Michael CSA vs Kamil USA

Post descriptions of your brilliant successes and unfortunate demises.
KamilS
Posts: 1827
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 10:51 pm

Michael CSA vs Kamil USA

Post by KamilS »

This is rematch of my game vs Michael.

First game I was playing southern side and got total outplayed. In October of '62 resistance became futile. After capturing Richmond Union army forced crossing at Manchester what made me realise that stopping blue steamroller won't be possible.



Image
Attachments
old.jpg
old.jpg (783.93 KiB) Viewed 458 times
Kamil
KamilS
Posts: 1827
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 10:51 pm

RE: Michael CSA vs Kamil USA

Post by KamilS »

This time I take north.

Initial plan is defensive one. Holding ground in the east while building-up fleet that would enable offensive operation in Mississippi region. Reality will verify it.



June/July 1861

Missouri

Both sides didn't commit many troops here so far and I am happy to concede some territory if necessary.



Mississippi

5000 men under gen Lyon were send to cause problems near Island 10. Capture it or at least divert some CSA units from other sectors.

So far so good. Next stage fort in the swamps.





Image
Attachments
MvK1west.jpg
MvK1west.jpg (290.45 KiB) Viewed 458 times
Kamil
KamilS
Posts: 1827
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 10:51 pm

RE: Michael CSA vs Kamil USA

Post by KamilS »

Kentucky

To my great surprise Kentucky is not neutral anymore. It sems, that for now territory south of river Ohio is beyond my reach.

Image
Attachments
MvK1center.jpg
MvK1center.jpg (319.62 KiB) Viewed 458 times
Kamil
KamilS
Posts: 1827
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 10:51 pm

RE: Michael CSA vs Kamil USA

Post by KamilS »

West Virginia


After few weeks Michael finnaly decided to retreat from Clarksburg in early July. Some units were already sent east, now rest will follow.



Maryland



Great, unpleasent surprise here.

Potomac was crossed. Hastily assembled defensive forces were not able to stop Michael's advance. Rampaging enemy beaten my units, that were being assembled near Baltimore and city itself was lost.

Fortunately I still hold Fredericktown and soon will make flanking move in the valley.

Washington is defended by 34000 soldiers under Scott (including fixed garrison)

McDowell in Alexandria have close to 9000 men.


My biggest problem is excellent supply situation of CSA forces. His offensive can be self-perpetuating - lots of supply were captured in Baltimore. Annapolis.if falls, will provide him with more.




Image
Attachments
MvK1east.jpg
MvK1east.jpg (565.15 KiB) Viewed 458 times
Kamil
User avatar
mmarquo
Posts: 1376
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Michael CSA vs Kamil USA

Post by mmarquo »

I have seen this before....good luck...
Ol Choctaw
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:04 pm

RE: Michael CSA vs Kamil USA

Post by Ol Choctaw »

Michael is going for broke in the east.

Forget West Virginia for the moment and rush everything to support Maryland and DC.

If you can scrape together an invasion force think of using brigs and transports (not heavy warships) up the Rappahannock and land at Fredericksburg. Us your heavy ships to land a few militia and cannon if you have them on the coast somewhere that will disrupt him. Beaufort Bay may be good. He will have moved the forces from Charleston.

He has scraped together everything he has and moved it to Virginia. You can move some of your forces from the Midwest and match him.

If you blunt his attacks now he will be way behind. Use this as an opportunity.
KamilS
Posts: 1827
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 10:51 pm

RE: Michael CSA vs Kamil USA

Post by KamilS »

Thanks.

I tried to approach it in such manner.
Kamil
Ace1_slith
Posts: 340
Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2013 4:45 pm

RE: Michael CSA vs Kamil USA

Post by Ace1_slith »

Using Shelby in the East does not feel right. He never commanded a force East of Mississipi.
User avatar
Q-Ball
Posts: 7314
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 4:43 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

RE: Michael CSA vs Kamil USA

Post by Q-Ball »

ORIGINAL: Ace1

Using Shelby in the East does not feel right. He never commanded a force East of Mississipi.

Nevermind the fact that a) in July 1861 he was actually a captain, not a brigadier general, and b) he didn't command anything larger than a brigade until late 1863

If we're trying to get a game that is close to history, some of the leader decisions in this game are frankly puzzling, like nobody checked Wikipedia even before making a decision
Ol Choctaw
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:04 pm

RE: Michael CSA vs Kamil USA

Post by Ol Choctaw »

We did. Had him with his brigade on time. I guess the devs felt he was needed earlier. They really liked his brigade.

Just like M. Jeff Thompson. He should show with a division in late June 61 in SE Missouri. Instead he is at start with no division. You will note Shelby gets his brigade about on time. Until then he is alone.


Just to clarify, Not all leaders have historic rank and not all show when they got division command.

Some achieved greater rank than the game represents and some few never got above colonel.

Grant was the first Lt. Gen. since Washington and no one else in the Union Army achieved that rank until after the war.

Some of the 3 stars in the game were only brigadier generals when they received army command.

Don’t take any ranks or arrival times as set in stone historic There are a lot at variance.

Easy example, the Union would have no admirals until summer 62 and never have more than one three star to lead an army.



User avatar
Q-Ball
Posts: 7314
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 4:43 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

RE: Michael CSA vs Kamil USA

Post by Q-Ball »

ORIGINAL: Ol Choctaw

We did. Had him with his brigade on time. I guess the devs felt he was needed earlier. They really liked his brigade.

Just like M. Jeff Thompson. He should show with a division in late June 61 in SE Missouri. Instead he is at start with no division. You will note Shelby gets his brigade about on time. Until then he is alone.


Just to clarify, Not all leaders have historic rank and not all show when they got division command.

Some achieved greater rank than the game represents and some few never got above colonel.

Grant was the first Lt. Gen. since Washington and no one else in the Union Army achieved that rank until after the war.

Some of the 3 stars in the game were only brigadier generals when they received army command.

Don’t take any ranks or arrival times as set in stone historic There are a lot at variance.

Easy example, the Union would have no admirals until summer 62 and never have more than one three star to lead an army.

I can see Shelby appearing with his brigade. And I understand the ranks are really more functional than literal. But some of the decisions are still head-scratchers. A sample:

HARDEE/BRAGG: These guys should enter as 2*; both were Corps commanders on their first battles
E JOHNSON: Never commanded anything like a Corps until 1864.....yet, he gets auto-promote to 2*
FORNEY: Commanded a division at Vicksburg. Corps commander? I have to assume the decision to make him a 2* was based on his OCT '62 promotion to Major General, but are we going on ranks, or actual commands?
VAN DORN: See comment on Hardee/Bragg

Alot of work went into the game, and I don't want to insult those who contributed, but I think some changes are in order with regard to leaders

Regarding Shelby, any player worth his salt is going to do what Michael is doing: Bring Shelby out east, and put him in command of all Cavalry in Virginia. Never mind that Shelby was a hemp farmer from Missouri, and a captain in the Volunteers, with no prior military experience whatsoever; I'm sure it's realistic that they would find this guy and entrust him with one of the Confederacy's most important commands right away.

Anyway, rant over
KamilS
Posts: 1827
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 10:51 pm

RE: Michael CSA vs Kamil USA

Post by KamilS »

July/August '61


Mississippi


Gen Lyon didn't manage to capture Island 10, moreover very strong Confederate reinforcements made it impossible to continue attack. Retreat to Cairo is only option.




Image
Attachments
MvK2west.jpg
MvK2west.jpg (417.97 KiB) Viewed 460 times
Kamil
KamilS
Posts: 1827
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 10:51 pm

RE: Michael CSA vs Kamil USA

Post by KamilS »

Kentucky


Surprisingly strong CSA presence in region, but I consider it good news - it means Michael will have less troops in the east.

Holding Cincinnati and New Albany is key, rest is irrelevant.

Image
Attachments
MvK2centre.jpg
MvK2centre.jpg (461.5 KiB) Viewed 460 times
Kamil
KamilS
Posts: 1827
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 10:51 pm

RE: Michael CSA vs Kamil USA

Post by KamilS »

Maryland


Strengthening of McDowell army in Alexandria was essential. Two repetitive victories will considerably blunt Confederate momentum in the east.

Mixed success in the valley. Winchester was taken, but most important part which was capture of Harper's Ferry failed. Nevertheless I think I ma putting enough pressure on his flanks.


Longstreet and Jackson are pushing north and east while I gather army near Harrisburg and keep strengthening Washington using fleet.



Image
Attachments
MvK2east.jpg
MvK2east.jpg (813.49 KiB) Viewed 460 times
Kamil
User avatar
Q-Ball
Posts: 7314
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 4:43 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

RE: Michael CSA vs Kamil USA

Post by Q-Ball »

Good recovery; I would pour every resource you have into the East. Cutting him off from VA is a good start, though it's clear he is "living off the land", or in this case Baltimore; probably enough supplies there to keep him fueled for awhile. So cutting his supplies probably won't force him to retreat.

But looks like he may not be able to push you out of Washington, which is the most important thing
KamilS
Posts: 1827
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 10:51 pm

RE: Michael CSA vs Kamil USA

Post by KamilS »

Yes, his advance is self-perpetuating. Unfortunately there is no control over supply distribution what creates plenty of unnecessarily high supplied cities/depots.
Kamil
User avatar
TulliusDetritus
Posts: 5581
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:49 am
Location: The Zone™

RE: Michael CSA vs Kamil USA

Post by TulliusDetritus »

Q-Ball, I disagree [:)]

Given the forces in the Potomac area you are clearly overwhelmed and Washington might easily fall. In fact I would be surprised if it doesn't.

What I don't get is this: where are your forces? [&:]

McDowell is only commanding 14.000 men? And the rest of the forces? The Valley in this situation is totally irrelevant: the enemy is at the gates of Washington [:)]
"Hitler is a horrible sexual degenerate, a dangerous fool" - Mussolini, circa 1934
KamilS
Posts: 1827
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 10:51 pm

RE: Michael CSA vs Kamil USA

Post by KamilS »

In my opinion Union is far stronger than it seems.
Kamil
User avatar
TulliusDetritus
Posts: 5581
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:49 am
Location: The Zone™

RE: Michael CSA vs Kamil USA

Post by TulliusDetritus »

That's my opinion as well [:)]

Still, let's take Beauregard in Annapolis (800 CV) and the bearded guy at Baltimore (400 CV). If they march towards Washington (the big prize), I can't see the CVs you will use to meet / intercept / stop them (combined CV > 1200 [X(]). Are you hiding forces inside structures?

I hope I am wrong [8D] Good luck.

Cheers
"Hitler is a horrible sexual degenerate, a dangerous fool" - Mussolini, circa 1934
KamilS
Posts: 1827
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 10:51 pm

RE: Michael CSA vs Kamil USA

Post by KamilS »

August/September '61


Maryland


I am focuseing on the east, because meaningful action takes place here.


Milroy's attack on York was successful what will probably force Michael to withdrawn Jackson west. On the other hand Fredericktown is lost and Confederates have now relatively easy access to Maryland.

More and more units are being send to Harrisburg area.

Image
Attachments
MvK3east.jpg
MvK3east.jpg (616.19 KiB) Viewed 460 times
Kamil
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Report”