User avatar
soundoff
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:23 am

Soundoff (CSA) v Banks (USA)

Thu Dec 26, 2013 1:25 pm

Image

User avatar
Gen.DixonS.Miles
Captain
Posts: 151
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2013 4:16 pm
Location: Neffs-Laury's Station, Pennsylvania

Sat Dec 28, 2013 1:19 am

Quite the challenge! Good show, good show.
“In my opinion, Colonel Miles was a drunkard, a coward and a traitor, and if I had the power I would have had the United States buttons taken from his coat.”

Elble, Sigmund-Soldier with the 3rd U.S. Infantry


Elble, an officer on the frontier who knew Miles well

enf91
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 724
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 6:25 pm

Tue Dec 31, 2013 6:42 pm

No battle planner? It's almost like you're playing the original ACW. Also, who's your opponent? It's not Banks by any chance, is it? If it be a rematch, make the most of it!

User avatar
soundoff
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:23 am

Tue Dec 31, 2013 6:52 pm

So now it's in the open. Yes enf91 its the return match between Banks and myself. The roles reversed this time (naturally). If I can do half as well as the South as my illustrious opponent did last time around I will be well pleased. :thumbsup: As it is the South begins to gird its loins to resist the impending onslaught. Before the game starts I'll feed in a few of my observations as regards my intended stretegy. Those used to Banks and my style know too well that we lay our strategies on the line in advance of conducting them.

This is a rematch I'm particularly looking forward to. I hope some others feel the same. On a personal note CW2 over ACCW is a bit of a curates egg to me. Improvements in parts but backwards in others. Still a great game though and worth the investment in cash and time. :coeurs:

User avatar
soundoff
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:23 am

Tue Dec 31, 2013 6:54 pm

Now if only there was a way of altering this thread to Soundoff (CSA) vs Banks (USA). :bonk: Ah well folks will just have to get used to it.... :confused:

User avatar
soundoff
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:23 am

Wed Jan 01, 2014 10:37 pm

OK folks. In anticipation of commencement of hostilities I shall begin by starting to outline how I see my 'game plan'. I am going to break it down into theatres so starting with the [color="#FFFF00"]EASTERN THEATRE[/color]

I anticipate that Banks will play both well and aggressively. Therefore my strategy will be basically defensive although if I see the slightest chink of a chance I hope to be in a position to exploit it. What I will desperately try to avoid is Pyrrhic victories. They will do me no good at all.



Image




Those cities circled in yellow I see as KEY confederate holds for as long as possible. I will only give ground in these areas grudgingly. It is imperative if I'm to survive into 63 that Richmond holds out during 62. If I can hold Winchester and Manassas (I know big asks) then it forces Banks onto the flanks. In such a situation it becomes imperative that I do not allow him to outflank me via Fredricksburg. That then becomes an important link in my defensive chain in Virginia.

To the west.......well sadly West Virginia IMHO starts as a lost cause for the South. The good thing about it however is that the terrain is at best 'awful'. Therefore I'm quite willing to cede West Virginia from the start and form a defensive perimeter at Covington.

I also intend to attempt to hang onto Norfolk so that's another position to defend and fortify. Ideally I would like to take Fort Munroe and remove the blockade on Richmond but I'm sure Banks will be too cute to allow me to do that. In any event to put together a force capable of storming Munroe whilst at the same time building up defensive forces elsewhere is/will be beyond me. I shall be penny pinching from the start as the CSA

User avatar
soundoff
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:23 am

Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:10 am

So folks onto the next theatre which just happens to be the [color="#FFFF00"]WESTERN[/color]



Image

Sadly the rule changes in 1.02 means I cannot build a defensive force up as quickly as I would like in Tennesse. Against a good opponent which Banks most surely is I've never found a strategy for hanging on to either the Forts or Nashville for too long. They are simply extremely exposed. The one saving grace for me is that Kentucky is not likely to swing to the North before 62. I make no bones about it that the longer Kentucky remains neutral and provides me with a buffer the happier I shall be. So its softly softly in this Theatre. Were I in my illustrious opponents position with the 1.02 changes I'd force the issue in Kentucky as soon as I could. I don't think that Banks will do that however.

My strategy is to start to build up a defensive line from Memphis to Chattanooga. The stretch between Tuscumbia and Decatur (east of Chattanooga) affords good defensive opportunities. Firstly there is the river but most importantly the ground is not conducive to offensive operations. If I can scramble enough troops together in this area it could be tough going for the Union. The major concern is holding the line from Memphis to Corinth. These two cities I must try to fortify with as much as I can spare. I'd like at least a Corp for both of them but wonder whether I shall have the resources.

At Decatur (circled yellow) I intend to build a depot. Given the game settings we are operating with I want front line troops as near to depots for recovery as I can have them. Ideally I'd like a small replacement division in each theatre so that I am able to rotate brigades when they are damaged. I am aware that this is probably an impossible luxury to achieve.

User avatar
soundoff
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:23 am

Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:58 am

Onto the next Theatre which of course just happens to be [color="#FFFF00"]TRANS-MISSISSIPPI[/color]


Image


I suspect that this theatre will provide the least of my troubles. Well for the first couple of years of the war anyhow. Perhaps a daft hope but its one I'm going to have to run with. I cannot defend in depth everywhere. This theatre that basically has to take care of itself. I have no idea how Banks will play it. For myself its to destroy the Rolla depot ASAP. I have already given up on Jefferson City - just too darned difficult to hold. I shall conduct a fighting withdrawal from Springfield whilst utilising my cavalry, rangers and any other fast moving troops to cause as much panic as I can.

I'd like to hold a defensive line, long term on the Arkansas river but who knows particularly as I do not intend to reinforce this Theatre with additional troops ( I will have none to spare). I might throw it the odd crumb so to speak but thats about all.

Of course my view might have to change. Much depends on what Banks does.

User avatar
soundoff
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:23 am

Thu Jan 02, 2014 10:30 am

And finally (last but not least) we arrive at the [color="#FFFF00"]LOWER SEABOARD and GULF APPROACH[/color]



Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Its in this theatre that the 1.02 patch changes are really going to hurt my CSA hopes. Why do I say that. Well its just that I know Banks. I'm sure he will attempt at least one seaboard invasion in 61 with perhaps another couple in 62. He will play a strong powerful navy and go all out for a full Blue and Brown water blockade. And do you know readers there is not a diddly squat chance of me stopping him.

With that in mind lets take a look at what I think will be the key areas



Image



Image

Why you might ask am I so so sure that Banks will make an effort to come by sea. Well my reasoning is twofold. Firstly my opponent likes to keep some things historical and I know he's always been in favour of the Anaconda plan.
Secondly and even more importantly when ACCW1 was released there was a lot of talk on the boards then between Banks and another extremely fine player Jabberwock. My but we had some giants of Civil War gameplay in those days. Anyway I digress. Now Banks and Jabberwock did a minor thread/AAR specifically concentrating on playing a seaboard game. From the Union side how easy it was to take the forts which also aided promotion of generals. On the flip side it was how difficult for the CSA to defend the seaboard forts and what if anything the South could do.

The upshot basically was that the seaboard forts were undefendable. Even in ACCW1 the South had insufficient resources to garrison the forts adequately (far too many of them) Without the Norths financial and WSU base it had no hope of contesting the seas. Shame really but so historically accurate.

Anyhow the long and short of it is that I just know that Banks will make a seaboard invasion. Trouble is where. And how the heck do I combat it (at least in 61) when I fear I shall be so stretched in the East

If I were a betting man then I'd have to reckon on either Wilmington, Charleston or Savannah being his first target. Of those I suspect that Wilmington will be his top priority. Why Wilmington. Well its gives him the shortest resupply, reinforcement line. If he were to combine an attack on Wilmington with a move to recapture Norfolk (assuming I hold it) then it will give him a good beach-head in the soft underbelly of the CSA. Of course he could elect for either Charleston or Savannah but that will severely test his supply lines - particularly in 61.

Nope my guess is for Wilmington. Whatever else happens from day one of hostilities I have to syphon off scarce manpower to defend those three cities.

Moving on to the Gulf I reckon that I can expect him to hit New Orleans as soon as a thaw begins in 62. Thats one expedition that he will need to properly equip and the winter of 61 will give him the time. I need at least a couple of divisions planted firmly in New Orleans before the spring of 62. Trouble is I also have to beware of assualts on Mobile and Tallahassee. Oh dear Oh dear Oh dear.

Interesting times ahead methinks. I hope I can do the South justice and that you stay with me through thick and thin. I think more thin than thick :thumbsup:

User avatar
soundoff
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:23 am

Thu Jan 02, 2014 10:38 am

Well thats it kind readers. The strategy for the CSA laid bare. I hope that some of it at least is possible to achieve. I am accutely aware however of the saying of Robert Burns - The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men Gang aft agley. I'm sure that either I will foul it up or Banks will make such a stunning move that the whole plan becomes a total nonsense after the first couple of months. Ah well such is life :coeurs:

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

Thu Jan 02, 2014 6:32 pm

Can you tell us of any house rules you gentlemen have created? I will ask the same question to your opponent (in his thread).
Remember - The beatings will continue until morale improves.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

User avatar
soundoff
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:23 am

Thu Jan 02, 2014 8:28 pm

Hi Jim-NC

To date we have not made any house rules. There is still time given that Banks cannot start the campaign until around the 15th January. I suppose that on one level (given that we seem to have a great deal of mutal respect over how both of us play) that its unlikely we will have too many hard and fast rules.

I will not for example do much deep raiding unless I've got a recognised leader of cavalry/mounted troops in command. Even then I will not go to far beyond the realms of historical reality which means Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky and West Virginia. I know that Banks will do the same. Its not our style to play 'gamey' so to speak. Its because of that that I'm very reluctant to go as far as the South did when Morgan crossed the Ohio river and took the fight to Ohio and Indiana. Given Grants stance regarding 'total war' Morgan was probably right and in reality the South ought to have done more deep raiding so I suppose, in game the Southern player should not have to be so hindered with restricting deep raiding. In similar fashion I will not use the strategic redeployment feature. Thats just me though. I'm quite happy for Banks to do so.

I do so hope that the Replay feature is introduced in CW2 at the earliest opportunity and that its compatible with 1.02 which it looks like we are starting with (unless there is another patch post haste) Its a useful tool that he will not have access to which I find somewhat embarassing as it gives me an unfair edge. We could of course host turn and turn about which would even things out but so far Banks has been insistant that I host.......it is my turn.

The only area where my opponent and I are in disagreement is that Banks wanted it so that Foreign Entry was more easily achieved. Whereas me, as a Brit, am of the opinion that there was about as much chance of Britain intervening as there was of the South winning an outright victory. Thus we compromised and left things as standard.

Perhaps, on the specific issue of house rules you will get a more considered response from my opponent. When he posed the question to me a week or so ago I threw it back at him and asked what he had in mind. I've had no reply. Not that I really need one as I know he always plays in the spirit of the game - he knows no other way.

User avatar
soundoff
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:23 am

Fri Jan 03, 2014 4:15 pm

Having revisited my last post I think I need to expand a wee bit more on my thoughts on raiding. Whilst I am pretty certain to limit my raiding as stated above I would like to make it clear to any readers that as to the size of force or whether or not it contains any infantry support thats something I am not prepared to include in any house rule. It will be led by a cavalry leader thats for sure but beyond that. My reasoning for saying this is basically twofold.

Firstly one of the very few weaknesses of the game but an extremely important one is that there is absolutely no requirement for either side to garrison territory to protect key installations. Its simply roll over and roll on. Nowt wrong with this at one level but IMHO it becomes a bit rich to then hamstring the CSA further by adding artificial limits to the number/composition of troops that they can raid with. You might as well introduce a rule that says that no battle can include over a certain number of troops on the basis that in reality no battle involved 100's of thousands on both sides. So if Missouri, or Arkansas or Kentucky etc are getting over-run by those pesky bluebellies I reserve the right to combat that in any appropriate manner. Often I think the objections to raiding come because players are unwilling to devote enough resources to prevention.

My second objection is that if you look at the Union possibilites for a seaborne invasion I have never heard anyone indicate that you can only conduct an invasion in certain areas. The Union should have the right to land where-ever they like and not have artificial restrictions placed on them on the basis of 'it was never done'. Its up to the South to defend as best they can. After all one of the real attractions of CW2 is the attempt to change the course of history without pushing the envelope beyond the realm of credibility/possibility.

Hope the above makes things clearer. Tomorrow, if I'm lucky I'll post my first thoughts on what I'd like to do in the early moves in the East........assuming Banks allows me to :love:

Addendum. Having just revisited this post I realise to my horror exactly what I have said. Should have said that I shall have a 'Leader' not exclusively a 'Cavalry Leader' in command when I raid. I should also have made clear that even that limitation will be ignored by my good self when I'm attacking stockades and settlements in the West. Apologies for any confusion. :bonk:

User avatar
soundoff
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:23 am

Sat Jan 04, 2014 6:39 pm

OK so here is my thoughts on how I'm going to play the [color="#FFFF00"]EASTERN THEATRE[/color] in the first few turns. Assuming that Banks has no other ideas :w00t:

Image


My defensive line I hope to run from Harpers to Fredericksburg. At Harpers I intend to post a weak force under Jackson (god bless him) but much depends on whether Banks moves Pattersons troops to the East. If he does then I might have to fall back to Winchester. I will make Johnstons command into an Army straight away and move him (less Jackson) to Leesberg. At the same time Beauregards Army is to hold Manassas. The reason I want to move Johnston to Leesberg is to make it impossible for Banks to split my position. Huger and Magruder will be given the task of holding Fredricksburg although I will strengthen ASAP as it is possible for the Union to sally forth from Alexandria and hit Fredricksburg in a single turn.

As I have indicated at Leonardstown and Port Tobacco......assuming I get the opportunity.......I intend to be a darned nuisance. If I can take one or both of them just for a turn or two I will be more than happy. Anything that keeps my opponent having to respond is good by me.

In West Virginia I intend for Floyds forces once free to fall back to my defensive position at Covington. Floyd himself though, together with his cavalry regiment will be tasked with tearing up the Union railway lines between Clarksburg and Harpers. Now I'm sure some of you would use MJ Thompson for this task but really Thompson should have appeared in the Trans Mississippi theatre. He never operated in the East. Consequently I shall move him to his correct theatre. He can do more damage over there as well ....... linking up nicely with Shelby.

As to builds well at least 65% is scheduled for this theatre in the early days. I shall need to increase Johnstons force from its approximate 400 power size to approaching 1000.


I have other designs for the startup South Carolina forces (just incase any of you were thinking I could use them).

At Norfolk I will strengthen as quickly as possible including building a fort at Norfolk as soon as I can .......Now that I think might be a new one for some of you. :coeurs:


On a general note that I'll say here as its not really applicable to any single theatre..........I shall not be building any further Brigand runners over what I''m given. 24 WSU units per brig is just too expensive particularly when I need to build industries.

On a similiar note I'll also inform you that when it comes to money I'll use every facility to maximize that I can short of using the raise taxes option (I cannot afford to take the NM hit)

Thats about it for now. Most of it so standard as to not really be worth mentioning. That I do is because both Banks and myself realise that some viewers to our threads may never have played CW2 or AACW before - so it may be of some use.

In much the same way we will post all turns (not skip the first few as some do) even though not much will be happening in the first 3 or 4 turns. I hope the experienced players will stay with us during this period. :coeurs:


On an entirely seperate note I feel truely humbled knowing that a separate thread has been started by ACE to enable any player that reads our threads to comment openly on our stupidity or otherwise. I just hope that Banks and I can do justice to the game that the two Phils have devised (with the able assistance of some highly talented volunteers). To those who might dip in and read our diatribes may we not disappoint you too much. :coeurs:

User avatar
bugwar
Sergeant
Posts: 95
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 5:04 pm

Here there be Dragons!

Mon Jan 06, 2014 10:39 am

Love the graphics.
They do help me understand your goals.

Any thoughts on how to play the Far West theater?

User avatar
soundoff
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:23 am

Mon Jan 06, 2014 2:24 pm

Hi Bugwar,

I was going to deal with each theatre in order but as you have asked I'll post my detailed thoughts later today. I presume you mean the Trans-Mississippi theatre and beyond. In some respects the extreme far west is brand new (not having been modeled in AACW1) Its going to be a bit of suck it and see. Whatever plans I have will also be totally dependant on what Banks does. As I said at the start, if all goes to plan then I only intend to throw the odd crumb in the direction of the Trans-Mississippi and beyond. Its such a pig of a Theatre for the CSA to make any meaningful headway in that will affect the outcome of the game. It is difficult to hold onto against an aggressive Union player and can only be achieved by denying either the East or West Theatres of resources. As such it has little to commend it. To give one example the Missouri troops you can build are derisable. Not only that but if you build close to the front line you are in danger of them being overwhelmed before they are actually raised. If you play safe and build away from the front line, because of the terrain, it takes an age to get them to the front.

Enough for now though. More later :)

User avatar
bugwar
Sergeant
Posts: 95
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 5:04 pm

Mon Jan 06, 2014 6:20 pm

soundoff wrote:Now if only there was a way of altering this thread to Soundoff (CSA) vs Banks (USA). :bonk: Ah well folks will just have to get used to it.... :confused:


I take it that appealing to the forum moderator did not work? :confused:

User avatar
soundoff
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:23 am

Mon Jan 06, 2014 9:36 pm

As promised here are my thoughts on the [color="#FFFF00"]TRANS-MISSISSIPPI and FAR WEST[/color]

I've done several images just because of the scale. Starting with the key area where the South locks horns with the North we have the following startup

Image

My problem is that the three key cities (in white) produce not a single unit between them. Oh sure I can build at them but with the exception of Springfield they are just too close to the enemy to do so and the earliest opportunity I get to start building forces in Missouri is Late May. Set against this is that the Union, in Late April get the Western Volunteers ( a three regiment) brigade and the Kansas Mounted (a two regiment cavalry unit). Both of these appear at St Louis. At Levenworth (not shown on this map but just west of Lexington) they receive the 2nd US Cavalry also locked for 3 turns. In early May at St Louis they get the 2nd US (a single regiment of infantry) and the 4th Artillery (a 12lb battery) both of these are locked for 2 turns so are also able to commencing moving Late June.

This means that I cannot beat the Union to the punch in this arena for in the same way that I know when the Union placed units will arrive and when they become active as sure as eggs are eggs Banks knows the same about my placed units. So he will know that my first units appear at Little Rock with McCulloch and the Army of the West but thats not until Early June. And Little Rock is so so far away from Springfield, let alone Rolla or Jefferson City. Add into that mix mainly wooded terrain and movement restrictions because of command penalties and its then self evident that the Army of the West will be of little use in the early game in any offensive capacity.

In early June I do also get a militia unit, AR Northwest (1 regiment) at Fayetteville which can be moved. I could send it to Rolla but that would be suicide.

Therefore my first decision is almost a no brainer - build a cavalry regiment ASAP in Missouri and send it post haste to Rolla to destroy the depot. If it can then hang about and cut up rail till support arrives all well and good. Of course Banks may have other ideas and it might be possible for him to get a cavalry unit to Rolla at about the same time as I can. If that happens 'you pays your money and takes your choice' as to who wins.

My pessimistic view automatically leads me to the conclusion that I shall have to conduct a guerrilla cavalry, partisan and indian war in Missouri to keep Banks from advancing to swiftly. I must make extended lines of supply a real issue for him. Operating in my favour will be some exceptional mounted leaders. I've already said that MJ Thompson will transfer immediately from the East. Together with Shelby, Van Dorn, Watie etc and by the purchase of several Rangers I might be able to do it. I'm also toying with the idea of transferring the Laurel Brigade from the East to the West when it arrives but will wait and see on that one.

Having then given up so to speak on Jefferson and Rolla even before a shot is fired in anger my next decision is to stand at Springfield (at least thats the hope) As I said at the start long term my aim is to hold a defensive line on the Southern banks of the Arkansas river but that will take time. I shall therefore (Banks allowing) move the Army of the West to Springfield along with Prices force from Fayetteville. I intend as well to build one Infantry Brigade as soon as I can at Springfield. It should be built before the Union can get any troops to the city. I shall also build a second brigade at Fayetteville just to ensure that if it appears as if the Union forces are starting tooutflank me at Springfield that I'm not presenting him with an easy target.

If the going begins to look like it might get too hot at Springfield I'll attempt to pull back.

I've put the next two images in just to complete the picture showing where troops begin and the distances involved.


Image


Image


Well good people that leaves very little else to say except that I shall attempt to destroy every Union fort that I can in the extreme far West, just to slow down supply. My only real target in this area of operation is the one I'm next showing


Image

Its quite possible for me to get a Cavalry force to the Golden City quite early on. Its ripe for hitting. The North can counter it easily but its equally possible for the North to overlook the threat. Its certainly a juicy enough target and one that I'm going to have a shot at (all things being equal)

Thats about it. In many respects quite a negative strategy from me. But then its not a theatre where I see the war being either lost or won. I hope I do not get dragged into having to pour resources into the area. I could if Banks makes too much headway too soon. If I can bog him down in 61 and still hold Springfield by early 62 I shall be well satisfied.

User avatar
soundoff
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:23 am

Mon Jan 06, 2014 9:37 pm

bugwar wrote:I take it that appealing to the forum moderator did not work? :confused:


Do you know bugwar the thought had not crossed my mind. Thankee most kindly for the suggestion. :thumbsup:

User avatar
soundoff
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:23 am

Tue Jan 07, 2014 1:27 pm

Time to deal with the [color="#FFFF00"]WESTERN THEATRE[/color]


Much depends on what the Union elects to do and how events unfold in Kentucky. I shall not do anything to persuade Kentucky to do other than remain neutral for as long as possible. If the Union decide to force the issue then obviously my response will have to alter but thats a bridge that I will cross if and when it happens. If Kentucky does decide to side with the South I'll gladly welcome the additional conscipts that the event brings.

My commencing strategy is therefore based on Kentucky remaining neutral throughout 61 at least.


Polk I shall send to New Madrid with whatever I can scrape up early in the game. I suspect that Banks will not leave me any real opening in this area but if I can rattle sabres and at least give the impression that I might strike at St Louis it could just tie down a Union brigade or two.


Image




I do not think I have sufficient manpower/resources to make any real attempt to hold onto Forts Henry and Donnelson. At this stage I'm not inclined to make the effort although obviously if events unfold differently who knows. Obviously I shall attempt to hold Nashville for as long as possible but once the Union juggernaught starts to roll this will be nigh on impossible to achieve. If it looks as if my Southern forces will be overwhelmed I shall fall back to better defensive positions in more favourable terrain (see below)


Whilst I'm posturing in the forward position my initial aim is to build a defensive line from Memphis to Corinth. Memphis is so important to the Confederate cause that I have to sell it dearly. I shall use a 'build defensive works' card at Memphis. I'm mulling over whether to use a 'build outpost' card between Memphis and Corinth (assuming its possible) I've not checked. Its just a thought.

At Corinth I shall build a fort.

Hopefully, at least once a month I'll drip feed new brigades into both cities.

If I can afford it (a big if) I will increase the garrison at Pillow to division size. Its closer to Memphis than island 10 consequently I think its a better option. Ideally I'd like to invest in improving island 10's defensive force as well but a reality check tells me I just will not have the manpower. At least holding Pillow for a while could help protect Covington where there is a plantation. Mind you with the 1.02 changes losing 1 conscipt per turn, when I lose Covington will not be that devastating. :)

Image




IF Kentucky remains neutral throughout 61 then I should have time to build my defensive positions in the rest of the Theatre. Once the Union gets past Nashville the terrain becomes really unfavourable. Its easier (not easy just easier) for the Confederacy to defend the line between Tuscumbia and Decatur. So thats the aim. Obviously I intend to build depots where-ever necessary so I can recover hits.



Image




Thats about it but on a more general note after having now really grinded out many turns with 1.02 I am having to retreat from one of my earlier decisions. To explain. I reckon that when the call for volunteers arises that the optimum inducement was 1.5 dollars. With that degree of investment I could happily live with. With the 102 changes I'm scrabbling for manpower so reluctantly will be offering a 2 dollar bounty. The effect is to leave me extremely short of cash. Reluctantly I shall have no option but to raise taxes the odd time or two. Sad but true. I shall not like doing it. NM is so vital and the higher I can keep it the better. But needs must when the devil drives as they say. :blink: :blink:

User avatar
bugwar
Sergeant
Posts: 95
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 5:04 pm

Staff Call

Tue Jan 07, 2014 3:14 pm

Nice update.
Good imagery supporting your text description of the plan.

Your thoughts help clarify the issues surrounding decisions guiding future force deployments.



Image

User avatar
soundoff
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:23 am

Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:21 am

And now the final piece of the jigsaw [color="#FFD700"]LOWER SEABOARD and GULF APPROACH[/color]


All I'm doing is reposting the original images for this theatre. After all not much I can say or change until the game is underway. The Union can basically pick its target when it comes to the amphibious side which is as it should be. All the South can ever do is hope to either second guess correctly or to be able to respond within a turn. Its slightly harder than it was in ACCW to combat a naval invasion because of the change that allows disembarcation in the same turn. Thats not a criticism just a fact. It was never right that a force had to reach a location and only begin to offload the following turn, losing the element of surprise. Anyway back to the task in hand.

As I've indicated in some of my previous posts the changes in 1.02 from 1.01 particularly with regards to Southern recruiting has made me have to reconsider what forces I can spare for this theatre in the early game. I stand by my belief that the North will attempt a seaboard invasion in 61. With the prime target being between Wilmington, Charleston or Savannah. I still favour Wilmington. Whilst the altering of my strategy in respect of recruiting (namely using the 2 dollar bounty) goes some way to addressing my manpower shortage (out of interest I'm finding in the early game that I can expect roughly a hundred extra conscripts as a consequence of paying 2 dollars rather than 1.5) its still not quite enough. I'm therefore going to drop Savannah from my threesome to fortify in 61 and concentrate solely on Charleston and Wilmington.



Image



In the Gulf I remain of the opinion that Banks will go for New Orleans in early 62 particularly as I intend to do a fair proportion of my infrastructure building in that fair city. New Orleans I have to defend in depth but additional I feel the need to make some token gesture at Mobile and Tallahassee just in case.


Image


Well that should be about all from me until hosilities commence unless I have any last minute thoughts. I gather from Banks we will begin in earnest on the 17th. He has a vacation coming up - how inconsiderate. :love: Till then.........



Image

User avatar
bugwar
Sergeant
Posts: 95
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 5:04 pm

Bang bang time

Wed Jan 08, 2014 1:04 pm

soundoff wrote:And now the final piece of the jigsaw [color="#FFD700"]LOWER SEABOARD and GULF APPROACH[/color]
Well that should be about all from me until hosilities commence unless I have any last minute thoughts. I gather from Banks we will begin in earnest on the 17th. He has a vacation coming up - how inconsiderate. :love: Till then.........



Yea! All the briefings finished! Now on the the shootin's and stuff! :dada:


Image

veji1
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1244
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:27 pm

Wed Jan 08, 2014 1:04 pm

You might want to have a look at QBall's aar on Matrix's forums, it gives quite some hindsight on the way the Union can function and its seaborne operations. Usefull information maybe.

User avatar
soundoff
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:23 am

Wed Jan 08, 2014 1:30 pm

veji1 wrote:You might want to have a look at QBall's aar on Matrix's forums, it gives quite some hindsight on the way the Union can function and its seaborne operations. Usefull information maybe.


Thanks for the headsup Veji1 although I'll make a confession I've never had any qualms about looking at other AAR's for insight and I've been keeping tabs on all of the AAR's on the Matrix site. :thumbsup:

However I'm always left with a perverse sort of logic that I'll make my own mistakes and follow my own gut instincts particularly in respect of what my illustrious opponent will do. In some respects thats hard for Banks and I have never met - we live on different continents and, would you believe it, the only time we have ever faced up to each other before was in our ACCW AAR. Even then it was only by chance when Banks issued a general proclamation to all players seeking an opponent who was willing to do a full and frank AAR. Strange really yet I think I know him like I know the back of my hand. I'm sure he feels the same way about me. He knows I will adopt a cautious approach. That I will protect my lines of supply and communication and only throw him the odd curved ball if he leaves me an opportunity. In much the same way that I know he will exploit any weakness and play aggressively. Conservative is not a word in Banks dictionary. :coeurs: I'd love there to be a CW2 Grand Campaign so hopefully Banks and I could actually fight on the same side. I do not suppose there will be. They tried it twice with ACCW and sadly twice it failed - still I can always hope.

He also knows (in the same way that I know he favours the Annaconda plan because its historical) that my upbringing/training is to rely on logistics and zones of control. It has never ceased to amaze me how little respect players generally have given to these to aspects of the game when infact they are two of the strengths of AACW and now CW2. For example I find it strange that I do not see many, if any, AAR's written where Southern players particularly invest in forts. OK so its a wee bit costly but its a beautiful way of limiting Union progress unless they really do have overwhelming force.

Anyway thats just me sounding off which I suppose suits my monica. Enough of me rabbiting on.

I do so hope we continue to entertain you all :thumbsup:

Edit: I realise that I should have added that probably the reason I do not see logistics playing as much of a role as I think they should is that I read very few AAR's where 'historical attrition' is activated which IMHO is a must particularly if you a playing head to head against a human opponent.

User avatar
Ace
Posts: 3490
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:33 pm
Location: Croatia

Wed Jan 08, 2014 2:37 pm

I would be more than honored to face you guys one day in CW2 Grand Campaign, should there be one. Your original AAR was an inspiration from which I fell in love with the game. I take it you would then be the Anvil, and Banks the Hammer. :D

User avatar
bugwar
Sergeant
Posts: 95
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 5:04 pm

Wed Jan 08, 2014 2:43 pm

Ace wrote:I would be more than honored to face you guys one day in CW2 Grand Campaign, should there be one. Your original AAR was an inspiration from which I fell in love with the game. I take it you would then be the Anvil, and Banks the Hammer. :D


Assuming of course that they played as the North. :bonk:

User avatar
soundoff
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:23 am

Wed Jan 08, 2014 5:17 pm

Ace wrote:I would be more than honored to face you guys one day in CW2 Grand Campaign, should there be one. Your original AAR was an inspiration from which I fell in love with the game.


Most kind of you to say so Ace and it would equally be an honour to play you. I am extremely grateful for the assistance that volunteers such as Captain Orso, Ol' Choctaw, Ebbingford and yourself etc give to players such as myself in helping us to understand the subtle nuances of the game.

Sadly I do not think there will be a GC. Organising one in AACW with half a dozen players always proved to be a logistical nightmare what with holidays, illnesses, work committments etc. A wonderful idea but one I reckon that is doomed to failure - or am I being too pessimistic.

User avatar
Citizen X
General of the Army
Posts: 622
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:34 pm

Wed Jan 08, 2014 6:45 pm

Ace wrote:I would be more than honored to face you guys one day in CW2 Grand Campaign, should there be one. Your original AAR was an inspiration from which I fell in love with the game. I take it you would then be the Anvil, and Banks the Hammer. :D


+1
For quite some time your original ACW AAR had been a main source for understanding the game to me (and in elaborate writecrafting). With dropbox, common mobile devices and a daily deadline it can be done with less effort than back then. PON Grand Camaigns lastet for quite some time and one is still alive after years (not nescesarrily with the same players though).
"I am here already.", said the hedgehog to the hare.

charlesonmission
Posts: 773
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 5:55 am
Location: USA (somewhere)

Thu Jan 09, 2014 12:09 am

I agree with Citizen X. I think a grand campaign is doable and would love to participate.

Citizen X wrote:+1
For quite some time your original ACW AAR had been a main source for understanding the game to me (and in elaborate writecrafting). With dropbox, common mobile devices and a daily deadline it can be done with less effort than back then. PON Grand Camaigns lastet for quite some time and one is still alive after years (not nescesarrily the same players though).

Return to “CW2 AARs”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest