AGEOD Forums

I'm either slow or stupid....I'll let ya'll decide

I am actually going through my first full campaign - started from the very beginning. I am not reinventing the wheel, so I have attempted to mimic the strategy that was actually put to use. I am behind the historic timetable, but at least I haven't allowed the South to capture Washington (like last time.)

Anyway, the civil liberties choices are killing me. I have tried to allow full liberties for all (even the Southern States I have occupied) and it takes awhile for the populace to turn, so I got the great idea of trying to suspend habeas for the Southern States. Incredibly, Missouri turned on me and the whole populace turned on ME! The whole State went negative. I was not amused. Even Florida and Tennessee like me more than Missouri.

To make it worse, Maryland is still giving me fits. Those bunch of miscreants have full liberties and they still hover at about 60% approval. If there was a "Roman Decimation" option, I might use it on Maryland.

Anyway, I have Petersburg, Memphis and Savannah all under seige, and it's July 1863. (Hey, I said I was behind.)

Anyway, Love this game. Love it

Just ignore the civil liberties screen. It's one of the weaker parts of the game.

I might have to do just that. Except for Maryland, they are really courting my wrathe!

I never mess with the civil liberties screen. I honestly don't care what the populace thinks in some of the border states and/or occupied states. I plan my supply line defense as if everyone is out to get me. Further, if you have anything less than full liberties, you don't get the VP from the cities in that state that you occupy. The only time I've ever used suspend habeaus corpus or martial law is if I need to secure supply for a quick strike as an unforeseen opportunity presented itself. I am however relatively new to this game, so maybe there's something I'm missing, but I've won several campaigns as the Union without messing with civil liberties at all (personal best was October 1862).

What Barksdale said.

Whatzamatta you? Maryland is at only 60%? Believe me, it's OK. If you think about it, that's great. You can pass supplies and RR your troops thru regions at 25% - that's all you need. Now, to be clear, I would get a little worried if MD, DE, KY, or MO got to 40%-45%, but, in general...those are the Border States! They're all Slave States, anyway. It's natural and historically representative for them to be so-so in their affiliation.

Even if the only place across the Mason-Dixon I held was Alexandria, VA, I would still want to garrison KS, MO, KY, WV, MD - and PA, too, just to guard against CSA raids. As long as you can proceed with your operations without being constantly nicked by Reb raiders and keep occupied Reb towns from revolting, that's all you need.

Go to your reinforcements screen (you're vanilla 1.13b, I assume). See all those two Inf regmt brigades at cut-rate prices (including later on, the Colored Brigades)? Those are your garrisons. As you take more and more Reb cities, ya gotta garrison 'em.

Go to your Loyalties filter. Even in areas the Union has occupied for a long time (Control filter), the color is Grey. Loyalties take a long time to change, if ever.

Don't worry about being Well Liked. Stay away from any loss of Civil Libs (a trifle ahistoric, but...), garrison properly, keep supplies flowing, and proceed with your plans.

Now go out there and crush dem Rebs.

ADDENDUM: Anti-Raiding and Occupying the South

* Build stacks of 2 Cav with a Horse Arty attached for raids in the Trans-Miss and Midwest, West VA and PA. Stomps small raiders.

* Build some Militia occasionally. Keep building them until you have the North fully garrisoned. Keep a few (not too many) 2 Inf Regmt Brigades in Pittsburgh, Cairo, Louisville, Leavenworth for the more serious incursions.

* As you push South, build these 2 Inf Regmt Bdes for garrisoning towns and cities. Put in two apiece for the more important population centers.

* Keep a few 'real' stacks around for the occasional Revolt or Partisan annoyances.

In general, if you keep a buncha short-tempered burly guys hangin' around with blue uniforms and muskets, the locals get the message.

husky1943 wrote:[...]
Anyway, the civil liberties choices are killing me. [...]

I don't know if you're aware of it, but when Habeas Corpus is suspended in a state, a player ceases to receive any Victory Points (VPs) in that state. Furthermore, when Martial Law is declared, a player loses VPs for strategic objectives in that state.

If you already knew this... good! You're ahead of the curve.
If you didn't... well, a lot of experienced players in the tournament didn't know these points, either. Here's a link to the thread where the issue was raised.

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?p=116392#post116392

I disagree with most of the posters so far. I believe the civil liberties screen is vital for an invading player.

Loyalty works like this...at least to my understanding....if you have military control of a region...the loyalty of the region will begin to adjust depending on what you have selected in the "loyalties" menu. With "Full Liberties"...you're not pressing the populace into giving you their loyalty....basically...with full liberties...they can do whatever they want. This is modelled in that with the Full Liberties selection...loyalty is not altered by anything except a majority of military control...and/or a general with the "Harsh Administrator" trait (I think that's what it's called.)

Now....with suspended habeus corpus selected....once you have even a little military control of a region...its loyalty will begin to adjust to the parameters set by that selection...i.e. "Suspended Habeus Corps" means loyalty will work its way to between 35 and 75% NO MATTER how loyal the populace starts out...and with only a small amount of Military Control.

While you don't get the VP's from captured cities...having these harsher civil liberties policies...you will...over time...turn the populace over to your side...and allow your armies to move forward without having to spend too many resources protecting your supply line....once the populace is firmly on your side...you can switch back to "Full Liberties" and reap all the benefits.

At least that's how I think it works. I think we need Major Tom to take a look at the details of this...because I'm very positive that this menu has a distinct and very implicit impact on the game....at least for the invading player.

An interesting point. Don't you want to generate as many VPs as you can per turn?

Now, in my 'main' game (Apr 61 US), it's a win, as chessplayers say. Me, Union, has overrun VA & NC, secured KY, overrun TN, control Little Rock and essential points in AR. No seaborne invasions, just blockade - land only. Am approaching Atlanta and Charleston. The only CSA Objectives left after that will be N'Orleans, Mobile and Vicksburg. Taking Memphis was a major drawn-out campaign in itself, the AI defended that mightily. It's now April '64.

The VP margin is hugely in my favor at this point, by a thousand or more. I'm at about 140 NM and not increasing by leaps and bounds. Victory is 225 now. CSA NM is about 82 or so. Now, the question is - does following your method result in a faster win? My resources as US at this point are such that providing garrisons is not a real issue. Does churning out lopsided VPs every turn benefit you enough to get NM closer enough, more quickly, to a win? Maybe not - my NM isn't increasing spectacularly; very slowly as a matter of fact.

Does sacrificing VPs allow you to move faster and win faster? That's the nub. Bear in mind, when I say 'faster' this is not a WW2 game with air and armor to blitz with. I've read about people winning in Dec '61 as the US, fer heavens sake, and I don't know how they do it (Normal settings -I give AI time to think and minimum teleporting - a pretty even field). This is a slow game, IMO; the US isn't going to win overnight. I'm in a '62 game right now where I'm attempting the Peninsular campaign and the N'Orleans invasion and trying to do all that and and keep the CSA in check is all I can deal with (did just take Memphis - AI goofed, I think, on a certain move, but I have to re-take Nashville; lost it).

Historically, by late spring '62, the US had N'Orleans, Nashville and Memphis in its hands and was threatening Richmond (BTW, see Lidell-Hart's discussion of the Peninsula; McClellan had the right strategic idea, maintaing two axes of approach at once - fumbled the ball). I find that acheving all these by June '62 to be a serious challenge.

IMO, this is a continental campaign of slow accretion of advantages, especially in 1863 and further on. Taking cities in succesion takes time if you are not to leave openings for the South.

Would love to hear another approach.

If you go to police control (the most strict one), you actually lose VPs for strategic cities. As for the most VPs, the bigger the margin at the end the better. VPs effect your money and CS points you can raise. For example, you get a lot more CS for call for volunteers with a high VP count.

Loyalty change is dependent upon the troops you have garrisoning a location. The higher the police value, the better they are at changing the loyalty.

For me, I change the garrisoning unit depending on city size. The bigger the city, the bigger the garrison. If the city is size 1-2, a one element unit is enough to keep it under control. If the city is 3+ I use a brigade to keep it under control. Using this method, I have never had a city revolt (unless I am foolish enough to move my garrison unit out of the area which sad to say I have done more times than I like to admit.)

Jim-NC wrote:If you go to police control (the most strict one), you actually lose VPs for strategic cities. As for the most VPs, the bigger the margin at the end the better. VPs effect your money and CS points you can raise. For example, you get a lot more CS for call for volunteers with a high VP count.

Loyalty change is dependent upon the troops you have garrisoning a location. The higher the police value, the better they are at changing the loyalty.

For me, I change the garrisoning unit depending on city size. The bigger the city, the bigger the garrison. If the city is size 1-2, a one element unit is enough to keep it under control. If the city is 3+ I use a brigade to keep it under control. Using this method, I have never had a city revolt (unless I am foolish enough to move my garrison unit out of the area which sad to say I have done more times than I like to admit.)

A note...I'm pretty sure VP's do not determine the amount of CS's generated for drafts and volunteer call outs. I think the number of CS's is tied to NM.

As CSA I have always been playing on theory that CS points are tied to NM and NM total is important in considering when to use my draft and ultimately when and what Financial options to exercise, as excessive inflation will corrupt CSA ability to fight the war - it is a very important part of game from a CSA point of view.

I cant really comment on what this would do to Federals as I never play Feds. Although I have heard numerous complaints from my nephew on this as I tried to explain the economic dimensions of game and the effects of Morale and loyalty on ability to recruit regts in Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri from his point of view playing Federals!

He no longer lets me have cheap Victories in above mentiioned States. Nor does he leave Strategic Cities ungarrisoned anymore. Damn him!!

Oops I meant WV and not Maryland I never invade Maryland as part of agreement with him before 1863 - assuming he has not destroyed me before then.

You need at least one combat unit to have the Civil liberties choices take effect (the bounding of loyalty between 2 values, VP is always lost or removed )

This is what makes this game so neat.......the impact of a decision has so many far-reaching implications.

I was actually using the civil liberties for several reasons: 1) Punishment - these states were rebels, and I thought it would cement (or at least firm up) my support up North if I were to discipline (even marginally) those who had rebelled against the United States; 2) Security - to secure the areas in the rear so I don't have to garrison so heavily. I understand fully that garrisoning is a key. 3) Reality - I understood that I wouldn't be getting the VP's for suspending Habeas Corpus. I figured that was a tradeoff because I thought that the South wouldn't be getting them either, unless I instituted Martial Law (which is much too draconian for me).

But, that might draw a difference in how I play it from many others. I know some about the game, but I don't want to know everything. Sometimes, I have to learn how something works by doing it and observing the results. For example, I play the game by chasing Confederate forces, not the cities. I mean, I take the cities when I have the chance, but that is not my priority. I like to make the Confederate jump around reacting my advance, and making them attack me at ground of my choosing. So far, I find it successful because it is currently Oct 1863, and I have less than 33,000 casualties. The South has suffered 87,000 casualties with an additional 29,000 taken prisoner. I am proud that I have not bled my Army to achieve victory. In fact, I just took Corinth, Memphis and Petersburg, and Savannah is under siege.

I ain't playing to win by points or when something reaches something. I am playing to win, restore the Union and keep my casualties to a minimum.

I love this game.

Banks6060 wrote:A note...I'm pretty sure VP's do not determine the amount of CS's generated for drafts and volunteer call outs. I think the number of CS's is tied to NM.

You are quite correct Banks, my mistake. It is the amount of money raised from bonds etc. that is affected by your victory points. Not your CS points.

Jim: Thanks for serving as host for my PBEM game with Mae! apy: