First game as confederacy for CW2

[tripax]

I'm halfway through my first game as a confederate in CW2 (I played a few in AACW) and I wanted to give my thoughts and see what people think (historical attrition, difficult AI).

I'm an economist (by profession) and so I always invest in industrialization because the present value of future returns seems worth it under any timeline over two years. Also, I defend my highest economic value cities (NO, Charleston, Savanna, Richmond) somewhat strongly. As such, WS is binding for the first year, money for the second and probably third. The constraints seem much more binding in the first 18 months for Confederacy than for Union, but things seem to be getting better. In AACW and in CW2, Athena's attacks on coastal cities are somewhat under powered compared to what I do. On the other hand, Athena seems to be focusing on Richmond to the detriment of the West and SW.

I capture a lot of artillery (and almost never lose any). This is because Athena micromanages more than I do so there are lone artillery around more often. Also Athena has artillery attached to divisions which aren't corps, so the division will often leave the arty while fleeing.

Finally, Athena seems to change plans (make bad feints) often, so that Grant was marching through the swamps of Southeast Missouri long enough for me to corner him (and kill Sherman!), and there have been numerous feints through West Virginia without effect.

As for my strategy, I don't feel like I have one. I took a long time, but suddenly St. Louis and Cairo fell to the same army in just two months. In the same period I've traded Alexandria to Harper's Ferry/Winchester (although not Strasbourg for some reason Athena has been slow to take it)/Norfolk. This isn't an even trade and I don't think I can take DC, so I have to pull one of my corps back. We'll see if it was worth it.

I used Hab as Union, but don't see any good loyalty cards as Confederacy. I don't feel comfortable with developing territory I think I will lose. I don't understand the cotton bales card, it seems random. I keep winning battles on defense while outnumbered 3:1, superior general statistics are great!

Any pointers? I felt in control as Union, so that I could play with wildly different strategies. As Confederacy I guess the game is to see how best to react to whatever strategy Athena picks, is that correct? I feel like Athena doesn't have a strong overall strategy, but does create interesting campaigns and expeditions which I can try to repel.

Bugs(?):
I think I can't recruit in Kentucky (which is Union).*Oh, I guess I can, see next bug(?)
When recruiting *Kentucky and Tennessee, I seem to only find units under "all", not under any region.

[GraniteStater]

The better CSA players might give you a tip or two, but, overall, I think you're doing great.

The only thing I would add is ain't good Leaders great?

Remember, though, the Union has pretty much closed the Leadership gap by mid-game. I would say this is more pronounced against humans (two games vs humans as CSA) than Athena, but also, the Union can keep coming with More.

[Gray Fox]

Two Grand Strategies exist for the Confederacy. Apparently, the most common is to hold as much as you can for as long as you can, grinding up the Union armies and racking up enough VP's to ultimately win. Athena is a very obliging Union player for this. The alternative is to figure out exactly all the things you have to do to take D.C., and do those things as quickly and deliberately as you can. The best of your best can defeat a so-so Union commander leading a hodge-podge of mixed troops at their capital. Good luck!

[ArmChairGeneral]

I am a CSA only player. I concur with tripax's analysis of Eastern vs Western theaters and that Athena generally defends DC well. I also feel like she overemphasizes MO early to the detriment of her potential in KY/TN.

She typically underbuilds in OH/IN and is vulnerable to a quick attack through Bowling Green and Louisville when Kentucky opens to either side. It is difficult to convert successes in the Western Theater into a NM win, although it yields enough VPs to win on points (lots of strategic cities close together).

The Kentucky and TN forcepools should be in the SE department filter, but you have to scroll all the way to the right to find them. The CSA's KY force pool is very large, roughly the size of TN's, so it is important to maintain a build-point there (Bowling Green, Louisville or Lexington).

Since the game uses interest free loans and since the inflation model is a constant additive rather than a growth rate, in CW2 the discount factor for time is essentially 1, so I look at opportunity cost and the break-even-time for my Industrialization decisions in the same way you do. (Of course the closed time horizon makes present spending more valuable than future spending .) Does anyone know if industrialization affects the force pools? It sometimes enables new build points.

I agree with the observations about resource constraints, WS at start, money as the game progresses. I almost always have excess conscripts. I usually buy one 3 Ironworks decision as soon as I can save up enough, it gives 24 WS per turn once built, plenty for the early game.) Industrialization past late 62 does not leave enough time to hit the break-even-points, and by then money problems are either solved through capture of Union production or you are losing and have more immediate problems. By the end of the game I have trouble affording anything more than replacements, because I could not spare the resources earlier to have a better $ generating infrastructure.

[minipol]

Same here. I usually build arsenals and some armories, never bothered with ironworks because of the cost.
In the first 2 years, I build around 8 of those arsenal/armory decisions, but past 1862, it's almost impossible.
By 1862, I have decent WS, about 900-1000 conscripts left but simply no money to put them to the field.
I didn't even have to use the mobilization decisions past 1863.

I usually secure the IT by having a few stacks of cav there. I secure springfield, rolla and jefferson city, and aim for cairo and saint louis.
I prepare to take KY. On the east, I try to get to Frederickburg to defend there with an army stack, and als in Mannassas or Alexandria,
depending on if I get there in time.
Then I have 2 to 3 medium divisions to keep the seaboard safe (NO, Norfold, and so on)
Most of the time, I end up sending those divisions to the front, and rebuild them.

[tripax]

I am just starting 1863, I don't see any Gettysburg style northern offensive. The Union took Charleston, so if I can push it out, I might send that force into Delaware, is a Delaware offensive a good idea? Otherwise it feels like I'll spend 3 more years putting out fires and see how the points stack up. Athena seems to have a lot more troops as the Union than I ever did at this point. Is this possible?

Athena also seems to build a lot of river boats. Since I have Cairo and St. Louis, I sent a small force was able to take the rest of Missouri, and I got 1-3 half completed ironclads in Lexington, St. Josephs, and that town just north of St. Louis. Free river navy for me, I guess. My western force is considering a tour of the Ohio River valley, and might win me a few more boats.

[ArmChairGeneral]

The Ohio River Valley is a very ripe target, with a dense rail network and many strategic cities in close proximity to each other (Indianapolis, Columbus, Cincinnati, Lexington KY). Louisville is a strong build point for the CSA, located close to the action and able to access the very large KY force pool. It also has one of the only rail-bridges across the Ohio river so is my primary base of operations in the Ohio Valley.

I have captured Ironclads before as well. Unfortunately they will not receive replacements from your ironclad pool, but they are superior to CSA Ironclads while they last.

[tripax]

I'm paying more attention to the economics, as I'd like to build new units rather than only replenish. I think I've noticed NM effects region output, not just loyalty. In fact, it seems to have a similar sized effect (increasing by 10 points increases output 10%). So in terms of money, if a turn earns 400, then losing on NM means losing 4 money (whereas loyalty affects only local economies). With this in mind, I've been extra careful with my decisions.

Also, it seems loyalty of regions is reduced when nearby cities are lost (especially cities in the same state), and is increased when nearby cities are gained. I think this is true, and if so it turns out that it is quite worth capturing small cities in Missouri, as St. Louis is now earning me a lot more money than when I first captured it (and WS and conscripts).

[GraniteStater]

I just happened to be reading the manual today.

NM effects region output

Manual states NM affects production. Check.

loyalty of regions is reduced when nearby cities are lost

If the same as AACW, Strategic Cities affect Loyalty. When an SC changes hands, Loyalty checks are triggered, all across the map, if I have it right, with the closer places affected more.

[tripax]

For the effect of NM on production, it isn't clear from the manual. It seems like production is multiplied by NM/100 or something close, which is a large effect and implies that decisions that effect NM are much more expensive than I thought (also promoting generals out of seniority has a greater cost than I thought).

For the effect of region control on loyalty, the exact size of this effect isn't known, either. I like it, as it forces us to be interested in complete control over a state, which expresses how the army was affected by state and governor interests. For military purposes, percentage control over regions within a theater/department would be a matter of some interest (at least for the honor of the commander) of a commander, and maybe should influence military control decay and loyalty.

From the perspective of a Confederate player, there is a much higher importance on maximizing finances and I'm curious if other players use these issues in their decision making.

[tripax]

To follow up, my new guess is that NM effects output according to a formula that is something like: Output=base*(.50+loyalty/100)*(.50+NM/200)

Note that the (.50+loyalty/100) part is from the manual. The (.50+NM/200) is my guess from running a game for 10 or so turns as Union and watching DC, Baltimore, Philly, Boston, NY, and Northern California.

It is not exact. I only looked at money, since that is usually the binding constraint after the first year or so, so it is the most important to maximize. The movement of WS and conscripts is consistent with money, and I am pretty sure it is the same. I developed some regions and didn't find development had any effect on output. MC doesn't have an effect on production, either (but owner faction is absolute). I think that some regions (or perhaps structures in regions, such as gold mines) aren't effected by as much by NM but it is close.

Executive summary:
If a region increases loyalty 10 points (x points), its output will increase by 10 percent (x percent) of the base * NM effect.

If NM increases by 10 points (x points), output will increase in every owned region by 5 percent of the base * Loyalty effect.

[tripax]

I've started watching Athena more closely (by looking at her plans directly), and have been unimpressed. On the warpath she seems quite able. But her rear is a confused mess. If I saw a human doing what she did, I would think she was micromanaging the wrong things and mismanaging other things.

After seeing Gray Fox's blitz on DC, I checked out what Athena is up to now (it is Early January, 1863). [ATTACH]26972[/ATTACH]

You can see she has 15 distinct stacks in DC, a few of which are a low level general and either a HQ Support, a Field Hospital, or a Signal Company (along with having a Signal Company and a HQ Support as stacks unto themselves). Couches corps is small, power 228. I'm showing the largest Stack, which is ok. It has all the fixed DC reserves along with two divisions which are somehow also fixed. One of the divisions is under 4-3-1 Avril, when 4-3-3 Buford, a better general, is right next to hum and has no division. Perhaps that has something to do with the generals being fixed (which I don't understand, anyway, the settings are Colonel AI, Veteran activation/Hard Activation, Medium Detect, Normal Aggressiveness, Historical Attrition for both, ... btw). The division is led by 3-2-2 John Sedgewick, who is overcautious but a good administrator. Almost any other two star general in command would not have the command malus and the fatigue recovery bonus doesn't matter much for a force in entrenched in a building. 4-2-2 Gilbert could have Avril's division, which only has one cavalry in it anyway, and provide better defense. 4-3-3 Wilson is also a better general than Avril, but his force is smaller and doesn't have any cavalry. There are 7 other 2 star generals in the stack, a few with better stats. 3 star 4-4-4 John Reynolds Is also in the city with a HQ Support and nothing else. Signal and HQ don't stack, so the HQ support wouldn't matter, but Reynolds would add an extra command point if moved over, more if granted a corps or (heaven forbid) an army.

The entrench level is good, and perhaps she has plans for all the extra generals in the stack and in DC (she just got some of them, after all). Outside of DC, she has a 2618 force moving from Leesburg to Manassas which includes the Baltimore Batteries, a very slow unit which is better off left in Baltimore. She has no forces with power over 1000 west of Leesburg, VA (except a 1015 force in Baton Rouge led by a division with 3-2-2 Isaac Stevens and no other generals and which would have twice the power if it had another general, but which will soon begin to starve). Also in here rear her rearrangements seem rarely to be by rail, including movements of a few artillery pieces which will take over 100 days when rail networks are available.

Is it ok to criticize Athena's strategy? I'd kinda like to see some improvements, at least in the obvious areas (optimizing command and moving artillery to start).

If this were an AAR, I'd also mention that even if I didn't know what she was up to in the West, I'm currently on the march through Illinois, beginning to push Athena out of KY, I own all of MO and most of NM, I am stoutly defending AZ and have a weak foothold in CO and a strong one in WV, and have an eye on Iowa (being from the middle states, I have a personal reason to want Iowa). My Virginia forces are beginning to have more success, although I've had to ignore raids into small southern Virginia towns.

[Gray Fox]

Lenin said that "Quantity has a quality all of its own." Perhaps Athena is scripted to try a lot of different unit make-ups and then deploy the stronger ones for battle? We know not to pour catsup on our ice cream, but she may learn by trial and error. I also believe that she is geared to vacuum up every single VP and play for the long haul. So she is not going to put together an Operation Raging Bull with an elite force aimed at your capital.

[minipol]

It's one thing to critisize Athena, another to suggest changes.
I found that in my games, Athena defended DC very well, and sent several attacks on the seaboard.
After my invasion of IN, she swiftly sent big stacks to counter me.

What you're seeing might all be valuable points, but it would help the devs more if you could specifically point out the errors and what
should be done instead.
1 thing I noticed in KY, was Athena sending a big division into the wilderness past Louisville south, just before winter.
Needless to say, I didn't have to defend, the perished on their own.

[tripax]

I'd love to be helpful, and I meant criticize in the most positive way possible. I'm a bit of a beginner, so I don't know if I am the right person to start a discussion of the AI in the improve CW2 forum, but I'll put together a short version of this and post it later, if that is ok.

Certainly the winter campaigns leading to wilderness attrition are a problem, although I haven't faced it yet - except a funny version of it in Baton Rouge.

[tripax]

As an update, my western advances have gone great, but I've collapsed in the east. I won or stalemated battles in Manassas and Falmouth but the larger union force was able to cross the Rapahannock. I had a fighting army under Longstreet defending Richmond, which I sent to Fredricksburg to push back an equal sized force which I believed must have cohesion difficulties. I was wrong. My first turn the battle was a stalemate, and I thought I would finish him off in the next turn. Instead I lost and was sent across the Rapahannoc, retreating to Falmouth(?!). I tried to cross back, lost, and the union sent a couple more corps from the Shenandoah Valley (did I mention I lost it), and now has 60,000+ in Fredricksburg, not including smaller corps in neighboring counties. In the turn you are seeing, two corps and two armies in Falmouth, Alexandira, and or Manassas have all just lost at least one battle and are crippled. I don't see an escape, and if/when Richmond falls, there isn't much left in the Deep South to stand up to the marching Union army (Charlston Defense has been finishing off routing Union troops, but is only 8000 strong, another similar sized force just cleaned up the York Peninsula and is exhausted but existing in Fort Monroe, and a third "protects" the base of the valley in Stanton and Covington.[ATTACH]27007[/ATTACH]

In the west, I've taken most of Kentucky and parts of southern Indiana and Illinois, but small Union forces have besieged Cairo and St. Louis (and a few other militia garrisoned cities in Kentucky and Missouri, so I have to split my forces to clean things up.

But I'm considering throwing in the towel on the game. My moral is very high, but so is the Union's. In the image you see, I have a lot of conscripts from decisions in the past turn, but will spend them all on replacements and will still need more. Sending my forces in Kentucky to Richmond would probably stall things, but there is less than 60,000 in that force and doing so would lose Cairo (probably followed by the Mississippi and Western Tennessee) and St. Louis (definitely followed by Missouri and Kansas), not to mention Kentucky. Does anyone see any hope?

[Gray Fox]

Is that Lee in Alexandria? Your force in Manassas should join up with him. Then cross the Potomac and (wait for it) take Washington in an all out assault. That should give you enough NM to win. It's like deja vu all over again.

[GraniteStater]

F12, then type in "grrl" - most are unaware, but that sets Athena to 'P*ss*d'.

Then, you'll have a game to remember.

[tripax]

Is that Lee in Alexandria? Your force in Manassas should join up with him. Then cross the Potomac and (wait for it) take Washington in an all out assault. That should give you enough NM to win. It's like deja vu all over again.

It is Lee. He had 60k two turns ago. Lost and got stuck in that triangle. He's around 15k now, terrible...

Not sure what you mean, GS... I guess I'll try it?

[GraniteStater]

If you get that to execute, let the forum know.

[Gray Fox]

My bookie taught me that the horse never wins the race, the jockey does.

[GraniteStater]

Which is why your bookie drives a new Caddy every model year and vacations in Cozumel.

Watch the film of the Belmont Stakes in '73.

Other than that, what are you trying to tell the OP?

[Gray Fox]

He should have attacked when Lee had 60K. You decide how your armies are manned, if they have what is needed to win and if you actually give them the chance to win. Victory doesn't just happen. See your future, be your future.

[GraniteStater]

The man most probably made what he felt were the best choices, given what he saw.

[Gray Fox]

Yes, and I thought that he could take D.C. and win. You didn't.

[GraniteStater]

Uh, if you read the thread, I didn't give any advice, one way or the other.

I try not to tell people how to play their game - I sincerely try to stick to what works for me under given conditions and what I have observed. Some things, I actually have a 95% confidence on, but know full well that I Don't Read No Stinkin' Manual and would rather put pins in my eyes before I ever tested or sandboxed anything - so I try to learn from my fellow posters and keep any Pronouncements to the lowest non-negative integer value.

[Gray Fox]

If you get that to execute, let the forum know.

Sorry, I misunderstood that post.

[GraniteStater]

You're welcome.