History Play

[CWNut77]

Just curious -- has anyone attempted to play a game as either side, as close to historically-accurate as possible, at least to start?

I plan on trying to do that tonight -- primarilly I am referring to assigning leaders to their historical commands and groupings, and grabbing reinforcements as well as I can to match how they were formed in history.

I know this can only be done to a point, but I thought this would be a good measure as to how historically accurate this game was. Has anyone given this a shot?

[Brochgale]

It is interesting to try. However it is a bit impractical - Events are a bit unpredictable as they dont always fire and then there are the General releases which you cant really match up and waiting for things to do is also suicidal - Thena would roll you up. Especially on hard settings. The most I do as CSA is disable foreign intervention as it did not happen historically and also dont attck Washington as CSA never did. Things like that.
Breaking Kentuckys neutrality is usually bad move within mechanics of game as you find yourself outnumbered in Kentucky fairly quickly.

[MkollCSA]

It is interesting to try. However it is a bit impractical - Events are a bit unpredictable as they dont always fire and then there are the General releases which you cant really match up and waiting for things to do is also suicidal - Thena would roll you up. Especially on hard settings. The most I do as CSA is disable foreign intervention as it did not happen historically and also dont attck Washington as CSA never did. Things like that.
Breaking Kentuckys neutrality is usually bad move within mechanics of game as you find yourself outnumbered in Kentucky fairly quickly.

i agree, its a good idea in principle but its just not a survivable why to go about the game....Thena wont care about historical acurracy....you can Johnston and P.G.T. to First Manassas and chances are Thena wont care unless it poses some great threat to her anyways.

[CWNut77]

Thanks both -- still, for the sake of curiosity, I am going to try and at least form my units (divisions, corps, armies) together historically and see how well they fight in-game as opposed to in-history...at least in the early game. That should be doable.

[Le Ricain]

It is possible to play AACW pretty close to history when playing as the Union.

[cobraII]

Brochgale actualy the confederates did make an attempt to attack washington when correct me if i wrong it was Ewell who invaded up the Shendhoah valley and got to the outskirts of Washington but decided not to attack when they had news that a corp from Grants army had been disembarked at the pier but they did consider about attacking is all i am saying

[W.Barksdale]

I think you mean General Early?

[Brochgale]

Brochgale actualy the confederates did make an attempt to attack washington when correct me if i wrong it was Ewell who invaded up the Shendhoah valley and got to the outskirts of Washington but decided not to attack when they had news that a corp from Grants army had been disembarked at the pier but they did consider about attacking is all i am saying

It was Early and was it a real attempt on Washington or was it just a feint to draw Yanks away from other places. I am far from convinced that it was genuine effort to take Washington.

[CWNut77]

Enter the history buff ;-)

It was indeed part of Jubal Early's 1864 diversion, to take pressure off of Lee and preliminary to Early's 1864 Valley Campaign. He DID get to the outskirts of Washington, but both he and the rest of the general public knew that it would be impossible for him to do anything but sit outside for a little bit. Not only was his force WAY too small to attempt anything close to an assault, let alone a siege...but the fact of the matter is that by that time Washington was more resembled a castle than a city. By that point in the war it was beyond impossible for any Confederate force to take the city.

It is still funny to note, however, that Lincoln and the Administration still had a case of the willies (though nowhere near as bad as when Stonewall did his thing in 1862) -- I believe the President was even shot at by a sharpshooter if I recall correctly.

[CWNut77]

Oh, and by the way -- played seriously for the first time last night using my above criteria for historical divisions, etc., playing as the CSA. I must be doing something right -- I am in June and no major battles, in fact I doubt I've yet to lose 1000 men!

[Franciscus]

I must say that I usually try to play as CSA more or less historically. My gaming pleasure and immersion increases doing so...
That is also to me the main benefit of the leader's mod (and my own very "simple" mod), trying to at least make the appearance of the main generals in the historical correct geographical region.

Regards

[CWNut77]

You see where I am coming from then. I know it is only really possible to attempt historical accuracy completely in the early game -- but it does have its own flavor none the less. For instance, 3 or 4 of your starting generals (given in late April 1861) would stay in Virginia.

[Brochgale]

Oh, and by the way -- played seriously for the first time last night using my above criteria for historical divisions, etc., playing as the CSA. I must be doing something right -- I am in June and no major battles, in fact I doubt I've yet to lose 1000 men!

Dont worry the Feds will start trouble sometime in July. In one of my games I went all the way to August before I lost a single comabat casualty - only casualties - civilians in Saint Lious massacre event presumably?
Wait for Kentucky invasion or Price getting caught out in the open in Missouri?Then the casualties will start pouring in?

[MkollCSA]

either way you look at it...soon enough you will have those major battles...you cant sit around and year waiting for things to happen....nor can you really be just a defensive force waiting for the union to attack...get raiders in behind their lines and mess up his supply lines and industry...then think "big plan" and move your little pawns into places that help secure this....if Thena doesnt force major actions then you have to...cause if you let it come down to a points match where neither side forces action you will lose every time.

[madgamer]

Breaking Kentucky's neutrality is usually bad move within mechanics of game as you find yourself outnumbered in Kentucky fairly quickly.[/QUOTE]

I am wondering how exactly Kentucky works in this game. Should I pull out my troops from the state? As the North should I buy militia units? Should I stay in the cities I am in at start? Is the choice in the game made in a random manor? In FoF it was easy, just keep your guys out of the state. In the several times I have started the game as the North they have not lost the state. I am wondering what one should and should not do to get the state on there side.

thanks
Madgamer

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jabberwock]

In the meantime, Kentucky neutrality is controlled by capturing cities. Whoever takes a city in Kentucky first breaks neutrality (Unless it's Prestonburg ... Boyd, across the Big Sandy River from Prestonburg is the region to not capture).

Choose which cities you really need to hold, and reinforce them. For the other cities, take the militia out into the region, and give them Feint/Probe Attack orders (top row orange, bottom row green). This almost guarantees that any enemy unit moving through the region will capture the city there.