Completed Game with Version 1.16 Beta 4

[richfed]

Game done with AACW v/1.16 Beta 4 on Windows 7, 64 bit ... I played as the CSA in the '61 Campaign w/Kentucky.

Good news is that the game seems very stable - not a single CTD. Other than things, mostly minor, that I reported in another thread, I really didn't notice many glaring problems.

The AI, though, and the final result, trouble me.

Throughout 1861 & 1862, the Union AI was quiet ... [see main beta Patch thread]. In 1863, it seemed to come alive - savage fighting in Kentucky, where my Army of Tennessee was pushed back from Louisville to Bowling Green and finally all the way to Nashville. We pounded each other in northern Virginia, as well. After that, in '64 & '65, there was nothing really going on ... 2 major forays into Texas with large forces ended with the AI taking Houston. I retook all of Kentucky and crossed the river to hold and create depots all along the river. The AI protested a bit. I assaulted Washington with 3 corps of the Army of Northern Virginia but was repulsed by a huge Union Army there. Other than that, the AI seemed pre-occupied with Harpers Ferry/Winchester area and little else. Except for the loss of Houston, I took the entire south, including Kentucky and most of Missouri.

My morale kept falling. I got it to about 130 and then it began to fall. I had thought that barring major defeats or political choices, NM would rise a point each turn if you kept it over 100. This is not the case. It dropped steadily, turn after turn ... and the game finally ended in January 1866 as a stalemate. My NM was 100. I consistently had to choose the Cotton Embargo to make up for some of the NM losses. I don't understand why this was happening. I had a 3000 point advantage in VPs. Stalemate? Seems the only way I could have won was to take DC and cities north. I controlled all other strategic cities ...

Throughout the game, there were NO Mississippi River incursions by the AI [Memphis, Vicksburg, New Orleans], NO attempts to take North Carolina, nothing at all in any of the deep South. Minor stuff at times in Arkansas.

Other than what I described, the AI seemed to be content to sit and build huge forces, which it did quite effectively. However, they did very little with these forces on the offensive. Since I play a pretty defensive game as the South, it made for a dull - mostly - 5 years.

The AI needs to be held to the fire ... at least based on this one campaign! It was more active - and surprising - in 1.15!

[richfed]

PS to the above post:

One thing I forgot to mention --- By war's end, and actually well before, rather than having increased difficulty with supplies, money, and manpower, it was actually the opposite. It became easier as the war progressed. The first year, or so, I invested in 3 states for increased industrialization. Once I had that in hand - war supplies building up comfortably - I ended the industrialization to save money. I did some commerce raiding, but even that aside, I started amassing huge amounts of all three categories. I even was able to stop drafting and only sporadically had to raise cash. It was ridiculously easy ... and it wasn't like I was trying to hoard ... I built up my rail and riverine points; created large Armies; garrisoned nearly every single southern town; had attrition set to historical. As the CSA, I expect to struggle, at least somewhat, and in at least ONE of the big 3 categories. In this particular game, at least, it was far too easy.

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

Could it be that you're getting better? The AI really can't give me any problems at all anymore on normal. My 1.16 B4 game is going fairly similarly to any 1.15 games I've played. I'm just in 1862 right now, and the AI might be a little less agressive. They started with a strong push towards Richmond but drifted off towards Petersburg and NC like they always do. The AI has always been bad about holding Missouri as well in my experience.

As for Morale, it always decays or grows toward 100. I don't think anything has been changed in that regard.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[richfed]

Could it be that you're getting better?

Would be nice to think so, but apparently my senility is overriding any strategic gains I may be making in playing the game. I guess I had that NM thing in reverse within my wee-feeble brain.

[Pocus]

I remember, not much time ago, that the AI was constantly said to be too aggressive

Now, it seems to be the reverse, but one game is not enough to be sure a revision of its general behavior is warranted, any other volunteer for a full game against the AI?

[richfed]

I have started a new game and bumped up the AI's FOW advantage ... so far, it seems much more agressive and strategic in the early going. Playing time is limited right now, but I will report more when I can. So far, so good!!

[kingtaso01]

I volunteer. Just give me one week. Just started and so far so good, they're already trying to take Harper's Ferry with something bigger than one militia.

[Captain_Orso]

Union Player

Blockade Boxes, General Situation:

My general strategy is to have 5 blockade squadrons in each blockade box as quickly as possible, usually by the end of '61. Later, '62-'63, I put a sixth blockade squadron in each of the boxes, basically so that when I start having to send squadrons back to port for repairs and regaining cohesion, I still have 5 squadrons on-duty.

I usually combine the New England Squadron and the New York Squadron to fill one of the Atlantic Blockade slots, which makes for one somewhat larger squadron, which uses a bit more than average supply.

To keep the blockade fleets in-supply at sea, I usually build 6 transport fleets of 4 elements (2 transport units) per blockade box; 3 for the Atlantic and 3 for the Gulf.

Each of these 'supply fleets' carry 240 points each of general supply and ammo.

One of these supply fleets per blockade box are cycled between the blockade box and, New York City for the Atlantic Blockade Box, and for the Gulf Blockade Box, Fort Pickens (at the beginning), Fort Philip, or Fort Jackson (after they have been taken), when one drops to 0 general supply. The supply is almost always taken from only one supply fleet at a time, until it is empty of the supply needed.

A blockade squadron uses 8 points of general supply per turn in the best of weather (summer months), which increases during the winter months due to bad weather. So during the best of weather (actually occurs seldom) each blockade box is using 8x5=40 or 8x6=48 general supply points per turn.

My understanding is that hit-points are taken from general supply available, be it from transports on hand (the supply fleets) or directly from the blockade squadrons barring the presence of supply fleets, on the basis of 1 supply point per hit.

If I recall correctly, even during stormy turns, only general supply is being exchanged for hits, but not ammo points.

Current Situation:
What I am seeing a lot of now is I am finding supply fleets extremely quickly decimated of not only general supply, but also ammo, even though there are no raiders in the blockade boxes (sometimes the CSA sends raiders into the Atlantic blockade Box to attack the blockade fleet). I've found supply fleets with 0 general supply and almost 0 ammo. Remember, they have 240 of each when fully supplied, even on turns when there have been no raiders reported in the blockade box.

Could it be that bad weather is now taking hits on the ammo of the supply fleets in addition to hits on general supply?

I've seen really bad stretches of bad weather occasionally, but the last two winters of my last game seam to go beyond anything I've ever seen before. I've had to borrow transports from other duties to put them into the blockade boxes --especially the Atlantic-- to keep the blockade fleets supplied because all of the supply fleets are in port for repairs and resupplying. I've even had to increase the number of supply fleets in the Atlantic to 4, just to keep up with supply usage even if I am receiving no messages of taking hits from bad weather.

Could this just be a coincidence, or has supply usage gone up and/or am I taking hits not being reported in the message log?