JBEtexas
Private
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 2:58 am

Far West - Just Ignore?

Fri Nov 07, 2014 9:35 pm

Hello!

While I love the game so far; I find the Far West a destraction to what I greatly enjoy when playing a Civil War grand strategy game.

Therefore; I am asking:
When playing as either the USA or CSA verse the AI; if I just hunker down all of my elements in the Far West and then completely ignore them and everything else that is west of Missouri, Arkansas and Southeast Texas, what is the worst that can happen? It appears to me that the impact on my chances to win the game would be impacted by less than 1%, that the only value of the Far West is for historcial color, is this a correct assumption? What would be the consistent downside?

Thank you!

Merlin
General
Posts: 581
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 2:41 pm
Location: St. Paul, MN

Sat Nov 08, 2014 5:58 am

If you ignore the West as the federals, you'll lose New Mexico and Arizona. That's a good few VPs per turn.


As the Union, the West is a path to Texas over time, so neglecting it again is worth a good few VPs.

grimjaw
Colonel
Posts: 398
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 5:38 am
Location: Arkansas

Sat Nov 08, 2014 7:18 am

Texas provides supply to the southwest theater for the CSA. Under historical force levels, the CSA can't produce a great number of units to defend the amount of territory in Texas. It's sometimes easier and less costly to mount naval invasions of Texas than trying to come at them from California. But I'd still put up a fight for Arizona and New Mexico. Even if you don't win, the cost to the CSA affects them elsewhere.

User avatar
ohms_law
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 725
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:42 pm
Location: Syracuse, NY

Sat Nov 08, 2014 11:13 am

What they said.

I'd also like to add that as the Confederates, the main problem ends up being supply. Actually, that's true for the Union as well; the Union can throw more resources at the problem, though. Keep units small and fight a defense in depth, but keep the pressure on by staying engaged.

User avatar
pgr
General of the Army
Posts: 623
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:33 pm
Location: Paris France (by way of Wyoming)

Sat Nov 08, 2014 11:24 pm

Well if you want to kinda ignore the far west...you can without too much trouble. On the other hand, Texas tends to be a soft target, if your are looking for some VP cities.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Sat Nov 08, 2014 11:57 pm

But would you go in through New Mexico or the Gulf?

I only once built a road from Southern California all the way to New Mexico. By the time is wad finished--around mid '63--it had cost a small fortune. When I finally took El Paso I found it swimming in supplies being dragged in through all those stockades north of the Rio Grand. It made me sick. West-Texas is all roads along those stockades, while the stockades going through Kansas and Oklahoma are connected at the most through trails and for a long stretch not even that.

I started thinking it was ridiculous to try it. Maybe if you could start building roads at a lower civ. level so that when they are completed they are at level 20 like all the other road regions, but no like this. That's when I started thinking of only defending in the far west and if I wanted to attack Texas, do it through the coast, where supply will literally swim in.
Image

User avatar
Jim-NC
Posts: 2981
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:21 pm
Location: Near Region 209, North Carolina

Sun Nov 09, 2014 12:12 am

JBEtexas wrote:Hello!

While I love the game so far; I find the Far West a destraction to what I greatly enjoy when playing a Civil War grand strategy game.

Therefore; I am asking:
When playing as either the USA or CSA verse the AI; if I just hunker down all of my elements in the Far West and then completely ignore them and everything else that is west of Missouri, Arkansas and Southeast Texas, what is the worst that can happen? It appears to me that the impact on my chances to win the game would be impacted by less than 1%, that the only value of the Far West is for historcial color, is this a correct assumption? What would be the consistent downside?

Thank you!


Welcome to the forums JBEtexas. :wavey:
Remember - The beatings will continue until morale improves.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

User avatar
ArmChairGeneral
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 992
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:00 am
Location: Austin, TX, USA

Sun Nov 09, 2014 6:08 pm

JBEtexas,
I find that turtling and then ignoring the FW is perfectly acceptable as the CSA in the Grand Campaigns: I build a brigade of infantry and a 12 lber or two in El Paso, which along with the rest of the stuff in that theater should be enough to fend off most Union attacks (you may choose to defend in Mesilla instead of El Paso, YMMV). You do lose some VPs as your stockades get captured, so you might consider burning some of them just to make enemy operations around El Paso more difficult: the two that are adjacent to El Paso are quite threatening if captured by the Union.

Fts. Lyons and (I believe) Garland provide cover and supply for units (paticularly artillery) built in Denver to enter New Mexico; capturing and burning them early with Rangers built in Adobe Wells makes it very difficult for the Union (Athena at least) to bring enough force into New Mexico to be able to capture El Paso.

I love the Far West, for me it is loads of fun and reminiscent of the small unit tactics in Wars in America, though it contributes very little to overall success. I play aggressively in this theater every game just because I enjoy it.

In some of the scenarios the FW is much more relevant: in the West Theater scenario, for example, El Paso is worth such a large proportion of the available VPs that it is a viable target for the Union and must be defended by the CSA.

Orso,
To me Gulf incursions are far more disruptive and threatening than the overland stockade route. You can always burn the stockades along the Rio Grande which basically stops any sizable force from moving East (assuming they have taken El Paso first, which is relatively easy to defend for large portions of the game) but you can do little to prevent Gulf activity.

(based on single-player, may not be relevant in PBEM, etc., etc.)

User avatar
ArmChairGeneral
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 992
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:00 am
Location: Austin, TX, USA

Sun Nov 09, 2014 6:17 pm

Ohms,

As the CSA you have a big supply advantage if you are defending (rather than attacking) in the FW, since your supplies are generated and stored close to the action in El Paso, whereas the Union has to relay through stockades/depots to any troops attacking El Paso, and Santa Fe/Albequerque doesn't produce that much supply compared to El Paso (I think El Paso gets scripted supplies since there is always a pretty large stockpile there for a city of its size).

User avatar
ohms_law
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 725
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:42 pm
Location: Syracuse, NY

Sun Nov 09, 2014 7:59 pm

El Paso can only supply about a single (undersized) division, though. Anything more than that will tend to starve, especially in the winter and spring when the whole region turns muddy and supply doesn't move anywhere.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Sun Nov 09, 2014 8:37 pm

Well, a division and a half lead by Longstreet want to tell you something else.

Remember, not only do towns, redoubts and depots exert pull on supply, the size of the force does too. Supply will not fill a depot or a fort or anything to bursting if it's empty. Drop some forces on it and watch those lil' G-4's start to run like hamsters in a wheel.
Image

User avatar
ohms_law
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 725
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:42 pm
Location: Syracuse, NY

Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:20 pm

None of that matters when the terrain is all muddy. Nothing moved at all when it takes 20 days to traverse a single provence.

JBEtexas
Private
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 2:58 am

Mon Nov 10, 2014 2:14 am

Great and helpful comments!

Thank you everyone!

Merlin
General
Posts: 581
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 2:41 pm
Location: St. Paul, MN

Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:42 am

Building that road from Cali becomes necessary when your opponent decides he can't hold out and torches every single stockade between El Paso and San Antonio. If I'm playing as the CSA and I can't hold FW Texas, I do that every time. If you don't have that road, good luck getting any supply to your two divisions heading east. If you have the road, just keep building 2 element wagons in Cali, rebuild the stockades, and build a chain of depots east. By then you should be bored enough elsewhere that you can add a few coastal invasions, and Texas falls like a house of cards.

User avatar
ArmChairGeneral
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 992
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:00 am
Location: Austin, TX, USA

Mon Nov 10, 2014 6:14 am

Ohms,

Yes and no on the force size issue, I agree with you on the upper limit and the weather problems, but there is room for finesse. Like Orso pointed out, if you have troops in El Paso, and especially a wagon (I use the half-wagons in this theater) some supply will come in from the east along the stockade chain if you are consuming more than El Paso produces. Like you say, you definitely can't get carried away out there, but it depends on the force mixture too. If you are making a play for the FW then you most likely have all your Rangers out there, and they live off the land pretty well: I keep them hovering around, but not in, El Paso, lurking in friendly/targeting enemy stockades when they need supply, but ready to dash back to El Paso/Mesilla if they are needed. The mud/snow IS a big issue, but is usually manageable if you keep your force size reasonable. If I am serious about the FW I build regulars instead of militia (the mounted militia are good for stockade warfare though because of the mobility) since they use the same amount of supply per element for better combat effectiveness. The scripted forces are almost enough to hold El Paso indefinitely if you add in a couple of 12 lbers, which don't hit the supply too hard and make a big difference against all those militia. I sometimes use a depot card out there (since it doesn't make sense to waste a full wagon on that theater) and have used the stockade-card-trick to "rescue" troops stranded in the wilderness by mud/snow.

On offense, it is important to cut the connection between New Mexico and Colorado. If you do so the Union will not be able to relay supplies or artillery from Denver very well, making the task easier by limiting Union strength in the field. Burning the other stockades has a similar effect, and severely limits enemy mobility, supply and cover. Do these things and you will not need as big a force, making your own supply situation easier to manage. Getting rid of the stockade/depot that Canby starts locked in makes Union operations against El Paso almost untenable.

Ultimately, there is a limit on how many troops either side can field in the region though; go beyond this and you will be in trouble.

Merlin,

I do this too, it is the only place in the game where you can engage in a true scorched earth strategy. A fire break in the Trans-Pecos isolates the Far West pretty effectively (which is why I think incursions from the Gulf are more immediately threatening). The Union certainly CAN come in from the Far West eventually if they commit to it, but (as is always the question in the FW) is it worth it? Almost never IMO, although like I said, I often over-commit to the Far West just for kicks :)

JBEtexas,
If you want to mess around in the Far West, (keep those damn Yankees off the Sacred Soil!) command is also a problem. Rangers cost zero CPs, so are particularly useful in this region. There is a two element cav brigade that scripts into central Texas somewhere that also has zero CP cost; I often move them out to the FW or use them to take out the Kansas forts to prevent raiding along the Red River.

Did I mention that I LOVE the Far West? It is a total time and resource sink, but a really FUN one! (A good learning experience too: if you can overcome the supply and weather issues out there, the rest of the map will give you little trouble.)

Merlin
General
Posts: 581
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 2:41 pm
Location: St. Paul, MN

Mon Nov 10, 2014 8:40 am

ArmChairGeneral wrote:Merlin,

I do this too, it is the only place in the game where you can engage in a true scorched earth strategy. A fire break in the Trans-Pecos isolates the Far West pretty effectively (which is why I think incursions from the Gulf are more immediately threatening). The Union certainly CAN come in from the Far West eventually if they commit to it, but (as is always the question in the FW) is it worth it? Almost never IMO, although like I said, I often over-commit to the Far West just for kicks :)

Did I mention that I LOVE the Far West? It is a total time and resource sink, but a really FUN one! (A good learning experience too: if you can overcome the supply and weather issues out there, the rest of the map will give you little trouble.)


Agreed. The extended map is one of my favored aspects over AACW, and I simply can't resist playing around out in the territories even if benign neglect is the more sensible policy. Between that and the absolutely massive Confederate raids I often stage from Kansas, Tennessee, and all points between from '62-'64, it's my favorite part of the game.

User avatar
pgr
General of the Army
Posts: 623
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:33 pm
Location: Paris France (by way of Wyoming)

Mon Nov 10, 2014 7:04 pm

Captain_Orso wrote:But would you go in through New Mexico or the Gulf?
Why not both :)

Return to “Civil War II”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests