Grant Takes Nashville In 1862 ?

[Black Cat]

Not in his lifetime it seems.

Now I`m probably doing something wrong here, but these results seem strange.

In two different Games I`ve tried to take Nashville with my heavy hitters Grant & Sherman in 1862.

In one I tried having both command divisions of about 8000 men each with at least 2 Batterys in each, starting out from just across the river in Gatlien, which I built a supply depot in. In the other game Grant was the Corps Commander and Sherman had the division with about 13,000 men and 3 batterys. In both Games Joe Johnston gives battle, the Union is declared Victor losing about 1500 to the CSA 2200 or so in a series of fights, but always the Rebs lose at least 40% more in all battles. At that point Grant & Sherman, who took light losses, retreat back across the river to Gatlien or Clarksville.....

This has happened in 3 battles in one Game and 2 in another, in that one Thomas also had a Corps of about 8000, he got behind Nashville. Won a battle, losing 400+ to Johnstons 2200+....and of course he too retreats back over the river.

I don`t understand why Grant, Sherman and Thomas are winning every battle by large margins, but then retreat ?

This makes it impossible to isolate the city and put it out of supply and siege them. I`m probably doing something wrong but I`ve re-played this several times with the same results.

Any informed thoughts appreciated.

[Le Ricain]

Attacking across the river puts Grant and Sherman at a great disadvantage. Lacking any control of the target province means they are not able to establish bridgrheads.

Have Grant and Sherman cross the river into the province west of Nashville. In the next turn they can either attack or move to siege Nashville without river crossing penalties.

[Rafiki]

Did you move them in with offensive/asault postures, or with defensive?

Reason I ask, is that I am sieging Nashville with Grant right now, but he is in the same region and wearing down the defences for a few turns. If you are attacking across the river and directly assaulting the city, things have a tendency of going awry more often.

[Candew]

Did you move them in with offensive/asault postures, or with defensive?

If you are attacking across the river and directly assaulting the city, things have a tendency of going awry more often.

I have noticed this same behaviour when assaulting Freidricksburg. Even though I had won two seperate battles, both corps I used in the assault retreated back accross the river.

I have since found that when planning a major assault, where ever possible, it is best to manouver your forces so that you do not have to assault the objective from accross a river.

[goodwood]

encirclement, cut off supply, thats what I did at Richmond didn't cost many troops at at all.

[Caesar]

encirclement, cut off supply, thats what I did at Richmond didn't cost many troops at at all.

I did the same thing at Richmond. It went much better my second time using some strategy instead of just trying to muscle it.

I used 1 Corps to the west to cut off any reinforcements for the CSA. I also kept the supply line open all the way back to Washington DC area.

[pakfront]

Indeed. One quickly learns never attack across a major river and only attack across minor rivers in a pinch. I've taken Nashville, but only by landing in the region just to the west. Which usually means you have to take Forts Henry & Donelson or run under their guns.
Also, if you seriously outnumber the defenders, it's worth considering Assault posture on that first turn to increase your chances of actually taking the city. Heavy casualties it's true, but possibly better that than laying siege with the river at your back.

[von Beanie]

This was a point made in the original BOA tutorial, but not, as I recall, in the AACW tutorial. You should never cross rivers in the face of heavy opposition. As others have said here, just find a way to cross somewhere else.

[jimkehn]

On the contrary in my PBEM game, I am the CSA. I had a Corps commanded by Forney in Carthage. I was entrenched like level 7 there. Polk's Corps was in Nashville along with Army Commander Albert Sidney. Now Grant could not do anything in Nashville, but moved to Carthage. There, Grant was reinforced by Buell, Thomas, and I think McClellan. Now then, Polk and A.S. came to Forney's aid. We kicked Grant's butt in casualties, and the combat report said Confederate Victory. But the whole lot of butternuts retreated to Nashville, handing the city to the boys in blue. I don't mind losing to a superior commander (Truly Grant was), or when I am outnumbered (and I was), but when I win the battle by casualty count, and the result is Confederate Victory, I would just like to know what is going on when I am forced to retreat!!!

[thewick]

I am having the same problems in a PBEM right now. I learned the same mistakes, do not attack across a river, horrendous casualties. I took forts Heny+D . So now i have pope with a corps at galintin, and sherman and thomas at the fort. all three are blocked by heavily entrenched confederates. Its just a tough nut to crack imo.

[jimwinsor]

You'll never do it muhuhahahahaha!!!!

[tagwyn]

Was Bragg Around? Tag

[thewick]

damn bragg to hell, you just wait jimbo ill have his head on a pike soon enough! The jerk sank porters fleet as well! What a surprise im so frustrated fighting the western commander for the AAR....Its like he knows my every move before i make it!

[Mike]

I would just like to know what is going on when I am forced to retreat!!!

You were outgeneraled, out thought, and out fought.

What you didn't mention, and likely didn't realize, is that Grant crossed the river west of Nashville as part of an intricate (and well thought out... at least in my own mind) plan to take both the city and Fort Henry. Unfortunately the couriers failed to pass the orders along to the various corps commanders, so Grant crossed the river alone. Having reached the gates of Nashville he wasn't going to be daunted by the lack of an army so he met the Rebs in combat.... and got his butt kicked.... for two turns. Evidently the corps commanders across the river never noticed Grant was gone, because they didn't move, or respond to orders (likely never recieved anyway). Finally Grant realized he was in trouble and moved to the east to look for a way North. Evidently the corps commanders realized their error and looked for a way to support their commander. Maybe they could sneak up to Nashville from the East and the commander would never notice they'd gone missing... FOR A MONTH!!! Well they met in Carthage and again got their butt kicked. In the confusion of such a vast horde of blue, the tiny gray garrison thought better of it and high tailed it to Nashville. However in their attempt to support Carthage, the Nashville fortifications were neglected and fell into disrepair. So now the returning victorious Rebel hordes are exposed to an envigored (not to mention reinforced) Grant.

Oh, lest you feel sorry for poor Albert Sidney... I land Burnside on the Outer Banks and take the outermost fort. As I move toward the next fort, supported by 20 ships off shore, Joe Johnson shows up with the ANV. Now, 2 turns later, the Rebs have driven the Yankees back up the banks and into the fort... this with (now) over 50 Federal ships bombarding Johnson as he builds his works on the sand dunes. To date half a dozen ships have had to retire North for repairs. leure:

[McNaughton]

I think that there may be some factor in the retreat code to have a unit determine if they will stay, or fall back, given on some form of ratio. This has no factual base than something I have observed and heard from other players (this same reaction). I think that beyond 'combat odds', there may be some form of numbers game, based on whole unit size (i.e., number of men) that may have a unit retreat given circumstances (possibly due to generals, possibly other reasons).

It may be, you won the battle, but the Union forces were unable to retreat (given the river). Your battle was not critical enough to rout them, so at the end of the day, even with your victory, and positive casualty count, the Union outnumbered you still, meaning that your under-strength force had to retreat (given numeric odds against them). This did happen a lot, where a force gains victory, but due to real facts (your foe gets reinforcements that boost their number) remaining in the territory will be bad news.

[jimkehn]

>In the confusion of such a vast horde of blue, the tiny gray garrison >thought better of it and high tailed it to Nashville.

>the Union outnumbered you still, meaning that your under-strength force >had to retreat (given numeric odds against them).

I think you are both probably right. Because I was outnumbered by a long way in Carthage. I think they decided, as you both say, to leave rather than remain in the same province and be horribly outnumbered.

I pretty much had figured out that at First, Grant moved to Nashville while the his subordinate corps were too busy enjoying the hospitality of southern ladies to fight a war. I really didn't have too much of a problem with the Union casualties being so high, considering ALL of them crossed a river (some the Stones and some the Cumberland) to get to Carthage, and when they did they found my troops entrenched at level 7, IIRC. I was pretty proud of the boys to fight as well as they did at such extreme odds. I just thought it was kinda funny that by all criteria they won the battle, then retreated. Actually, this result is kind of impressive. The AI knew Forney would be so outnumbered, he needed to leave.

[Black Cat]

Well tried this again. Grant & Shermans Divisions took Forts Henry & Donelson in mid June.

Leaving a small Div. in his rear to connect him to the Forts, they advanced Southeast to Humphreys Town. ( cue the Battle Hymn of the Republic )

Joined by Porters Div. from Clarksville, they totaled 22,000+ men and 5 batterys and moved due east into Cumberland toward Nashville. Set on defense, they have another battle outside of Nashville vs Van Dorns force. Union victory: CSA loses 5500 Grant 2600. Grants Army retreats across the river again into Clarksville.......

Grant, Sherman and Porter, with 22,000 lose 2600 and retreat..???

Meanwhile, as they say on TV, to the east, at the same turn, Thomas ( his stats on defense is a 7 ) takes Corneth (sp.) with 9000 and 2 batterys, he is attacked by Van Dorns force of about 12,000.

He fights a defense battle and wins losing 500 to the CSA`s 3200...and he retreats across the river.

Something doesn`t seem right about all this I`m afraid.

I think I`ll wait until the Union get the B-17`s in 1863.

[Candew]

From the posts so far, it appears that there might be some issues with how the AI calculates retreat rules.

Perhaps someone from AGEOD could shed some light on how this is calculated and what would lead to a force retreating, despite the fact that they have won the battle outright?

[McNaughton]

Well tried this again. Grant & Shermans Divisions took Forts Henry & Donelson in mid June.

Leaving a small Div. in his rear to connect him to the Forts, they advanced Southeast to Humphreys Town. ( cue the Battle Hymn of the Republic )

Joined by Porters Div. from Clarksville, they totaled 22,000+ men and 5 batterys and moved due east into Cumberland toward Nashville. Set on defense, they have another battle outside of Nashville vs Van Dorns force. Union victory: CSA loses 5500 Grant 2600. Grants Army retreats across the river again into Clarksville.......

Grant, Sherman and Porter, with 22,000 lose 2600 and retreat..???

Meanwhile, as they say on TV, to the east, at the same turn, Thomas ( his stats on defense is a 7 ) takes Corneth (sp.) with 9000 and 2 batterys, he is attacked by Van Dorns force of about 12,000.

He fights a defense battle and wins losing 500 to the CSA`s 3200...and he retreats across the river.

Something doesn`t seem right about all this I`m afraid.

I think I`ll wait until the Union get the B-17`s in 1863.

I think it has something to do with rivers, and defensive stance. Defensive does not mean "hold at all costs", but is a "passive stance" in that your force is not actively out to look for a battle. I think with defensive, the concept is to hold your army together, if that means retreating, it retreats, even if you win a battle.

You said Grant was on defensive stance, but how about Thomas? Since you were the one attacked in both cases, this may be the result.

Historically, many engagements ended with one side taking greater casualties, yet retaining the field (actually losing the battle as you didn't accomplish your goals). McClellan at Antietam was credited with this (won by taking the field, even though the battle was a draw, or even a possible minor Confederate victory), and Rosecrans at Stones River was credited with a victory as Bragg pulled out even though Bragg inflicted many more casualties.

See what happens if you do similar attacks (even reload an older turn) on a more aggressive stance. I predict that your force will probably stay more often than running.

In the end, you won the battle, battered the enemy force. You can do what Grant did, and move your forces back into the fray, or do what McClellan does and withdraws back to Washington. Chances are, the next time you encounter Van Dorn, his force will be battered enough to put up even less resistance.

Winning does not always mean holding ground!

[Black Cat]

I think it has something to do with rivers, and defensive stance. Defensive does not mean "hold at all costs", but is a "passive stance" in that your force is not actively out to look for a battle. I think with defensive, the concept is to hold your army together, if that means retreating, it retreats, even if you win a battle.

See what happens if you do similar attacks (even reload an older turn) on a more aggressive stance. I predict that your force will probably stay more often than running.

Well I think there is an issue with rivers when your even near one, however I tried again and moved Grant`s force south-east into Rutherford, which is one area below the river, but to south-west of Nashville. This triggered an attack by Van Dorn`s force.

I didn`t set Grant to attack posture because I didn`t want him attacking the City, which looks like half the Reb Army`s in it.

The Battle of Rutherford, September 1862:

Grant set to defend.

Global: Union 743 CSA: 1173

Units: Grant 50 CSA: 171 Looked Even in Art. and line Infantry units.

Losses: Union 1073 CSA: 7453

Grant retreats back, almost to Forts H & D, but not across the river.

The issue is that by retreating, he loses the advantage of digging in, which is huge IMO, and the ability to surround the city and put it out of supply. Thomas had taken Corinth and held it this time BTW.

Now, I`m still having a great time against a really good AI It`s very possible I don`t have enough forces on the map to do this in late `62, and I wonder if that may be why he is pulling back even after a victory ?

[jimkehn]

Well, Grant was outnumbered in units 3.5 to one, nearly. But not in GCV. But, this must be why he retreated. He felt he was outnumbered. But, I still wonder also about some of the results. Especially when one side whens lopsidedly and the victor retreats. In my battle above, Forney was dug in deep.....like 7. He lost his entrenchments. So did Polk and AS Johnston, by marching to battle. He beat Grant soundly.....however....had he stayed there, he would have been outnumbered soundly. It just feels weird, but I can rationalize my battle. Yours sounds pretty goofy.

[McNaughton]

As I said before, try fighting with a more aggressive stance than defensive. Defensive does not mean 'defend', but as a more passive stance to an enemy. Aggressive does not mean necessarily to attack (as two aggressive leaders may meet, and only one attacks). I believe it represents a commander's desire/ability to engage and keep in combat. Grant set as defensive means he is more inclined to widrdraw over staying and fighting, even with positive results.