Thank you Yellowhammer, I'm flattered. You too are a gentleman and a scholar.
Before I offer some constructive criticism, I'd like to stress that I think you did a pretty good job under the circumstances. Once I established a strong foothold in Kentucky and fortified the Ohio confluent, it would've been very difficult to gain any headway in the west, especially after losing Foote's fleet to bombardment. Also, I understand some people consider the strategy of using divisional raiders to be rather gamey - it's certainly ahistorical, though I tried to avoid anything too far fetched, but in any case, for as long as I dominated the rivers, I imagine it must've been difficult to deal with this effectively, but you did a good job here as well. Finally, I quickly racked up an insanely ahistorical level of RR capacity, to the point that I could issue "move by rail" orders to entire armies to practically guarantee MTSG and still have full RR supply and then some. I think in my next game I may try implementing a house rule to limit CSA infrastructure to more plausible levels, because in this game, whenever I had excess resources I just couldn't resist the temptation to shovel it into the transport pools.
Not only is there a problem in Kentucky, I'm outnumbered in Virginia. How in the world does that happen?
I suspect this has to do with my solid NM lead and consistent use of the full mobilization and $2,000 bounty volunteer options. However, I'm pretty sure you consistently outnumbered me in Virginia (at least until Grant went west, and perhaps even then). Also, apart from a division each in Mobile and New Orleans, I largely neglected my coastal defenses in favour of Kentucky and Virginia.
As you mentioned in our email correspondence, your biggest mistake was indeed attacking in insufficient numbers trying to meet some sort of timetable. My advice? Pay no heed to the northern papers, they don't know what they're talking about. Take your time and try not to attack with anything less than 3:1 odds, unless you absolutely have to or you have reason to believe a force is weak or low on supply, and remember to check adjacent regions and take into account MTSG chance. By the way, regarding MTSG, I found these threads extremely enlightening:
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=17389 http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=9478
I think you also tried to advance from too many directions at once, and maybe followed the example of history a bit too closely, e.g. in your peninsula campaign. You would've been better served by focusing either on the peninsula or the overland route, rather than both simultaneously. Also, as you said in your email, your coastal raids were largely ineffectual. Once I realized they weren't there to stay, I completely stripped my coastal defenses other than Wilmington, Norfolk, Mobile and New Orleans. If you had launched a seaborne invasion anywhere else, you likely would've encountered no resistance at all for the first two turns. Knowing you were able to bring overwhelming force to bear anywhere on the coast at will, I willingly sacrificed my ability to respond rapidly in exchange for concentrating overwhelming force where it really counted, namely Kentucky.
More abstractly, I think the final result had a lot to do with our differing playstyles. You seem to take a very scientific approach, focusing on regions with high production and VP values, whereas I approach it more as an art form, and focus more on armies and leaders. Your objectives were mostly cities; my objectives were dead Yankees. Your fixation on Louisville, for example, allowed me to predict and manipulate your moves in Kentucky, where my strategy from day one was the destruction of the Army of the Ohio - everything else was secondary. I never once entertained the idea of taking Washington. To be fair, you do seem to have recognized in the east that the Confederacy is its army, not its capital (mentioning a plan to crush the Army of the Potomac), but I almost certainly would never have allowed this to happen. I had resolved early on to move my capital and abandon Richmond if I thought it at all possible you might take it in one or two turns. It would've been costly, to be sure, and likely would've spelled my ultimate defeat, but again, my goal was to isolate and destroy an overextended army, and to that end I was willing to sacrifice even Richmond.
Anyway, thanks again for a great game! I encourage you to critique my gameplay too, if you so choose.
EDIT: Going over my post, I realized I sound a bit like a pompous ass
apy: - just wanted to stress that I'm no expert, just wanted to give a thorough account of my impressions.