User avatar
Longshanks
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 842
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:48 pm
Location: Fairfax Virginia

Update Round 2 Games

Mon Mar 05, 2012 1:15 am

Updates
All games are Round 2. In the following summaries, all data is presented in the order USA v CSA

Blindsniper v GraniteStater
(just underway)

FelixZ v Rudolf
Summary: Still early. Kentucky is neutral. No naval invasions. Union holds Manassas and much of Shenandoah. James blockade set up.

Image

Pat Cleburne v Altaris
Summary: Game moving along well, having finished May 1862. Most of 1861 was spent maneuvering and reinforcing with no surprising moves. Now that the summer campaign season is here, Pat's USA forces have flanked F'burg and he took it with ease. There have been no naval expeditions - even the invasion of Suffolk was via river movement. Pat has stayed away from War Bonds, and the current VP total seems to reflect it. The CSA initially made a stand at Bowling Green, but fell back to the current line after Grant arrived and flanked the Green/Barren river line. Altaris now has interlocking corps over 200 miles from Paducah to Nashville.

Image

Status in East as of End of May 1862
Image

Status in West as of End of May 1862
Image

Newman5 v Durk
Summary: Newman5 is a new player and Durk has made exceptional efforts to make the game into a learning experience (see Newman's AAR). Durk authorized me to advise Newman and he even went so far as to share his planned moves with his opponent. Durk, however, did not let up off the accelerator, and from the git-go this was a storm of Rebel units moving north. Newman did manage to send a naval invasion that took New Orleans, but he just lost it to Pemberton on the L Mar 62 turn. The CSA is north of the Ohio River, owns much of Missouri, and nearly all of Kentucky including Louisville. In the East, he's hit Washington hard several turns but hasn't yet taken it. Ft. Monroe and all of Virginia are in CSA control, as well as Annapolis and York, PA.

Image

Rattler v Moni Kerr
Summary: By far the most exciting of the current games. Rattler is very aggressive as the Union player, and Moni Kerr has managed to riposte some of the riskier moves. However, we're only at Nov 1861, and Rattler has already taken places that most Union players don't get to until mid-1862:
he has taken Little Rock and every depot north of there except for Ft. Smith;
he did not take Manassas, but has taken Fredericksburg;
he took Macon GA and moved across Georgia to take Mongomery AL;
he took Wilmington, Lumberton, Carthage and Raleigh - and then lost them all but Wilmington to Bory's counterattack; recently he also took Morehead City
he owns all of Kentucky but the Jackson Purchase and P'burg and Grant has taken Ft. Henry. The line of defense is the Cumberland River but the line has been breached on the Eastern end and at Ft. Henry.
Much of the Confederate strength at the front has been siphoned off to deal with these incursions in the rear. As I mentioned, Bory's army was sent south to deal with North Carolina, and there is at least one division chasing Lyon in Georgia/Alabama.
However, the game is far from over. I for one look forward to watching its conclusion.

Image

Conversations
One of the more enjoyable aspects of hosting is talking to the players about what's going on in the game. Here are some excerpts from Rattler:
"Please process a turn with no mud in the south ". (sent right after Lyon landed at Macon.)
" I think this maybe the weirdest game I've ever played, my moves seem random even to me." (I been there, bro.)
"This is about as fast as I've ever gone out west. I've made Fort Smith once or twice, but never little Rock. " (Sounds like a frat party road trip!)
"I don't know who wants winter to come first, him or me?"
"Well, I'm happy to give you an interesting show. I've noticed alot of USA players I go against totally under use not only the Ocean fleet, but the river fleet also. With the USA's huge WS and $$ I don't understand why people don't build enough gunboats to block any river movement beyond the Ohio river. " (I agree!)
"Every game I learn something new. I've never seen transports captured at sea. " (Amen, brother. Here's a screen shot of what happened. The land units were dumped on shore, probably where he wanted them anyway.)
Image

Rattler also gave me some great monologues on what he was doing and planning, and how he thought Moni Kerr might react, but I can't show those as they are still pertinent to the game. Moni Kerr also sends me some gems. Here's one, sent right after Lyon hit Macon:
"In assessing Lyon's intentions I noticed that ocean transports have all water capability and so can travel in shallow water all the way up the many rivers. In over a year of playing this game and many pbem I had never noticed this before and no one had ever used this capability before. I don't know if it has always been this way or if this is new." (I agreed, and said I thought one reason is that frigates usually accompany transports, and frigates can't go where transport can. I am repeating all this here in hopes of it being a learning tool.)

Here are some from Pat Cleburne:
"I've captured some real estate at least. " (Sent to me after McDowell finally crossed the Rappanhannock and Milroy and others took Suffolk.)
"Lookin at all these entrenchments is depressing." (I told him to move around them! lol!)

moni kerr
Lieutenant
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 11:19 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Mon Mar 05, 2012 1:57 am

Hey, there's my lost screenshot. I followed the instructions and used imageshack, but for me it doesn't work.

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

Wed Mar 07, 2012 12:30 pm

Another great update Longshanks, some exciting games are going on out there!

Charles

User avatar
Longshanks
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 842
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:48 pm
Location: Fairfax Virginia

Newman5 v Durk Game Has Ended!

Fri Mar 09, 2012 1:53 am

Another second round game has ended, with Durk (CSA) beating Newman5 (USA) 156 NM to 55 NM, and 1602 VPs to 750 VPs.

Durk was on the attack from the first turn, and Newman got overwhelmed pretty quickly, as new players can sometimes do. Both players had a great attitude about it, and tried to make the lopsided game a learning experience.

With Newman5 taking his second loss, he bows out of the tournament to await Athena's gentle, soothing digital caress (ie., he plans on beating the AI relentlessly!)

Durk moves on to Round 3, and dreams of popsicles, candy canes, pop guns, and civil war pixel victories.

Thank you both! Two gentlemen!
Two Rules: 1. The Tournament Director is always right. 2. When the Tournament Director is wrong, see Rule 1.
Image

User avatar
Daxil
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 849
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 7:55 pm
Location: Somewhere in the Alleghenies

Sat Mar 10, 2012 1:54 am

Interesting that Altaris is in this. Altaris, this is Industrious from WPO. I organized the first tournament. :) Sounds like some fun matches.
"We shall give them the bayonet." -Stonewall at Fredericksburg.

Altaris
Posts: 1483
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:20 pm

Sat Mar 10, 2012 3:05 am

Daxil wrote:Interesting that Altaris is in this. Altaris, this is Industrious from WPO. I organized the first tournament. :) Sounds like some fun matches.


Oh hey Indie - yeah I'm in it... though well on my way to losing my match vs Pat! :(

User avatar
Longshanks
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 842
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:48 pm
Location: Fairfax Virginia

Pat Cleburne vs Altaris Game Ends!

Tue Mar 13, 2012 2:59 am

Gen. Pat Cleburne (USA) defeated Gen. Altaris (CSA) in a methodical lesson on how to handle Union troops. Altaris conceded on L Jan 1863.

Here is the report from the last turn:
Grant, Sumner Crush Gustavus Smith at Jackson Tennessee! Grant Commended! +5 USA NM
Yanks Expand Still Further in NC, Taking Carthage, Morehead City!
Yanks, Rebs Trade Territories in Tennessee!
status:
USA v CSA
NM 118 v 102
VP 2016 v 1798
VP/turn 44 v 42
Cmbt Losses 70,490 v 84,561
13 turns remaining

Pat had a slow start as the Union - very slow out of the gate and Altaris jumped on him in a few spots. However, he methodically assembled his forces, forming the biggest stack of pre-division Yankees I've ever seen, pushed on Richmond via flanking and then finally took F'burg without a fight, as Altaris pulled out rather than starve or fight. After that he landed at Suffolk and marched into Norfolk (where there was a fight). After that he landed at Garysburg, took it by storm and methodically eliminated all the CSA supply depots in NC. He had no naval action further south than that. Although many Union players have landed in NC, he's the only one not to get subsequently chased out - mostly because of the simultaneous pressure from Norfolk and F'burg. In the meantime, he landed in west Ky, flanked Ft Henry, which he then took and moved down the river to take Corinth, splitting the Reb's forces. All this without many battles. When he did fight, it was usually to attack an adjacent rebel force that just moved (he hates entrenchments, just ask him!) The total losses on both sides at the end were under 150,000.

Pat is now 2-0, and Altaris is 1-1.
Two Rules: 1. The Tournament Director is always right. 2. When the Tournament Director is wrong, see Rule 1.

Image

Altaris
Posts: 1483
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:20 pm

Tue Mar 13, 2012 3:29 am

Pat played a good game. He won a key victory at Manassas in summer 1861 (pre-divisions) where I had Beauregard with 18 CP worth of troops... he amassed some 80+ CP worth of troops against me. First time I've seen 18 CP worth of CSA troops get driven back pre-divisions.

In hindsight, I tried to defend too long a line, and didn't counter-attack when he moved up. I too hate fighting entrenched positions, just too costly for the gains, but with some better prep work on my part, might've been able to contest it more.

Emancipation Proclomation event kicked me pretty bad too, that must net the Union something like 150 VPs, after it fired it went from a very close score to one that I was pretty sure would be out of reach (though I think Pat would've climbed into the lead anyway).

Good game, Pat was a very formidable opponent, and I learned quite a bit from watching him play!

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

Tue Mar 13, 2012 4:56 am

Congratulations Pat, sounds like a brillant campaign.

Charles

User avatar
Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne
General of the Army
Posts: 639
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 7:46 pm
Location: Kentucky

Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:32 am

Yeah. I believe in 'big stack' combat, pre-divisions. I actually saw 100 cp required, though I think I backed it down to 96 for the attack. I don't play the Union often, but I've never gotten close to that big as the CSA.

And yes, the Emancipation Proclamation is extremely powerful. 150 VP + some NM and negative FI. FI got somewhat close in our game until the EP happened.

Altaris was a tough opponent. He punched me in the mouth elsewhere than Manassas and put together an impregnable frontal defense of the borders during winter 61. I feel like talking more but I'd prefer not to give away all my secrets until after the tourny :cool:

User avatar
Longshanks
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 842
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:48 pm
Location: Fairfax Virginia

Tue Mar 13, 2012 2:08 pm

Altaris created one of the most innovative defensive lines I've ever seen, perhaps required by the situation. He had interlocking corps from Richmond south to the Union position at Garyburg. This was a vertical north to south line! Pat tried once at Henrico, and was repulsed. Altaris was gradually able to force Pat back to Norfolk, where the Rebs finally attacked without success (we posted about this in the forums).

A's Cumberland River line was equally formidable, but like most rebel positions in the west was subject to being flanked.

I don't think Altaris is done yet in this tourney! We'll see how Round 3 turns out for both these excellent players!
Two Rules: 1. The Tournament Director is always right. 2. When the Tournament Director is wrong, see Rule 1.

Image

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

Saying Good Bye for Now!

Sun Mar 25, 2012 7:22 am

Hi,

Well, I won’t be able to continue in the tournament as my job in Afghanistan is coming to an end. I’ll be travelling around on holiday, but without a computer or way to realistically play the game regularly. I really enjoyed the tournament and both games I played. A special thanks to Longshanks who has done such a great job hosting the tournament. Also thanks to my two opponents who played great games. I hope to be back only in 6 months or so. See you then!

Charles

User avatar
Longshanks
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 842
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:48 pm
Location: Fairfax Virginia

Sun Mar 25, 2012 3:34 pm

The entire forum will miss your insights and contributions. I wish you well, bon chance, fair sailing, and best wishes! We hope to see your return here soon!
Two Rules: 1. The Tournament Director is always right. 2. When the Tournament Director is wrong, see Rule 1.

Image

User avatar
Longshanks
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 842
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:48 pm
Location: Fairfax Virginia

Results for Rattler vs Moni Kerr Game

Sun Mar 25, 2012 3:43 pm

Rattler (USA) defeats Moni Kerr (CSA) via resignation in E Jul 62, following a huge battle just south of Ft. Donelson (which I am posting elsewhere). Rattler gained 12 NM in the two-day battle there, resulting in an 88-85 NM lead, as well as a VP lead of 1244 to 1139. Although Moni Kerr had defeated invasions in NC and GA, and preserved the front in VA, he lost New Orleans and Texas, and Rattler was adding 10 VP per turn to his totals from occupied cities alone.

So, congratulations to Rattler for a well-played Union attack, and thanks to Moni Kerr. Both players advance to the Third Round, where I expect great things from them against their next opponents!
Two Rules: 1. The Tournament Director is always right. 2. When the Tournament Director is wrong, see Rule 1.

Image

User avatar
Longshanks
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 842
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:48 pm
Location: Fairfax Virginia

Wrap Up of Rattler (USA) v Moni Kerr (CSA) Game

Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:17 pm

There was a nice exchange between these two gentlemen via email. Too nice to keep from you! (Also see http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?24353-A-Discussion-about-Battle-Results-v-Expectations for more about the big final battle in Humphreys Tennessee!)

[color="#FF0000"]MoniKerr:[/color]
From what Shanks has been observing while rerunning the battle at Humphries it looks like it was mainly a coordination problem for me, with Johnston persisting in attacking alone despite being on conservative attack. The range losses are instructive, I should have learned from a previous attack on Grant in Fort Henry that it was a risky proposition to attack in hills without overwhelming odds.

I should have made this attack the previous turn with Jackson leading the way with 4 div in his corps and you at lvl 3 entrentchment. That might have made the difference, but I thought there was a recovering div in bowling green and it looked like an easy kill. Turns out my intelligence was wrong, better to have hit F J Porter's div which had no artillery.

I actually was going to attack Washington; I made the attack on Humphries as part of a diversion to make you commit more of your builds to defending KY and also to preempt any future move you might have planned in the region. I was going to begin my move this current turn but the disaster changed everything, 2 divisions destroyed really put an end to the game. And Johnston on conservative attack too.

My route to DC was to go through Stafford VA where you currently had a 20 pwr corps. I figured you would add to it, but I calculated I could mass approx 6000 pwr under Lee in clear terrain and if your 2 adjacent corps MTSG (approx 3000 pwr) they would not benefit from the entrenchments and with both of them suffering some command penalties, Lee with that kind of power deployed in the open might just shatter them both.

You played extremely well. The constant attacks especially the amphibious attacks kept me shifting reserves around and I lost focus. The only drawback to your strategy was that it necessitated a dissipation of force, so that theoretically at least each individual threat should be easy to check, if I had kept a cool head which was not always the case. I did that at Raleigh (was that Banks?) and should have done the same to Lyon when he tried to move on Atlanta, but there I misjudged his strength. He moved into a mud region after a contested landing and his cohesion was shot, although I didn't appreciate that soon enough. Nice work in extricating him.

Capturing NO was a brilliant move. But i think you committed too much force to conquering Texas, about 40K. All told I calculated close to 60K between Texas and LA, which meant very little in the east. I had hoped to smash up a few of your forces in TN/KY before moving on Washington, but I made the wrong choice sending Jackson to BG instead of against Porter and when that turned out to be a flop I tried to make up for it by attacking Rosencrans.

Thanks for the compliment about Nashville, but that was more by accident than design. I panicked when you got 3 div across the Cumberland on my right so I blew the depot and retreated. Then it was all mud and you were moving about in it and that's when I decided it was worth defending. However I couldn't bring that force to battle because you kept evading and my commanders kept going inactive.
All I could do was watch in frustration as you evaded all the while your supply ran out and your cohesion dropped ever lower. The turn I brought Jackson up with 4 divisions he went inactive and there was too much mud for me to bring about a favourable battle. I tried with Johnston, but he got beat in the mud. A very frustrating series of events.

On your question about the ANV moving to NC. I brought it around the long way to Raleigh, your brigs did block the shorter route. It took 15 days to get there, and I was 99% certain you would rest in the town after capturing it so I was confident about trapping you. One criticism I have for you is that both in this case and when you first invaded TN, you split your forces. Especially in TN, if you had kept that force together you stood a good chance of taking Pulaski.

It was a very bold move to take Little Rock, I really didn't see that coming. Originally I had a 3 element brigade moving there, arriving on day 12, but I changed my mind and sent it to help take Paducah.

[color="#0000FF"]Rattler:[/color]
Interesting. Here is my turn with expected orders and plans. Basicly Texas units were resting minus a fort attack group. Far West was to rest until Van Dorn was found. TN area Hooker to hit BG. Afterwards I would have used the TN river to strike at Corinth and hit Memphis (my cav showed it basicly unguarded) while the new div of Milory up near ST. Louis came down the MO side and assualted Island 10. I would maintain at Humprey's while my fleet prevented a quick move north. Also I would have blown the depot at BG, and made another at Donelson shifting my offensive into the Jackson Purchase area. This along with the offensive at Mobile by Lyon and Sherman. In the East: Hold tight and land Grant on the coast near Charleston to suck divisions away from D.C.

I knew that the TX operation was overkill, but I didn't want you to dig in after I saw Van Dorn. If we had gone 2 more turns you would have seen those guys plus 1 div from NO (so 4) landing next to mobile, with another handling the forts, and Grant landing 3 more next to Charleston via the fleet in Atlantic City, New Jersey. Who was in Cleveland expecting Jackson to go on his merry way into the Ohio which had no men. Otherwise the Charleston landings would have happened that last turn as he was in Atlantic City when Jackson was in BG.

The Banks fiasco happened the same turn as Hooker's defeat at Paducah. He was sitting in New York being fat and happy and I thought he was next for an Army command, so I gave it to him instead of Butler and lost 4NM and 93 VPs for an army to sit in New York City. That on top of the 4 NM I loss for Hookers.

On the D.C. move, it would have needed to be in 1 turn. If you would have broken through I would have relocated. Washington isn't that important without it being a capital (would have cost me 15 NM all told though) and you couldn't move to far with 3 div sitting in F-Burg and Grant would have been diverted to block a move north.

That deep incursion into NC was a depot raid. I gambled that my brigs would slow you enough for my men to get in blow some stuff up and get out. The only thing I regret from it was losing a elite bde to it. It did allow me to take Fredricksburg and sit to qualify for the march on Richmond event. It's a little hazy, but I think you stayed in Manassas and the Shen valley too long. That with the raids in the south streched you too thin and allowed me to take F-burg resulting in you having a much longer line in VA.

On another note I was flat out dumb lucky to hold St Louis in 61. By all rights Polk should have won it. I will diffently be on the look out for that from now on.

I felt very proud with that TN landing, I rivered my men to the far East to beat any movement of your boats, however just like you the mud and org/ inactive generals ruined it. But in the end like VA, it wasn't a big battle but a better position in Humphrey's which is whatt made it worth it. I think I lost less men to supply than I would have taking by force.

I've mentioned to Longshanks, that if every player used the navy the way I did in 61'. We'd probable see some kind of game balancing change.

Did you using your brigs to counter my navy have a telling effect on your WS and $$?

[color="#FF0000"]Moni Kerr:[/color]
I had 2 divisions ready to move to Mobile just a few days by rail about 800 pwr total.

I didn't plan on going to DC in 1 turn but I wanted to split and overwhelm your forces by getting them to mtsg into open terrain. I was hoping to gain vp by destroying elements more than by taking cities. Cities I would take after the armies had been neutralized.

What happened with F'burg was Johnston didn't move to attack you while you were still in Stafford. I gave him orders to move there then back to Manassas but he didn't move.

This happened twice in the game that units did not move. When I saw your fleet moving to the gulf, I figured a landing at NO or adjacent to Mobile. I gave my fleet orders to move from Pensacola bay through Koney Island then back around to block a landing adjacent to Mobile. The fleet stopped after moving two regions, that last region being it's ultimate destination. I ran a few tests trying out movement plots where a stack has a destination that is the same as it's origin or is one of the regions that it passes through on a circular move. In every case the stack doesn't travel past it's destination. Both times this cost me dearly, and I don't think this is WAD.

[color="#0000FF"]Rattler:[/color]
I noticed this recently also with ordering Foster to take baton Rouge and double back. Would have been interesting to see the Mobile battles. Interesting about Stafford. Personely with the hugeness of the stack I think Franklin would have just ran away, but who knows. The open terrain would have been interesting considering I still had nearly 50 more guns in that clear terrain.
Two Rules: 1. The Tournament Director is always right. 2. When the Tournament Director is wrong, see Rule 1.

Image

FelixZ
Major
Posts: 206
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 10:43 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:16 am

Hold down the shift key when moving back to the original region.

moni kerr
Lieutenant
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 11:19 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:14 am

I did that to plot the moves, but the stack doesn't move. Its as if the stack recognizes its destination region and decides it has fulfilled its movement orders.

FelixZ
Major
Posts: 206
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 10:43 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:49 am

Last time I used a shift key was in 1.15 - don't remember if it was using the Mac or Windows version.

This does seem to imply there is possible corruption of movement orders. Longshanks recently started a thread on problems with promotions and movement orders. I did experience a corruption of orders in my game. Multiple stacks (was 4 or 5) were ordered to move to and join a stack in Kentucky. The multiple stacks began the turn on both sides of the Ohio River. The resulting turn had them all moving to join a naval unit that had just been started as a reinforcement in New York City! Longshanks re-ran the turn and obtained the same result - infers my .ord file was corrupted. He had me change the orders to the region not the targeted unit which solved the problem. In his thread, Longshanks referred to another happening in another game.

User avatar
Longshanks
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 842
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:48 pm
Location: Fairfax Virginia

Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:46 am

Thanks, FelixZ! It was your game! I can look it up now.
Two Rules: 1. The Tournament Director is always right. 2. When the Tournament Director is wrong, see Rule 1.

Image

User avatar
rattler01
Captain
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:34 am
Location: Phx, AZ

Sun Apr 01, 2012 3:47 pm

Must ... have ... tourney ... update... :happyrun:
"To fallen comrades. And Winged Warriors; past, present, and future. One team, one fight. Winged Warriors."

User avatar
Longshanks
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 842
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:48 pm
Location: Fairfax Virginia

By Command! Tourney Updates April 1 2012

Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:04 pm

Updates April 1 2012 (No April Fools here!)
Games are now in Round 2 and Round 3. In the following summaries, all data is presented in the order USA v CSA

Blindsniper (USA) v GraniteStater (CSA) (Round 2)
Stats (USA v CSA) as of Dec 1861
NM = 108 v 94
VP = 656 v 733
Losses = 15,535 v 34,399
VP from cities = 40 v 46
Stats as of start of E Jun 62
NM = 116 v 93
VP = 1036 v 1167
Losses = 30,852 v 59,754
VP from cities = 41 v 45

Summary as of L Jun 1862: Granitestater came out aggressive, had some minor setbacks and is now primarily on his heels - but hardly defeated. Union had taken the Shenandoah and Manassas in Virginia, as well as most of the lower peninsula by the end of 1861, and also all of Kentucky. In Missouri, the Union owned all cities down to and including Fayetteville by then as well. There was no naval action during 1861.
...In 1862 the main Virginia line is along the Rappanhannock, but the Union has flanked the Confederate line by taking the greater Shenandoah regions all the way down to those adjacent to Charlottesville. There, Kearny and Keyes have fought Stonewall in a series of exciting fights - once as many as FIVE battles in one turn!

Image

Naval Action:
The Union landed in Onslow NC (the region between Wilmington and Morehead City), where it has established a beachhead, watched by RE Lee in Wilmington.
Recently, the federals have marched north from Ft Pickens, unopposed, to take Milton, Sparta and last turn Montgomery Alabama. Hays' division leads this incursion.
There is no action in Louisiana or Texas.

Kentucky/Tennessee:
In June, Foster's men had moved through the Cumberland to take Knoxville.
The Rebels have Joe Johnston in Nashville, but his rails South are interdicted by Butterfield's men. The Union holds Fort Donelson, Island #10, all of Kentucky, and Grant is leading a move South, currently in Humboldt resisted only by a small garrison which is doomed to fall. Sid Johnston is in Corinth and Ruggles is in Memphis. The union also marched down the West bank of the Mississippi, and has taken Edmonds Arkansas, and Sigel has a weak garrison currently besieged in Madison.

Image

Far West:
The Union has taken all cities down to Ft. Smith which is currently held by Forney. The Union still holds Arizona.


FelixZ (USA) v Rudolf (CSA) (Round 2)
Stats (USA v CSA) as of Dec 1861
NM = 97 v 106
VP = 678 v 721
Losses = 11,025 v 19,050
VP from cities = 39 v 47
Stats as of L Feb 1862
NM = 99 v 97
VP = 915 v 940
Losses = 13,440 v 27,176
VP from cities = 42 v 44

Summary: Situation as of Dec 1861. Union holds the Shenandoah and Manassas in Virginia, as well as most of the lower peninsula (yes, just like the above game). Also, the Union holds all of Kentucky, however Grant has also take Fort Henry, Henry TN, and Humboldt TN with nothing apparently in front of those elements. In Missouri, Sumner's attacks on Price at Fayetteville keep getting repelled. There has been no naval action.
Situation as of L Feb 1862. In Virginia, the Union has McDowell in Culpeper now, but otherwise the line is still the Rappahannock.
There have been no naval invasions.
Kentucky/Tennessee:
Newspaper Headline from the last turn of December: "Grant's 38,000 Takes Nashville from Johnston's 11,000! Heavy Rebel Losses! Union Generals Commended! +3 USA NM" That was a big battle, and definitely set the rebels on their heels. Thomas now occupies Nashville, and there appear to be no forces south of there, but the Union has not yet been able to take advantage.
Grant has moved to Corinth. Union forces have moved down the central railway from Paducah to Corinth and hold all regions along that rail. Hardee abandoned Corinth in early Feb to join Van Dorn in Memphis where the Rebels appear to be ready to make a stand. The rebs also still hold Island #10.
Far West: Price still holds Fayetteville.

Image

Durk (USA) v Altaris (CSA) (Round 3)
Summary: Each side was allowed to pick their preference, and Durk deferred to Altaris who picked the CSA. Both players are 1-1 - both won with the CSA. Both players are aggressive and I expect this game to be a run to the finish without any timeouts!
Stats as of E Mar 1862
NM = 69 v 116
VP = 624 v 1151
Losses = 64,694 v 34,652
VP from cities = 37 v 49

Virginia: The CSA holds the F'burg-Manassas-Winchester line. Butler has moved north to New Kent and Charles City, but recently Stonewall moved in behind at Will'burg to cut the retreat path to Ft. Monroe. McDowell was badly beaten by Johnston in Loudon in August (2 NM), then hit Manassas in November, followed by an attack from Grant in the following turn, and then again in L Dec, and again in Jan. Beauregard held against all four, losing quite a few men in the third battle. However, the union lost many more overall on these frontal assaults, and several NM points. There were also battles between Hooker and Stonewall/Johnston at H's Ferry and Loudon which added to the carnage and to CSA NM, although Hooker's attacks (along with Butler's move up the peninsula) precipitated the CSA withdrawal from those areas as he gained 1 NM back.

Naval Actions: The Union went after Wilmington in late summer: "Union Defeated at the Shore of Wilmington! Longstreet Strikes them Twice! +4 CSA NM" was one headline. Humphreys got his shots in too, destroying three of Longstreet's regiments, but by E Oct, Humphreys was pushed back to Ft. Fisher which he besieged. He made one last attempt to take Wilmington, now held by Ruggles, in L Oct but failed. He was then pulled out.
The next attack was an assault on New Orleans in L Jan 62. Here are the newspaper headlines:
"UNION DEFEATED AT NEW ORLEANS! Heavy Losses as Humphreys is Turned Away on the Riverbanks! +4 CSA NM" Humphreys division was entirely eliminated and the General was killed. Grim stuff.

Kentucky/Tennessee: I neglected to note how KY got in the war, but by E Sep the headlines read:
"Union Holds Bowling Green against Counterattack!
Foote Defeats Rebel Gunboats off Cairo!
Polk Invests Paducah!" and the next turn:
"Polk Stops Sumner at Ft Henry! McClernand's Force Eliminated! Polk Commended! +1 CSA NM
Confederates Breach Paducah but Don't Attack!"
Morell tried to take Nashville by coup in L Sept but failed.
As of E Mar 62, the rebs hold along the Cumberland, Ft. Henry and all of West Kentucky's Jackson Purchase. Lyon, however, has flanked the position and sits in Carthage Tennessee.

Far West: Price in Fayetteville, Nelson in Springfield.

Seraphim (USA) v Pat Cleburne (CSA) (Round 3)
Stats as of E Dec 1861
NM = 87 v 115
VP = 655 v 782
Losses = 9,630 v 13,230
VP from cities = 41 v 45

Summary: The players agreed on which side to play. This is a marquee matchup, as both players are 2-0 in play so far. I expect this game to be very competitive down to the wire. Seraphim has jumped off to a great start, holding all of Texas, Bowling Green, Ft. Henry, and threatening New Orleans already!

Situation as of E Dec 1861:
Virginia: The Southerners hold the F'burg- Manassas -Winchester line on a quiet front.
Naval Actions:
Seraphim invaded Texas with a good-sized force under Milroy in L Jul 61 and caught the rebs off-guard. He was joined by Sumner from the Arizona area and by November, all Texas cities except Milam were in Union hands. These are worth 3 VPs/turn, so that's a 6 VP/turn reversal (3 off the CSA's count, and 3 onto the USA's count).
The Union also sailed Farragut up to New Orleans in October, where he still sits in the water blockading the city. Hooker landed at Ft. Jackson at the mouth of the Mississippi in L Nov, and took it by storm.

Kentucky/Tennessee: Kentucky joined the Confederacy at the end of the E Sept turn, and players began moving in at the end of the month. Here's a newspaper headline:
"Grant Catches Johnston at Gallatin!
Special to Harper's Weekly by Uriah Samuel Abercrombie, Reporter
...Oct 10, 1861...Gen. Grant's Forces have not taken a direct route to either Bowling Green or Nashville. Instead they split the difference by moving to Gallatin to split the two cities. The move was via Clarksville, which further isolated access to Kentucky.
Grant arrived at Gallatin in time to catch Sidney Johnston's forces moving north to reinforce Bowling Green. Grant's 12,000 men jumped into nearly 5,000 confederates, destroying nearly a quarter of their force. Johnston withdrew to the north and Bowling Green. Will Grant be able to keep the rebels split? Will he move north to destroy the rebel forces, or turn south to take the prize of Nashville from Gen. Bragg's men? The nation waits, amazed."
The next turn Grant moved to Bowling Green, took it, and moved on to Clarksville. Sidney Johnston repaired to Nashville, where he currently sits. In November, Grant moved from Clarksville to take Ft Henry/Donelson, which was defended only with the garrison. Grant remains there for the moment, with 3 stars on each shoulder.

Far West: Price is holed up in Fayetteville where he made his stand. The Union's Wallace is in Springfield.


Conversations
As I previously said, reading the players' "take" on the situation is part of my fun! Here are some recent comments (but not so recent as to give anything away).

First, Altaris' closing comments from his Round 2 game against Pat Cleburne:
My strategy is based off of a fundamental fact of ACW... attacking just ain't worth it! Even lvl 3 or 4 trenches are just too costly to attack, you have to hit them with 4:1 odds to really guarantee success. Pat's been very smart with his approaches, bringing 2500-3000 CP worth of troops when he approaches (for example he brought roughly this amount before breaking out towards VA from his beach-head at Suffolk, same when driving down into western TN). He's playing the USA's strength - maneuverability.

In hindsight, I should've guarded the southern side of the James much more effectively. Maybe even just having 1 Corps at Suffolk under an Army HQ based at Norfolk would do. That way there would be mutually supportive defense in marshes, with 2 stacks of 750-1000 CP, that could probably hold anything off. That's a lot to commit in a somewhat backwater though.

I've enjoyed this game, learned a lot. I've gotten to be a pretty good defensive player, but not quite up to par with the better vets at AGEOD (which is understandable, I've only been playing about 6 months). But I learn quickly - I fully expect to incorporate some of Pat's strategies next time I play the USA.

I think this one is lost for the CSA now, my only hope is that I can somehow starve that big Lyon/Grant/Sumner force, but I don't think that's going to be feasible. We'll see, it's my best shot. Had I not lost at Manassas early on, might've had a better shot, since he was going to take a big -10 NM hit if I had held it til October. That was the first time I've ever had my big 18 CP stack in pre-division era get driven back by *anything* - must beware the giant 100 CP superstack! [that Pat had assembled.]
Two Rules: 1. The Tournament Director is always right. 2. When the Tournament Director is wrong, see Rule 1.

Image

User avatar
rattler01
Captain
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:34 am
Location: Phx, AZ

Sun Apr 01, 2012 8:22 pm

It looks like all 4 wins to USA in round 2. Unless the CSA can crush a USA Army in those games the EP event will move them comfortabley into the positive. May need a few more VPs to kill the spread, but FL and TX are just to easy to get. (USA is overpowered in naval aspect IMHO)

In Durk vs Altaris my money is on Altaris, with that NM lead and USA defeats on all fronts the USA would need to go well into 64 just to regain its manpower domination. From the info you gave it looks like Durk attempted to do invasions without first forcing the CSA to spread its defenses.

In the other 3rd round game: I have learned that KY is a CSA deathtrap! To many avenues of approach and no CSA can match a USA river fleet (seriously they're just not enough in the build pool). The Cumberland line is the best, but only if you have the forces to man it, as it is long. As I learned in my last game, Nashville is a pain to take. I thought I had it in the early winter 61', but was still fighting in late summer 63' and was actualy losing my foothold near Fort Henry.

All-in-all it seems disappointing how weak the CSA is. The USA just isn't penalized enough leadership wise as it was historicly in the early years. It seems the CSA can't really hope to win here when the USA is cautious and slightly gamey (who would really take Florida and Texas back then? There is a reason the USA never "really" made a overwhelming push into those areas)

In future games maybe a HR that determines winner by [VPs * (# of Objective Cities * "X") = Score]? The "X" would need to be debated. With basicly 5 OB for USA and 10 for CSA the USA would need to advance and take at least 2 (which is reasonable I think, if not expected).


Postnote: I was thinking about deleting the above as I realized how complicated it would be. But I kept it so people can "mual" it over. BUT to start another idea, I would make NM part of the equation as it may better reflect on how the war is progressing. Other than that I think the same players switching places each round may be the best solution. Didn't past tourney's do this? If so why wasn't it included this time?

Post Postnote: I'd also implement a HR for the EP event. I remember an important person saying the NM requirement is so low because Athena often may have difficulty keeping it even at 80 against a Human player.
"To fallen comrades. And Winged Warriors; past, present, and future. One team, one fight. Winged Warriors."

User avatar
Longshanks
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 842
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:48 pm
Location: Fairfax Virginia

Sun Apr 01, 2012 11:10 pm

So many ideas and questions, grasshopper!

1. Is the Tourney Biased for the USA?
Here's the Total Wins by Side So Far:
Round 1 = CSA 3, USA 3
Round 2 = CSA 2, USA 2, 2 still pending
Round 3 = 2 pending
That's USA 5, CSA 5, which looks balanced to me.

2. Why Was the Tourney Set Up Like it Was?
As I set up the tourney I decided I didn't want games to go to the end of the game because each would take forever to play, and I was looking at 6-8 rounds. So there had to be a cut off. I picked the end of the L July 63 somewhat arbitrarily. It was after Gettysburg. New Orleans had fallen, Norfolk had been recaptured. Memphis, and Nashville were gone, and so on. So, historically, the US had a chance to even out the score, although they wouldn't have defeated the CSA by then. If I were to do it over, I think I'd run it out through the end of the summer 1863 instead (4 turns longer).
I didn't go for simultaneous matches for two reasons: 1) it would double the number of games and I was worried about the workload, and 2) I felt the requirement that you switch sides from one game to the next would somewhat accommodate "side bias".

3. Victory Conditions
See above. I would have liked to have created a separate scenario, but that would have meant MUCH extra time, testing, re-testing, and re-writing as new game versions game out. I wish you well if you want to go this way.

4. Miscellaneous
"Who would really take Florida and Texas back then?" Well, the Union for one, who landed all over Florida pretty early and stayed there. No landings in Texas, but if I've read once about "large herds of cattle from Texas" that travelled with rebel armies, I've read it a dozen times. Texas contributed cattle, horses, experienced fighters and a lot of coastal ports very close to a friendly European controlled power that was willing to sell arms. I think Texas is underrated in the game a tad, but the Union dealt with it by isolating it rather than taking it. In the game, you can just take it which is, frankly, probably easier because the Union can get there quickly, but the CSA can't.
Two Rules: 1. The Tournament Director is always right. 2. When the Tournament Director is wrong, see Rule 1.

Image

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

Mon Apr 02, 2012 9:02 am

The Union occipied Galvetson for a few months in late 1862 before losing it back to Magruder. Most CSA playzers dont defend Texas, but a Longshanks points out, in fact, it was defended in the actual ACW. Sending lots of supplies east, untill the fall of Vicksburg.

Chares


Longshanks wrote:So many ideas and questions, grasshopper!

1. Is the Tourney Biased for the USA?
Here's the Total Wins by Side So Far:
Round 1 = CSA 3, USA 3
Round 2 = CSA 2, USA 2, 2 still pending
Round 3 = 2 pending
That's USA 5, CSA 5, which looks balanced to me.

2. Why Was the Tourney Set Up Like it Was?
As I set up the tourney I decided I didn't want games to go to the end of the game because each would take forever to play, and I was looking at 6-8 rounds. So there had to be a cut off. I picked the end of the L July 63 somewhat arbitrarily. It was after Gettysburg. New Orleans had fallen, Norfolk had been recaptured. Memphis, and Nashville were gone, and so on. So, historically, the US had a chance to even out the score, although they wouldn't have defeated the CSA by then. If I were to do it over, I think I'd run it out through the end of the summer 1863 instead (4 turns longer).
I didn't go for simultaneous matches for two reasons: 1) it would double the number of games and I was worried about the workload, and 2) I felt the requirement that you switch sides from one game to the next would somewhat accommodate "side bias".

3. Victory Conditions
See above. I would have liked to have created a separate scenario, but that would have meant MUCH extra time, testing, re-testing, and re-writing as new game versions game out. I wish you well if you want to go this way.

4. Miscellaneous
"Who would really take Florida and Texas back then?" Well, the Union for one, who landed all over Florida pretty early and stayed there. No landings in Texas, but if I've read once about "large herds of cattle from Texas" that travelled with rebel armies, I've read it a dozen times. Texas contributed cattle, horses, experienced fighters and a lot of coastal ports very close to a friendly European controlled power that was willing to sell arms. I think Texas is underrated in the game a tad, but the Union dealt with it by isolating it rather than taking it. In the game, you can just take it which is, frankly, probably easier because the Union can get there quickly, but the CSA can't.

User avatar
rattler01
Captain
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:34 am
Location: Phx, AZ

Tue Apr 03, 2012 2:25 pm

I stand corrected about the extent of USA activity in FL and TX, my memory on the matter was a little hazy. BUT the real point I was trying to make is how some of the VPs in areas compared to others are a little far fetched. Currently the VP cluster around Galvestan (which should probable be the only VP in TX) is worth more than the WHOLE state of North Carolina. :blink: Or how Tallahassee (no offense) is worth the same as Savannah or Wilmington. :bonk:

Post note: Didn't Knoxville have a VP at one time? I remember it getting added because of Lincoln's historical OCD about it. Was it messing with Athena in SP games mayybe?
"To fallen comrades. And Winged Warriors; past, present, and future. One team, one fight. Winged Warriors."

User avatar
Longshanks
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 842
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:48 pm
Location: Fairfax Virginia

Thu Apr 05, 2012 12:26 am

I guess the designers were trying to build in the value of Texas for all the other items we mentioned. If there's any doubt about how valuable Texas is, ask anyone from there! :mdr:
Two Rules: 1. The Tournament Director is always right. 2. When the Tournament Director is wrong, see Rule 1.

Image

User avatar
rattler01
Captain
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:34 am
Location: Phx, AZ

Thu Apr 05, 2012 4:59 am

:thumbsup:
"To fallen comrades. And Winged Warriors; past, present, and future. One team, one fight. Winged Warriors."

User avatar
Longshanks
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 842
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:48 pm
Location: Fairfax Virginia

Thu Apr 12, 2012 10:39 pm

Quick Update on the Games

There are 4 games currently underway: 2 Round2 games and 2 Round3 ones.

Round 3 games:
Seraphim (USA) v Pat Cleburne (CSA) L Apr 62 - this is a VERY competitive game. Seraphim has been beating Cleburne about the head and shoulders, having taken ALL of Texas and Pensacola via naval actions, most of Kentucky and with Grant in Ft. H/D, and all of Missouri under control. On the downside, the morale is 80 to 114 in favor of the CSA, with Seraphim losing 10NM on the 1861 Manassas event, and looking like he'll lose another 10 NM before June. Virginia is locked down to the CSA so far. VPs are fairly close, with 972 USA v 1125 USA, and the CSA gaining a net 2/turn from cities.
Forecast: Too close to call. Both players are currently 2-0 and will advance to the next round regardless.

Durk (USA) v Altaris (CSA) E Sep 62 - This game has had lots of action, with many attacks. It's currently 62 USA v 143 CSA NM and the VPs are 870 v 1874. Not much chance of closing either of those gaps in the next 21 turns. The CSA is in good shape in Virginia, with only F'burg threatened (the Rappahannock is the front line). The Yanks have landed in Texas and taken the three VP cities there. Tennessee is a hodge-podge, with the CSA holding the Cumberland line - except for Lyon in Winchester and Berry in Chattanooga, and the three river cities south of Ft H/D in Union hands. However, everything else (including far west Kentucky) is solidly under the CSA control, and it seems unlikely that the Union will be able to exploit its positions.
Forecast: A CSA win.

Round 2 games:
Blindsniper (USA) v Granitestater (CSA) E Sep 62 - The USA leads in NM 123 v 86, but is still behind in VPs 1334 v 1472. The CSA has nearly 40,000 more casualties, which is never a good sign for the South. The USA is way ahead in VPs/turn from cities: 51 v 36. With 21 turns left, that VP gap is going to disappear if nothing else changes. Richmond is cut off from the rest of the CSA, but it's still a large pocket - from F'burg to south of P'burg. Reno is also in Wilmington, but Lee is breathing down his neck. I don't see the CSA reopening supplies, but it's possible. The USA has also taken Pensacola (a favorite target, it seems). The Yanks have all of Missouri plus Fayetteville, but shine the brightest in Tennessee, where the bluebellies have Memphis, Nashville, Island#10, and Ft. H/D. SId Johnston, however, sits with a two-division army way up in Columbus and that could spell trouble for the Union's plans - or another starved out rebel army ... we'll have to see.
Forecast: A USA win.

FelixZ (USA) v Rudolf (CSA) L June 62 - The USA leads in NM 103 v 94, and in VP 1251 v 1181. The Yanks are also gaining 4 vps/turn from cities, which means that lead is likely to grow. However, recently the CSA has shown that they're not out of it yet with some field victories. The CSA is not only holding the Rappahannock line, Jackson is contesting Fairfax, and Joe Johnston is in Montgomery - but those positions may not be able to hold and a major disaster could result if they can't extract themselves. There have been no naval invasions, with the Union emphasis on Tennessee. Both river forts have fallen, as well as Nashville and Memphis. McClellan's corps (don't laugh - he's a 3-4-4 under Grant) is staring down Sid Johnston who is in Chattanooga, and Lyon leads the Corps heading south from Memphis, about halfway to the Jackson-Meridian line.
Forecast: Leaning Union.
Two Rules: 1. The Tournament Director is always right. 2. When the Tournament Director is wrong, see Rule 1.

Image

User avatar
GraniteStater
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1778
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:16 am
Location: Annapolis, MD - What?

Fri Apr 13, 2012 4:35 am

Image

Gallant warriors such as these will spread terror in the Yankee ranks.
[color="#AFEEEE"]"Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!"[/color]
-Daniel Webster

[color="#FFA07A"]"C'mon, boys, we got the damn Yankees on the run!"[/color]
-General Joseph Wheeler, US Army, serving at Santiago in 1898

RULES
(A) When in doubt, agree with Ace.
(B) Pull my reins up sharply when needed, for I am a spirited thoroughbred and forget to turn at the post sometimes.


Image

User avatar
gchristie
Brigadier General
Posts: 482
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:31 pm
Location: On the way to the forum

Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:53 pm

GraniteStater wrote:Gallant warriors such as these will spread terror in the Yankee ranks.


Those are some well fed and well shod boys in butternut.

Good luck to you, GS.
"Now, back to Rome for a quick wedding - and some slow executions!"- Miles Gloriosus

Return to “AGEod's American Civil War”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests