Confederate wrote:Haha, what's P.G.T Beauregard doing as the Commander of the Army of the West? . When I use PGT, I usually attach a corps to him and send him to DC to lighten up Union defenses.
veji1 wrote:You are doing great Charles. I am impressed. I am actually surprised by Mortar's inactivity, or rather frenetic raiding but absence of Schwerpunkt. As Grant's eventuall victory in Henry, TN, proves it, the best method for the Union once the front is quite static is to go for Cold Harbour style attritional battles. Even if the CSA wins 5 or 6 times, as long as the loss ratio they achieve is inferior to 2to1, the CSA will be bled into abandonning the position and falling back... Then once the Union has provoked this manpower crisis on the frontline, does it raid on the rears...
Anyway, you are doing great and on course for a moral victory at least, with your capital and Hinterland largely protected.. And you might actually achieve a substantial success in the Transmississipi wher Fort Smith gone Mortar could find his NO expedionary forces in major supply crunch...
charlesonmission wrote:First let me say for the non-German speakers out there that schwerpunkt means a focal point. Usually in the terms of war, the intended place where a decisive action could happen. I believe schwer means difficult or significant and punkt means place, my German isn’t too great. However, when they put them together the meaning slightly changes. Perhaps a German native speaker could clarify this.
charlesonmission wrote:The other point that the post mentioned is Grant’s now success in Henry TN. Yes, it does show that the Union can win against an entrenched force if they keep on coming, and the CSA doesn’t have the replacement to bring the divisions back up to strength. My current replacements are always on zero and I can only get about 2 line infantry a turn.
charlesonmission wrote:The other large campaign by the Union this year has been the Vicksburg/Jackson, New Orleans, Mobile, Atlanta, and Montgomery actions. In the end, none of these objective locations and strategic places came that close to falling into the Union’s hands. The reason isn’t that the Union didn’t have the forces, they do. However, if you remember my original posts at the beginning of the AAR, you will know that I put a high value of contesting the Mississippi River. I’m currently reading the book Vicksburg 1863 and am really learning to have a better understanding of the significance of the Mississippi River. This was something that Grant saw early on historically. Since I control with coastal artillery the positions of Dyer TN, Memphis TN, Vicksburg MS, and New Orleans LA, a movement that bypasses these will run into supply problems within several turns. The Union has taken huge supply hits on many of these campaigns. I think the Union thought that it would find the interior lightly defended. However, a sole division that is well supplied, well lead, and dug in will hold off superior forces at least once. And this is the essential point, the Union can’t wait around to attack again as suddenly supply starts to run out.
charlesonmission wrote:However, when they put them together the meaning slightly changes. Perhaps a German native speaker could clarify this.
deguerra wrote:As Citizen X correctly stated, Schwerpunkt mostly refers to a centre of gravity. As a matter of military parlance, it refers to a focal point, or point of maximum effort, victory at which might be turned into a breakthrough behind the enemy's lines (it is closely tied to Guderian's Blitzkrieg doctrine).
I'm not sure whether the Union here has shown a lack of Schwerpunkt, a lack of overall focus, or both. As you say, it has seemingly given up on the East apart from the rather ill-fated amphibious adventure. But on the other hand, i think if anything it has focused too much. I think its operations in Tennessee and the Carolinas might have been more successful if coupled with more pressure in Virginia.
In terms of Schwerpunkt, I think Grant's massive assault last turn showed that the Union is capable of delivering on the Schwerpunkt, but it doesn't seem capable of exploiting it. It can achieve a victory, but not a breakthrough. Perhaps, as Citizen X says, it would require a second group of cohesion-fresh troops to really exploit.
charlesonmission wrote:to give Mortar his due
veji1 wrote:Well looking at your troop numbers, it looks like he did a pretty solid job of preventing you from building that impressive numbers. But it is true that as the CSA you can't defend everything strongly enough and the Union's job is to attrit you and once you get thinner, strike with overwehlming force. in that sense what we have seen in 1865, except in TN, ie a Union strategy of manouver rather than attrition, is imo, not the best method for the Union.
The Union has to be methodic and gut the CSA step by step. It needs to build an impregnable maritime and fluvial superiority, even if this means being more conservative on land at the beginning, and than thanks to this superiority start asphyxiating the Mississipi theater and Virginia. Once under pressure and attritted there, he lands in Texas or the Carolinas... Any way that is my standard operating way for the Union.
deguerra wrote:Absolutely! I'm rubbish at this game, and just analyzing with hindsight which is always easy to do. I think he's played very well overall, and had you on the ropes a couple of times, but you clearly know this game inside out too and have managed to hold on.
charlesonmission wrote:Oh, this is interesting. I think I have about 250,000 men in the field from Texas all the way to Virginia. Does that not sound like a lot?
You are right, I've often given up the strategic cities to hold the objective cities.
The Union has lost 2 fleets on the Mississippi River, the first through getting stuck in winter I believe. The second through a combine Vicksburg bombardment and naval attack. A third fleet wasn't destroyed, but recently retreated to the north from Vicksburg once the Union called off the NO campaign. We'll have to wait and see what Mortat says about the MS River fleets and why they weren't bigger.
veji1 wrote:well except if for some reason you have been very economical in building militias, it isn't that much after 5 years of war in a stable supply situation like yours. Regarding Arkansas, it is true that only cavalry force have a hard time against entrenched infantry. Just a sharpshooter might have made a huge difference, but with cavalry the problem is you can't really be economical and you should have gone all red posture for your first assault. repeated gentle assaults and retreats are just feeding wood to the fire. (I say it now as it should have no impact on the game anymore, you are now too weak to take it).
veji1 wrote:They don't use WS but convert to Infantry over time, and you can merge 2 militias together, which means that after a while for the cost of 2 militias (lower money and WS cost, used to be lower CS as well, but that might have changed, I don't remember) you get a nice 2 infantry brigade, and the militias slots on the reinforcement table are free again. Put that on your important rear city with a 6pdr and you have a nice fortified little force that can stop anything less than a divisionnal assault.
Rules might have changed on that to make it less interesting. There was a point a few years back where PBEMers would almost only build militias to save WS and money for bigger armies that are eventually of similar quality, but it was really gamey.
Nevertheless, as the CSA I make big use of militias to garrisson objective cities in rear areas, for digging trenches, and basically as a way to save money and WS. Theoreticcally, just by building militia your army could be of infinite size, linmited only by supply.
But then again it might have change, I haven't played for about a year sinde I had a baby and might memory might be hazy.
veji1 wrote:ah well then, I suppose the game has been adjusted so that militias aren't an exploit anymore. In that regard your army size doesn't really look out of whack. One I dislike later on in the game is the lack of divisions, it doesn't really make sense. I always modded the game so that the CSA got 50 and the USA 99, to avoid having an endgame with stacks of uncosolidated troops walking around...
Still, back to business, where is the update ?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests