One approach for the Union

[GraniteStater]

From an old thread, addressed to Rebel Yell, who was playing me as the CSA in a PbeM. Hope it may be useful.

This 'new approach' of mine, with a brown blockade and industrializing to the max, is going to be my standard approach for the Union from now on, I think. I don't think any serious Union player has tried it, at least not that I've read in public or in a PbeM of which I know. There seem to be advantages. There is no need to corroborate my feelings, but I think depriving the CSA of some 40% of its port's income and production has merit - I think you might be having to make some choices under slightly straitened circumstances, viz., less $$ to pay for raising troops and buying Replacements, although, in the latter case, we've been pacific compared to most games I've experienced, so haven't had to pay for so many Replacements as you might otherwise be doing.

My Objectives show you at 71% of my Combat Power - down from 73% last Turn. Just for comparison, I didn't Industrialize anywhere near as much against havi as I have here and certainly didn't have anywhere near the navy I do in this game - by this time in the game, he was much closer to 45% of Combat Power and spent most of the game around 55, 50%. His high proportion was 63%, iirc. IOW, I had a bigger army in that game, proportionally.

But the South recovers Replacements at double the rate the Union does and I didn't really hurt him that much economically. Just to let you know, I'm generating about $650 in Turns that are 'normal', i. e., no taxing, issuing bonds, printing money. This last Turn, I asked for free volunteers and that's the first time all game I've felt I needed to look for men. WS are pouring out of my ears. I think you see what I'm saying - the short term sacrifice looks like a very viable proposition, especially at this stage of the game - I'm not really building any ships anymore (I am keeping abreast of naval Replacements, which entails parking in level 3 harbors on G/G) and can keep building new land units with a a prudent eye on land Replacements - these last two Turns have engendered a good bit of infantry Replacements, but, essentially, I can pay for them - and keep building new units, however modestly.

So, however modestly it might be, I can keep growing my army - and I, as a Union player, well, you should know from my posts, I love to press what I believe is a Union strength - artillery, lots of it, especially 20-lbers and Rodmans for Corps arty (i. e., 'loose' arty in a Corps stack). Too bad we don't get a range readout on the BRs [Battle Reports] so far in CW2 - if you're familiar with AACW, the BRs there did give opening range for the engagement, and it was clear that the Union stacking good arty and lots of it could definitely make a difference in combat - oppo units would just start to get torn up at range 6, range 7, even range 5, because Corps arty targets oppo targets of opportunity and will change targets in the course of the action. In short, if I'm correct in my perceptions and understandings (again, more demonstrable in AACW), high CSA NM in a fight becomes somewhat irrelevant when 15% of the infantry is out of the action before they even level a musket.

I wish certain features from the old BR had been retained - to more than a small degree, if you read it well and looked for why you were winning and losing fights, you could see what you should build and how to use it - tactics, also.

Anyhow, I think my hunches are not entirely amiss.

I'm going to be on my guard - I think you're starting to see what you might need to do and the CSA has got the basic ability to pull some nasty surprises and punish Union stacks that don't cover their brass. The Union narrows the Leadership gap, but never eliminates it, your average Div Commander is still better than the average Union Div Commander. Good stats & high NM can crush Union thrusts.You get VPs and NM for destroying elements - and I don't need to let you have Major Victories - I don't know what AutoVic is for you for NM, but keeping you down to 120, 130 NM (still bad enough) is definitely something I want to do.

[Cardinal Ape]

I always enjoy talking a bit of strategy... Some random thoughts:

The way in which I pursue economic dominance over the CSA is to take New Orleans and Charleston as early as possible. Okay, sure, it is not technically industrializing or imposing a blockade, but it does have a greater effect. Yes, it is tough to do in a PBEM. The two times I've done it my opponents conceded shortly thereafter. It is back breaking; the South loses around 50$ to be gained by the Union, not to mention the other resources..

I can't speak to the merit of industrializing to the max as the Union, I haven't tried. Its not really my style. It might work.. But the South would do the same, no? It seems they get as many industrial options as the North, if not more. I have never had a game make it to '64, I don't know what the unhindered late game economies look like. Wouldn't you bottleneck on conscripts?

If you pursued an economic strategy (and your opponent did the same) then your first offensive should be on Charleston (aside from the game ending push on Richmond) to secure manpower dominance so that you may better press the advantage of your industrial might. In a recent game Charleston was my first target, I followed it up with a quick thrust into the heart of Dixie. The surprising thing I learned was how great of an effect this had on conscript disparity; before '63 the Union was making more conscripts per turn than the South made money. There was not much territory that changed hands, but the area is littered with recruiting depots which give 5 conscripts per turn to the owner (yes, they work for the Union.) Losing a handful of those to the Union is crippling. I vaguely remember a quote about how taking Richmond is grand, but taking Charleston is glorious. I'll second that.

About the advantage of Union artillery - I'm addicted to coffee - I need coffee grinders in order for my main army to function, period, no exceptions. These coffee grinders, also known as Gatling guns, are incredible. Having taken a look at few combat logs, these guns under good leadership frequently reach a very high hit chance. The damage they do can be more than two smaller guns combined. Yes, the range on other artillery outclasses these guns, but those big guns are really expensive. Actually.. depending on the terrain and the weather the extra range may not even be a factor.

[GraniteStater]

A cognizant CSA player is gonna fortify and strengthen N. O. ASAP. Can be a rough party to crash.

Charleston can be tough to take early, too - where to disembark? Marsh terrain 'round there, takes forever to approach the place.

The North can get a bigger economy, quicker, than the South. Main object is to avoid or lessen the dread mid-game Money Crunch. Warm bodies tend to dissipate soonest.

If you can get the CSA to attack tactically, Gatlings are da bomb. I like to have the heavies for Corps Arty - everywhere, with everyone. The Union must attack & suckering the Johnnies into the Gats ain't gonna work every time - so, I like my 20s & Rodmans.

Big Navy - USN! USN! USN! (aka Guns 'R Us). Build a Good Enough river fleet & dominate the blue waters offshore. Start building those Block Flotillas now. And Brigs & TPs. BlockSqdns take a looong time to build, get started right away, build up Industry. This forgoes Crushing the South right away, you ain't gonna have a big army, even into '62. But you can be bigger than the Rebs - it's a balancing act. Blockade & Invade - the threat is mightier than the pin, as chessplayers say. His Rapid Reaction Force ain't in NoVA, it's making johnnycakes on the Chattahootchee. Get him wondering where those blue icons afloat are gonna go. Worst case - yer gonna need that Navy if them funny furriners git uppity.

Build Special Service units for one & all. Cross that river fast with Pontoons, lessen the penalties with Sailors & Marines, dig in fast with Engineers, make your Leaders smarter with the Signal Corps, see what he's doing with Balloons, and make sure everyone gets a pretty nurse with the Medical Corps.

HiTek Union - woo hoo! South can't keep up with it, really, and then, late '62, '63, you start getting Reynolds, Gibbon, Hancock, Sheridan...

anyone know if Promotions are finally working, BTW? Two years ago, the pace was abysmal, swear it was bugged...having to prosecute the entire war with McDowell & Co. doesn't really help matters.

[Gray Fox]

GS, to get a more detailed report of a turn's combat than the battle report, you can read the battle log. This is a text document that has lots of info. On my laptop, the file is located at Documents/My Games/Civil War II/CW2/Logs and is called "!BattleLog". The file gets overwritten each turn, so if you want to save one you must rename it, like "Gettysburg", or save it to a different location. It's a chronological record of the battle, with lines like:

"Round: 0 Battle is now at range 4"

and

"Attacker DmgDone: 2 CohDone: 8 AsltDmgDone 3 AsltCohDone: 14
Attacker ToHit: 53.00 rolled a 39 scoring a hit Defender remaining Health&Cohesion 18 / 91
*** End of action ***"

So you can review the range that combat began and see what chance units had to hit their targets.

Also, to get an idea of the max range for a planned battle, click on the stack that you want to attack. Press the "7" key, which brings up the terrain overlay and then cursor over the region where you want the battle to take place. You get an info menu that has the max range identified, along with some other details about the region.

[ATTACH]37978[/ATTACH]

Good luck in your game.

[BattleVonWar]

As the CSA I have had a good Union player exercise a strategy of New Orleans and Charleston. Giving up those regions are difficult. I think the game made it to October or November of 1863. A war of attrition and the Manpower on the South Side was always on the side of evaporation. To be clear to a more deadly strategy in my mind - Kentucky and Virginia is a more decisive and early victory for the Union. That way you go through South Carolina and link up with Kentucky and ignore the West altogether.

Classic Confederates over commit to Virginia and lose the game. Before 1863. It's more entertaining to leave Kentucky a neutral zone. Though similar to history cutting the Confederacy in half is powerful, the earlier the better. They can no longer coordinate and they cannot ferry Generals and equipment back and forth. It's just deadly. Kentucky is a pretty big recruiting region too, as is the the areas in between.

To make a game more sporty keeping the interior of the Tennessee river neutral till 1863 would make the game more interesting. With certain exceptions on the grand strategy and current situation of both players.

I always enjoy talking a bit of strategy... Some random thoughts:

The way in which I pursue economic dominance over the CSA is to take New Orleans and Charleston as early as possible. Okay, sure, it is not technically industrializing or imposing a blockade, but it does have a greater effect. Yes, it is tough to do in a PBEM. The two times I've done it my opponents conceded shortly thereafter. It is back breaking; the South loses around 50$ to be gained by the Union, not to mention the other resources..

I can't speak to the merit of industrializing to the max as the Union, I haven't tried. Its not really my style. It might work.. But the South would do the same, no? It seems they get as many industrial options as the North, if not more. I have never had a game make it to '64, I don't know what the unhindered late game economies look like. Wouldn't you bottleneck on conscripts?

If you pursued an economic strategy (and your opponent did the same) then your first offensive should be on Charleston (aside from the game ending push on Richmond) to secure manpower dominance so that you may better press the advantage of your industrial might. In a recent game Charleston was my first target, I followed it up with a quick thrust into the heart of Dixie. The surprising thing I learned was how great of an effect this had on conscript disparity; before '63 the Union was making more conscripts per turn than the South made money. There was not much territory that changed hands, but the area is littered with recruiting depots which give 5 conscripts per turn to the owner (yes, they work for the Union.) Losing a handful of those to the Union is crippling. I vaguely remember a quote about how taking Richmond is grand, but taking Charleston is glorious. I'll second that.

About the advantage of Union artillery - I'm addicted to coffee - I need coffee grinders in order for my main army to function, period, no exceptions. These coffee grinders, also known as Gatling guns, are incredible. Having taken a look at few combat logs, these guns under good leadership frequently reach a very high hit chance. The damage they do can be more than two smaller guns combined. Yes, the range on other artillery outclasses these guns, but those big guns are really expensive. Actually.. depending on the terrain and the weather the extra range may not even be a factor.

[Cardinal Ape]

A cognizant CSA player is gonna fortify and strengthen N. O. ASAP. Can be a rough party to crash.

Charleston can be tough to take early, too - where to disembark? Marsh terrain 'round there, takes forever to approach the place.

People say that they fortify New Orleans early, but rarely do I see it happen. Putting a couple of brigades there is not going to stop a serious Union invasion, I tend to drop two or three elite divisions led by Hooker around early November '61. Most CSA players seem to build a majority of their early stuff for the Virginia front with some dream of taking D.C.. If the Union makes a three region front on the other side of the Potomac taking D.C. is nothing more than a dream, unless the Union player is unskilled and makes mistakes of course. So if you see the majority of new CSA troops appear in Virginia then you can set sail without much fear.

I conduct most of my early game amphibious landings blind. I give Farragut a bunch of ships and sail past the forts to unload directly on the city. Is it risky? Obviously.. But is the risk worth the surprise factor? Yes, absolutely, a single turn to rail in reinforcements is all that may be needed to stop you. If the South already has a full division there then you will get burned. But that is why I tend to invade both within a turn or two of each other, there is almost no way they have full divisions in both ports by that time. Of course holding Charleston is an entirely different story...

The North can get a bigger economy, quicker, than the South. Main object is to avoid or lessen the dread mid-game Money Crunch. Warm bodies tend to dissipate soonest.

Maybe this mid-game money crunch that other Union players speak of has something to do with spending 2,000$+ on buildings...

If you can get the CSA to attack tactically, Gatlings are da bomb. I like to have the heavies for Corps Arty - everywhere, with everyone. The Union must attack & suckering the Johnnies into the Gats ain't gonna work every time - so, I like my 20s & Rodmans.

I tend to devote the NY Rodmans to the defense of D.C. because of their slower move speed. My primary artillery division has ten 20s and five coffee grinders. I see your point about the gats not being fully utilized. They still preform quite well on the offensive. If the defender is holding at all costs then gats will get their chance to preform. Southern armies seem to pack quite the punch during the assault phase, the gats blunt that final charge.

anyone know if Promotions are finally working, BTW? Two years ago, the pace was abysmal, swear it was bugged...having to prosecute the entire war with McDowell & Co. doesn't really help matters.

As the Union I don't have much problem finding promotions, not always for whom I want to promote but... Sherman can be a real pain to get to 3 stars. I finally took Atlanta with an army led by him in a recent game. It felt looong overdue. The CSA can be a lot tougher to find promotions with. If there is someone you really want to promote I would recommend putting him in charge of a big artillery division, since they tend to do a lot of damage it is a bit easier to earn seniority. Pick your favorite, hold his hand while you lead him down the path of battlefield glory and you may end up with a shameless showoff picture like this:

[ATTACH]37982[/ATTACH]

[GraniteStater]

@BvW:

Careful, you'll give dem Yankees ideers.

[GraniteStater]

People say that they fortify New Orleans early, but rarely do I see it happen. Putting a couple of brigades there is not going to stop a serious Union invasion, I tend to drop two or three elite divisions led by Hooker around early November '61. Most CSA players seem to build a majority of their early stuff for the Virginia front with some dream of taking D.C.. If the Union makes a three region front on the other side of the Potomac taking D.C. is nothing more than a dream, unless the Union player is unskilled and makes mistakes of course. So if you see the majority of new CSA troops appear in Virginia then you can set sail without much fear.

I conduct most of my early game amphibious landings blind. I give Farragut a bunch of ships and sail past the forts to unload directly on the city. Is it risky? Obviously.. But is the risk worth the surprise factor? Yes, absolutely, a single turn to rail in reinforcements is all that may be needed to stop you. If the South already has a full division there then you will get burned. But that is why I tend to invade both within a turn or two of each other, there is almost no way they have full divisions in both ports by that time. Of course holding Charleston is an entirely different story...




Maybe this mid-game money crunch that other Union players speak of has something to do with spending 2,000$+ on buildings...



I tend to devote the NY Rodmans to the defense of D.C. because of their slower move speed. My primary artillery division has ten 20s and five coffee grinders. I see your point about the gats not being fully utilized. They still preform quite well on the offensive. If the defender is holding at all costs then gats will get their chance to preform. Southern armies seem to pack quite the punch during the assault phase, the gats blunt that final charge.



As the Union I don't have much problem finding promotions, not always for whom I want to promote but... Sherman can be a real pain to get to 3 stars. I finally took Atlanta with an army led by him in a recent game. It felt looong overdue. The CSA can be a lot tougher to find promotions with. If there is someone you really want to promote I would recommend putting him in charge of a big artillery division, since they tend to do a lot of damage it is a bit easier to earn seniority. Pick your favorite, hold his hand while you lead him down the path of battlefield glory and you may end up with a shameless showoff picture like this: (del)

* I was burnt pretty bad at N. O. coupla times. Charleston needs to be held in force, or you're toast.

* Don't do Indy at all & the bucks are scarce by mid-62, at least for me. Replacements do cost, after all. And if you've been fighting a lot - well, I need to get the red out now; that's me. Bleeding Union Divs can take time to get back to strength, while the CSA is replacing twice as fast as you are. It has to be right now, no hiccups. Plus a Navy is expensive, and the Service troops, and 40,000 Wagons (to make Depots on the spot with Real Attrition & Supply) - my way is expensive.

* Never checked a Rodman's speed. Thank you. Thanks for the Gatling tip, too.

* I sincerely hope the Promotions Paucity bug is fixed.

* Hate to say it, but Arty Divs are gamey, imho. Just an opinion.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Well, since the AI apparently uses them too, they aren't technically gamey. Ahistorical? Beats me. I'm a doctor, not a historian, Jim!

Against the AI (because of course a human opponent would blah blah blah) I don't spend on anything except combat troops (including artillery) replacements and some support units. I don't need Ironclads, I need 12-15 divisions under Grant marching on Richmond. Even on the most difficult settings I never felt like I didn't have enough resources to do what I needed to as the Union.

You can build the Blue Wave and be moving south on the turn Corps form without too much trouble. You won't have a lot of call for replacements before then, because except for wherever you are doing your Grant/Lyons leveling up, you don't have the generals to start any fights anyway.

[GraniteStater]

That's the whole thing - AI & human are two different games. AI is for training or 'fun'. PbeM is war, man!

[GraniteStater]

GS, to get a more detailed report of a turn's combat than the battle report, you can read the battle log. This is a text document that has lots of info. On my laptop, the file is located at Documents/My Games/Civil War II/CW2/Logs and is called "!BattleLog". The file gets overwritten each turn, so if you want to save one you must rename it, like "Gettysburg", or save it to a different location. It's a chronological record of the battle, with lines like:

"Round: 0 Battle is now at range 4"

and

"Attacker DmgDone: 2 CohDone: 8 AsltDmgDone 3 AsltCohDone: 14
Attacker ToHit: 53.00 rolled a 39 scoring a hit Defender remaining Health&Cohesion 18 / 91
*** End of action ***"

So you can review the range that combat began and see what chance units had to hit their targets.

Also, to get an idea of the max range for a planned battle, click on the stack that you want to attack. Press the "7" key, which brings up the terrain overlay and then cursor over the region where you want the battle to take place. You get an info menu that has the max range identified, along with some other details about the region.

[ATTACH]37978[/ATTACH]

Good luck in your game.

I shouldn't have to go into the back end to see what happened & why. The old BRs were good UI design.

[ArmChairGeneral]

That's the whole thing - AI & human are two different games. AI is for training or 'fun'. PbeM is war, man!

Nonsense. The vast majority of CW2 games are against the AI. How many PBeM's have you actually played and finished compared to how many you have played against Athena? According to surveys, most players on this forum only play against the AI. I will grant you that they are different experiences, but I refuse to accept that PBeM is the "real" game and that AI play is somehow lesser (and that by implication, that those of us who only play the AI are lesser players). Most casual readers are actually looking for help beating the AI, not a human, so saying "it doesn't count if it works against the AI" isn't helpful.

Sound play is sound play no matter the opponent, and I don't think I am going out on a limb here in thinking that at least some tactical and strategic principles apply to both.

If you want my opinion (and you did ask for it) you are overspending on ships and industry. Those resources could be put to better use winning battles in the field, destroying the enemy's ability to wage war directly and gaining NM. The Union already has a HUGE resource advantage over the entire game, and there is no need to waste those resources trying to make that relative advantage marginally better. Instead, use those resources to build more divisions than the South can possibly match; then when Grant and Lyons or Sherman hit three stars, go convert those divisions into a win.

Yes, Athena just rolls over once you actually drop the hammer, but if you don't build the hammer in the first place, you won't be dropping it on anyone, human or otherwise.

[ArmChairGeneral]

I shouldn't have to go into the back end to see what happened & why. The old BRs were good UI design.

Dude, I think you are missing the point. Knowing the range once the battle has started is useless. You need to know the range that your guns will be firing at BEFORE you decide to enter the battle, and that info is available in CW2, as Fox demonstrated. There is plenty that needs to be changed about the BR (like can we see whole divisions please!) but I have never cared that range wasn't in the new battle report because I pretty much already know what the ranges are going to be.

[GraniteStater]

I thank you for your map tip, AG, but that's not what my comment was. I thought the AACW BRs were good UI design, you could really drill down. The CW2 ones aren't horrid, I just have a preference. Some info should be on the UI, not on another display, imo. I really wasn't complaining about range.

[Cardinal Ape]

* Hate to say it, but Arty Divs are gamey, imho. Just an opinion.

Nothing wrong with that. Artillery divisions do seem to be the standard around these parts, most people I have played against use them. If you prefer not to use them then I would suggest getting your opponent to follow suit since they are fairly powerful.

[GraniteStater]

"He looked like he was contemplating thrusting his head through a brick wall, and was about to do so." - said of Grant in Illinois, very early in the war.

I'm just like him.

[GraniteStater]

And AG, per your pic above, showing terrain information - a mouseover display is not the back end. Neither is accessing a file, really, but I think you catch my drift.

The BRs are OK - I just wish they told some other things, too. They're not crippling.

[DrPostman]

This may be gamey but I create a brig and transport fleet and sail up, over and back down
to hit NOLA with a Union invasion force. Brigs and transports can travel up and down the
rivers. Just enter through Lafayette Sound through Grand Lake, then over to the Mississippi
and back down to NOLA. Easy peasy. Then I build Timberclads in NOLA to augment my
brig river fleet, along with any ironclads I can capture in NOLA, if I hit it early enough.

I do take out Fort Pike next so my supplies don't get short, but taking NOLA gives the
Union a lot of supply for a while.

[Gray Fox]

I always advise concentrating all of the CSA gunboats from the Mississippi in the river region next to NO. Each of the Strategic Cities along the coast should have the equivalent of an entrenched Division by Oct. '61. You must defend D.C. from this:

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?39245-So-Washington-D-C-is-secure-right

Taking the Union capital isn't a dream or a threat. It's a carefully considered plan. I think that this thread should keep that in mind.

[GraniteStater]

Until the Gray Fox meets the Blue Eagle...

[GraniteStater]

Nonsense. The vast majority of CW2 games are against the AI. How many PBeM's have you actually played and finished compared to how many you have played against Athena? According to surveys, most players on this forum only play against the AI. I will grant you that they are different experiences, but I refuse to accept that PBeM is the "real" game and that AI play is somehow lesser (and that by implication, that those of us who only play the AI are lesser players). Most casual readers are actually looking for help beating the AI, not a human, so saying "it doesn't count if it works against the AI" isn't helpful.

Sound play is sound play no matter the opponent, and I don't think I am going out on a limb here in thinking that at least some tactical and strategic principles apply to both.

If you want my opinion (and you did ask for it) you are overspending on ships and industry. Those resources could be put to better use winning battles in the field, destroying the enemy's ability to wage war directly and gaining NM. The Union already has a HUGE resource advantage over the entire game, and there is no need to waste those resources trying to make that relative advantage marginally better. Instead, use those resources to build more divisions than the South can possibly match; then when Grant and Lyons or Sherman hit three stars, go convert those divisions into a win.

Yes, Athena just rolls over once you actually drop the hammer, but if you don't build the hammer in the first place, you won't be dropping it on anyone, human or otherwise.

Just re-read the thread, missed this before.

How many PBeM's have you actually played and finished compared to how many you have played against Athena?

I'm on my eighth, including four in AACW. I'm not denigrating the AI game - it's just that a good human is smarter and more wily than Athena. I enjoy both - Athena on Colonel is no pushover. The devs made a good opponent.

...and there is no need to waste those resources trying to make that relative advantage marginally better. Instead, use those resources to build more divisions than the South can possibly match; then when Grant and Lyons or Sherman hit three stars, go convert those divisions into a win.

I got tired of pitting Lotsa Vanilla Formations against entrenched Johnnies with 4-3-4's. Keep it up, that's all yer payin' fer, bodies to replace the bodies who replaced the previous bodies.

That's why I evolved HiTek Union with a Real Navy, which I developed against Athena, for the record. It takes time. And money. And patience.

Notice the rivers on the map? Man, they're everywhere you go, fer cryin' out loud. A good CSA player knows how to take advantage of those. That's what the USMC and Sailors and Pontoons are for. Engineers to dig in, as in I'm Not Going Away. Wagons/Depots to Replace in Place and not lose that lovely position you fought so hard to gain. Doctors and nurses to speed up recovery. Signal Corps to buff up the Slow Learners. Ballons for recon. Cav for recon. Horse Arty to make the Cav nasty. And lotsa, lotsa guns to emphasize the point.

And a little outfit called the United States Navy.

I don't care how long it takes, or how many greenbacks - there is no substitute for Victory.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Well, have you heard the saying "If everything is a priority, then nothing is a priority?" The Union has a lot of distractingly shiny toys and options, and the resources to buy them, but IMO there is no substitute for having big stacks and lots of them. Get the support units you really need, but spend the rest on troops and cannons (including Gatlings when they are available, those things are killer).

There will always be periods of heavy fighting where you spend all of a turn's resources on replacements, but if this is happening a lot (as the Union) try being more circumspect about entering battles, and try having a bigger force when you do so that you aren't losing them. Battles tend not to be as costly (for you ) when you have overwhelming force on your side. There are times when you have to accept a lot of casualties in order to achieve your objective; if that is every time though, even the Union will not be able to sustain it.

Overall, your strategy is workable. The CSA gets a lot of early game advantages but over time these go away and the Union can bring its full weight to bear, so turtling and building until you have decent leaders and a large force disparity is the conventional Union approach. I'm asserting that the point at which you can switch over and start making headway will come surprisingly early if you concentrate your spending on putting troops in the field (and the sooner you can get the Blue Wave going, the easier time it will have). The Union has plenty of resources to do this if you skip building a lot of industry, blockade fleets and ironclads.

[GraniteStater]

Yes, it's different when the Union starts getting better Leaders. That's what the Shiny Stuff is all about. I start right away, always making a few - it's not just the early game, it keeps on going.

I don't want a lot of casualties (bad for NM). I also don't like spending all the taxpayer's money on their son's blood. Lots of support units, a Real Navy (how about an 80% blockade by late '62?) to threaten the coast and rivers (and in my current game with havi, Lincoln went banana-wacky and didn't return the commissioners in the Trent Affair, so FI is now 61 and I just might need a Bigger Navy), and it's a different ballgame.

Plus, I don't like taking the same ground twice. Once it's Blue, it's Blue. After a while, I hope the Other Guy gets the message (nothing against Esteemed Opponents - without them, there's no war).

More than one way to skin a cat. I've been trying this way for a bit - kinda like it (*polishes cannon and flirts with nurse at the Advanced Depot - looking forward to mess tonight with all those canned rations*).