AGEOD Forums

This thread is forbiden to the six Grand Campaign players.


You can talk and comment about each side strategy.

So... No comments? I find this idea of great campaign excellent, so I guess you all are busy playing the game and don't have time to comment GC .
Godspeed

Well it seems that the Confederts are in for a nasty surprise in the next turn when the north attacks New Orleans...

edit: not sure the waiting strategy of the CSA is the way to go. the north will be able to outproduce them quickly, and if the initiative is also given to them the CSA will be beaten to a pulp, slowly but surely, but it will be interesting to see.

I agree. Rebs have to attack because later they will be outnumbered. Anyway, this turn will be very interesting. Can't wait to see what will happen with Grant .

New Orleans is lost. Big hit to rebes. Both economicaly and morale.
Things are now really heating up

yep, not having a strategic reserve to counter seaborne invasions are gonna hurt now... but looking forward to see what happens to Grant!

Looks like Grant has an opportunity here to really damage A.S. Johnston.
Although he doesn't want to use the attack, in this situation maybe he should.
By attacking ASJ with the entire Army, Grant will be moving towards more supply and will be consolidating his forces.
ASJ cannot be re-enforced in time by Bragg's army. Grant should destroy ASJ, then deal with Bragg.
Destroying the enemy force, not securing terrain should be his objective here.

It seems ASJ is in the more precarious situation. His intention is a good one, get Grant to fall back by threatening the supply line, but using ASJ's army as bait? hmm...

We will have to see.

Agree, one of the sides out west is going to get an a..wooping dependig who's realizing the position they are in first...

the loss of NO is going to hurt the south though, what are they going to do about it? it looks like the north are in a position to hurt the south on all three fronts if their no carefull...

marecone wrote:I agree. Rebs have to attack because later they will be outnumbered. Anyway, this turn will be very interesting. Can't wait to see what will happen with Grant .

I don´t agree, I think CSA forces should remain on an active defense, looking for the chance to intercept the advance of Union forces and fight defensive battles, because most players don´t have the patience to build an overwhelming force and then manouver cautiously to invade the Confederacy. In this game, for instance, CSA could have fall back in TN, waiting for the Union to extend supply lines making them more vulnerable, instead of hotly engaging all available forces in offensive manouvers, and a suitable force could have been easily assembled to repel the attack on NO, hardly a surprising movement by a Union player.

This turn resolution has been awesome to watch with 3 major battles longing several days...

- Burnside's taking of Hardeeville is a real bad news for the CSA. Especially as artillery superiority allowed Burnside to take the city without losing too much men. He has now the supply he was lacking and no confederate forces to oppose him.

- In Virginia, Longstreet attacked Francklin but he did not managed to obtain a decisive victory.

- In the Mississipi, Grant has defeated Johnston but did not manage to get a decisive victory.


What is your opinion? Are the CSA toasted?

an unbiased summary of each turn would be good Korrigan, because even with the reading of all reports, I have trouble making the big picture (old age and such ).

Sorry, no time for that.

Korrigan wrote:This turn resolution has been awesome to watch with 3 major battles longing several days...

- Burnside's taking of Hardeeville is a real bad news for the CSA. Especially as artillery superiority allowed Burnside to take the city without losing too much men. He has now the supply he was lacking and no confederate forces to oppose him.

- In Virginia, Longstreet attacked Francklin but he did not managed to obtain a decisive victory.

- In the Mississipi, Grant has defeated Johnston but did not manage to get a decisive victory.


What is your opinion? Are the CSA toasted?

I'm not sure if the CSA are doomed, but it certainly seems like they are in trouble now - nothing to oppose Burnside, & in addition to beating Johnston, it sounds like Grant is ready to attack again. It sounds like the situation at Hardeeville was a repeat of the historical defeat at Fort Donelson - they put too many troops into the garrison, which greatly impaired their ability to counter the Union forces after its fall.

In the larger picture, I think the CSA needs to develop some long-term strategic plans, particularly in terms of whether they want to prevent the Union from closing the Mississippi River. I think they also need to find a way to regain the initiative in the Western Theater - as long as Grant can move as he wants, I don't think the CSA can stop him.

looks bad for the CSA...

Johnny Canuck wrote:I'm not sure if the CSA are doomed, but it certainly seems like they are in trouble now - nothing to oppose Burnside, & in addition to beating Johnston, it sounds like Grant is ready to attack again. It sounds like the situation at Hardeeville was a repeat of the historical defeat at Fort Donelson - they put too many troops into the garrison, which greatly impaired their ability to counter the Union forces after its fall.

Naah.... Burnside will stop himself. It is Burnside we are talking about here. He'll have to cross a bridge sometime.

In the larger picture, I think the CSA needs to develop some long-term strategic plans, particularly in terms of whether they want to prevent the Union from closing the Mississippi River. I think they also need to find a way to regain the initiative in the Western Theater - as long as Grant can move as he wants, I don't think the CSA can stop him.

I agree. They need to stop Grant at all costs in the west.

I think the CSA needs a strategy. Obviously the North has a plan and they are keeping to it... I bet his name is Anaconda(c)...
I'm much less clear about which kind of strategy the South is following (except the courageous "No coastal defense whatsoever" gambit...).

well they said at the beginning that they would take a reactive approach. wait and see what the union would do and then form their strategy according - many of us thought that they would be beaten if they did not take the initiative and it seems that that was what happend.

still think they should try to harras the supplylines of the north forcing them to commit troops to their rear (but I don't know as I'm still waiting for the hardcopy to buy the game, so it's easy for me to play smart)

I think CSA made a big mistake by moving main armies into close contact with the enemy. They should have gone for an in depth defense, with an strategic reserve to counter Union landings.

aryaman wrote:I think CSA made a big mistake by moving main armies into close contact with the enemy. They should have gone for an in depth defense, with an strategic reserve to counter Union landings.

I agree

I played the CSA on a PBEM, and the key (so far) is to keep powerfull corps in the rear near railroads to move quickly where required.
Doing so, we are more mobile than the USA units, so we can strike and retreat (and occupy cities with small brigades...). The USA has to withdraw to rebuild depleted brigades. One victory can offer 4-5 cool turns on a given area.

The result is: I still have the Mississipi (fort 10, also Cairo to prevent an invasion by Illinois) and TN. I conquered Harper's ferry and I still have the south of MO ... It is the front line since 1 year approximatively.

Yes, fore sure.

Just look at how the North is puzzled by the incertainty about Van Dorn and you realize how a reserve force could be handy for the South. For first, the Federals would be more carefull, not knowing where the South could strike back...

New turn has been processed.

Johnston has won an undecisive battle in Corinth against McClernand.
Foote is wrecking havok in the CSA Mississipi fleet.

Let's wait for the AARs...

I'm opening up this thread so all one or two of you who take the time to read my AAR (Such as it is) can comment directly on it. Want more detail? More shots? Just think it sucks and I need to jump out a window? Feel free to let me know. Just remember not to say anything relating to other AARs or strategies or whatnot so I don't get in trouble.

Union has taken an almost undefended Corinth.
CSA has taken Harper's Ferry

Who will break the first?!

interesting developments indeed

So, anyone have anything to say? Force compositions? Better maps and plans? Anything?

It is a fascinating project. Your AAR is great, well explained and illustrated. So are the other player's. The best part for me is seeing all the different takes on each situation and the FOW that exists in the different viewpoints.

I don't comment but as Jabberwock says, the whole things is completely fascinating for me. When I see how all of you think, it seems so right that I'm very happy with the end result of this AACW project, retrospectively


(Now I don't doubt there is room for tons of improvements, but this is the normal life of any projects I think)