Campaign results

[marecone]

Well I think it would help a lot if all of you who finished any campaign would post your results and opinions here.
Something like:

Version:
Campaign:
Settings:
Side:
Result:
Won/lost (date):
Opinion:

This should help AGEOD to further tweek the numbers. Like, are rebs too easy to play? Does Union wins to quickly? Do we need more HQ's? And that sort of stuff.

Although I am beta, I have only finished one game and that was while ago when game was still inbeta. In fact I was the firt one to finish the game .

Anyway, I belive that this feedback could really be used to even further improve the game.



Godspeed

[caranorn]

I haven't finished a game yet. The closest I got was under a late 1.01 patch playing the Confederates on easy setting (but added time for AI and added intelligence to AI). This was an April 1861 Campaign, I stopped playing in early 1863 with the Confederacy controlling all of Maryland (including Washington DC) and part of Pennsylvania. Further West I believe I controlled a lot of Kentucky (after a slow start in mid 1862) and in Missouri probably only Springfield but with an expedition into Kansas (iirc withdrawn over winter). I stopped that game as it was becoming too one sided (I expect it would have been a Confederate Victory in late 1863, I was considering an advance via Pennsylvania towards NY...).

But with increased difficulty and the recent ai improvements such an early success wouldn't be as easy to achieve. Though I noticed the ai still has problems with Armies (late 1861 and McDowell with his HQ is wandering alone on a course to Richmond, all his troops are in the Washington area), leaders (a bunch of one stars commanding a number of good though low cohesion Divisions) and Divisions (many forces at 35% Command penalty because they have no HQ). I also found a stack with one 1star leader and two Army Headquarters (maybe the AI withdrew from Washington when I moved on Harpers Ferry and Alexandria) while one or two good 3star generals were holding those huge 35% penalty brigade stacks out West.

[jimwinsor]

Version: 1.02b thru e
Campaign: April 61
Settings: AI FOW +1, more processing time
Side: Union
Result: Union victory, morale 189 (needed 185)
Won/lost (date): Late Dec 62 (victory message recieved start of Early Jan 63)
Opinion: Lotsa fun! Game never was in doubt, though, after I trapped the CSA army in Kentucky...it should have fled south of the Cumberland immediately after I took Donelson. Gunboats I sent past Donelson cut off it's supply and retreat, and in a couple battles Grant bagged the whole army. Navy was quite active, major invasion at Beaufort (leading to fall of Charleston/Savannah. Marines and sailors took a lot of coastal (and river) towns in NC, SC, GA and FL. Blockade up to 60% at game end. In the east AI seemed to try to concentrate it's army at Winchester, threatening (but not never attacking) Harper's Ferry. As a result McDowell was able to methodically move south, thru Fburg, and take Richmond. (Interesting note: I was certain Richmond would break CSA morale, but no...some time previously, the AI had transferred the capitol to Mobile...and I never noticed! Major option selections should be reported to both sides in the events IMO). Soon the Valley started loosing supplies, the ANV fell back, I attacked, and won. Chased scattered remnant until winter 62 set in.

Next game I'm going to try is CSA in the 64 scenario...this might be moe of a challenge, as divs are already constructed for both sides (building divs from scratch is, as I'm sure everyone is aware, not an AI strong point at this time...although this CSA AI was much better this game, than my Union one last game).

[jimwinsor]

Also I should mention, as in my past game, leader casulaties seem too light, all around. Only one leader died in that year-and a half game, on both sides...I killed Nathan Bedford Forrest near the end in late Nov 62 (sorry Marcone!)

It would be nice if the leader casualty rate could be goosed up a bit in the next patch. Also, the rules say *** are immune from death...I'd take away that immunity (ie, AS Johnston at Shiloh, for instance, or Bishop Polk in the Atlanta campaign) if possible.

[caranorn]

100% agree on leader casualties. One could also add Joe Johnston in the Penninsula (did not die, but wounded and replaced in command) and Jackson who would probably in game terms be a 3 star at his death.

[denisonh]

I don't know about that.

I lost Hooker and McClellan (Woo Hoo!) on the very first turn of a current PBEM, with one other dying in 1861 as the Union player.

Given that we have no mechanism to "create new leaders", let us be careful on killing them off too quickly.

As for 3 stars, can't have them killed too easy of the Union strategy becomes kill off McClellan.

[Spharv2]

Also I should mention, as in my past game, leader casulaties seem too light, all around. Only one leader died in that year-and a half game, on both sides...I killed Nathan Bedford Forrest near the end in late Nov 62 (sorry Marcone!)

It would be nice if the leader casualty rate could be goosed up a bit in the next patch. Also, the rules say *** are immune from death...I'd take away that immunity (ie, AS Johnston at Shiloh, for instance, or Bishop Polk in the Atlanta campaign) if possible.

I agree, so long as the odds are still much greater for a 1* than a 2* than a 3* ect. Of course, you can be unlucky though. I've had multiple games where I lost 2-3 generals, and one where a total of 5 were killed...that hurt.

[DEL]

I agree with denisonh. I think you should think twice before deciding to change leader casualties. The randomness as exists now seems O.K. for me. Had a leader killed right at the start of my july USA game out west in MO where you aren't exactly flooded with generals.

[jimwinsor]

"McClellan (Woo Hoo!) on the very first turn of a current PBEM..."

Boy that was lucky!

[Walloc]

Well I think it would help a lot if all of you who finished any campaign would post your results and opinions here.
Something like:

Version: 1.01 -1.02
Campaign: April 1863
Settings:Xtra time for AI
Side:US
Result:Union victory by moral 185+
Won/lost (date): June 63
Opinion: was my first ever Ageod game. Won because of CSA AI bleed ANV white attacking me entrenched behind the Rappahannock during summer/fall 63.
As soon as the winter was over. My 150k+ man AOTP walked all over the remains of the ANV. Hadnt bought much army until late 62 but had blockading up to 60%. Like the way my army is in 61 and start 62 limited by C3 issues.
While i like an aggresive AI, it should make a better choice of where to attack and when to manuver. Attacking entrenched troops behind a river several times losing 60k men isnt some thing the CSA can afford. AI should IMO be tweeked to not make those kinda attacks especially as CSA.


Godspeed

While i understand and support that weather is changed into more historical patterns in some sense this will only speed up an aggresive US side. That said the CSA AI in the west did fine and i was hambered by leaving little mac out there in command of 1 army.
1 thing is about promotions. I've heard that Grant was to be put more in line aka enter at a lower rank. I've played 2 games as US side and put Sherman into actions ASAP and did many battles. Mostly succesfull ones, but since he was only a division commander his senority never rose so he never was eligible for promotion. I've seen other division commander rise in rank, but maybe this should be tweeked more. My fear is that if Grant too enter as 1 star that u might end up in situasion like i did in 2 games where ur best / historical general never get promotions even if involved in lots of succesfull battles, cuz of per say never commands.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Walloc]

Well I think it would help a lot if all of you who finished any campaign would post your results and opinions here.
Something like:

Version: 1.02
Campaign: April 61
Settings: Xtra time for AI
Side:US
Result:US victory
Won/lost (date): July 63
Opinion: Well while i really tried to make west my primary theather i had same experience as in above descriped campaign history. So comments bascily the same.


Godspeed

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Walloc]

Well I think it would help a lot if all of you who finished any campaign would post your results and opinions here.
Something like:

Version:1.02
Campaign:april 61
Settings: AI extra time
Side:CSA
Result: CSA victory, was recorded as an stalemate i assume since i wasnt at 200+ in moral, but i did take what is defined to give an autovictory.
Won/lost (date): May 62 IIRC
Opinion: I won basicly by that the AI left Washington pretty unguarden attacking an Army i had in Alexandria. I sweept in with a corps and toke Washington for an autovictory by occupying the needed strategic points.
Well again AI shouldnt leave Washinton unguarded and if it do. The army had 3 turns to come back from Alexandria to kick me out of Washington before i toke teh city and didnt. That said maybe 1 more strategic city should be added just for sake of playability. Keeping Bowling Green only leaves Washington for auto victory. It doesnt leave much room for mistakes. Tho historicly this is questionble adding more cities, Washington was undoublely importand. My thoughts was maybe a nothern OH or IL city if idea is adapted.


Godspeed

kind regards,

Rasmus

[marecone]

Thank you all. I am sure that this will help to further improve the game.

As for leader casulties; my opinion is that there should be more casulties. Not many more, but more. As for 3 star generals; I am afraid that we can't have too many of them killed for the game purposes.

An idea; perhaps implement wounding and illnes. Then general would be disabled for some turns but not lost for ever. This would force player to shufle between his generals.
Just my two cents

Keep posting

[denisonh]

"McClellan (Woo Hoo!) on the very first turn of a current PBEM..."

Boy that was lucky!

No kidding! Given that my CSA opponent has the edge into 1863, it will make it easier for me to put the right leaders into a number of Armies by years end as I only have to pay for the costs of passing over Butler. Definitely an arguement to keep the 3 stars from getting whacked (It hurts a player more to keep an incompetent General than to "kill him off")

I do like Marecone's idea of leaders being wounded/suffering illness (John Bell Hood is a good example). I think it is better than increasing the chances of them being killed.

[el_Gato]

Just finished the 1861 Campaign as CSA:



Or, perhaps a better turn of phrase would be, it finished itself.

Made it to Jan 1864, and it ended in a stalemate. CSA morale was 148 (max. 175), and USA was 55 (min. 60). (I blame it on McClellan winning the 1864 election).

This was with Detection Bonus Low / AI with extra time / Normal Agression / Use all behaviors.

My strategy as the South was to basically adopt a defensive stance in the East, take Kentucky and Missouri in the West, and let the Union come to me. Fortunately (or not), the Union AI doesn't seem up to the task, and other than a few faints toward Harper's Ferry, or at Alexandria, the only major invasions I've had to deal with were at Norfolk, while the Union Navy ineffectually bombards my coastal forts. The AI seems adept enough at creating large formations, it just doesn't want to use them --- or sends them off piecemeal.

As the CSA player, my biggest problem was in the money / conscripts area. But once I started launching 25 - 30 blockade runners, and alternating between the three financial options, money became manageable. And since combat was minimal, the replacement problem was too. I started the game with two armies, and only got around to creating a third in 1863. Most of my offensive effort went into long-range cavalry raids into Union territory, tearing up rail lines --- which the AI has yet to repair.

I'd say that most of my effort has gone into raising the Industrialization Level, Rail Capacity, River Transport Capacity, while building up my (defensive) military formations.

I'm waiting for the next big update before starting a game as the USA --- perhaps the AI can handle defense better than offense.

[PJL]

I won a CSA game on v1.02 by January 1864. Virtually all of Virginia was mine, as well as Winchester and Harpers Ferry. Kentucky was taken as well as parts of S Illinois (Rome, Louisville, Evansville etc). St Lousi and Cairo was still in Union hands, but practically everything up to there was taken (Rolla, Jefferson City, all the western boxes up to that point).

Basically won by a war of attrition in the east, sending out the entire army to Alexander to entice the Union army out to me, which they always did and always lost big time. There was more movement in the Kentucky and Trans-Missisippi theatres.

Settings were:
Difficulty - Normal
AI FOW - sligjht advantage
All other options as normal.

[von Beanie]

I just finished a full 1861 campaign PBEM with a competent opponent (after a few restarts which were even less balanced in favor of the Union). In this game the Union won on turn 62, having taken everything but Atlanta and Norfolk.

It is my opinion that the CSA cannot defend such a wide front against such overwhelming forces. Taking out the ahistoric eastern TN/KY railroad may help strengthen the CSAr defense somewhat, because the more options the Union has (and they have a lot when the whole coast is vulnerable), the easier it is for them to spread the defense and score.

I still believe something needs to be done about the native resistance. Having taken the whole Mississippi River system and every town in Arkansas and Kentucky, I still had to permanently garrison the Missouri railroads to maintain 25% Union control. In fact, all of rural Missiouri north of the river with the same name was CSA controlled. I tried everything I could figure to do to improve Union sympathies and nothing worked. That includes martial law, heavily investing in the state's industry, and letting them have complete freedom. And I was winning the war most of the time too. There should come a time when the natives give up and stop resisting so intensely (>75% CSA control). Alternatively, the designers need to explain exactly how to accomplish this basic task.

[jimwinsor]

Hmmm, interesting you say martial law did no apparant good, as it's supposed to bring loyalty to a minimum of 30%, no? Which should be enough to keep supplies and the rails flowing (25%).

[Rafiki]

Loyalty is not the same as control....

[Pocus]

martial law should let you get a 30% loyalty base. Once done, with 100% military control, you are safe for quite some turns even if control will degrades over time. You then just have to move some forces along the railroads to have the control climb again. Gaining control is a rather fast process, so a dozen militia should do the trick for all the rail net.

[Rafiki]

Speaking of loyalty; Has anyone looked into the various ways to increase loyalty and how they work compared to eachother?

[Moltke]

I just finished a 1.3 CSA game (April 1861) on Normal and won pretty handily. The Union started strong as I was basically getting my feet wet. Union forces took the Shenendoah Valley and Alexandria. I focused on building my forces in the East while I went on the offensive in the west. Strategically this worked out well because after I managed to besiege Washington in mid 1862, the Union AI threw everything it had at me, to no avail. By 1863 Union casualties had reached 330,000 to the CSA's 100,000. Overall, I probably lost more troops to bad weather than to the Union Army, though I don't think attrition is reflected in these numbers from the "Objective" ledger. (or is it?)

A couple of notes:
I didn't realize Kentucky was scripted neutral or I would have left them alone. I never made any headway into ol' Kentuck after invading in 1861. It was defended ferociously as was West Virginia.

I liberated Missouri early on however, though I never was able to take St. Louis. The USA had no luck recapturing any part of MO.

I never was able to capture Ft. Pickens (FL or AL?) or one of the Forts at the mouth of the Potomac. Every attack was repulsed, so I guess I just didn't know what I was doing. Even so, the USA ai was unable to capitalize on these assets even with their superior naval capability.

Economically, I focused on industry for a year, while I slowly built forces. I never raised inflation, but I also never had quite enough troops to go on the offensive due to money constraints. Aside from that, my economy was flourishing; the CSA amassed a huge stockpile of food, ammunition, and war supplies.

And on a side note, where and to whom does one nitpick about geography?

[DEL]

Moltke

Always expect hvy casualties if you assault a fort right away! Did you siege the forts at all? If you're not on assault posture, you can start a siege that in time may breach the forts walls making future assaults a little easier. Also, why not bring along some siege guns!


Just start another thread here in the help improve AACW forum. Devs are really good at checking and quickly responding to all comments.


[CENTER]Enjoy! [/CENTER]

[el_Gato]

Moltke

Always expect hvy casualties if you assault a fort right away! Did you siege the forts at all? If you're not on assault posture, you can start a siege that in time may breach the forts walls making future assaults a little easier. Also, why not bring along some siege guns!


Just start another thread here in the help improve AACW forum. Devs are really good at checking and quickly responding to all comments.

I besieged Ft. Pickens for an entire year with a full division and a pair of siege batteries. Made numerous breaches, only to have them constantly repaired by the garrison. Finally assaulted the place, and took horrendous losses doing so. That's an attack with a full division vs. 1x garrison regiment / 1x fortress battery / 1x coastal artillery --- something like 20:1 odds --- and after a year of constant siege-work, the attacker takes losses on the order of 1:20.

I've pointed out in another thread how ridiculously over-strength fortresses are in this game.

[LMUBill]

I besieged Ft. Pickens for an entire year with a full division and a pair of siege batteries. Made numerous breaches, only to have them constantly repaired by the garrison. Finally assaulted the place, and took horrendous losses doing so. That's an attack with a full division vs. 1x garrison regiment / 1x fortress battery / 1x coastal artillery --- something like 20:1 odds --- and after a year of constant siege-work, the attacker takes losses on the order of 1:20.

I've pointed out in another thread how ridiculously over-strength fortresses are in this game.

Did you have Bragg in charge? Sounds like what happened to him in real life. Have you ever seen Fort Pickens? It was a tough nut to crack, apparently, as it never fell to the CSA.

Fort Pickens site
Another site
Wikipedia site (I never knew the army kept Geronimo there)

Maybe there is a CP penalty involved that is causing your numbers.

[el_Gato]

Did you have Bragg in charge? Sounds like what happened to him in real life. Have you ever seen Fort Pickens? It was a tough nut to crack, apparently, as it never fell to the CSA.

Yah, I have. And Ft. Pulaski, too --- another pre-war fort designed to almost identical specs. I suggest you check out how long it lasted under Union bombardment. (Here, I'll save you the suspense: 30 hours).

Most Union occupied pre-war forts never fell to Confederate hands simply because the Rebs never seriously tried to take them.

[denisonh]

Yah, I have. And Ft. Pulaski, too --- another pre-war fort designed to almost identical specs. I suggest you check out how long it lasted under Union bombardment. (Here, I'll save you the suspense: 30 hours).

Most Union occupied pre-war forts never fell to Confederate hands simply because the Rebs never seriously tried to take them.

I believe local naval superiority was an issue, something the CSA had trouble achieving.

[LMUBill]

Yah, I have. And Ft. Pulaski, too --- another pre-war fort designed to almost identical specs. I suggest you check out how long it lasted under Union bombardment. (Here, I'll save you the suspense: 30 hours).

Most Union occupied pre-war forts never fell to Confederate hands simply because the Rebs never seriously tried to take them.

Having walked the two miles through the sand from the end of the current road to Ft. Pickens (because of damage to the road from two hurricanes) I can see why they didn't want to try too hard.