Do you believe me now?

[Gray Fox]

[ATTACH]26969[/ATTACH]

This was my first game as CSA with CW2 1.03. Athena was set to Colonel, with the recommended "most difficult" set-up. I didn't reload any turns. However, I could play this over and over, but like Napoleon said, "An army of lions led by a rabbit, will always be overcome by an army of rabbits led by a lion."

Beau started in Manassas and marched on D.C. in one turn. He had three infantry Divisions (Longstreet, Jackson and Magruder) and a cavalry Division under Shelby, with Huger, a pontoon unit and a HQ as well as four 20-lbers for support. The Marines weren't ready in time and I was out of single regiments, so Longstreet and Magruder each have two 20-lbers too. Their Divisions also have two of the brigades with a sharpshooter and two infantry, and three brigades with a cav and two infantry. Jackson has his famous brigade and two of each of these other brigades, respectively. IIRC, Shelby has 13 cav elements and 4 HA. You're welcome to mix this up though. After all, the horse doesn't win the race, the jockey does.

Of course, none of you would ever let something like this happen. You all know that a Confederate army can march on D.C. in one turn, crush a 2000+ power Union army that is entrenched and send Mr. Lincoln to Andersonville in the fall of 1861. Well, you know it now.

Anyway, this is how we used to do the audacious thing back on Krypton.

[tripax]

I'll bet Athena is making some mistakes that a human wouldn't make, even if the human had the same size force and was using Butler (is Butler really senior to Scott?). Log in to the Union and look at Athena's organization. We can see 22 groups, so at least some units are divisions, but at least the first couple we see aren't, and it looks like very few were entrenched (only Hatch's from what you show, and very little entrenchment at that). And why was Butler on the offensive in DC? Was he trying to march somewhere and got delayed? DC has fortifications, which help on defense. Did Athena use them? Delay battle as the in-battle strategy (tactic?) seems dumb, but probably didn't matter.

[Q-Ball]

That's well done, and it's not easy actually to take DC on the hardest settings. So kudos.

But as previous poster says, against Athena and against the Living are two different things.

Sounds like you are ready for PBEM

[Gray Fox]

This is actually the finale battle of the turn. Butler was entrenched for the initial assault, but withdrew/fled into the city after the first battle. I was set to "All out Attack", so Beau fought another battle in the same turn against everything in the capital, spoiling Butler's breakfast and dinner. JoJo had the main Union army bottled up in Alexandria, but watched the battle from Lee's farm at Arlington.

[tripax]

I see. Thus the least prepared units show up first. What about the rest of unit organization? Was division organization decent initially? The Washington reserve is rendered fairly useless because it can't be put into divisions and thus has a large command penalty (it would be nice if this were changed).

[Gray Fox]

For the assault, I used the "weak center-envelopement battleplan" (like Hannibal at Cannae) to outflank the initial entrenchments. The game actually reported that I lost this first battle, even though Butler's plan was to withdraw into the city. However, as Napoleon said during his Italian campaign, "I lost the battle in the morning and won it in the afternoon."

Prior to the battle, Beau and JoJo had pushed the main Union army back from Manassas, giving my NM about a 20+ point delta. A high NM makes a big difference in how well one side fights. This may be why Athena's defense buckled in the face of an army of mad dogs. Bear in mind, that my boys crossed a river and marched for 14 days to get to the battle and still beat fresh troops.

[tripax]

I'm definitely impressed, don't get me wrong. I just have a hard time believing Athena's troops were fresh, entrenched, and well commanded (in fact, I doubt all three). I see 3 commanders and no divisions (which is partially because you can't put the reserve into divisions), it seems like they weren't in the defenses for this battle, and they weren't in defensive posture. The last two might be due to this being the second battle.

The main reason I am concerned is because I'd hate to lose as the Union to such a charge, and I'm hoping that Athena is making obvious mistakes.

[Gray Fox]

I'm at work, but all I can tell you is that Butler's 2000+ power stack was in D.C. for several turns. Why/how would they not have entrenched? Butler did enough right to technically win the first engagement. The picture is just the top of the deployment screen. Why would Athena not have formed any Divisions? I thought that they were entrenched, that's why I did the envelopment which is described as outflanking any entrenchments. One big difference is that I have twice as much cavalry. This may have contributed to the massive difference in hits inflicted. I welcome the discussion.

P.S. I also had a full game-plan. All my gunboats and the Frigates were guarding the lower Mississippi. I had a Division entrenched in NO and had constructed stockades on both sides of the river's mouth with 10-lbers to add further gunfire to any Union invasion fleet. If the game had continued, I had enough 6-lbers to build a fort in the city before Mardi Gras. Price had a Division in AR and Polk had one in TN. Both river forts had a big TN brigade in addition to the garrison and a depot. NO had a telegraph and Richmond was building one. Athena was slowly pushing into TX, MO and WV. The blockade was at 25% and some ships had been scouting the coast with a few sea-sick militia on board. She had just lost the battle for Manassas and fell back to Alexandria to regroup. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that no Union player would have seen this coming.

P.P.S. It may be the case that the Union troops from the attack on Manassas were sent to D.C. and switched out with the troops there. The leaders remained in place. However, they should have taken the entrenched positions and they would have rested at least one turn in a region with a depot prior to the assault. That might be one slightly possible mistake scenario.

[pgr]

P.S. I also had a full game-plan. All my gunboats and the Frigates were guarding the lower Mississippi. I had a Division entrenched in NO and had constructed stockades on both sides of the river's mouth with 10-lbers to add further gunfire to any Union invasion fleet. If the game had continued, I had enough 6-lbers to build a fort in the city before Mardi Gras. Price had a Division in AR and Polk had one in TN. Both river forts had a big TN brigade in addition to the garrison and a depot. NO had a telegraph and Richmond was building one. Athena was slowly pushing into TX, MO and WV. The blockade was at 25% and some ships had been scouting the coast with a few sea-sick militia on board. She had just lost the battle for Manassas and fell back to Alexandria to regroup. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that no Union player would have seen this coming.

Remind me to make liberal use of spies if we ever do a match...

[minipol]

Nicely done. Last CSA game, I haven't dared attacked the Union in DC. I slaughtered them in Mannassas and Frederickburg.

[ArmChairGeneral]

I have always been a little tentative in the East as the CSA, I will try a more aggressive approach!

[Gray Fox]

Thanks for the replies. I checked Athena's side of the battle last night. It seems that Butler had one Division and enough units to have formed another Division in D.C. and they were entrenched to raw score 213. She had three Divisions in HF and three in Alexandria. The force in Alexandria were indeed the poor fellows that had lost at Manassas. Some of them were still licking their wounds.

It seems that after Butler had put his tail between his legs and "won" the first engagement, he totally withdrew (fled) from battle, and the second battle was Beau against Scott's static force. However, for those human Union players who see this as a cause for hope, I might point out that Johnston's army of 5 Divisions could quite easily have gone with Beau to attack a D.C. defended by a sentient being. Beau only had 60 combat elements and 16 support elements. With the terrain and weather he could have attacked with twice as many of both. To quote a wily old Fox, "A Union player ignores this at his own peril."

[pgr]

I'm a bit curious what happened in the run up to the final push. First off... what happened to McDowell? His 4-2-2 would have been quite solid against the 2 attack rating of Beauregard or Johnston. Clearly, the AI fell behind in forming divisions. Did the Federals move on Mananas earlier? Finally, I suppose the HF forces didn't really react to Johnston leaving the valley did they?

[Gray Fox]

I thought that McDowell should have been at D.C. too. It may be the case that Athena factored Scott, with the 3 defense stat in somehow and put Mac somewhere else.

Immediately prior to the battle, A Union force tried to take Manassas before the event expired sapping their NM. I had Beau defending and I had JoJo move to support him from Fredericksburg. Athena took some hits and retired in order to Alexandria. I railed in the elements I had been training for the assault on D.C. from Richmond and waited to form Divisions. I then initiated Operation Raging Bull.

Athena had 1 Division plus some brigades in Washington, and 3 Divisions each in HF and Alexandria, so 7+ Divisions for the Union. JoJo had five Divisions put together from the starting brigades and Beau had three tailor made Divisions and one cavalry Division for a grand total of 8 infantry and one cavalry Division for me. So hardly a one-sided match-up.

The force in Alexandria really should have fallen back to D.C. This may have been a scripted thing from CW.

[pgr]

Ya I suspect the Union defeat in Mananas helped you out quite a bit. From my experience on the Union side, the August-September (heck even October) direct attack on Mananas is a baaaaaaaaaaaaad idea. It is usually a 10-12 day march, cohesion goes to hell, your attacking stats are terrible, and all the rebel leaders are strong in defense. If you loose the battle, you usually end up staying in the Mananas region and it can take a turn or more to retreat back to Alexandria with the rebs hammering you again and again. What survives to make it back really is in no condition to put up a defense. NM probably wasn't the issue. If they attacked Mananas the turn before and lost, your fresh Richmond boys hit disorganized troops. (Even if you didn't land that many hits, all that marching and retreating zaps cohesion). It's amazing what fatigue does to fighting efficiency in this game.

As odd as it may seem, you might try turning down the aggressiveness settings and that might make the Federals a bit more discerning in the attacks they choose to launch.

[ArmChairGeneral]

As odd as it may seem, you might try turning down the aggressiveness settings and that might the Federals a bit more discerning in the attacks they choose to launch.

Aggressive Athena definitely gets herself into a lot of trouble. I prefer Normal Aggression also.

[minipol]

The option even says to choose normal aggression if I'm not mistaken

[Gray Fox]

I wanted the lesson in what the CSA and the Union should be doing in 1861 to be against a tough Athena so that it would be convincing...to the more veteran crowd. A Union player that sails off to invade NO or sends armies down Ol' Miss because that is what actually happened may just as well take Abe's tall hat off and step into the red laser spotter. I also believe that a less aggressive Athena is less suicidally reckless.

[GraniteStater]

I hate to tell you, but we talk about what happens against Athena so as to understand the program better, mostly. Some are perfectly content to play none but the AI and they shouldn't be begrudged their choice or disparaged.

Most of us aren't trying to 'convince' anybody - it's more like an SQA report on the application. Some AI-only players are quite helpful and informative and thought provoking.

What works for you, works for you. Even then, you really need to try the strategy out a dozen times on the same setting, in the same start. Athena does not rigidly follow the same script every time, even under identical initial conditions.

And there are no Magic Bullets or Aha! Foolproof Plans. If you have found a way that Always Wins, Regardless, then let Pocus know, 'cuz he would see that as a Huge Hole in the application.

BTW, the design team let us know that 1.03 has been buffed to 'reward' and encourage the Anaconda plan.

You may have noticed that we tend not to crow about our efforts against Athena - in some respects, one of the best AIs I've seen, but she's still just an AI and doesn't think.

I think most here agree that the acid test is PbeM. Can't wait for a tourney, myself. To be clear - I don't disparage AI only people. nor should anyone - I learn from their posts. I do have difficulties with Dr. Feelgood's Just Take This prescription's, though, I've been playing AACW too long to believe it and from what I see of CW2, AGE 2.0 is definitely better. When someone gets back to the forum with 18 starts on Colonel++ and the same strategy worked every time to render a Victory by Dec 62, I'll pay attention to a One Size Fits All approach.

I know how I play and share what I think might be useful observations. I don't suggest that The Big Blue Glacier is some kind of Solution. I'm sure a lot of people would be getting futzy with my approach.

And until I have at least a dozen CSA starts under my belt, I'm no one to be recommending anything, other than what I've seen by experience and is generally agreed upon.

Respects,
Mr. 0-4

[Gray Fox]

I had suspected that Athena mimicked a lot of the CW of AACW AAR's. The difference between say a computer recreation of a boardgame and a strategy game is that actual works on strategy exist outside of the programming that still apply. Real proven laws exist that have an effect when they are obeyed or ignored. It's great to play the game and have a lot of fun. I'm all for that. However, following a few real world axioms can add to your enjoyment. I'm pretty thick skinned, so I don't mind healthy criticism. But if you think that Clausewitz, Sun Tzu and Napoleon got it wrong, well good luck with that.

[GraniteStater]

How you draw these inferences, I don't know. Reading between the lines to understand what's being said is great, it's necessary - it's also important ot understand what's not being said.

And there are no 'laws' of strategy, although we speak of such as rhetorical shorthand. There are principles, every one of which is susceptible to a counter. One of our friends was speaking of Grant's use of a central position to separate and attack two forces in detail - great, it worked. What if the two forces had concentrated simultaneously against Grant and used superior numbers to ruin his day?

A good project planner plans to the level of detail required and then executes it, knowing full well that the plans will change (Change Control - manage changes) - sometimes, at a checkpoint (we do have checkpoints?), the result is Execute Terminate Project process, even after a hefty investment in time and resources (aka $250 million for Alex Rodriguez and one WS Ring on his hand in a decade).

"The art of war is simple to describe and understand, but in war, even the simplest thing is difficult." - ca. 2500 years ago

[GraniteStater]

And, if I may, I've always liked this:

On 18 June 1815, Napoleon's main force was at Waterloo. Grouchy was at Wavre, and became entangled with the Allied force there. Napoleon sent a force to help Grouchy, then, as the events progressed at Waterloo, asked it to return, and it marched back to the Emperor.

Thus, the extra force spent the day marching to and fro, accomplishing nothing on either field. Grouchy trounced the Allied corps at Wavre.

Meanwhile, fifteen miles away, the French Empire was sinking in the mud of Waterloo.

There's a lesson in there somewhere.

[Gray Fox]

Yes, a unit with two opposing missions is certain to fail. Even Napoleon can't break that axiom.

[GraniteStater]

BTW, I must say I am sorry for some hastiness there - on rereading the thread you were on Colonel, which is gutsy for a CSA game. I think some of it came from three different thread conversations we were having. My apologies.

More than gutsy, even - I quake at giving the Union all those advantages.

[aariediger]

And there are no 'laws' of strategy, although we speak of such as rhetorical shorthand. There are principles, every one of which is susceptible to a counter. One of our friends was speaking of Grant's use of a central position to separate and attack two forces in detail - great, it worked. What if the two forces had concentrated simultaneously against Grant and used superior numbers to ruin his day?

On 18 June 1815, Napoleon's main force was at Waterloo. Grouchy was at Wavre, and became entangled with the Allied force there. Napoleon sent a force to help Grouchy, then, as the events progressed at Waterloo, asked it to return, and it marched back to the Emperor.

Thus, the extra force spent the day marching to and fro, accomplishing nothing on either field. Grouchy trounced the Allied corps at Wavre.

Meanwhile, fifteen miles away, the French Empire was sinking in the mud of Waterloo.

There's a lesson in there somewhere.

You know, the Waterloo campaign is probably the go-to example of the failure of the Central position. Napoleon knew he was outnumbered, and decided his only chance was to be aggressive, and try to defeat the Allies in detail on the attack. He managed to drive in between Blucher and Wellington, and attacked both. He smashed the Prussians at Ligny, and had fought the British to a draw at Quatre Bras. When he moved to finish Wellington, he left Grouchy with one job, stay in between us and the Prussians and keep them busy. He didn't, Blucher got through to Waterloo, and his army smashed the French. If he stays away, maybe Napoleon overwhelms Wellington, and then who knows what happens after that. While Waterloo was far from a tactical masterpiece on Napoleon's part (deep formations, direct assaults against heavy infantry, other blunders), he lost that battle because Grouchy couldn't keep Blucher away. That is the risk that Napoleon's central position holds. His favorite strategy lead to his demise.

[Gray Fox]

BTW, I must say I am sorry for some hastiness there - on rereading the thread you were on Colonel, which is gutsy for a CSA game. I think some of it came from three different thread conversations we were having. My apologies.

More than gutsy, even - I quake at giving the Union all those advantages.

Sooo...you do believe me now?

[Gray Fox]

That is the risk that Napoleon's central position holds. His favorite strategy lead to his demise.

It's the go-to example of what happens when you believe your own myth. The day before, it had rained at Waterloo and the battlefield was a complete mess. Napoleon should have left Wellington to make mud pies and crushed the Prussians first. Napoleon won more battles than Alexander the Great, Frederick the Great and Julius Caesar the pretty Great combined. He just had a bad day at work.

[GraniteStater]

About what? I regretted my tone - I wasn't feeling snarky, but realized it came off that way. And you were on Colonel as the CSA, which I'll get around to in 2018, maybe.

As Han Solo said to Luke after he shot down the Bad Guy, "Great! Don't get cocky, kid!"

[Gray Fox]

The whole point of the thread was to show that a Union player should really guard Washington. I kept posting this in other threads and no one seemed to believe me, so...a picture is worth a thousand posts.

[GraniteStater]

Well, speaking as a wordsmith, then say so! Biggest mistake people make - just say what ya gotta say, just say it.

Actually, there's an old saw: "Tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em, then tell 'em." Then listen to questions and feedback. Then repeat and summarize.

That's what training, tech communication and related disciplines do. Just a friendly FYI.