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

[Ol Choctaw]

I am not going to criticize his movements. I can’t tell that he is not using rail to escape and it would not make sense to destroy the very thing you need. We can’t see what he may have done with depots or if they were bomb proof.

I will say that with no more losses than he has taken he should be in the flower of strength with his whole force pool built by this time of the war.

That is obviously not the case. Sending more troops to NOLA is just throwing good money after bad. He is holding well in the east but he can’t match what is thrown at him here.

He just has to find a place to make a stand and hope the Union outruns its supplies.

[Q-Ball]

March 1864:

Interesting comments, I think Gunnulf is playing a pretty solid game. He's kept his main armies together pretty well and fallen back consistently on trenches, limiting my opportunities to assault him efficiently.

If there are a couple items I probably would have done:
1. I would also be torching terrain. For some reason, he didn't torch the level 1 depot in Jackson; that came in very handy, because frankly we were about at the end of our logistical tether there
2. Partisans: He has started to use them, but started late. They have been a major pain though lately, torching several depots. We hates them!
3. Missouri: Yes, he did cause problems for me an occupy Jeff City for a year. But I think the overcommitment to Missouri is a long-term loser. He now has large forces stuck in Fayettevile and Springfield, and the Camden troops are moving that way. Probably 30,000+ up in that corner. I won't bother them.

But he's done well IMO overall

West:

New Orleans fell; only problem is that the division retreated to Ft. Pike. Had I to do it over, I would have taken Ft. Pike and trapped those guys. Now, I think they can escape through Mississippi. Drat!

But at least we took the place

We also reduced Ft. Morgan and Ft. Gaines.

Vicksburg should fall next turn; I am handing it to Sherman, hoping I can get him promoted. This has not been easy; I really need another 3*. Thank god for Lyon.

He has a very large army now around Meridian; 8000 AV, probably 80,000 guys. They are well dug-in. I can't assault them. I am going to try to screen and flank them to the south, and invest Mobile.

[Ol Choctaw]

What happened in middle and eastern Tennessee? Did you move everything west?

I might have slugged it out in Chattanooga and Rome to get in the clear in Georgia.

Think of cutting his rail link east. Such a large army will use more supply than he can get from that town. Georgia and Alabama are now his industrial heart now.

Also, what about Union Partisans? Unionists and Partisans in east Tennessee can do a number on his rails and take a town or two I think. Decatur, TN south of Knoxville should be strongly Unionist. I am sure Tinker Dave Beaty would like to get into the fight.

Mobile can be invested from the sea now that you have the forts. It should be blockaded anyway.

[moni kerr]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

They have a real dilemma with VP’s if they try and fix it as it’s tied to foreign entry and if the CSA gets way ahead in the early years the Union will never be able to prevent foreign entry from firing. I think the only thing they can do is make a few key southern objectives more valuable if the CSA still holds them as the yeas wear on. So places like Richmond, Atlanta, New Orleans, etc. would be worth normal in 61 and 62, then x2 in 63, x3 in 64 and finally x4 in 65. That may be the only fix that will still preserve some kind of balance in the foreign entry system.

FI doesn't quite work that way. There is a 50% chance for an increase or decrease of 1 point per turn for the side that is ahead in NM and VP. Even giving the CSA an edge in VP for longer is not likely to trigger FI; A) because of all the events that lower it over time, and B) because of the current system of NM tending to move to 100(1). If FI doesn't fire by the end of 1862 it is not likely to ever fire. Remember, it has to get all the way to +100 in order to happen.

If anyone has ever seen FI occur without actively gaming it, please let us know.

(1) The lack of any extended NM penalties to the Union is one the great unbalancing issues in CW2. In an AACW game between two well matched players the Union would suffer low NM (75-85) through to the early half of 63 that noticeably hampered operations, mostly because of cohesion loss and recovery. Now that doesn't happen. Union NM (and later Confederate NM) recovers too quickly to have any appreciable effect.

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: Ol Choctaw

What happened in middle and eastern Tennessee? Did you move everything west?

I might have slugged it out in Chattanooga and Rome to get in the clear in Georgia.

Think of cutting his rail link east. Such a large army will use more supply than he can get from that town. Georgia and Alabama are now his industrial heart now.

Also, what about Union Partisans? Unionists and Partisans in east Tennessee can do a number on his rails and take a town or two I think. Decatur, TN south of Knoxville should be strongly Unionist. I am sure Tinker Dave Beaty would like to get into the fight.

Mobile can be invested from the sea now that you have the forts. It should be blockaded anyway.

When he withdrew from Central Tennessee, he dug-in on the south bank of the Tennessee river; 3 Corps, the largest in Chattanooga, with one on either side. Attacking a dug-in army, over a major river, into a mountain region....that seemed unwise.

So, I railed part of Rosecran's army toward Memphis. Since then, we've been doing more marching that fighting.

I would like to clear Mobile soon, and have a plan that may or may not involve Grant's army

I am not sure if I want to rail a bunch of guys back to Rosecrans and attack overland toward Richmond, or use that surplus for more amphib landings at, say, Chareston and Savannah

I've consistently looked to go to path of least resistance

RE: Partisans, I used them extensively in Missouri at one point, torching all his depots. I am NOT using any in East Tennessee yet on purpose; I want to use them when I really need them, not before. I have a Partisan operating in Alabama.

[Q-Ball]

April 1864: WEST

Battle of Macon, MS:

Gunnulf acheived a mini-Chickamauga at Macon, MS, delivering a sharp counterattack to the Union forces under Grant, and inflicting 5 NM loss on us. That was the highlight.

While not great, this isn't actually all bad from a strategic standpoint.

First, it keeps him affixed to Meridian area, where I want him. The casualty exchange wasn't too bad, anything close to even helps me at this point. He also attacked northward, rather than west; this fits with where we want to go.

We are sliding our army around to the West; I'm not worried about him marching north to Corinth, he can go if he pleases. By moving around to the West, I hope to get between him and Mobile, which would likely mean the end of the latter.

There really isn't anything interesting from Meridian to Central Alabama

Movement:

Otherwise, alot of shifting around of troops.

We are moving troops from Arkansas, including Sherman, leaving just enough behind to defend Camden and Little Rock. The rest we moved down to New Orleans. Along with Meade, we have 35000 men boarding transports, and heading to a new destination TBD.

New Orleans is secured with the fall of Ft. Pike, and we also secured the Mississippi Gulf coast. I have an operational rail line from Memphis all the way to New Orleans (well, at least the regions are Union controlled) We also control the river, so my communications are excellent.

We are leaving enough troops in New Orleans to secure vs. a large Cavalry raid, but otherwise this area is very secure for us.

[Q-Ball]

April 1864, East:

Gunnulf won another victory at Hanover, VA; this was not as decisive, giving him 1 NM. I also uncovered Culpeper, which was one of my objectives moving around his flank.

We moved a Corps to Hanover, with a chain of Corps up to Falmouth. This tactic would work alot better if I had Fredricksburg, but he kicked me out of that last year.

We are trying to reduce the distance to Richmond, and bring our forces closer for more assaults this summer

A minor benefit of that battle: Erasmus Keyes is now promotable to 3*. I really need a 3* general that isn't a slug; I will probably send him out to Missouri.

[veji1]

It would have been interesting to see how this campaign would have unfolded with historical attrition on, which makes movement slower and forces rest times on depots after big battles.

[veji1]

I have 2 questions for you QBall :
- If there had been a setting with activation status hidden for leaders, ie you don't know if they are active or not in the upcoming turn, and when plotting the movement you don't get any indication whatsoever of their activation status. how would that have impacted your gameplay and how the campaign unfolded ? I say that because I have a hunch that it would really impact the union a lot and mitigate some of its advantages, reflecting better the unpredictability of war.
- If you had been playing from the start with historical attrition (I actually don't know if when you toggle it on during a game it takes it into account), what impact would it have had on the game ? Would your descent along the Mississippi have been significantly slower ?

[veji1]

QBall, I don't want to be rude or anything, but may politely demand an update ? checking this AAR is daily joy and 3 days without news is exceedingly depressing.

[bugwar]

ORIGINAL: veji1

QBall, I don't want to be rude or anything, but may politely demand an update ? checking this AAR is daily joy and 3 days without news is exceedingly depressing.

I too enjoy the AAR, and appreciate the work the author puts into it.
While the real world may interfere with updates, I thank the writer for his efforts to educate and entertain.

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: veji1

I have 2 questions for you QBall :
- If there had been a setting with activation status hidden for leaders, ie you don't know if they are active or not in the upcoming turn, and when plotting the movement you don't get any indication whatsoever of their activation status. how would that have impacted your gameplay and how the campaign unfolded ? I say that because I have a hunch that it would really impact the union a lot and mitigate some of its advantages, reflecting better the unpredictability of war.
- If you had been playing from the start with historical attrition (I actually don't know if when you toggle it on during a game it takes it into account), what impact would it have had on the game ? Would your descent along the Mississippi have been significantly slower ?

RE: Leaders, no doubt that feature, if it existed, would make it more interesting for the Union (i.e. harder), as the Union has to deal with lower strat ratings.

RE: Attrition, I also think had we played historical all along, I would be down a few more guys than Gunnulf. The Union moves more, and has troops in open more consistently. I think it would have slowed progress a bit down the River, though in the end what opened up the dam was the landing at Plaquemine

As to what's up, I haven't had a turn from Gunnulf since Saturday. Not sure why, he is usually mr. reliable. Probably just busy

[Q-Ball]

May 1864:

Gunnulf has been busy, but did manage to get a turn back.

East:

We are moving down the Orange and Alexandria RR, taking Culpeper without a fight, and defeating a wing of Lee's army at Charlottesville. 81,000 Federals in 3 Corps, under Franklin and Reynolds, defeated TJ Jackson's Corps of 45,000. We suffered alot more losses, 12000 to only 6000, and didn't win any NM. But we did get Charlottesville.

He is up against it methinks in that area. Richmond is probably just a few months behind now.

South Carolina Expedition:

The other big news is a landing at Charleston. This was pretty risky, but I brought ALOT of guys.

I moved most of the troops that landed at New Orleans; probably 30,000 in all. Farragut ran the forts and dropped Meade's 20,000 man corps right on the town; we routed the division defending, and should clean-up next turn. Sherman led another Corps on Sumter; we have 15,000 troops there and should take that. There are no guns at Ft. Moutrie (because I stole them when I landed earlier), so if I clear these two, I just need to deal with Ft. Johnson.

Charleston is a pain because of the 3 forts to have to clear to gain entrance. I wouldn't attempt this before 1864, when I can't see how he can bring enough troops to kick me out of it.

WEST:

See below; after that defeat at Macon, we are sliding around to the West and South of Meridian. There's a good chance he'll attack me again, but that's OK; keeping him occupied in the meantime.

[veji1]

Great thanks !

[Q-Ball]

I have some feedback from Gunnulf on that Charleston landing, and we have agreed that I am going to go back a turn, and reverse that.

I ran the batteries of Sumter and Ft. Johnson, landing Meade's Corps directly on Charleston. They chased away a division of 500-AV or so at Charleston, that was dug-in to level 8, and on a swamp hex. Gunnulf wondered if that was realistic, a landing right on that region displacing the garrison.

Looking at a map of the Charleston defenses, probably not. Ultimately, the Union has alot more power than RL to land in place instantly, without huge penalties. (In this case of course Meade had a Marine in that stack).

So, I am going to back it up, and land Meade on Ft. Johnson; this is roughly James Island. Sherman will still land on Sumter. Even with that, though I am committing alot of troops, we'll accomplish in a month or two what Gillmore and others failed to do throughout 1863, with all the fighting on Morris and James Island. The Federals never could really crack the Charleston defenses.

Anyway, what do you guys think?

[bugwar]

Running the Guns with a war fleet looks feasable.

Unloading 30k troops while under bombardment from all those Charleston artillery pieces?
I have a hard time with that.

Though it does make more sense, than debarking in downtown Charleston. [:-]

[Jim D Burns]

I agree, running the guns is one thing, unloading troops from a river or sea region with emplaced guns overlooking the same region the fleets are sitting in should be prohibited in game. It’s a tossup on whether dug in artillery should also prohibit landings, but large caliber fixed guns should prevent any amphibious assaults from river or sea regions they overlook I’d say.

Also, if mines were implemented differently, landings like this would be far more problematic. I hate the stupid card that gives players homing missiles on any coastal shore even if they have no troops within a thousand miles of the region the fleet being attacked is adjacent to, it does nothing to simulate actual mine warfare.

It also does not defend a region from landings as you can’t play the card until after the landing has already occurred. I’d much prefer the game simply assumed any region with a port anchor symbol was assumed to be mined and landings into those regions would be automatically attacked before troops could unload. Then both the navy and troop units would suffer greatly before the troops could get ashore. The power of the mines would go up every year of the war, so early in the war mines would have just a small effect, but by late war the effect would be far greater.

Jim

[Ace1_slith]

IMO Marines are overpowered. A whole division without amphibious landing because they had 600 marines in it does not represent the difficulties associated with naval landings. The attribute should apply only to marine/sailor elements them selves and not on others. Same goes for their river crossing combat bonus. While this is so, I selfimposed HR not to include them in stacks unless I want to make marine/sailor only special forces division.
About mines, maybe a RGD could be made that would not attack ships, but stay in region until enemy ship passes through it. That would be a lot better.

[JeffroK]

All this assumes that the defences were left in place and not taken away to shore up other perceived targets.
The map represents real life, something that went out the door on day 1.

Then the defender leaves a force small enough to be brushed aside.

I think this rewards bad defensive play, not a glitch in the game.

It might be that the forts need to be tougher, not weaken other units.

[Ace1_slith]

It was not bad defensive play. RL 8-10.000 entrenchend men would have anihilated 30.000 men landing under fire into Charleston. Look at this battle for odds defender should get when Union attampts to storm manned forts from the beachsides:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bat ... ort_Wagner