Kentucky and some other questions

[Comtedemeighan]

Ok as the CSA in the 1861 july scenario should I invade Kentucky As soon as possible? Should I use partial mobilization in my first turn? And one last thing does the cotton Embargo effect my blockade runners?

[ncuman]

Ok as the CSA in the 1861 july scenario should I invade Kentucky As soon as possible? Should I use partial mobilization in my first turn? And one last thing does the cotton Embargo effect my blockade runners?

I am pretty much a newbie myself, but since no one else answered
your question, I will. You may not want to invade Kentucky until
after the Union does, because otherwise you will get a "Kentucky
Invasion" event that causes Kentucky to hate you (about 30% loyalty).
On the other hand, Louisville has VP that you can't start collecting until
after you invade and take the city. So in the end it is up to you.

As for partial mobilization, I think that it is a better bet to just call
for volunteers. That way you get free conscripts without sacrificing
National Moral or Victory Points. Once you burn through those and
you think you need more troops, then sure you can mobilize if want.
The only thing is that '61 is mostly just spent forming armies anyways.
Not much sustained fighting until '62 so it doesn't make sense from my perspective to spend VP and NM on troops that you won't even use until
a year after you got them.

As for embargo question, I really don't know. I haven't used the
cotton embargo as the CSA. I prefer the money over the foreign
intervention points, but obviously many players do like trying to
get the British to intervene on behalf on the CSA so you would
have to ask one of those players.

[CWNut77]

On the contrary -- 1861 probably SHOULD be used for the building of armies, but it doesn't necessarilly HAVE to be for that, and it almost certainly should not be used JUST for that. (not trying to aggravate here, just my opinion)

Kentucky is always the trickiest part of strategy in the Western theater early on IMO, as it was in real life. Both sides waited until September 1861 to make a move, and when they did both sides made their moves within 3 days of each other, and by the end of the year the lines were drawn.

As far as the embargo option -- no, it does not affect blockade running.

[Banks6060]

I'd say wait until August...if your opponent hasn't moved by then...go for it. But only as the CSA. As the Yanks...there's no reason to move against Lexington as you already control most of the route into Tennessee. You'll just have to spend more time ensuring that loyalty doesn't cause MC to become a problem along your supply line to Nashville.

[Jabberwock]

The Yankees have a serious quandry about recruitment in the July scenario. The "Forward to Richmond" event resolves on turn 2 (-10NM). So they can either go for all the recruits immediately, or wait and hope their morale rebounds enough to make the wait worthwile.

I suggest taking full mobilization immediately to get some troops in the field, and volunteers later when morale has rebounded some and financial options pay enough that you can afford bounties.

[Jabberwock]

I'd say wait until August...if your opponent hasn't moved by then...go for it. But only as the CSA. As the Yanks...there's no reason to move against Lexington as you already control most of the route into Tennessee. You'll just have to spend more time ensuring that loyalty doesn't cause MC to become a problem along your supply line to Nashville.

If the north waits too long the south can plug up the Cumberland and western Tennessee Rivers with gunboats. The next patch will have us moving to level 3 entrenchments for bombardment, so there will be those evil overpowered shore batteries all around Donelson in '61 again, making it a viable strategy. (The batteries keep the USN from interfering too much.)

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[ncuman]

On the contrary -- 1861 probably SHOULD be used for the building of armies, but it doesn't necessarilly HAVE to be for that, and it almost certainly should not be used JUST for that. (not trying to aggravate here, just my opinion)

Right, '61 shouldn't JUST be used for forming armies. For example, it is important in my opinion as the Confederates to kick the Yankees out of the forts on the east coast (Sumter, Monroe, et al) soon or else it gets to be a headache for blockade running. I was just trying to speak in generalities that things don't tend to really heat up until '62.

[Jabberwock]

Explain "evil overpowered" shore batteries... Is this non-historical? I could leave the minimum bombardment level at "4" if necessary.

It's my old complaint about the shore bombardment figures being unbalanced. Look at Jagger's mod for more realistic numbers in the Bombard&Blockade.opt file. I actually think Jagger overcorrected (but only slightly). If you use numbers that are adjusted about 80% as far as Jagger's it would correct my biggest complaint about this game. It would allow interaction between naval and land forces again, still at a heavy price/risk to the navy, but not completely prohibitive.

The move to level 3 entrenchments is a step in the right direction. The entrenchment limit could be lowered to 1 or done away with if the bombardment values were properly balanced. That would allow the Confederates to pursue their historical strategy of partially interdicting rivers with batteries (outside of forts), and allow the union to counter with naval patrols (again, at a price).

But I'm hijacking ...

[CWNut77]

Right, '61 shouldn't JUST be used for forming armies. For example, it is important in my opinion as the Confederates to kick the Yankees out of the forts on the east coast (Sumter, Monroe, et al) soon or else it gets to be a headache for blockade running. I was just trying to speak in generalities that things don't tend to really heat up until '62.

Agreed, though one could say that if you sit back as the CSA and play STRICTLY defensive, the North will pack quite a punch in 62...but that is why I love this game. So many strategies to try out

[Comtedemeighan]

Ok I invaded Kentucky taking Paducah with polks command and some cavalry units. I didn't do the partial mobilization just called up recruits. I didn't do the embargo yet. I have managed to take Alexandria with Joe Johnstons corps going behind McDowell well he fought Beuregard at Manassas. McDowell fell back on Washington. This is my first game that is going well. Starting to get the hang of how to form proper units.

[boboneilltexas]

As another CSA player, in 61 I take Paduka, F. Sumter, Norfork (VA) in the first few moves. Later I take Bowling Green and Grafton and Elizabeth WV. The troops in Grafton give way when you come close to their size in troops and Elizabeth is often left open to calvary attack (often the towns around it are unprotected but beware of winter when supplies may be cut off by snow and ice). The Union will attack Lexington but they will lose a lot of troops doing so. Grafton has a depot and RR lines right into your N. VA towns for supplies.
Good Luck.

[Comtedemeighan]

Some Dire News Sterling price was killed by forces under Nathaniel Lyons outside of Jefferson City Missouri! Fun stuff My first General casualty ever....

[bobkatfan]

I lost stonewall in my first battle in the eastern front, it sucked. Does he die in 1863? I haven't gotten that far yet.

[Gray_Lensman]

I lost stonewall in my first battle in the eastern front, it sucked. Does he die in 1863? I haven't gotten that far yet.

There is no specific event "killing off" Stonewall Jackson if you are playing a scenario in which he starts. Now, of course, the later scenarios, which start after his untimely death, do not include him in the OOB.

Bad Luck, that he got killed in your particular game.

[CWNut77]

There is no specific event "killing off" Stonewall Jackson if you are playing a scenario in which he starts. Now, of course, the later scenarios, which start after his untimely death, do not include him in the OOB.

Bad Luck, that he got killed in your particular game.

You lost a 2-STAR general? I didn't know that could happen, and to lose one so early is indeed a jinx. Congrats to you for resisting the urge to restart!

[bobkatfan]

well, lost the game when I deleted my program file, it stinks.

Edit: Is it even possible to get Kentucky to seceed to any more? I mean, I don't even put troops on boardering areas, yet the north keep attacking my cities, and going through KY to TN, but they just won't turn.

[Brochgale]

You lost a 2-STAR general? I didn't know that could happen, and to lose one so early is indeed a jinx. Congrats to you for resisting the urge to restart!

I lost Stonewall in one of the games I played as well! In august 61 as well. AI went straight for Shenandoah in force - ouch!

[Eugene Carr]

AI just lost ** Jackson in my current game as well!
Oct 61 Battle of Manassas.

I didnt check to see if he was being used as corps commander or if still embedded with Stonewall Bde.

[Ethy]

in all my experience as playing both USA and CSA i have never ever, ever, ever clicked that partial mobilisation!

i always just call for volunteers, it is a sustainable way to recruit men!

just because you got 3 times as many men as you opponant often causes recklessness, thinking your men are expendable thinking causualy to yourself if you loose a major battle "no worries i can jus click this button of partial mobilisation and recruit some more!" however that button costs morale points and even more in addition to that if you loose those soldiers on the field!