1861 Victory

[pob303]

I am not sure it should be possible to win in 1861 as the Confederates against Athena on the hardest settings![ATTACH]31666[/ATTACH]

[havi]

did u rush the washington?

[pob303]

I did havi. But I think it should not be possible to do. It would only need a small tweak with the forces at Washington.

[pob303]

Also it was not my intention to do that. It was more circumstance. I had already fortified NO and Paducah. Also had taken Louisville. My troops builds and plans were balanced across all the theatres. It was just Athena left Washington wide open.

[Merlin]

If the capitol defenses on both sides as well as the Alexandria defenses could be organized into divisions, you wouldn't really see this happening.

[havi]

did kentucky secede or did u invade it? well just well played =)

[pob303]

Kentucky seceded. Thanks Havi.

[ohms_law]

I disagree, this should be possible. This was a real possibility, historically (well... people were certainly worried about it, at least).
I guess that the argument could be made that it shouldn't happen for pure game play reasons, but I think that's a slightly different discussion.

Generally speaking, Athena does a really good job preventing this from happening, regardless. Players need a game with the correct circumstances in order to be able to achieve it.
Still, congratulations!

[ArmChairGeneral]

My troops builds and plans were balanced across all the theatres. It was just Athena left Washington wide open.

Creating multiple threats is key to defeating Union Athena. If you are not threatening her elsewhere, fortifying DC and driving on Richmond are the most "interesting" things for her to do. In this case, success in another theater may have caused her to divert resources and attention away from the East: you were able to recognize when she had taken her eyes off the ball and found the winning move. Nicely played.

I'm sure you also created multiple tactical threats around DC, or she wouldn't have left it exposed. Again, nice work.

Doctrine: Force Athena to decide between competing priorities, which she is not good at, then exploit the mistakes. This applies at both the strategic and tactical levels.

[havi]

Yes it was historical threat of union that CSA blitz the dc. Hell they even took the planks of the bridge in nights that CSA couldn't make suprise attacks on them in 61.

[Gray Fox]

Good job!
I have posted elsewhere that the redoubt that shows up in D.C. actually weakens the defenses. The city can hold 60 defending elements before overcrowding starts, but with a redoubt only 25. Drop in 10 locked brigades and this alone causes overcrowding, not even counting any other units. Overcrowding can double or triple the firepower of the attacker. Also, I believe that Athena was set to play the way some humans had been playing the Union in '61 with a list like invade NO, hold MO, take KY, defend Alexandria and start the Mississippi valley campaign. If the players had taken the defense of D.C. for granted, then...

[ArmChairGeneral]

Union DC question:
How do the volunteers unlock? Do they need to participate in the combat, or does a combat in the region unlock everything? If the latter, then what about if they are in the structure and a battle happens in the region? I.e. will the units inside the structure be freed up if there is an enemy attack in the region, or would they need to be assaulted to be unlocked?

[Gray Fox]

A similar group of locked brigades show up in Alexandria too. I was able to move them after they were directly attacked. The AACW Wiki has two kinds of units, permanently fixed and those that can retreat after they are attacked. So, perhaps these are also trhe kind that can retreat after they are directly attacked.

[Captain_Orso]

As with all locked units, if they are attacked they become unlocked.

Both stacks are created through the "Capital Defenses Beefed Up!" even, which fires mid November '61, as is set to hold them locked for 60 turns. So ... umm ... they unlock around ... ... mid May '64

[Merlin]

As with all locked units, if they are attacked they become unlocked.

Both stacks are created through the "Capital Defenses Beefed Up!" even, which fires mid November '61, as is set to hold them locked for 60 turns. So ... umm ... they unlock around ... ... mid May '64

Correct. If the forts are actually assaulted they will unlock. Otherwise they activate when Grant historically pulled them out.

How difficult would it be to organize them into divisions using the same event? If nothing else, it would reduce the CP penalty on the defense.

[tripax]

It would be really easy for them to arrive already in divisions. AI Event files put divisions into the capitals (these arrive when playing AI on more difficult levels, I guess), so if you want to mod your event files, just follow that format. To me, a big question would be who to set as division commander, though.

I think in previous versions you could put units into divisions that were locked (or at least that were being built). I think it would make more sense to enable (or re-enable) this, since commanders in charge of capital defenses changed during the course of the war.

[Gray Fox]

A player could mod this and react accordingly making the brigades into Divisions. Would Athena?

[tripax]

Athena already has divisions arriving by event locked in the capitals (USA has Gilmore's Corps with divisions under Averell and Wilson as well as separate divisions under Steele and Buford - CSA has Wheeler's Corps with divisions under Lee and Armstrong as well as a division under Heth - all are locked until attacked). Athena behaves well enough with this. I would suggest that Athena does a poor job defending her capital even with these free troops. This is because human's follow Lincoln's advice to keep their large army in the field in Virginia between the enemy's army and the Capital, while Athena does not, I think. Adding more locked divisions (of troops which already arrive, anyway) wouldn't hurt her, I believe.

[ohms_law]

What's the goal, here?
Should it be impossible for the human Confederate player to take DC (in '61)?

[minipol]

In real life, it certainly was possible at the outset of the war. So it also should be possible in the game.

[Gray Fox]

The "goal" is that everyone should recognize D.C. can be taken in 1861. Apparently most players haven't recognized this or stubbornly refuse to do so. Athena does not do an adequate job of defending the capital, and probably those players too. The CSA would not be trying to annex D.C. in an assault, just destroy Union morale. This was actually attempted in 1864, when it was too late.

[Captain_Orso]

Okay, going on the premiss that the Confederacy could have (historically) and can (in the game) capture DC, the South did not directly attack the Union Capital, and I would conjecture, because of her politics. The simplest summer of those politics I could make would be, that it would not correspond to the South's claim to only wish for independence.

The South's ideology of States Rights above all, but unity in the struggle for these rights made for some very strange politics. Already in Lee's '62 invasion of Maryland there were murmurings of whether Virginia could retain her claim to a struggle for sovereignty while invading a sister-state which did not request her aid.

From the gaming point-of-view however we run into a conundrum. If the South were forbidden to invade the North, both players would play unrealistic strategies because of this restriction. If the South however is allowed to wheedle its power freely without regard to historical politics and the possible consequences of actions as it might take, such as an invasion of the North, then the game is reduced to only the mechanics of the force of units in the game and the entire flavor of the actual struggle is lost.

But how do you discourage the South from doing what it might well be capable of doing militarily without eliminating the danger to the North of the South actually doing it?

[grimjaw]

I don't know if it would be possible to impose some kind of VP or NM penalty on the CSA for ownership of regions above a certain line. Something like, if CSA owns $region in $area for more than X turns, -Y VPs. However, I think that could be easily exploited by the other player by never reclaiming those regions.

I don't think it would be against the grain, politically, for the South to be allowed to raid and reduce the North's warfighting capability by damaging its infrastructure. Military control of territory plus units present, for a period of time exceeding a certain amount, would need to be used in combination to determine if the South has crossed a line. Might even combine it with loyalty numbers.

Early on Beauregard & Johnston had plans, however fantastic, for cutting the Union in two from Pittsburgh to Lake Erie. It's not inconceivable, given the resources, that the CSA military might have done something like that, but it might have been overkill for recognition.

[Gray Fox]

During the Wilderness Campaign, Lee sent a Corps north that attacked D.C. directly.

Well sort of. It's a matter of debate if the Corps actually was a serious threat. Like everywhere else in the Civil War, incompetence seemed to rule. It was a diversion intended to affect the election and force Grant to take men away from his attack.

[Merlin]

That was Early's short-lived campaign. He didn't have much of a chance at taking DC and he knew it, but he did draw a significant amount of troops from Grant for a short period. In the end, Early's main accomplishment was to eventually pull Grant's cavalry under Sheridan and cause the near complete destruction of the Shenandoah. Oops.

[tripax]

As a note, I think Athena's AI file as CSA tells her to be slightly less interested in DC early in the war.

[minipol]

I don't think there is a need for extra measures.
As the CSA, sure, go ahead and attack deep into the union territories and see what happens.
Maybe Athena isn't always good in halting or punishing such raids, but against a human I bet it is often punished.
The CSA needs most of it troops to defend, and once the Union forces are on a roll, you can't defend all of the territory.
If you by then extended to far north, you forces will quickly get beaten.
But I can see where that might be another story against Athena although I think she does a more then adequate job.

[Captain_Orso]

I don't know if it would be possible to impose some kind of VP or NM penalty on the CSA for ownership of regions above a certain line. Something like, if CSA owns $region in $area for more than X turns, -Y VPs. However, I think that could be easily exploited by the other player by never reclaiming those regions.

I don't think it would be against the grain, politically, for the South to be allowed to raid and reduce the North's warfighting capability by damaging its infrastructure. Military control of territory plus units present, for a period of time exceeding a certain amount, would need to be used in combination to determine if the South has crossed a line. Might even combine it with loyalty numbers.

Early on Beauregard & Johnston had plans, however fantastic, for cutting the Union in two from Pittsburgh to Lake Erie. It's not inconceivable, given the resources, that the CSA military might have done something like that, but it might have been overkill for recognition.

A penalty should be based on actions and not success. The issue is the invasion.

During the Wilderness Campaign, Lee sent a Corps north that attacked D.C. directly.

Well sort of. It's a matter of debate if the Corps actually was a serious threat. Like everywhere else in the Civil War, incompetence seemed to rule. It was a diversion intended to affect the election and force Grant to take men away from his attack.

That was Early's short-lived campaign. He didn't have much of a chance at taking DC and he knew it, but he did draw a significant amount of troops from Grant for a short period. In the end, Early's main accomplishment was to eventually pull Grant's cavalry under Sheridan and cause the near complete destruction of the Shenandoah. Oops.

Yes, I was in Early-War-Mode and not Early's-War-Mode ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... sorry

As a note, I think Athena's AI file as CSA tells her to be slightly less interested in DC early in the war.

I'm not really worried about Athena, as there have been not complaints about her so much. Besides, I wouldn't want to impose a penalty on Athena playing the South, because all of the AI would have to be adjusted to take that into account, and that's not something I would want to do; at least not all at once.

I don't think there is a need for extra measures.
As the CSA, sure, go ahead and attack deep into the union territories and see what happens.
Maybe Athena isn't always good in halting or punishing such raids, but against a human I bet it is often punished.
The CSA needs most of it troops to defend, and once the Union forces are on a roll, you can't defend all of the territory.
If you by then extended to far north, you forces will quickly get beaten.
But I can see where that might be another story against Athena although I think she does a more then adequate job.

Obviously others think otherwise and have gone to lengths to demonstrate and complain about this.

The American Civil War is a classical demonstration of Clausewitz's premise, that --war is politics by other means--. If the game is reduced to an equation of military power, it completely misses what the war was about.

There are several points that I think should be addressed in a solution.

• No penalty should be absolute. If the player knows it will cost him x, y and z to cross the boarder, he will reduce that aspect of the game to the factors revolving around that calculation. If the penalty is uncertain and variable, not only will it pose the player with the same questions as their real-world counterparts had, "Is this a good idea? Will the people be opposed to this? Will the results be better than the consequences?". One might even go so far as to make the penalty of the loss of the nation's capital variable.
• Things changed during the war. In '62 it was a political risk to invade Maryland. In '63 it was less so. Was this because Lee's Pennsylvania campaign was not the South's first invasion of the North, or simply because the southern population had developed the opinion, that after 2 years of the North invading the South, invading the North was only fair-play?
  And what about in '61? Would the public have rebuked the government for abandoning the protection of the homestead to adventure afield where they had no business chasing Yankees?
• [INDENT]Lee's strategy in '63 was to put his army somewhere that the Army of the Potomac [I]must attack him, whether they wanted or not; a position with great defensive strength within the northern states. But that was only one strategy.[/I][/INDENT]
  Often it has been discussed that the South should be able to raid the North and robe her of more than a depot or the the loss of production. What if the South could capture a city in the North and abscond with machinery, not only denying the capacity to the North, but bringing it back to the heartland? What if the production capacity of the North could be diminished by the destruction of parts of that capacity?

[Captain_Orso]

I don't know if it would be possible to impose some kind of VP or NM penalty on the CSA for ownership of regions above a certain line. Something like, if CSA owns $region in $area for more than X turns, -Y VPs. However, I think that could be easily exploited by the other player by never reclaiming those regions.

I don't think it would be against the grain, politically, for the South to be allowed to raid and reduce the North's warfighting capability by damaging its infrastructure. Military control of territory plus units present, for a period of time exceeding a certain amount, would need to be used in combination to determine if the South has crossed a line. Might even combine it with loyalty numbers.

Early on Beauregard & Johnston had plans, however fantastic, for cutting the Union in two from Pittsburgh to Lake Erie. It's not inconceivable, given the resources, that the CSA military might have done something like that, but it might have been overkill for recognition.

A penalty should be based on actions and not success. The issue is the invasion.

During the Wilderness Campaign, Lee sent a Corps north that attacked D.C. directly.

Well sort of. It's a matter of debate if the Corps actually was a serious threat. Like everywhere else in the Civil War, incompetence seemed to rule. It was a diversion intended to affect the election and force Grant to take men away from his attack.

That was Early's short-lived campaign. He didn't have much of a chance at taking DC and he knew it, but he did draw a significant amount of troops from Grant for a short period. In the end, Early's main accomplishment was to eventually pull Grant's cavalry under Sheridan and cause the near complete destruction of the Shenandoah. Oops.

Yes, I was in Early-War-Mode and not Early's-War-Mode ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... sorry

As a note, I think Athena's AI file as CSA tells her to be slightly less interested in DC early in the war.

I'm not really worried about Athena, as there have been not complaints about her so much. Besides, I wouldn't want to impose a penalty on Athena playing the South, because all of the AI would have to be adjusted to take that into account, and that's not something I would want to do; at least not all at once.

I don't think there is a need for extra measures.
As the CSA, sure, go ahead and attack deep into the union territories and see what happens.
Maybe Athena isn't always good in halting or punishing such raids, but against a human I bet it is often punished.
The CSA needs most of it troops to defend, and once the Union forces are on a roll, you can't defend all of the territory.
If you by then extended to far north, you forces will quickly get beaten.
But I can see where that might be another story against Athena although I think she does a more then adequate job.

Obviously others think otherwise and have gone to lengths to demonstrate and complain about this.

The American Civil War is a classical demonstration of Clausewitz's premise, that --war is politics by other means--. If the game is reduced to an equation of military power, it completely misses what the war was about.

There are several points that I think should be addressed in a solution.

• No penalty should be absolute. If the player knows it will cost him x, y and z to cross the boarder, he will reduce that aspect of the game to the factors revolving around that calculation. If the penalty is uncertain and variable, not only will it pose the player with the same questions as their real-world counterparts had, "Is this a good idea? Will the people be opposed to this? Will the results be better than the consequences?". One might even go so far as to make the penalty of the loss of the nation's capital variable.
• Things changed during the war. In '62 it was a political risk to invade Maryland. In '63 it was less so. Was this because Lee's Pennsylvania campaign was not the South's first invasion of the North, or simply because the southern population had developed the opinion, that after 2 years of the North invading the South, invading the North was only fair-play?
  And what about in '61? Would the public have rebuked the government for abandoning the protection of the homestead to adventure afield where they had no business chasing Yankees?
• [INDENT]Lee's strategy in '63 was to put his army somewhere that the Army of the Potomac [I]must attack him, whether they wanted or not; a position with great defensive strength within the northern states. But that was only one strategy.[/I][/INDENT]
  Often it has been discussed that the South should be able to raid the North and robe her of more than a depot or the the loss of production. What if the South could capture a city in the North and abscond with machinery, not only denying the capacity to the North, but bringing it back to the heartland? What if the production capacity of the North could be diminished by the destruction of parts of that capacity?

I think herein lies the possibility of a solution to a number of issues.

[Merlin]

Yes, I was in Early-War-Mode and not Early's-War-Mode ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... sorry

Very punny.

• No penalty should be absolute. If the player knows it will cost him x, y and z to cross the boarder, he will reduce that aspect of the game to the factors revolving around that calculation. If the penalty is uncertain and variable, not only will it pose the player with the same questions as their real-world counterparts had, "Is this a good idea? Will the people be opposed to this? Will the results be better than the consequences?". One might even go so far as to make the penalty of the loss of the nation's capital variable.
• Things changed during the war. In '62 it was a political risk to invade Maryland. In '63 it was less so. Was this because Lee's Pennsylvania campaign was not the South's first invasion of the North, or simply because the southern population had developed the opinion, that after 2 years of the North invading the South, invading the North was only fair-play?
  And what about in '61? Would the public have rebuked the government for abandoning the protection of the homestead to adventure afield where they had no business chasing Yankees?
• [INDENT]Lee's strategy in '63 was to put his army somewhere that the Army of the Potomac [I]must attack him, whether they wanted or not; a position with great defensive strength within the northern states. But that was only one strategy.[/I][/INDENT]
  Often it has been discussed that the South should be able to raid the North and robe her of more than a depot or the the loss of production. What if the South could capture a city in the North and abscond with machinery, not only denying the capacity to the North, but bringing it back to the heartland? What if the production capacity of the North could be diminished by the destruction of parts of that capacity?

I think herein lies the possibility of a solution to a number of issues.

I agree with the first point, provided the KISS (no, don't even think about punning this one) principle is preserved.

As to the second, Beauregard, both Johnstons, Bragg and Lee all advocated for invasion at one time or another. Because the player (or Athena, for that matter) is not Davis, I see no reason to discourage such action.

For the third, I don't think the Confederacy had any reasonable hope of stealing heavy machinery in an invasion of the North. Wrecking it? Yes. I made a suggestion in the improvement forum that perhaps the plunder card could be altered to remove one level of all structures in a region. Nobody responded so I don't think it's a popular idea, but that would give a Union player some serious reasons to react to a Confederate invasion and keep garrisons in the Union states.

As for the capitals, I think altering the capitol fortification events to create divisions, even with throwaway generic leaders, would certainly help both Athena and players alike. The static defense brigades are, IMO, an acceptable abstraction, and I see no reason to throw the entire system out for something untested at this stage in the game's life cycle.