AGEOD Forums

I've played about 30 games against the AI; about half with CSA. With later games I've made it more difficult to trigger the Intervention because it seemed to open a can of worms, i.e., now I had to protect an area far, far away. I learned this the hard way because I sent a lot of the British forces into Southern areas. After that experience I decided to send more British forces into Canada, in fact, I sent most.

Then, for some reason, most of those forces ran out of groceries. Possibly a blockade? Didn't research it at the time.

Next time I play the South I'm thinking about sending a majority of the forces into the South again. I did experience, one time, a complete domination of the Union after Foreign Intervention. I captured D.C., Annapolis, Baltimore & Philadelphia in the East; in the West I captured Louisville, Cincinnati, St. Louis & Indianapolis. The AI seemed to focus too much on the Canada angle. After this experience I upped the difficulty levels. But this was keeping most British in Canada with an occasional foray over the line.

After saying all this I'm wondering has anyone used the strategy to ,at least, land all of the British units from England in the CSA proper while keeping the handful of units in Canada in place?:

I myself tend to land the BEF in New England. I haven't tried the CSA landing. I may attempt this the next go around though. I am always up for new strategies.

Are you using them as parts of a larger CSA army, or a new army to augment your present forces?

I have never trigger the intervention event against Athena.
But I can share some observations against an experienced human :

1 - I obtained the BEF in early 1862. At this date, I was already heavily outnumbered !! I planned to send the BEF in Boston, to do some damages in the region and maybe threaten New York. Another aim was to fix the numerous reinforcements of my opponent far from the main theaters and maybe got some support from Canada.

2 - some remarks :
- you have to unload your troops and your opponent can see where this is going to happen. The very bad news is the fact that North has their interior lines of railroads to bring some troops in the place. And a sea-coming assault may be [SIZE="2"]very[/size] bloody !!
- in my game, despite the fact I had reorganized my British Army in London, I was unable to unload my two Corps and my Army HQ separately. The engine doesn't want. So I had to unload everybody in only one stack, and so a 35% penalty. The result was a 10% loss on the assault on a not strongly defended Boston. I let you imagine the result if only one US Army Corps was there.

3 - After the succesful assault, you have to find supply for your troops. I manage the construction of a depot but he never resupplied. I was forced to extract my entire army by sea under blocus some turns later to avoid starvation. I had not even think to go inland because of my opponent strong line of defense in Massachussets-NY border (at least 3 Corps and 10+ Divisions)

In short, you have to be very careful with the use of the BEF as a sea-invasion force against a human opponent. I will post the other use later.
However, you can read the good AAR made by Vegetius on our game ( but it's in French only ) for further informations.

deleted

I would assume...for reasons of supply and the difficulties associated with amphibious landings in enemy controlled territory...Landing the BEF anywhere north of Virginia would be a potentially bad idea. But I could be wrong.

I've not once had Foreign Intervention fire... . It's badly needed in my current struggle with Soundoff that's for sure.

DarthMath wrote:- in my game, despite the fact I had reorganized my British Army in London, I was unable to unload my two Corps and my Army HQ separately. The engine doesn't want. So I had to unload everybody in only one stack, and so a 35% penalty.

I may be wrong about this, but I seem to recall that you CAN unload into separate stacks and even reform corps and armies on the fly while unloading from a single fleet. I am fairly certain I've done that when I landed three corps and an army HQ at New Orleans in my current game. I hope I am not just fantasizing, but I seem to recall
- you select the units and leaders of the corps from the embarked stack;
- drag them onto the target region on land;
- that makes them a separate stack;
- now you can reform the corps on the leader.
They land as a fully formed corps alright.
But as I said, I did this only once, and that was half a year ago, so I may just be dead wrong.

Heldenkaiser wrote:I may be wrong about this, but I seem to recall that you CAN unload into separate stacks and even reform corps and armies on the fly while unloading from a single fleet. I am fairly certain I've done that when I landed three corps and an army HQ at New Orleans in my current game. I hope I am not just fantasizing, but I seem to recall
- you select the units and leaders of the corps from the embarked stack;
- drag them onto the target region on land;
- that makes them a separate stack;
- now you can reform the corps on the leader.
They land as a fully formed corps alright.
But as I said, I did this only once, and that was half a year ago, so I may just be dead wrong.

I did that, the first Corps had the movement noted, but when I selected the other Corps and moved it, I've had a " impossible to unload more than one stack in the same turn" message . I tried different things, but the only possibility I had was to unload all of my troops in one move. But I maybe missed something !!

Well, I suppose in the end you could always put them on separate fleets in the first place ...

Heldenkaiser wrote:Well, I suppose in the end you could always put them on separate fleets in the first place ...

Yes, I think it's a definitely better solution !!
But beware of the Union Fleet !!

So, as I said in the first post, I passed through the Union blockade outside Boston and unload my troops at Wilmington.
After that, I used them to retake Norfolk and threaten Fort Monroe, associated with CSA troops.

The fact is the British troops have only 6 pdr Art., and so they are outpowered by the classic Union Corps. They are useful for one thing, they have plenty of big brigades with the "good morale" ability, and after a year or so using the BEF as an independant army supporting the main CSA army of NVA for more historical realism, I decided to mix my british divisions and my CSA divisions for a better efficiency.

Some more notes :
- they have poor division's commander, but that brings to you between 7 and 10 free divisions(with the French), so don't remove them !! I've lost stupidly some of them that way ...
- their Corps commander could only be associated with the BEF Army HQ, not a CSA HQ (unless you use some little "gamey" tricks)
- they have a lot of free replacements, so they could be used on the offensive.
About that last point, I found they took more losses than the other troops but can't explain what. Maybe just my imagination !!
- it's very difficult to defend Canada. In the game, I've lost all of my canadian troops ( about 30.000 men ) and nothing to do about that. If the Union player has decided to destroy your canadian troops and commited enough divisions, that's free VP and NM points for him.
- a last word about the French, they're coming with two division at Vera Cruz at the end of 1862 but with a very poor 3 stars commander (a 2-2-2). In our game, he has been activated only 4 or 5 turns on a year and a half. For my great shame, they weren't able to destroy the Mexican army !! leure:
And because of lack of supply danger, I've sent them back to New Orleans to protect the city.
- Oh, I was thinking of another little thing, the foreign intervention brings four more 3 stars generals with very high seniority in your chain of command. Two of them are coming with an army HQ, but the other two aren't. It might be a nuisance when you have to appoint another Army Commander.

In the end, I have no doubt there can be a better use of foreign troops than the one I played. But against a strong opponent, it only allows you to strenghten your defense and gain more time before the incoming overwhelming power of the Union crush our beloved Dixieland !!
But I'm always trying to secure a Victory Points until the last turn.

So, this was my "little" commentary about the foreign troops. Hope this will help some lucky CSA leaders.

DarthMath wrote:- their Corps commander could only be associated with the BEF Army HQ, not a CSA HQ (...)
- it's very difficult to defend Canada. In the game, I've lost all of my canadian troops ( about 30.000 men ) and nothing to do about that.

I would say both of that sounds alright, historically ...

Heldenkaiser wrote:I would say both of that sounds alright, historically ...

You're right. But sometimes it's a little annoying !!

it is hard coded that only the USA can benefits from the Naval resupply routine (putting ships into the atlantic shipping box)...

Banks6060 wrote:I would assume...for reasons of supply and the difficulties associated with amphibious landings in enemy controlled territory...Landing the BEF anywhere north of Virginia would be a potentially bad idea. But I could be wrong.

I've not once had Foreign Intervention fire... . It's badly needed in my current struggle with Soundoff that's for sure.

In regards to your game against Soundoff, I don't think the Europeans will ever move in to help you (not with the terrible rolls you have gotten on your embargos).

deleted

Gray_Lensman wrote:Ouch... So the additional UK units are best utilized by landing in the south and therefore drawing suppplies off the CSA supply net in the normal manner?

Sounds like it. I have done the New England landing twice, without too many supply issues. I was playing Athena also. On both occasions I did open a corridor to Boston ASAP though.

I am currently fighting against DarthMath as the Union and have already experienced the use of British army by the CSA in another pbem.

Some remarks :
1) The coming of the european allies bring a huge powerful fleet with a lot of armoured frigates and warships, easily able to compete with the union fleet. This made very difficult to land on the rear of the confederation lines.

2) The Mexican army is really poor in combat capacity and organisation so the French Army has to conquest entire Mexico very fast, giving a good amount of moral and victory points to the south, before reinforcement of the Tennessee and Mississipi front. In my game against DarthMath, i send 2 union generals to organise the mexican forces in division, wich probably explain why Bazaine did not succeed in beating Porfirio Diaz.

3) The BEF is a very powerfull force (8 divisions in 3 Corps with lot of elite units for some 6.500 power), furthermore in the beginning of the game, but lacks of heavy guns and good division leaders.
In a previous game, i used them to take Boston (in early 64) as my logistical base and send all my cavalry units to break communication between Philadelphia and New York. When the Union Army appeared near Boston, i brought all my troops by fleet to Washington wich feld before the Union army came back. In my opinion, a landing in Boston must be the beginning of a northern campaign to take all the cities and depots north of New-York to avoid starvation and cut the union army in two.

4) The BEF or FEF have to be assignated to a precise area or prurpose. They can not benefit of the CSA Corps support rule so do not put them in the center of your lines.

Gray_Lensman wrote:Ouch... So the additional UK units are best utilized by landing in the south and therefore drawing suppplies off the CSA supply net in the normal manner?

Yes for now I would say that. Alternatively you can declare that the shipping box is a naval box for CSA when UK enters war, so they will be able to use Naval Supply as the US. (not that hard coded as you see ).

Pocus wrote:Yes for now I would say that. Alternatively you can declare that the shipping box is a naval box for CSA when UK enters war, so they will be able to use Naval Supply as the US. (not that hard coded as you see ).

That would be very helpful if you could implement this.
For a CSA point of vue of course !!

deleted

Jim-NC wrote:In regards to your game against Soundoff, I don't think the Europeans will ever move in to help you (not with the terrible rolls you have gotten on your embargos).

Indeed. I doubt it. Some REALLY lucky rolls would be needed to change things....doubtful at this point.

That's simple Michael: just open a campaign and find:
SetNavalPool (for the US)

do the same for the CSA and they will be able to resupply on the coast, provided they have ships in the OMB.

Pocus wrote:That's simple Michael: just open a campaign and find:
SetNavalPool (for the US)

do the same for the CSA and they will be able to resupply on the coast, provided they have ships in the OMB.

As you said in a previous post, not so hard-coded as it seemed !!

Question/observation: Shouldn't it be harder for the Southern player to use foreign forces to basically attack the North? I mean, historically, the South was "defending" itself from Northern Aggression. It would seem contradictory to me then for the South to ask those forces to do anything outside of "defend" the South.

We can not really know because it never happened, at least in a big way. Only provide conjecture and observation as you have and I will here. I think this is a great feature in the game though, because it allows that "what if" to possibly happen in each of our games we play and might change the course of history! At least in our PC world! With the British and the Canadians involved, that could have put the USA onto three fronts or more, and then how would they have faired come 63 or 64? Possibly no Shermans "March to the Sea" or perhaps Grants final Campaign against Lee turns out a bit different. The South might have changed their war policies if more help had arrived through foreign intervention. And we get to decide if that's the way history is written.

I don't often offer my 2 cents but thought since I'm in the tournament I'd get to posting and make some friends (or perhaps enemy's) Who knows, I may have to attempt an AAR soon!

I'll see you all throughout the forum!

biggp07

husky1943 wrote:Question/observation: Shouldn't it be harder for the Southern player to use foreign forces to basically attack the North? I mean, historically, the South was "defending" itself from Northern Aggression. It would seem contradictory to me then for the South to ask those forces to do anything outside of "defend" the South.

I think it is pretty easy (and fun) to justify allied aggression against the northern USA. I doubt that France or England would have assisted the CSA out of altruism, they may have had some territorial acquisition in mind too. I bet Britain wouldn't have minded revising some of the northern borders a bit, especially in the NW where gold kept cropping up and the they had only recently given up their claims. Old Nappy the Third was never one to ignore a decent chance at a land grab either. He might have been happier with New York or St. Louis than Mexico City.

deleted

phantomfeather wrote:I've played about 30 games against the AI; about half with CSA. With later games I've made it more difficult to trigger the Intervention because it seemed to open a can of worms, i.e., now I had to protect an area far, far away. I learned this the hard way because I sent a lot of the British forces into Southern areas. After that experience I decided to send more British forces into Canada, in fact, I sent most.

Then, for some reason, most of those forces ran out of groceries. Possibly a blockade? Didn't research it at the time.

Next time I play the South I'm thinking about sending a majority of the forces into the South again. I did experience, one time, a complete domination of the Union after Foreign Intervention. I captured D.C., Annapolis, Baltimore & Philadelphia in the East; in the West I captured Louisville, Cincinnati, St. Louis & Indianapolis. The AI seemed to focus too much on the Canada angle. After this experience I upped the difficulty levels. But this was keeping most British in Canada with an occasional foray over the line.

After saying all this I'm wondering has anyone used the strategy to ,at least, land all of the British units from England in the CSA proper while keeping the handful of units in Canada in place?:

I, too, have tried the Boston landing but I got hammered.

UPDATE: I tried the strategy of landing all British forces in the CSA. It actually worked rather well. They did draw their supplies from the CSA lines, never went out of supply. All I kept in Canada was the one army & corps that was already there. I combined them into one force. Though I ended up losing Canada around the Great Lakes this didn't seem to make any difference in VPs. With a British Army & 2 Corps in the South I was able to punch into D.C. & further. More than pleased with that aspect.

I would prefer not to let canadian troops alone, they can be very useful by threatening Michigan or joining the BEF in Boston.

On their own, they can not resist in long term to the Union army and give a lot of moral and victory points to the USA player.

Vegetius wrote:I would prefer not to let canadian troops alone, they can be very useful by threatening Michigan or joining the BEF in Boston.

On their own, they can not resist in long term to the Union army and give a lot of moral and victory points to the USA player.

That's very true, Veg (I can call you Veg, can't I?) My experience with this has been that if I placed most or all British units in Canada I end up facing 2 problems: 1. The units end up over extending & using up food supplies & 2. The USA will react by sending more troops into Canada. I've found that if I don't send all these units to Canada, sending them instead into Virginia, the AI recognizes this & will not react blindly. I've only experimented with this one time so it might be the unusual instead of the norm. Plus, though I did lose the parts of Canada around the Great Lakes (the part that's not in boxes), it didn't seem to make any difference in VP's nor morale.