Seeing the Elephant: Q-Ball (USA) v Gunnulf (CSA)

Post descriptions of your brilliant successes and unfortunate demises.
User avatar
Q-Ball
Posts: 7314
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 4:43 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

RE: Unloading baggage while under fire

Post by Q-Ball »

June 1864

Overall, Union weight is beginning to tell. If you remember, we began the year at a headcount of 445K Union to 295K Confederate, or roughly 3 to 2; not sure the troop count, but the odds have probably widened slightly.


Charleston:

So, we agreed to back up the turn, and in the future, no amphib landings by running past guns. As a result, Meade landed his 20,000-man Corps on Ft. Johnson. The fort, of course, fell easily. Sherman took a beefed-up Sumter garrison, attaining promotion to 3*. Once Meade gets to Charelston, we are going to re-organize this into a new Army under Sherman, with 2 Corps under Meade and Greene. A division of Cavalry is on the way, with more troops, enough to cover an advance into South Carolina proper.

We'll probably march on Savannah and Augusta first, with a view toward severing the Confederacy in half, and preventing any transfer of troops eastward to Virginia.

Virginia:

See map below; we are slowly advancing in several places around his flanks, in order to force him to pull back toward Richmond.

I fully expect a Southern attack this turn, with a possible loss. That's OK, as we draw ever closer to Richmond.

I am also landing 2 divisions this turn at Norfolk, under John Newton. They should be able to chase away the division, and take the Fortress. This will open the James River, and probably force a CSA pullback on Richmond.



Image
Attachments
Picture1861-Dec.jpg
Picture1861-Dec.jpg (1.48 MiB) Viewed 330 times
User avatar
Q-Ball
Posts: 7314
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 4:43 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

RE: Unloading baggage while under fire

Post by Q-Ball »

June 1864, WEST:

Mississippi:

Map is pretty explanatory, see below. Supply has been a huge problem on the push to Mobile, but we are establishing new depots, including one in Mississippi City that should support my drive.

Reb Partisans are also active burning depots. As the Union, you really have to build tons of supply wagons, to keep your guys active, build depots, and also replace the depots that get torched. I prefer depots on Rivers, which you can build using Flatboats; cheaper and quicker. I am also using some of the River Transports now, since I am to the point where I don't have another use for them.

Little Rock:

Van Dorn's 10,000 man command is approaching Little Rock. I didn't see that in advance, so I am quickly railing reinforcements to Meagher's command, which numbers maybe 5,000. Hopefully, the 2 brigades being sent are enough. It would be a real pain to lose Little Rock, after taking it before! I hate moving backwards like that.

Blockade:

At this point, it's consistently at 65% in the box. Wilmington, Savannah, and Texas are the only open ports. I hope to close out most of these shortly, including Wilmington. I may leave Texas for last.

Image
Attachments
Picture1861.jpg
Picture1861.jpg (1.34 MiB) Viewed 330 times
User avatar
bugwar
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 8:00 pm

Deficit Spending?

Post by bugwar »



Image

Forgive my ignorance, but I had no idea that you could have a negative cash balance.
Have you seen that in the rules, or is it something that you have to experience to find out?
User avatar
Q-Ball
Posts: 7314
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 4:43 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

RE: Deficit Spending?

Post by Q-Ball »

ORIGINAL: bugwar



Image

Forgive my ignorance, but I had no idea that you could have a negative cash balance.
Have you seen that in the rules, or is it something that you have to experience to find out?

It's not in the rules. You can't go into the red building units, but you can selecting options. In this case, I expanded both rail and river transport after I did builds, sending me into the red

As you can see, I am swimming in WSU; we sell back 50 every turn as well. Recruits are not a huge problem; we are gaining now over 100 per turn with all the conquests. The problem is CASH. I have selected and used all Money options available; Treasury, Requisitions, even Plunder. It's all about the Benjamins.
Ace1_slith
Posts: 340
Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2013 4:45 pm

RE: Deficit Spending?

Post by Ace1_slith »

I am also landing 2 divisions this turn at Norfolk, under John Newton. They should be able to chase away the division, and take the Fortress.

Such odds should not be possible. Taking amphibiously fort with a division in it should not be possible. Marines are the culprit here. They should be house ruled out.
veji1
Posts: 1019
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 5:28 pm

RE: Deficit Spending?

Post by veji1 »

I tend to agree with Ace1. The coastal/fort busting aspect of the game is off. To me your operation in New Orleans via the back door of Plaquemines is how it should be 99% of the time : you don't land on a fort or fortified (ie few 1000 troops very well entrenched) to assault it. This never worked, or hardly ever. you land on a province beside it and walk to the fort/city you want to seize. otherwise the historicq carolina operations have no interest
Adieu Ô Dieu odieux... signé Adam
User avatar
bugwar
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 8:00 pm

Deep Water

Post by bugwar »

Is there a historical reference that identifies the channel that allows the back door past New Orleans for ocean going ships?
I have been looking, and the only references I see for bypassing New Orleans by water are with shallow draft (about four foot) craft.
Ol Choctaw
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:04 pm

RE: Deep Water

Post by Ol Choctaw »

That is true. It took shallow draft steamboats to traverse that route. It should not be open to warships and even naval transports.

War ships could not take that route in AACW. I had thought it was the same for CWII but never checked.
veji1
Posts: 1019
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 5:28 pm

RE: Deep Water

Post by veji1 »

I don't know how to model the whole thing to be honest. I mean costal forts when well protected and mutually supporting as in Charleston were really hard to crack. But a coastal fort left to its own devices, badly supplied and harassable by the navy or batteries on land like Fort Pulaski was actually an easy picking, same for the North carolina forts...

For me there are 2 main issues :
- Amphibious assault is too damn efficient (because of the marines) on welle entrenched land forces. Not talking about a fort here, but a 5000 men forces level 6 or more entrenched on the coast should be almost impossible to assault head on, or one would need really massively bigger forces, ie 6/8 times more. I know the provinces in this game are big and one could say that he isn't actually landing on Norfolk Omaha style, but 5 miles away and investing the place. Fair enough, but the map limitation is no excuse. I would find it a lot more palatable to have the Union forces landing on the next province and then marching to attack the city. Makes it less efficient for sure, but you can still land on the province itself, just bring 30 000 guys and expect big losses.
- Forts. Here I think the key is "mutually supporting". Stand alone forts should be quite easy to take for the union, they can be isolated and reduced. But when forts support each other like in Charleston, it becomes hell for the attacking forces. Should there be a sort of a check upon landing to see if there are more forts bordering the same water province, in which case the landing force and naval forces get bombarded during landing ?

I don't know how this should work exactly, but I see an issue there. Not that the Union shouldn't be able to get going in its coastal operations, but head on assault feels wrong.
Adieu Ô Dieu odieux... signé Adam
veji1
Posts: 1019
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 5:28 pm

RE: Deep Water

Post by veji1 »

Just to be clear, no one wants to make coastal operations so cumbersome and difficult that they lose interest for the Union. They are a key part of the game. I just see a few issues that would have to be adressed, but if possible solutions were to create more problem, better to leave it as it is. The only thing I would change is make it considerably more painfull to amphibiously assault a well entrenched force.
Adieu Ô Dieu odieux... signé Adam
User avatar
bugwar
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 8:00 pm

RE: Deep Water

Post by bugwar »

ORIGINAL: bugwar

Is there a historical reference that identifies the channel that allows the back door past New Orleans for ocean going ships?
I have been looking, and the only references I see for bypassing New Orleans by water are with shallow draft (about four foot) craft.
ORIGINAL: Ol Choctaw

That is true. It took shallow draft steamboats to traverse that route. It should not be open to warships and even naval transports.

War ships could not take that route in AACW. I had thought it was the same for CWII but never checked.

In that case, I suppose that there should be a house rule to deny that route to deep draft (Ocean going) ships.
That way the Rebels in New Orleans only have to worry about the Mississippi channel.
User avatar
Q-Ball
Posts: 7314
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 4:43 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

RE: Deep Water

Post by Q-Ball »

The route up the Atchalafiya, via Bayou Teche, is not passable to Ocean-going ships. Shallow-draft only.

The reason I was able to get ocean-going ships to Baton Rouge is because I had cleared both forts at the Head of the Passes, so the Mississippi River was open. The Union River fleet was able to meet me there, because Vicksburg was by then the only Rebel-held point on the river.
User avatar
bugwar
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 8:00 pm

RE: Deep Water

Post by bugwar »

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

The route up the Atchalafiya, via Bayou Teche, is not passable to Ocean-going ships. Shallow-draft only.

The reason I was able to get ocean-going ships to Baton Rouge is because I had cleared both forts at the Head of the Passes, so the Mississippi River was open. The Union River fleet was able to meet me there, because Vicksburg was by then the only Rebel-held point on the river.


Oh.

Ok.[&o]
Ol Choctaw
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:04 pm

RE: Deep Water

Post by Ol Choctaw »

He ran the forts as easy as the AI always does. I think running forts is a bit easy, at least with a Union fleet...have not seen anything but the James Sqd. bite the dust.
User avatar
Q-Ball
Posts: 7314
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 4:43 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

RE: Deep Water

Post by Q-Ball »

ORIGINAL: Ol Choctaw

He ran the forts as easy as the AI always does. I think running forts is a bit easy, at least with a Union fleet...have not seen anything but the James Sqd. bite the dust.

As an important point, my transports didn't run any forts at all. Ft. St. Phillip and Jackson were Union-occupied. There was no fort at New Orleans, and no battery active there.

The only fort running was that I ran some Ironclads past Vicksburg, and they met Farragut's fleet downriver. That I think is kosher

Running forts should be possible for Ironclads, and I'm fine with that; but not for anything made of wood. There has to be HR preventing transports running guns; it's too easy in-game.
User avatar
bugwar
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 8:00 pm

Vicksburg Guns

Post by bugwar »

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
Running forts should be possible for Ironclads, and I'm fine with that; but not for anything made of wood. There has to be HR preventing transports running guns; it's too easy in-game.

How would the house rule deal with Vicksburg?

1863 campaign and initial movements.


His [Grant’s] final option was bold but risky: March the army down the west side of the Mississippi, cross the river south of Vicksburg, and either attack Vicksburg from the south and the east or join forces with Banks, capture Port Hudson, and then together reduce Vicksburg.
Porter would have to sneak past the guns to get sufficient gunboats and transport ships south of the city.
Once they had completed the downstream passage, they would not be able to return past Vicksburg's guns because the river current would slow them too much.
...
On April 16, a clear night with no moon, Porter sent seven gunboats and three empty troop transports loaded with stores to run the bluff, taking care to minimize noise and lights.
But the preparations were ineffective. Confederate sentries sighted the boats, and the bluff exploded with massive artillery fire.
Fires were set along the banks to improve visibility. The Union gunboats answered back.
Porter observed that the Confederates mainly hit the high parts of his boats, reasoned that they could not depress their guns, and had them hug the east shore, right under Confederate cannon, so close he could hear their commanders giving orders, shells flying overhead.
The fleet survived with little damage; thirteen men were wounded and none killed. The Henry Clay was disabled and burned at the water's edge.
On April 22, six more boats loaded with supplies made the run; one boat did not make it, though no one was killed—the crew floated downstream on the boat's remnants.


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicksburg_ ... _July_1863
Ol Choctaw
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:04 pm

RE: Deep Water

Post by Ol Choctaw »

It was not an attack on you. You have shown that time and again.

The game has a few thing that need tweaked, is all.
[:)]
User avatar
Q-Ball
Posts: 7314
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 4:43 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

RE: Vicksburg Guns

Post by Q-Ball »

ORIGINAL: bugwar

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
Running forts should be possible for Ironclads, and I'm fine with that; but not for anything made of wood. There has to be HR preventing transports running guns; it's too easy in-game.

How would the house rule deal with Vicksburg?

1863 campaign and initial movements.


His [Grant’s] final option was bold but risky: March the army down the west side of the Mississippi, cross the river south of Vicksburg, and either attack Vicksburg from the south and the east or join forces with Banks, capture Port Hudson, and then together reduce Vicksburg.
Porter would have to sneak past the guns to get sufficient gunboats and transport ships south of the city.
Once they had completed the downstream passage, they would not be able to return past Vicksburg's guns because the river current would slow them too much.
...
On April 16, a clear night with no moon, Porter sent seven gunboats and three empty troop transports loaded with stores to run the bluff, taking care to minimize noise and lights.
But the preparations were ineffective. Confederate sentries sighted the boats, and the bluff exploded with massive artillery fire.
Fires were set along the banks to improve visibility. The Union gunboats answered back.
Porter observed that the Confederates mainly hit the high parts of his boats, reasoned that they could not depress their guns, and had them hug the east shore, right under Confederate cannon, so close he could hear their commanders giving orders, shells flying overhead.
The fleet survived with little damage; thirteen men were wounded and none killed. The Henry Clay was disabled and burned at the water's edge.
On April 22, six more boats loaded with supplies made the run; one boat did not make it, though no one was killed—the crew floated downstream on the boat's remnants.


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicksburg_ ... _July_1863

Good question; how do you model that?

I think the HR of not allowing amphib landings behind the lines still models this. Another HR could be to NOT allow wooden ships to run batteries. Still OK in this instance.

This is because the game allows you to move supplies and cross the Mississippi without actual boats down there. So, in game terms, I can see that:

1. Grant has a depot in the region across from Vicksburg
2. Ironclads run Vicksburg, allowing him to control the river below the town
3. This allows the flow of supplies from the west-shore depot, to Port Gibson, where Grant builds another depot
4. Also allows his army to cross the river without difficulty, which he did, and draw supplies over the river

So, players can employe creative devices like this, which approach history, but don't break the game
ORIGINAL: Ol Choctaw

It was not an attack on you. You have shown that time and again.

The game has a few thing that need tweaked, is all.
[:)]

No offense was taken, and at any rate, I would agree the game needs some tweeks. I do think it's closer than the original version though.

But there has to be limitations via HR on the US Navy
User avatar
Q-Ball
Posts: 7314
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 4:43 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

RE: Vicksburg Guns

Post by Q-Ball »

July 1864

The war drags on, and increasingly, the Confederacy is reduced to increasingly bad choices. A couple victories for Gunnulf at the beginning of the month, but the close sees an increasingly bad CSA strategic situation.

Little Rock:

The Rebels have re-taken Little Rock. 13,000 men under Van Dorn descended from Ft. Smith before I could see them. Stupid on my part, I should have kept more guys there.

Meagher's command retreated to Madison, where they will probably gain some troops and make another attempt.

Charleston:

I attempted to take Charleston with Meade's corps that took Ft. Johnson. Failure; 2 NM lost. In the interim, though, I had brought Sherman's men from Sumter to Johnson via boat, and more reinforcements. Sherman is now leading upwards of 27,000 men, and should clear Charleston.

Once that happens, we'll have a campaign in South Carolina underway, and Sherman will begin a march through Georgia, just from the other direction.

Mobile:

We are moving Grant's army toward Mobile. I am in between Johnston and Mobile, so I should be able to take it, I think. My biggest problem is supply; I need to take Mobile fairly quickly, or starve in the attempt.

Virginia:

See map below......we lost a counterattack, but no NM. I am perfectly happy to fight battles that just kill an equal number of guys.

Image
Attachments
Picture1861.jpg
Picture1861.jpg (1.56 MiB) Viewed 330 times
Ace1_slith
Posts: 340
Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2013 4:45 pm

RE: Vicksburg Guns

Post by Ace1_slith »

Great AAR. It is fun to read, and gives lot of insites on the way game developes.
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Report”