alright i have been thinking about maybe setting up some forts to use as blocking and delaying actions to slow down the enemy and defend strategic points on the map....my question is:
1. Has anyone used them in this way?
2. Is this worth doing, they cost what? 4 cannons and 2 supply wagons....then you have to station a garrison there for good protection.
i dont know if i am going to do it yet...i still need to build up my armies before i can even think about trying it out but i wanted to get some feed back before i invest the money into this idea.
yeah trying, but Jab alluded to that, they really dont help much, n Im beginning to think hes right.
------Ahhh the generals, they are numerous but not good for much.------
The Civil War is not ended: I question whether any serious civil war ever does end.
Author: T. S. Eliot
New honorary title: Colonel TROLL---Dont feed the trolls! (cuz Ill just up my rank by 1 more post!)
The Civil War is not ended: I question whether any serious civil war ever does end.
Author: T. S. Eliot
New honorary title: Colonel TROLL---Dont feed the trolls! (cuz Ill just up my rank by 1 more post!)
-
Jabberwock
- Posts: 2204
- Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 12:12 am
- Location: Weymouth, MA
- Contact: ICQ
I've never used them, not tempted, but I'm going to comment anyway.
There are two reasons I personally don't build forts.
One is cost-effectiveness.
I believe the price in resources is too high, compared with entrenchments.
The other is strategic. I acknowledge there are strategic places on the map, chokepoints and centers of industry. I appreciate the forts that are already on the map, and will use them as a component in my defenses, but I don't focus on them too much. I believe overall it was a mistake for the Confederacy to invest strongly in places like Donelson, and Island No. 10, and Vicksburg. Owning those strategic points, having invested resources there, they felt they had to commit major resources to defending those points. It hurt them much more than if they had fall-back positions, like they did in the east.
If I'm on the offensive, I will either go around a strong point, cutting off it lines of supply and retreat, or bring overwhelming force down on it.
If I'm on the defensive, I will try to trade space for the time it takes to regain the initiative, while attacking my enemies supply lines. I don't want to be tied to specific points on the map which will hurt me much more if I have to give them up.
I think Lee made the right decision pulling forces away from the coastal forts, to places that were harder to reach by ships and amphibious troops. When the rebs harassed federal forces on the rivers with mobile batteries that could retreat, they weren't always successful, but they had the right idea.
There are two reasons I personally don't build forts.
One is cost-effectiveness.
I believe the price in resources is too high, compared with entrenchments.
The other is strategic. I acknowledge there are strategic places on the map, chokepoints and centers of industry. I appreciate the forts that are already on the map, and will use them as a component in my defenses, but I don't focus on them too much. I believe overall it was a mistake for the Confederacy to invest strongly in places like Donelson, and Island No. 10, and Vicksburg. Owning those strategic points, having invested resources there, they felt they had to commit major resources to defending those points. It hurt them much more than if they had fall-back positions, like they did in the east.
If I'm on the offensive, I will either go around a strong point, cutting off it lines of supply and retreat, or bring overwhelming force down on it.
If I'm on the defensive, I will try to trade space for the time it takes to regain the initiative, while attacking my enemies supply lines. I don't want to be tied to specific points on the map which will hurt me much more if I have to give them up.
I think Lee made the right decision pulling forces away from the coastal forts, to places that were harder to reach by ships and amphibious troops. When the rebs harassed federal forces on the rivers with mobile batteries that could retreat, they weren't always successful, but they had the right idea.
[color="DimGray"] You deserve to be spanked[/color]
yeah i had decided against it almost after i posted this thread.....its to expensive and i need all the mobile forces i can muster as the CSA. I think i need to re-learn the basics of how to conduct military operations cause i dont think i am doing a good job....its early 62' and so far the AOP has 3 Corps, J. Johnston has 3 divisions in Winchester, J. Jackson has 4 Divisions in Manassas, and E.K. Smith has 3 divisions in Fredricksburg in Reserve. The Enemy hasnt gone on the offensive yet and left winchester undefended. I have built tons of militia units and are using those to defend border cities and rear areas and rebuild my RR after raids. The west is pretty much the same.. My Army of Tenn. Commanded by A.S. Johston has 1 Corps Led by Polk and is just a collection of Brigades right now..the enemy isnt moving much (mostly i assume cause i have it on normal as i dont think i am good enough to go higher yet) i am not sending cav units out to scout or to raid and destroy RR lines because i always seem to move them out of the way of supplies and they end up disbanding or running into bigger forces and getting beat......any tips for me would be welcomed as you can see i am not a great player as of yet.
you just dont get enough Def bonus for the $ for sure
------Ahhh the generals, they are numerous but not good for much.------
The Civil War is not ended: I question whether any serious civil war ever does end.
Author: T. S. Eliot
New honorary title: Colonel TROLL---Dont feed the trolls! (cuz Ill just up my rank by 1 more post!)
The Civil War is not ended: I question whether any serious civil war ever does end.
Author: T. S. Eliot
New honorary title: Colonel TROLL---Dont feed the trolls! (cuz Ill just up my rank by 1 more post!)
-
Jabberwock
- Posts: 2204
- Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 12:12 am
- Location: Weymouth, MA
- Contact: ICQ
Sounds like you are doing alright. This is not bad for an early '62 organization.
Picking the right ranges and targets for cavalry is tough.
If you go for the obvious, you get hit. If you go for the not so obvious, you don't get an immediate payoff.
I don't just target cities, I also like to break rail in out-of-the-way places (usually on my way home) the first year or two, building up the tempo as I go. If it doesn't get repaired, then it is that much harder for reaction forces to catch my raiders the next time. If it does get repaired, it is that much less $ and WS for my opponent.
If my opponent puts militia in all the depots, then I break the rails around them. I either send in a multi-regiment force once that is done, or ignore the depot for a while. (It is not moving supplies very far over broken rail lines.)
Stay close to rivers. A river is a raider's best friend. You can get much further, and retreat much faster with riverine movement. Riverine movement slows cohesion loss. Use harbors (esp. harbors that are off the rail lines) to rest.
Keep moving. If you ended a turn going one direction, pick a different one next turn.
Use the evade order with Assault/Probe stance to attack. Adjust your path so that you arrive on target late in the turn, and move one region in the direction you want to retreat (taking you over the 15 day limit). It will cost you some cohesion, but it burns supplies in the target, and saves you if there is something bad waiting. Also, while adjusting, try to move through secondary targets, going in a circle if you have to (this also tends to throw off reaction forces), burning supplies all along your path.
Picking the right ranges and targets for cavalry is tough.
If you go for the obvious, you get hit. If you go for the not so obvious, you don't get an immediate payoff.
I don't just target cities, I also like to break rail in out-of-the-way places (usually on my way home) the first year or two, building up the tempo as I go. If it doesn't get repaired, then it is that much harder for reaction forces to catch my raiders the next time. If it does get repaired, it is that much less $ and WS for my opponent.
If my opponent puts militia in all the depots, then I break the rails around them. I either send in a multi-regiment force once that is done, or ignore the depot for a while. (It is not moving supplies very far over broken rail lines.)
Stay close to rivers. A river is a raider's best friend. You can get much further, and retreat much faster with riverine movement. Riverine movement slows cohesion loss. Use harbors (esp. harbors that are off the rail lines) to rest.
Keep moving. If you ended a turn going one direction, pick a different one next turn.
Use the evade order with Assault/Probe stance to attack. Adjust your path so that you arrive on target late in the turn, and move one region in the direction you want to retreat (taking you over the 15 day limit). It will cost you some cohesion, but it burns supplies in the target, and saves you if there is something bad waiting. Also, while adjusting, try to move through secondary targets, going in a circle if you have to (this also tends to throw off reaction forces), burning supplies all along your path.
[color="DimGray"] You deserve to be spanked[/color]
-
Coffee Sergeant
- Lieutenant Colonel
- Posts: 260
- Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 1:31 pm
- Location: Houston, TX
Supply units are expensive, and useful for other things besides building forts. I have built forts, but generally only in games where I was winning handedly anyway. I would place them in strategic cities, like Richmond, New Orleans and Washington. This allows the garrison to holdout longer until relief arrives, freeing your army from having to defend objectives so it can go on the offensive. I am not sure the auto-bombardment is worth it - you can get the same effect by entrenching your units to level 5+ You might as well spend the money you spend on the supply units building artillery and a small garrison, and get them to level 5+ entrenchment.
I totally agree with Jabber.
This has to do with how the forts exactly work along with their costs and the compared effectiveness of entrenchments. The real problem is the prices to sustain for such an investment for CSA while they are not an option for Union who's rolling on the offensive.
2 carts are worth 80$ which is more than the cost of the biggest virginian infantry reinforcement probably much more needed elsewhere. When used to build a fort they don't produce as much as they would produce as a depot and once they are used...you can no longer used those carts to resupply troops at the front.
4 cannons, of any kind, are also much more likely to be needed elsewhere...especially since they increase the level of any entrenchment you might dig them into.
The cherry on the cake is the fact that once you have "shipped" 2 carts and 4 cannons, once and if you have survived in that position for the days it takes the fort to be built, you still need to bring in EXTRA guns outside and especially INSIDE the settlement for the fort to be effective both as defense and as "bombarding-passerbies" factor.
This would be considered outrageous if the fort really had to be an option.
In fact...as you can see, it isn't. And it's sad.
This has to do with how the forts exactly work along with their costs and the compared effectiveness of entrenchments. The real problem is the prices to sustain for such an investment for CSA while they are not an option for Union who's rolling on the offensive.
2 carts are worth 80$ which is more than the cost of the biggest virginian infantry reinforcement probably much more needed elsewhere. When used to build a fort they don't produce as much as they would produce as a depot and once they are used...you can no longer used those carts to resupply troops at the front.
4 cannons, of any kind, are also much more likely to be needed elsewhere...especially since they increase the level of any entrenchment you might dig them into.
The cherry on the cake is the fact that once you have "shipped" 2 carts and 4 cannons, once and if you have survived in that position for the days it takes the fort to be built, you still need to bring in EXTRA guns outside and especially INSIDE the settlement for the fort to be effective both as defense and as "bombarding-passerbies" factor.
This would be considered outrageous if the fort really had to be an option.
In fact...as you can see, it isn't. And it's sad.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
We ain't going down!
We ain't going down!
yeah I must confess its one of the few low points for me about the game, cuz I love games where you can build stuff n change the map scenery such as the Civ games.
I mean if these things were actually worth anything I dot my whole confederate landscape with them LOL.....but from what I see Athena, even on easy level would just systematically kill me in every fort
Cause I dun spend all my recources n on the stupid fort and not men and cannons!
------Ahhh the generals, they are numerous but not good for much.------
The Civil War is not ended: I question whether any serious civil war ever does end.
Author: T. S. Eliot
New honorary title: Colonel TROLL---Dont feed the trolls! (cuz Ill just up my rank by 1 more post!)
The Civil War is not ended: I question whether any serious civil war ever does end.
Author: T. S. Eliot
New honorary title: Colonel TROLL---Dont feed the trolls! (cuz Ill just up my rank by 1 more post!)
Don't forget that if you are building a fort on a river you can use 2 riverine transports instead of 2 supply wagons. Much much cheaper and sometime 4 x 6pdr + 2 river transports can be worth it if you pick a good spot. They are tougher than level 1 forts and if you make sure they are laid down early so that supply builds up and get a good balanced garrison (not too big to eat up supplies quick / not so small that get rolled over) then they can be worthwhile. As said it can buy valuable time slowing up the enemy until a relief force shows up, or digs in elsewhere. but obviously a human opponent will take it down eventually if he wants to.
Likewise you can use ocean transports at ports, but there are less times when that is useful.
Likewise you can use ocean transports at ports, but there are less times when that is useful.
"Stay low, move fast"
well i guess i am not doing so horrible after all...i have 3 corps holding a winchester, mannassas, alexandria line (alexandria isnt under my control yet i am seiging it and letting them tire out...they tried to lift the siege but all 3 of my corps entered the battle and with about 118k men i was able to inflict about 15k casualties on the enemy with only a 3k return) my problem comes now that the union forces landed troops at Ft Pickens and i only have a division in place there to try and stop them....i know what i need to do but most of my forces are occupied in KY and TN and i dont really have any extra forces else where to commit to the battle. idea's?
Return to “AACW Strategy discussions”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests