I didn't have error logging on for that game, unfortunately. It's been overwritten now, anyway. I've been watching the log for my current game.

I'm able to build much, much bigger divisions now than I used to. Is that intentional? I'm able to fit 17 brigades and 1 general, whereas before it was 11 + 1?

Yeah, I was amused at the time, but for the rest of the war, it was just annihilation after annihilation. It's no wonder that Washington was mine by November. My opponent gave up soon after that point; he'd honestly expected to crush me with his forces and was totally blown away at his losses in bat...

I'm sorry you chose to be offended by my comment. It was intended as humor to lighten up what is turning into a silly debate. I also don't see the problem with that tile. You can either a) take Ft. Donelson/Henry and attack Humphreys or b) go around the forts and take Humphreys first, before moving ...

And I'm saying that a 5+ entrenchment level is more than enough to accomplish the same task on any river tile. That's why you get the little cannons poking out of the wooden walls when you go above 5 entrenchment level; it's practically a fortification in game terms. Why couldn't a commander on a ri...

He did just that actually... 31 guns on the river, 115 on the approaches to the city. But anyway, yes, I am playing PBEM. It doesn't matter though, even if you're playing the AI, it's still good strategic sense to make sure that you actually have clear access up and down the river by defeating force...

Also remember that Sherman cleared all opposition on the left bank of the river while Grant defeated Van Dorn at Holly Springs, and later, Johnston at Vicksburg, who were the only opposition on the right bank. Grant understood the need for controlling both banks, and the Union player should too. You...

I've had no trouble working with the model the way it is now. The Union has huge advantages in attempting to control the Mississippi, so I don't really feel all that bad about it. :) If anything it forces you to be methodical as you move up the river, instead of blitzing troops from Cairo to New Orl...

Defining historic river cities as objectives is a pointless exercise. The supply model in itself should be incentive enough, and the advantage of controlling the Mississippi to any Union commander who wishes to control the Western Theater is apparent because of supply. Making them objectives in game...

If the entrenched units have cannon, I don't see a reason why they wouldn't be able to bombard riverine units. The south can't be everywhere at once, and the Union can. Use your transport capacity and flank your opponent. Break things. Blow stuff up. You aren't going to be able to just dash down the...

3 Days later, Buell came by and lost another 10,000 men to my 500. It almost feels like an exploit to have 60,000+ union troops come after you and watch 1/3 of them just melt away...

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1149/1089997323_71daf4b25a_o.jpg It's battles like this that make me wish I had my error logging on. I would have loved to see the details and make up a nice AAR, but I think the image speaks for itself... Even a simulated Irvin McDowell heads back to Washington in sh...