User avatar
Confederate
Lieutenant
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:32 am
Location: USA

Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:14 pm

Charles, the pictures are messed up. Under Georgia and South Carolina, it shows a picture of VA.
- Confederate

charlesonmission
Posts: 774
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 5:55 am
Location: USA (somewhere)

Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:40 pm

Should be fixed now.

Confederate wrote:Charles, the pictures are messed up. Under Georgia and South Carolina, it shows a picture of VA.

veji1
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1251
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:27 pm

Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:54 pm

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...

User avatar
Confederate
Lieutenant
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:32 am
Location: USA

Tue Dec 06, 2011 4:42 pm

charlesonmission wrote:Should be fixed now.


Haha, what's P.G.T Beauregard doing as the Commander of the Army of the West? :p . When I use PGT, I usually attach a corps to him and send him to DC to lighten up Union defenses.
- Confederate

charlesonmission
Posts: 774
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 5:55 am
Location: USA (somewhere)

Tue Dec 06, 2011 5:22 pm

Well, I think this is ajoke, but I'm not sure I understand? P.G.T commands the department he did historically in my game at this time....

Charles

Confederate wrote:Haha, what's P.G.T Beauregard doing as the Commander of the Army of the West? :p . When I use PGT, I usually attach a corps to him and send him to DC to lighten up Union defenses.

charlesonmission
Posts: 774
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 5:55 am
Location: USA (somewhere)

Thoughts on the Union Strategy

Wed Dec 07, 2011 6:16 am

Thanks for your post. It has inspired me to comment on the Union strategy of the 1865 campaign.

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.

What the post below is talking about is the Union’s movement, which there has actually been a lot of movement however, movement in relation to achieving some sort of significant success oder schwerpunkt.

To briefly review, the Union made a strategic decision early on in 1865 to give up on attacking Richmond. The Union had lost a number of battles in the overland campaign of 1864, but had pushed the CSA all the way to defending the gates of Richmond. I was surprised by the Union move to give up on Richmond for two reasons. One, I felt like the Union was winning, albeit slowly. And two, although Mortar didn’t know this, I had taken the Jefferson Davis type decision of refusing to move my capital under any circumstance. What has really hurt the Union in the Virginia campaign was losing Ft Monroe and not attempting to take Norfolk. Norfolk produces a lot of supply, combined with the fact that the CSA made a strategic decision to build a large James fleet in lieu of additional artillery for the Army of TN, meant that the Norfolk port has stayed open for more than 90% of the turns (Richmond currently has GS supply levels of 700+). As the CSA still controls much of Virginia, including the entire peninsula, the way to look at it is that this land combined with the port in Norfolk has been able to supply the AoNV quite well (in the game, you will need to use the industrialization option to go with this method).

Instead of continuing at Richmond, the Union left a significant force in VA, but 6 divisions and a large fleet departed on a SC/GA campaign that hasn’t turned out well for the Union. The Union only landed 4 of the 6 divisions, which then attacked Charlestown, and then it took several turns to get to Savannah, build a depot, clear out Ft. Pulaski, and yet the Union still has supply troubles. This used up time that the Union didn’t have. 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.

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.

I want to add that Mortar has played a great game. And as far as I’m aware this is the only AAR that has gone into 1865. I think this has given me an advantage this year as the game clock is clicking.

I’ll give everyone a hint for the next posts coming later, the Ft. Smith campaign failed dramatically! More details coming soon.

Charles


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...

User avatar
Citizen X
General of the Army
Posts: 631
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:34 pm

Wed Dec 07, 2011 10:59 am

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.


Schwerpunkt originally means point of balance or gravity center. Used in semantics in the meaning of focus and in military tactics as core area, the point to tip to make a front crumble. "Punkt" means point and "schwer" is heavy or grave.
I would discuss here the lack of focus rather than that of a single core area being attacked.

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.


Cohesion is even more important than strength. I use this tactics mostly with commonly overlooked conservative or even feint attack posture. While you lose very few men you can always have one force recover cohesion and have the other attack. This is especially true for river crossings. Eventually the opponent will lose all his cohesion and eventually abandon the position. If the force is large enough and the defender hasnt set "hold at all cost" you might even break through without firing a shot, regardless of posture. Risk nothing, gain all.


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.


This makes clear that the CSA needn't get nervous about large Union forces going deep into the hinterland, as long as you possess positions along the MIssissippi or be able to otherwise cut the line of supply.

charlesonmission
Posts: 774
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 5:55 am
Location: USA (somewhere)

Early September 1865 Part 1

Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:52 pm

Early September 1865 Part 1

There are only 8 turns left. This turn saw the dramatic failure of the CSA in Arkansas to do much of anything. Grant is checked south of Henry in Decater TN by Hill. There is naval action in the James. Camden remains in CSA hands, but just barely. Another Union fleet lands in Savannah, but does that mean more men? And more!

Missouri/IT

A partisan unit cut the Jefferson City – St. Louis line and made it back to Edwards IT. This turn they will go take over Ft. Smith. My other partisan unit, which targeted a weak infantry group was wiped out. It just goes to show that power isn’t everything in this game. Power 9 versus power 6, and I’m gone. However, the Union had 1,170 men against my 60. The Union’s 9th division left New Mexico and took over the Indian village of creek.

[ATTACH]16727[/ATTACH]

Arkansas and Texas

The attack on Ft. Smith ended in a quick and colossal failure. There were 2 regiments there instead of 1. The attack was over about as quick as it started. However, the Union force has been weakened, so I’m going to try to attack it again this turn but this time on conservative attack. There will be two attacks, one from Quantrill and another from a cavalry regiment and Indian regiment coming from Dallas. Lyon’s army and McPherson’s corps did make it to Little Rock, no doubt to start recovering. In Texas I’ll send a regiment from Galveston to Dallas to fill in the gap left by the departing cavalry.

[ATTACH]16726[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]16728[/ATTACH]

Louisiana

1 small battle with the remaining Union regiment that made a move on Baton Rouge. I will attempt to take Port Hudson, attack the remaining Union regiment in Louisiana, rebuild the RRs, and re-establish MC across all regions of the state. Hopefully, after this turn, the jobs will be done.

[ATTACH]16729[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]16730[/ATTACH]
Attachments
ESept5.JPG
ESept4.JPG
ESept3.JPG
ESept2.JPG
ESept1.JPG

charlesonmission
Posts: 774
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 5:55 am
Location: USA (somewhere)

Early September 1865 Part 2

Wed Dec 07, 2011 1:30 pm

Early September 1865 Part 2


Mississippi

Blunt continues to get hit by cavalry. Sherman is still in MS. Unfortunately, Forest didn’t attack him this turn. What’s worse, the Union brought over a division from Austin (Reynolds) division. This will make me combine Watie and Forest and put then on hold in a defensive position. Cleburne, who is in Corinth, will now join Hill’s corps instead of Magruder’s.

[ATTACH]16732[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]16733[/ATTACH]


Tennessee

Grant is still on the attack in TN. However first, Morgan defeats the Union force on day 1. The big battle though is Hill and Grant in Decaturville on day 10. Hill does well and wins a +2 NM victory. Western and central TN look like this. Morgan will leave an infantry regiment an attack the Union force to his SW. Cleburne’s division will join Hill on day 5. Part of Hill’s corps, 3 regiments and an artillery battery will go to Pulaski to recover. Hindman’s small division (5 regiments) in Dyer will join Bee in Humboldt. This will give power levels of Magruder 231, Bee 600, Hill 760, once the transfers are done. If the Union gives me 1 break without an attack, they will be able to regain cohesion and will be in much better positions. In eastern TN, my partisan unit took the 4 towns, a very impressive turn. They’ll now go into KY to cut the RR next turn.

[ATTACH]16734[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]16735[/ATTACH]

In George, my attempt to transfer reinforcement from Atlanta to the TN line failed as I ran into skirmishes with a Union force in Floyd. What was worse, I had an infantry regiment destroyed and lost the expensive 20 pound battery! I want that battery back, and since I had a couple regiments arrive from AL to Atlanta, Hampton’s division will go out of Atlanta to Floyd to take back the battery, and then next turn push back the Union if at all practical. The Union did a good job here disrupting my RR, which is why the reinforcement got caught up in 2 skirmishes.

[ATTACH]16736[/ATTACH]
Attachments
ESept10.JPG
ESept9.JPG
ESept8.JPG
ESept7.JPG
ESept6.JPG

charlesonmission
Posts: 774
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 5:55 am
Location: USA (somewhere)

Early September 1865 Part 3

Wed Dec 07, 2011 1:55 pm

Early September 1865 Part 3

Georgia / South Carolina (continued)

Beauregard’s force was ready for the Union when they came. However, the Union got by far the better of my boys. I had 7 regiments destroyed versus none for the Union. I’ve noticed the Union very rarely has regiments destroyed. I wonder if this is because I use hold at all costs quite often and the Union uses attack at all costs. At this point, I’m sending what is left of Beauregard’s force back to Charlestown, but will leave 1 regiment behind to blow the depot. The Union force in Savannah is still on red supply. I’m not sure what Kearney will do, probably go for Camden again or Wilmington is still there. I hope the depot has been destroyed by the time he arrives!

[ATTACH]16737[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]16738[/ATTACH]

North Carolina

I had a regiment take Hillsboro. This turn, it will go take Lexington on the way to Charlotte.

Virginia

There was a naval battle on the James, which the CSA won. My cavalry regiment took the towns of Covington, Pulaski, and Smith. This turn they will go to Johnson City TN. No big Union movement. 2 divisions are still next to Norfolk.

[ATTACH]16739[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]16740[/ATTACH]


Politics and Economy

Replacements – 4 line, 1 cavalry

Industrialization - None

RR – 40
River - 20

CSA NM – 99 (up 1 from the previous turn)

Union NM – 89 (down 2 from the previous turn)

[ATTACH]16741[/ATTACH]
Attachments
ESept15.JPG
ESept14.JPG
ESept13.JPG
ESept12.JPG
ESept11.JPG

User avatar
deguerra
Captain
Posts: 155
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 2:20 am

Wed Dec 07, 2011 2:25 pm

charlesonmission wrote:However, when they put them together the meaning slightly changes. Perhaps a German native speaker could clarify this.


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
Posts: 774
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 5:55 am
Location: USA (somewhere)

Wed Dec 07, 2011 5:57 pm

However, to give Mortar his due, what we don't know is if the Union hadn't done the MS/LA/AL campaign, would those 30,000 CSA men that were/are defending those parts just ended up on the line in TN. It's a tough call. I've been surprised the Union hasn't had a larger fleet on the Mississippi that could defeat mine.

On the other hand, if the Union had 4 fresh divisions ready to go behind Grant, they could have swept across this last turn through Hill, Bee, and would be approaching Magruder now. That is a scary thought!

I suppose the question is, how many serious thrusts is too many in the ACW from the Union side once the CSA has been able to build up to 1865 and stay supplied and contol much of the interior which changes the historical situation.

Charles


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.

veji1
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1251
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:27 pm

Wed Dec 07, 2011 6:53 pm

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.

User avatar
deguerra
Captain
Posts: 155
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 2:20 am

Wed Dec 07, 2011 11:57 pm

charlesonmission wrote:to give Mortar his due

Charles


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
Posts: 774
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 5:55 am
Location: USA (somewhere)

Thu Dec 08, 2011 5:05 am

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.

Charles

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.

charlesonmission
Posts: 774
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 5:55 am
Location: USA (somewhere)

Thu Dec 08, 2011 5:07 am

You should join the upcoming tournament, my first PBEM game aginst OAM Mexicon he destroyed me quite easily, but I learnt loads. There is an AAR on that game also in the ACE AAR thread.

Charles

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
Posts: 774
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 5:55 am
Location: USA (somewhere)

Late September 1865 Part 1

Thu Dec 08, 2011 6:37 am

Late September 1865 Part 1

Cleburne’s division arrives just before another attack by Grant in TN; the CSA wins! The Arkansas campaign is a disaster. And more!
Missouri/IT

Not much to report. My partisan unit took Ft. Smith and will now go back to Dallas. The Union has small forces in Cherokee and Creek.

Arkansas and Texas

I’m calling off the Arkansas campaign. Small cavalry forces can’t seem to make any headway against an entrenched infantry force in a forest. Both CSA attacks easily fail. Take a look at the casualty comparisons. I’ll send both forces back to Dallas. Time is running out which means it looks like Arkansas will end the game in Union hands, alas. On the other hand Texas is still completely in Union hands, nothing to report there.

[ATTACH]16744[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]16745[/ATTACH]

Louisiana

Nothing much to show, the Union force escaped on the river presumably going to Little Rock. My forces have rebuilt the RR and will continue to re-establish military control. I didn’t take Port Hudson last turn as the regiment that was targeting the Union regiment left. So, I’ll take Port Hudson this turn. Gordon’s division will stay in NO.

Mississippi

Sherman’s force eluded the battle (36% chance) and has joined up with a small division led by Reynold’s which has a little supply. South and central MS is now back in CSA hands and all the RRs have been rebuilt. I’m sending 1 regiment from near Vicksburg to Bolivar MS to take back the town. The real action will be Forest and Watie (2 division) targeting Sherman’s corps. A couple other regiments will also target what is left of Blunt’s force as Mouton is locked this turn.

[ATTACH]16746[/ATTACH]

Tennessee

Cleburne’s division arrived to reinforce Hill just before the battle started. The CSA won with a +2 NM victory and gave a casualty ration of 3.5 to 1. This puts the Union’s offensive in a very tricky situation. As some of the previous posts have noted. The Union moved forward 1 region by finally taking Henry, but the CSA still has MTSG across western TN. What is worse for the Union is since there were no attacks in Dyer and Humboldt; those forces are regaining cohesion and men. Power levels stand at Margruder 342, Bee 722, Hill 681. The Union now can’t even match those power levels with the forces it has on the front line, unless they combing into 1 larger force. In central TN, Morgan’s cavalry force was unable to bring the Union force to battle. The Union took Knoxville and Decatur. Morgan will again try to attack while Hampton’s division will try to clear out the Union from Decatur. The overall situation is still rather strong for the CSA.

[ATTACH]16747[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]16748[/ATTACH]
Attachments
LSep5.JPG
LSep4.JPG
LSep3.JPG
LSept2.JPG
LSept1.JPG

charlesonmission
Posts: 774
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 5:55 am
Location: USA (somewhere)

Late September 1865 Part 2

Thu Dec 08, 2011 7:00 am

Late September 1865 Part 2

Georgia / South Carolina

A few movements happened here. The CSA successfully blew the depot in Camden and made it back to Charlestown. Kearny’s corps chose not to attack Camden again or go back for Wilmington; instead they took Florence and Darlington. The Union’s 6 divisions in Savannah are now on yellow supply. I just have to believe that if the Union is going to do something with that force it will start to move this turn. They have 2 main options, go for another attack on Charlestown, or start to move towards Atlanta, either by the river to Augusta and then overland, or just overland.

[ATTACH]16749[/ATTACH]

North Carolina

A small Union force is still in Carthage. At this point, I’m blowing the final NC depot in Wilmington as Kearny may try to make a move there and I will not leave Charlestown again with the Union’s 6 division in Savannah now partially supplied. I have a regiment trailing Kearny’s force which took Lexington; this turn they will go through Charlotte and Darlington on the way to Florence SC.

[ATTACH]16750[/ATTACH]

Virginia

There were 3 movements by the Union. The Union fleet left. A small Union force is going towards Burkeville. And the Union’s Norfolk campaign (Smith’s corps) destroys my two partisan units overlooking the James. I won’t show you the battles, but they are completely gone. This puts the force within 2 regions of Richmond (perhaps a game requirement to avoid a NM hit?) Either way, the Union does seem to want to attack in Virginia. However, it is worth noting that the Union could attack Lee with 7 divisions. Lee’s force has 1 formal division plus extra units, about 2 divisions in total. Another 4+ divisions would MTSG to Lee, so it’s hard to imagine that attack working. The Union just doesn’t have the forces in Virginia anymore to attack the Fredericksburg Petersburg line, or so I believe.

[ATTACH]16751[/ATTACH]


Politics and Economy

Replacements – 2 line, 3 field artillery

Industrialization - None

RR – 30
River - 10

CSA NM – 100 (up 1 from the previous turn)

Union NM – 86 (down 3 from the previous turn)

I think we are both losing 1 NM per turn do to war weariness, plus whatever other events/battles happen.
Attachments
LSep8.JPG
LSep7.JPG
LSep6.JPG

User avatar
Confederate
Lieutenant
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:32 am
Location: USA

Thu Dec 08, 2011 1:47 pm

C'mon Charles! All you need to do is hold on until January 1866... ;)
- Confederate

veji1
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1251
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:27 pm

Thu Dec 08, 2011 1:53 pm

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.

Charles


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).

charlesonmission
Posts: 774
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 5:55 am
Location: USA (somewhere)

Fri Dec 09, 2011 3:48 am

I rarely build militias (just built a few in Texas during the game). Do militias use less CS than regular units per for person?

Charles

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
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1251
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:27 pm

Fri Dec 09, 2011 8:51 am

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.

User avatar
Citizen X
General of the Army
Posts: 631
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:34 pm

Fri Dec 09, 2011 10:00 am

I don't use militia in the early game because I want immediate power for my cp. Don't they use up reinforcement chits, too, for the conversion process?

charlesonmission
Posts: 774
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 5:55 am
Location: USA (somewhere)

Fri Dec 09, 2011 10:37 am

I know that in the current AACW and the recent versions, militia use 1 WS per regiment. Does this change your opinion?

Charles

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
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1251
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:27 pm

Fri Dec 09, 2011 11:16 am

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 ?

charlesonmission
Posts: 774
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 5:55 am
Location: USA (somewhere)

Fri Dec 09, 2011 11:39 am

Yes, there is a thread somewhere on the militia discussion and the decision to add 1 WS which makes sense now. Update is coming in 1 minute!

Charles

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 ?

charlesonmission
Posts: 774
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 5:55 am
Location: USA (somewhere)

Early October 1865 Part 1

Fri Dec 09, 2011 11:44 am

The Union takes Augusta GA. Sherman is still elusive in MS!


Missouri/IT

Nothing much to say. I’ll have a partisan unit that is on the way to Dallas turn around and take Creeks and Cherokees as the Union has vacated these positions.

Arkansas and Texas

My Arkansas campaign force made it back to Dallas, albeit tired. The Union started to move the IT regiments towards Ft. Smith, perhaps they were getting worried. In Texas no Union intrusions.

Louisiana

LA is now completely in CSA control with working RRs. Gordon’s strong division still holds New Orleans, and I’m a bit hesitant to vacate the position just in case the Union were to appear down there. However, I’m sending 1 regiment from NO to Memphis. Another regiment that is in Port Hudson will also go to Memphis.

Mississippi

Sherman has been hard to get to! In fact, he even beat me this turn as Forest couldn’t bring him to battle but he ran into a small cavalry and infantry force. The Union won for a +1 NM victory. The CSA won a small battle against Blunt first through. Basically, the CSA has all the towns in MS although Sherman is still around and the Union has some forces south of Memphis

[ATTACH]16753[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]16754[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]16755[/ATTACH]

Tennessee

Grant didn’t attack, the first time in a while. Hampton in western TN won a battle and eliminated 25% of the Union force. Apart from Island 10, Ft. Henry, Carthage, and Knoxville, the CSA controls TN. Hampton will go for Knoxville this turn and then double back towards Atlanta. A brigade will leave Chattanooga and also go towards Knoxville. A regiment from Pulaski will go south to fix a RR next turn. In western TN, I’m doing some transferring of the artillery batteries from Hill to Bee, Magruder, and Ramseuer to balance out the forces. Grant’s power is back up to 1,400. Morgan will go to Nashville to join Polk’s corps in Memphis.

[ATTACH]16756[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]16757[/ATTACH]
Attachments
EOct5.JPG
EOct4.JPG
EOct3.JPG
EOct2.JPG
EOct1.JPG

charlesonmission
Posts: 774
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 5:55 am
Location: USA (somewhere)

Early October 1865 Part 2

Fri Dec 09, 2011 11:58 am

Early October 1865 Part 2

Georgia / South Carolina

There were 3 Union moves. The fleet left Savannah. A division left Savannah and took Augusta. And Kearny’s corps takes the un-garrisoned Camden. You can see that Charlestown is loosely surrounded. Kearny’s corps (low on supplies to the north in Camden). Sedgwick’s division in Augusta to the west, and 5 division to the SE in Savannah. However, Charlestown has 20,500 men with 85+ cannon. Even if the Union could bring them all together for a coordinated attack on Charlestown, I think the city would hold. I’m surprised the 5 divisions stayed in Savannah, but there they are.

[ATTACH]16758[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]16759[/ATTACH]


North Carolina

Nothing much to say. A small Union force moved from Carthage to Lumberton. I’m send a loose infantry and cavalry regiment from NC to Richmond to join Jackson just in case there is a last effort to take the city another 1,000 men would be nice to have.



Virginia

No movement. Everything is at a stand still in this state. I did take Suffolk back though.

[ATTACH]16760[/ATTACH]


Politics and Economy

Replacements – 2 line, 1 cavalry
Industrialization - None

RR – 50
River - 10

CSA NM – 98 (down 2 from the previous turn)

Union NM – 87 (up 1 from the previous turn)
Attachments
EOct8.JPG
EOct7.JPG
EOct6.JPG

charlesonmission
Posts: 774
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 5:55 am
Location: USA (somewhere)

Late October 1865 Part 1

Sun Dec 11, 2011 5:17 am

Hampton's division clears out most of the Union forces in eastern TN. Forest finally captures some of Sherman's corps. The big move by the Union though is that they have moved 4 divisions directly south of Memphis. More details coming later.

Charles

charlesonmission
Posts: 774
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 5:55 am
Location: USA (somewhere)

Late October 1865 Part 1

Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:44 pm

Late October 1865 Part 1

Hampton destroys most of the Union’s force in eastern TN. The Union makes a move toward Memphis with 4 divisions.


Missouri/IT

My partisan unit took Creeks and Cherokee. It will now go to Ft Smith and start to return to Cherokee.

Arkansas and Texas

Nothing happened in Texas. I’m sending the extra generals in Dallas to New Orleans and Jackson to up the command structure there. I can’t imagine that the Union would make a big move on Texas in the last 5 turns and I’ve given up on an Arkansas campaign. The Union moved its fleet out of Little Rock to Austin MS, more on this later.

Louisiana

Nothing much to say, just note that New Orleans and its 170,000 inhabitants have 80% loyalty for the CSA. Gordon’s division stays there.

Mississippi

Sherman is gone, but Sheridan still commands a small force. Forest caught up with them and captured a cavalry regiment. At this point, I’m going to split Forest force into. Watie’s division will go to Dyer TN to take over the defences there. Forest will still target what is left of Sheridan’s force. The Union has moved 4 divisions into Austin MS. Also a fleet has gone into the harbour.

[ATTACH]16766[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]16767[/ATTACH]

Tennessee

Continuing with the discussion on the Union forces in Austin MS, here is what happened. The Army of TN and McPherson’s corps (from the ill fated MS/LA campaign arrived in Austin from Little Rock. They are back at full form and boast power of 2,000 or about 25,000 men. Memphis also bombard a Union fleet for 42 hits when it went into Austin MS. Now what will the Union do? The fleet could be a ruse to get me to think that the Union will board the boats and go somewhere. However, the Union has yet to date been able to get past the guns at Vicksburg. Instead, I think the Union will attack Memphis with 4 divisions. To counter this, I’m sending General Magruder’s corps from Dyer with its division to Memphis to take over the defences. Once Magruder arrives in 3 days, 16,000 men and 70 cannon will be in place with level 8 trenches. That should be enough to hold off 4 fresh Union divisions. Since Dyer TN will be left open except for the coastal artillery and a battery, Watie’s division will leave MS to take over the defences. However, General Hampton, who receives a promotion this turn for gallant action in eastern TN will take over as the senior general and form a corps in Dyer next turn. Speaking of Hampton, his division wipes out most of what was left in eastern TN in a 2 battles.

[ATTACH]16768[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]16769[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]16770[/ATTACH]
Attachments
LOct5.JPG
LOct4.JPG
LOct3.JPG
LOct2.JPG
LOct1.JPG

Return to “American Civil War AARs”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest