackson's army and three corps continue to hold their territories in West TN, never waivering. GS has finally flanked them on both sides, taking Chattanooga (as previously mentioned), and more recently running the Ft. Memphis guantlet (taking around 150 hits in the process according to my reports), but getting to Vicksburg and taking it in one turn. It was defended both in and outside the city, but mostly with militia who just ran. Now (Nov 63) he's trying to take Jackson MS, which is held by Sidney Johnston's boys.

The fact that Jackson and his three corps still hold their positions in West TN for a year now ought to tell you all you need to know about his quality as an army commander - especially since he's faced Grant the entire time. The flanking manuvers are primarily due to the North's superiority in volume, coupled with my lack of more corps commanders - if I had them, I would not hesitate to put them under Jackson.

He's not been missed in the East either, where I still hold the same line I held a year ago. Yes, Meade and the boys took Richmond (and lost it the same turn), and now Lee is well fortified there, with Meade/Hooker staring him down from next door.

So, my conclusion from the results of this game following the end of the Summer 63 campaign season is the same: Jackson makes a great Army Commander.

[Fingolfin]

So, my conclusion from the results of this game following the end of the Summer 63 campaign season is the same: Jackson makes a great Army Commander.

I had faith in his ability, glad you share your experience with him in command