Are you really happy with this game ? YES I AM

[spruce]

In general this game is excellent - a good concept - great re-enactment of ACW. But there's something I'm not getting here.

I played a few CSA games on normal. It should be pretty easy to win the game on this setting. Some considerations that deserve an answer =

- Grant attacks Pemberton in Vicksburg. The Confederate defenders lose15.000 men, the Union loses about 7.500. Vicksburg is a level two fortress. 5 Confederate generals are either wounded or dead. The Union loses 2 generals,

- Lee attacks Baltimore. The Confederate attacker lose about 15.000 men, the Union defenses lose 5.000 men. Lee loses 4 generals - either wouded or dead. The Union loses not one general.

- virtually every battle were Grant takes part in, is a loss for the Confederacy in the Mississippi theater. In the seabord theater, more reasonable results are obtained,

- an offensive campaign for the CSA is pretty much suicide. I think that's a missed opportunity to see it like this all the time,

- my feeling is that Union generals are receiving too easy initiative once they are entering confederate land. Imho, the Union AI had more initiative compared to my forces, and that was virtually everywhere the same issue,

My feeling is that the Union is strongly favoured because they keep on picking up major and strategic victories as it was nothing.

I tried my best, but simply coldn't do anyting about Grant. Are his ratings overrated + the entrechment value underrated ?

[Toby42]

Mmm, I find just the opposite! I sometimes think that the Rebs are so mobile and powerful that they have Bradleys and AK47's....

[oldspec4]

ORIGINAL: Treale

Mmm, I find just the opposite! I sometimes think that the Rebs are so mobile and powerful that they have Bradleys and AK47's....

Have to agree here...I am now consistently winning at the challenging level on both sides (after much practice and forum advice). But I generally have no problems in movin' the Rebs to where I need them for battle.

[jimkehn]

Spruce, I feel your pain, but to answer your question in one word......YES! I am really happy with this game.
 
  I have also had questions about some of the combats. Well, actually....a lot of the combats. But, usually, upon further review (a little football lingo, there), it usually made sense. For example, were your troops in Vicksburg out of supply? If they were cut off and unsupplied, then that makes a HUGE difference. Again...not to beat a dead horse ('scuse the pun), but who did the better job of scouting? If he had you scouted and you didn't have him scouted....a +3/-3 difference on the dice. Who had the more leaders? If he had more leaders (even if they suck), he would have a higher percent of his troops committed.
 
   Having said all of that, I DO tend to agree that Union leadership for the most part is over rated. Not so sure about Grant being over rated, but surely the bulk of them are. I think most of them could, for the most part be ratcheted down a notch. I'm not talking about the Shermans, Thomas's, Chamberlain's, Hancock'setc. But the rank and file one star general is all too often a 3-3-3. I think lots these should be reduced somewhat. Should Pope really be a 3 on attack?? Should John Schofield be rated exactly the same as Sherman in Att, Def and Inf? As a result, and I feel I am still learning the system, I cannot do anything close to what the Rebs REALLY did in the war. I agree, that a campaign into Maryland is asking for death and destruction.
 
  While I do have problems with the Union being a bit over rated, I am really happy with the game, overall.

[paullus99]

If you look at the generals that the Union has in 1861-1862 compared to the Confederates, it is a litany of 1-2 & 2-2 vs. 3-3, etc. If I don't stack the odds heavily in my favor as the Union (lots of troops, lots of scouting, diversionary attacks), I get absolutely creamed - Grant only makes it a little less likely.

The AI is good, though not nearly as good as a human player could be (judging by the folks here, I would get my butt handed to me in no-time). I love this game, one of the best I've ever played.

[jimkehn]

Paullus, after looking at the roster through the first 15 or so turns of leaders on the roster, there sure are a bunch of the 2-2-2, an 1-2-2 leaders on the roster. I dunno....it just seems the Union has too easy a time of getting initiative and winning battles too easily. I guess my biggest complaint is I haven't been able to duplicate Lee's Antietam or Gettysburg campaigns. Have you? Has anyone???? Maybe the problem isn't so much that Union officers are so good. Maybe the Union needs a higher random number generator so it gets less of a chance to activate.
 
Then again...........maybe I just suck.

[Jutland13]

I personally enjoy this gme immensely, but I have so wanted a good Civil War game for so long, that I am very accepting. The Eastern Theatre is very small and congested and allows for little of the historical movements that ocurred, the games works much better in the more open West and the coast. Even with Lee, Jackson and Longstreet, there is nothing to gain from moving from Virginia and invading the North, except to get trapped North and lose the War.
The scope (monthly turns & limited space) in the East does not work as well for the highly mobile and aggressive tactics of Lee and for the matter Jackson (Try and recreate the valley campaign and have Jackson arrive to support Lee/Johston vs McClellan on the peninsula in the same month. It cannot happen. Within the time and spacial aspect of the game, it does not work.
The game is fun in creating many of the same overall strategic problems, but not the operational ones, especially in the East. That said it is great fun and offers, for the most part, a very fun game on a period that is difficult to capture accurately in game terms. Great, but the best Civil War game is yet to be made.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: spruce
In general this game is excellent - a good concept - great re-enactment of ACW. But there's something I'm not getting here.
I played a few CSA games on normal. It should be pretty easy to win the game on this setting. Some considerations that deserve an answer =

Winning as the CSA on Normal is very doable. It sounds like you just need a little more practice.

- Grant attacks Pemberton in Vicksburg. The Confederate defenders lose15.000 men, the Union loses about 7.500. Vicksburg is a level two fortress. 5 Confederate generals are either wounded or dead. The Union loses 2 generals,

- Lee attacks Baltimore. The Confederate attacker lose about 15.000 men, the Union defenses lose 5.000 men. Lee loses 4 generals - either wouded or dead. The Union loses not one general.

Let's take these two examples. Do you have a save file that I could look at for the detailed combat report of either of these? It might help figure out what you may be missing.

Regards,

- Erik

[spruce]

About sieges - I scouted the Baltimore garrison - I got smashed. The AI scouted my Vicksburg defenses - I got smashed. I mean - they are "fortresses" - the troops are dug in.
 
You can all say you want - the Union gets too much bonus in their battles. I feel they get the initiative too easely - for each battle the main Union army is present. I attacked their Vicksburg probing salient at 2 places - all the time Grant is there with his super big army. Impossible to do anything.
 
And I highly question the ratings of Union leaders ! Grant nearly gets the same ratings as Lee - that's a joke.
 
Another thing I dislike is the fact that the Union builds fortresses everywhere they capture my lands. Isn't that ahistorical ?
 
How can you see if they are in supply ? Is there a supply overlay ?

[spruce]

B.t.w. - I'm also very happy with this game - but some things I don't understand ... or getting.

[spruce]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: spruce
In general this game is excellent - a good concept - great re-enactment of ACW. But there's something I'm not getting here.
I played a few CSA games on normal. It should be pretty easy to win the game on this setting. Some considerations that deserve an answer =

Winning as the CSA on Normal is very doable. It sounds like you just need a little more practice.

- Grant attacks Pemberton in Vicksburg. The Confederate defenders lose15.000 men, the Union loses about 7.500. Vicksburg is a level two fortress. 5 Confederate generals are either wounded or dead. The Union loses 2 generals,

- Lee attacks Baltimore. The Confederate attacker lose about 15.000 men, the Union defenses lose 5.000 men. Lee loses 4 generals - either wouded or dead. The Union loses not one general.

Yes I've got the save game and both battles (in Baltimore and Vicksburg) carry an "*". How do I get the save file to you ?

ps = how can you see how many supplies your forces will consume. Not only the amount of units - but the province supply cost and available resources will determine that. Is there a projected consumption of supply ?


Let's take these two examples. Do you have a save file that I could look at for the detailed combat report of either of these? It might help figure out what you may be missing.

Regards,

- Erik

[GShock]

You don't need a bit of practice to win this game, u need LOTS of practice, spruce. The fact the cw is built from a far away level of abstraction when compared to FOF or AACW, doesn't mean this game is easier (as i said 20 times before its release). Take for example the hidden and semi random stats options. You can imagine every game you play you must seek the right man and put him in the right place and that's not easy since the stats are hidden until used. Trial and error. Another example? The Uc. Why it doesn't get the initiative in 2 years? Because his army mod rating sucks...how do i find it out if it's hidden? U can't unless u name him AC and make him fight...so it's...trial and error WITHOUT trial, just guessing (count the months he doesn't get initiative and you will roughly very roughly know if it's good to keep that UC or if it's better to put him with the AC).

You complain about Vicksburg being lev2 fort and Grant smashing you easily with few losses. You lost 15.000 men but have you checked WHO was defending Vicksburg? How many men did Grant employ? Because if you are attacked 50k vs 20k and you haven't got a very good general there, you can say Vicksburg goodbye, especially against Grant. Don't forget if you don't scout the enemy they will get bonuses when they attack and, again, you must rotate front line troops to the back and vice versa to make them unscouted so that when the enemy attacks YOU get those bonuses with reinforcements. Did you employ enough arty? Did you know Hvy Arty has big bonus when in fortification? See...many variables build the results...

The supply you consume are listed in the log. Press the E key and scroll at the beginning of the round and you will see among all reports how many supplies you consumed the previous turn.

Trust me, it will take you LOTS of practice but you will make it. [:)]

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: spruce
Yes I've got the save game and both battles (in Baltimore and Vicksburg) carry an "*". How do I get the save file to you ?

Please e-mail it to me at erikr@matrixgames.com

Regards,

- Erik

[wargamer123]

As far as historical, this game is most accurate I've played in awhile. As far as TMI, that may be what you are griping over.

The Union and CSA know when their Generals will arrive, they know where they must focus and where they will probably not need much firepower.

I have played a game now with DeerHunter. Very accurate, several major battles through '62 over Virginia, several over Tennessee and the end result is Sherman is poised for Georgia and The Union is trying not to get too bloodied in Maryland where I have just penetrated into and destroyed a good portion of the Union Army. The MI River is cut and I am doing whatever is possible to attempt to keep Vicksburg from falling. The victory points are 50/50 and I will likely loose because I have made several errors, but that's about right. the CSA cannot afford errors, the Union could have and does.

Most of the offensive and defensive capability, leadership and movement may seem a bit off. These battlefields will never be the same as history 100% but many of the battles I have had in this game were similar.

Also It depends on the knowledge of each opposing side. The game mechanics, the use of exploits. With some houserules and some very well thought out unit movement/placement/leader movement placement. Either side has a fair chance of winning. I'd say the Union leads by about 75-25..Which is about accurate, maybe 35% chance in a capable CSA hand.

[herwin]

I posted a message on combat modelling over at the WitP board, but it applies here as well. Trying to model a battle from the ground up is very likely to go off the rails. You have to 'adjust' the battle results towards reality if you want to model battle outcomes well.

[GShock]

Well, let's hear these houserules first and see if their result is good they could be modelled or modded or programmed in future patches. What about these "adjusted" battle results towards reality? I wish to hear about this too.

[Erik Rutins]

Please remember to send me that save file, Spruce.

[spruce]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Please remember to send me that save file, Spruce.

just send it to you

[Erik Rutins]

Ok, I just took a look at your save with your attack on Baltimore.

I noticed that you are playing with Corps Sub-Commanders ON but most of your CSC slots are unfilled. Your Union opponent, on the other hand, has a fully fleshed out CSC structure setup. This alone is a HUGE disadvantage for you.

If you play with CSCs on, you have to build corps and fill out your sub-commander slots or your opponent will be getting more modifiers than you in every battle.

Your army was also not exactly very large in comparison with the Union army defending Baltimore.

Your Committed forces (less than they might have been due to lack of CSCs) were 7x Infantry, 8x Artillery, 6x Cavalry. On the other side, the Union commmitted 26x Infantry, 13x Artillery, 1x Cavalry, 4x Heavy Artillery. And the Union was defending a Level 2 Fort! So you were attacking into fortifications while outnumbered more than 3:1 in Infantry and 2:1 in Artillery. In addition, your commanders were overloaded (too few CSCs) and thus many of your brigades did not get all the leadership bonuses they should have, while your enemy's forces were all well organized and well lead.

In addition, some of the Union forces were not detected, so they received surprised bonuses as well. I can understand missing a few, but even some of the Heavy Artillery were undetected. There's no reason that should be if you were good about scouting (which you should always do before committing to a major battle). I saw that you committed your cavalry to the battle, it might have been more helpful to actually have them use that movement to scout the enemy some more to avoid those surprise bonuses.

Looking at the combat report, I see scouting by the Union cavalry every turn. In the last two turns I saw NO reported scouting by CSA cavalry forces. You can't win the war without scouting your enemy before battle, period.

Consider a historical assault by a disorganized CSA army on heavy fortifications defended by more Union soldiers than the CSA soldiers attacking them, with the full extent of the Union fortifications and reserves unknown to the CSA commander and the Union army being well organized and fully prepared. It would have been a slaughter and in the game it ended up that way as well.

I would strongly advise you to re-read the CSC rules and play with them off until you feel comfortable with them, as right now they're hurting you a lot more than they're helping you. Also, scout, scout, scout! [8D]

Hope that helps explain your results and why the game is working fine. I'm guessing if you lost Vicksburg in the reverse, it was probably also a lack of CSC organization combined with lack of scouting that pushed things over the edge, but I'd need to see a save of that turn to confirm.

Regards,

- Erik

[paullus99]

A very good explanation.

I had a question about CSCs - played with them on for the first time & wow, did it totally enhance the gaming experience. Exactly how many slots are available? If I assign a 3 CP division commander, does he apply his bonuses to up to 3 units or just one?

Curious - and love the game!!!!