CSA Grand Strategy - tips?

[Carrington]

Clausewitz actually wrote and lectured a great deal on small wars, drawing particularly on his study of the rebellion in the Vendée and guerrilla warfare in Spain. However, very little of this found its way into On War, in fact much of it has yet to be translated into English.

Interesting. The crucial thing about On War is that it was Clausewitz's unfinished magnum opus, with only the first couple (and concluding) chapters reaching a final draft before he dies (of smallpox, IIRC, I should google it.) One gets the sense that these re-written chapters likely reflected the peripheral writing and lecturing, as well as the draft he already had in hand.

One important element of Clausewitz's context was his intimate involvement in the 'Prussian'/German military reforms leading to the rise of the Landwehr. His work to mobilize German manpower was a significant element in Napoleon's defeat at Liepzig in 1813 (you don't arrange for a battle of 600k without a levee en masse). And frankly, any battle conducted with such huge numbers is going to be bloody and tactically -- but by no means strategically -- inconclusive.

Building the infrastructure behind such a mobilization, in contrast, was political dynamite.

[John Sedgwick]

Just googled that myself out of curiosity - he died of cholera in 1831, commanding a cordon sanitaire to contain a cholera outbreak in Poland. I'd say that's ironic, but on second thought, I suppose it makes perfect sense. I can just imagine Jomini doing a little dance at the death of his rival although I don't know of any actual personal enmity between the two.

[Carrington]

Just googled that myself out of curiosity - he died of cholera in 1831, commanding a cordon sanitaire to contain a cholera outbreak in Poland. I'd say that's ironic, but on second thought, I suppose it makes perfect sense. I can just imagine Jomini doing a little dance at the death of his rival although I don't know of any actual personal enmity between the two.

"Humanitarian interventions" had a somewhat different meaning in the early 19th century.

I'd imagine the Poles tended to be a bit unhappy about just exactly where on the map that cordon sanitaire had been drawn -- inevitably it did not coincide exactly with the Prusso-Polish border.

[John Sedgwick]

I'd imagine the Poles tended to be a bit unhappy about just exactly where on the map that cordon sanitaire had been drawn -- inevitably it did not coincide exactly with the Prusso-Polish border.

Hah, no doubt. I suspect it had as much if not more to do with the Polish revolt that happened to coincide with the outbreak of cholera. Although I don't think they would've crossed their border unless they felt they needed to intervene - remember Poland was partitioned between Prussia and Russia at the time. EDIT: my mistake, the Congress Kingdom of Poland was still in existence (not for long), but it was basically Russian territory.

2nd EDIT: Idea for a new AGEOD game: Wars in Poland? They could call it "PolOWND!"

[OneArmedMexican]

but does anyone have any tips for the '63 campaign? I'm having a rough time of it in Mississippi and Louisiana! EDIT: I'm thinking I might give up on Vicksburg and withdraw and regroup behind the Alabama and Tombigbee Rivers, tearing up the rails as I go. Or should I try to hold Vicksburg at all costs?

A flexible approach has worked best for me. I don't fixate on holding certain cities at any cost, instead I stay on defense and strike at those Union forces that venture too far behind my lines.

Here are some things that worked well for me:

1) Abandon the West: I try to evacute the troops from Arkansas and Texas. Leaving just Indians, cavalry and some rangers behind. These move around permanently (hit and run/snatch a city and move on tactics). Their objective is to bind as many Union forces as possible.

2) Concentration: The South's best chance is to assemble some strong stacks and use them to strike at weaker Union forces.

3) Early on, you can get some beautiful victories at Fredericksburg. The Union loves to repeat Burnside's mistake.

4) Try crushing the Union pockets at the coast. An exception may be Norfolk. For some reason, I have gotten some of my worst defeats outside that city. It is better to wait until the AI moves its stacks out of Norfolk.

5) There are only two cities that the CSA cannot afford to loose: Richmond and (to a lesser extent) Atlanta.

6) Stay on defense overall, wait for the AI to send its stacks behind your front lines and crush those once their supplies start running low. Gamey, I know, but in '63, it is legitimate to exploit the AIs weaknesses.

7) Railroads: built up your capacities as much as you can afford. Maximise your limited troops by moving them around quickly.

8) Go all out on the economy. Don't worry about inflation. Don't waste money in order to attempt to get foreign help.

9) As concerns Vicksburg, I usually hold it for a long time. The AI has a hard time staging a viable attack on it. It serves as my anchor in the Mississippi/Alabama/Louisiana region. The problem is that the hinterland (Jackson, Meridian) is hard to defend. If those cities fall supply may become an issue, forcing you to abandon Vicksburg. Besides, the city has limited economic value, therefore it is worth risking it if a good oportunity presents itself elsewhere.

I respectfully disagree. Counter-insurgency and low intensity conflicts are certainly not recent inventions - the very word guerrilla is of Napoleonic provenance. Clausewitz actually wrote and lectured a great deal on small wars, drawing particularly on his study of the rebellion in the Vendée and guerrilla warfare in Spain. However, very little of this found its way into On War, in fact much of it has yet to be translated into English. Even then, as Carrington pointed out, the main body of his work still has some relevant things to say about low-intensity conflicts (which as a term I think is something of a misnomer!)

Nice debate on Clausewitz. Have you references on Clausewitz other works? I read "On War", but it really doesn't concern itself with small wars a lot. Sure it discusses the merits of a levée en masse (which belongs in the context of the "great war" anyways) and metions the Spanish guerilla. But there is no real analysis of low-intensity conflict.
By the way, why is low-intensity conflict a misnomer in your opinion? I believe it describes this type of warfare better than most alternative terms which are currently in use.

[Carrington]

As Union player against ZardozLord, I can heartily endorse the strategy of issuing golden BBs to KY militia in Columbus KY.

Grant caught one of the magic BBs last turn while squashing the rebel militia.

Very demoralizing.

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

As Union player against ZardozLord, I can heartily endorse the strategy of issuing golden BBs to KY militia in Columbus KY.

Grant caught one of the magic BBs last turn while squashing the rebel militia.

Very demoralizing.

Ouch. I'm playing my first Union game and I can't imagine getting anything going in the west without Grant.

I don't know anything about Clausewitzian strategy (is that the term?) but from your description, it sounds like a good strategy for the CSA to take. Let them overextend and counterstrike. Also, as always, entrenchments are your friends.

[John Sedgwick]

Have you references on Clausewitz other works? I read "On War", but it really doesn't concern itself with small wars a lot. Sure it discusses the merits of a levée en masse (which belongs in the context of the "great war" anyways) and metions the Spanish guerilla. But there is no real analysis of low-intensity conflict.

Well, http://www.clausewitz.com is a great resource if you're interested in his works. Here is a bibliography of works by or about Clausewitz written or translated in English. Here is a paper on "Clausewitz and Small Wars" by Christopher Daase, which is included in a book called Clausewitz in the Twentieth Century published by Oxford University's Changing Character of War programme, also a great resource if you're interested in this kinda stuff.

By the way, why is low-intensity conflict a misnomer in your opinion? I believe it describes this type of warfare better than most alternative terms which are currently in use.

What I mean is that these conflicts can be very "intense" for the local population. "Low-intensity operations" makes sense as a term from an outside perspective, and I can't think of a better synonym off the top of my head, but try telling someone in Darfur or the Congo that they're experiencing a "low-intensity conflict" and... well you see what I'm getting at.

PS - thanks for the tips! Things are starting to go a bit pear shaped, but Lee is doing quite well in the East, I think. It's a tough slog but thankfully the AI is still pretty dumb, despite having jacked up the difficulty and reduced its fog of war penalties :P

[Carrington]

Ouch. I'm playing my first Union game and I can't imagine getting anything going in the west without Grant.

I don't know anything about Clausewitzian strategy (is that the term?) but from your description, it sounds like a good strategy for the CSA to take. Let them overextend and counterstrike. Also, as always, entrenchments are your friends.

:-). Yeah. The upside is that Lyon is still active. Not as good tactically, but a good strategy rating.

[Cromagnonman]

:-). Yeah. The upside is that Lyon is still active. Not as good tactically, but a good strategy rating.

Sherman is no slacker, and Thomas and Meade can both make important contributions. As the North, I usually don't end up with more than 4 armies.

[OneArmedMexican]

Thank you very much for the references Sedgwick, I didn't know that homepage. It is very interesting.

I hope your campaign is progressing well. It is unfortunately true, the AI is not the brightest tool in the shed. The good thing is, that it keeps getting better with every patch and every new AGE game. Try RoP or RUS and you will see a far better AI. Its ability to execute cordinated and concentrated attacks as well as its awareness of supply lines have greatly improved. It still has a long way to go until it can stand up to an experienced human player, but I have yet to meet such an AI in a computer game.

[John Sedgwick]

You're welcome, OneArmed.

My campaign is progressing very badly actually! But I'm having fun so that's what counts. I neglected to sufficiently concentrate my forces, overextended and left my defenses very weak, so while Lee was invading the north, Richmond fell to the Yankee hordes coming from Norfolk and the peninsula. Very foolish of me - I was doing quite well until then, inflicting some demoralizing defeats on Union forces all across the board, although I pushed my raiders too hard and many of them melted away for lack of supply.

As for the AI, it's still pretty impressive considering the complexity of the engine. I'm using the 1.15 patch - does the beta improve on AI? As for later AGE games, I'm currently debating whether to pick up RoP or RUS first. I'm leaning towards RUS just because it's such an interesting conflict that, as far as I know, has never been simulated before on the PC.

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

As for the AI, it's still pretty impressive considering the complexity of the engine. I'm using the 1.15 patch - does the beta improve on AI? As for later AGE games, I'm currently debating whether to pick up RoP or RUS first. I'm leaning towards RUS just because it's such an interesting conflict that, as far as I know, has never been simulated before on the PC.

1.16 was a pretty significant jump for the AI in my opinion. I'll also disagree with RUS having a better AI. That conflict is just too complicated for the current AI and supply model. I've played 3 GC's and barely lost a battle so far. I think it would be pretty damn fun PBEM though.

[John Sedgwick]

1.16 was a pretty significant jump for the AI in my opinion. I'll also disagree with RUS having a better AI. That conflict is just too complicated for the current AI and supply model. I've played 3 GC's and barely lost a battle so far. I think it would be pretty damn fun PBEM though.

Hmm, guess I'll install the beta then. I'm leaning towards getting RoP first, and giving RUS some time for the patches to percolate. A friend of mine is obsessed with Frederick the Great too, so I might be able to entice him into some PBEM games with RoP, although he's refused to play me ever since I completely annihilated him in The Operational Art of War :P

[OneArmedMexican]

I'll also disagree with RUS having a better AI. That conflict is just too complicated for the current AI and supply model. I've played 3 GC's and barely lost a battle so far. I think it would be pretty damn fun PBEM though.

Let me guess, you have been playing Southern White. Try the Bolshevics, it is almost impossible not to get badly pounded in the first year. That is no coincidence: early on the Southern White has a lot of elite troops, while the Bolshevic is fighting with militia. That effect is aggravated by the abmyssal leaders you get when commanding the embryonic Red Army. Its part of the fun: in the GC the Red is fighting for his life until his superiority in recruits starts kicking in while the Southern White has to rush to finish the Bolshevics off before that happens.
I don't think you winning rather easily has anything to do with a bad AI. You just happened to choose the easiest side. At least if my asumption is correct.

As for the quality of the AI, the RUS (and the RoP) AI seem to be cured of a lot of the mistakes that doom Athena in ACW:
- it is far less likely to rush deep into enemy hinterland without thinking of supply lines.
- it does a pretty good job at concentrating its troops.
- it is able of surprising counteroffensives.

I agree with you that RUS is perfectly suited for PBEMs. I would love to try the Drang campaign. But even against the AI that thing campaign is eating time like crazy. The one time I played it, I was busy for several weeks.

I'm leaning towards getting RoP first, and giving RUS some time for the patches to percolate. A friend of mine is obsessed with Frederick the Great too, so I might be able to entice him into some PBEM games with RoP, although he's refused to play me ever since I completely annihilated him in The Operational Art of War :P

Both are very good games. Personally, I prefer RUS due to two reasons:

1) RoP has an overly complicated replacement system. Hard to calculate since three different mecanisms grant replacements.

2) I miss the mobility railroads bring to ACW and RUS.

But I never regretted buying either of these games. I still remember the moment very fondly when I was steamrolled by a 100.000 men Austrian Army in a concentrated multi-corps attack in my first RoP campaign. I had never seen the AI pull off something like that before. I had to abandon Prague in a tactical retreat in order to avoid being crushed.

[John Sedgwick]

Both are very good games. Personally, I prefer RUS due to two reasons:
1) RoP has an overly complicated replacement system. Hard to calculate since three different mecanisms grant replacements.
2) I miss the mobility railroads bring to ACW and RUS.

Hmm, you raise good points. I will almost certainly buy both of them eventually, but money is tight right now so I have a limited budget for games But I do like railroads... I'm also keen on armoured trains in the RCW

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

Hmm, you raise good points. I will almost certainly buy both of them eventually, but money is tight right now so I have a limited budget for games But I do like railroads... I'm also keen on armoured trains in the RCW

Yeah, one of the big things I missed in WIA was railroads.

As for my AI comment, it mostly concerned my last game as the Siberians. I'll clarify my statement and agree with all 3 of your comments actually. The AI is smarter, but the strategic picture is much more complicated too. I thought it did a decent job when I played the southern whites. I know the Reds are the real challenge right now, but I hope they can balance the other factions a bit more in the future.

[OneArmedMexican]

Yeah, one of the big things I missed in WIA was railroads.

As for my AI comment, it mostly concerned my last game as the Siberians. I'll clarify my statement and agree with all 3 of your comments actually. The AI is smarter, but the strategic picture is much more complicated too. I thought it did a decent job when I played the southern whites. I know the Reds are the real challenge right now, but I hope they can balance the other factions a bit more in the future.

Sorry, it turns out my guess was wrong.

But I agree, the overall situation is more complex. In ACW the AI had to handle two/three fronts. In RUS the Red AI has to handle between four and six theatres of war. But I think it is doing a pretty decent job (for an AI).

As concerns balance, I believe the starting position of the GC is unbalanced on purpose. The idea was to give each faction unique advantages and disadvantages.

- Southern White: elite infantry, but few in numbers. Severe shortage of conscripts. Excellent generals. Later one a lot of free tanks.

- Siberian White: early on elite Czech troops. After the leave Russia thinks get a lot harder. Short on recruits but not as short as the Southern White.

- Bolshevics: low quality troops, horrible leaders. But a lot of conscripts enabling them to built up their strength rapidly.

The really cool thing is that these unique characteristics allow for a shifting balance. The momentum moves away from the White factions. Its a bit like in RoP where the Prussian has the momentum early on, but looses it in the second year to Austria, France and Russia.

[John Sedgwick]

I'm leaning towards getting RoP first, and giving RUS some time for the patches to percolate.

Scratch that. Upon learning that it includes an 1812 scenario, that pretty much made up my mind to buy Wars in America next instead. Just to give you an idea how much of an 1812 wonk I am, I've visited most of the battlefields in the Niagara region, and I have a posable action figure of Sir Isaac Brock sitting on my desk I like to think his last words were, "Surgite (push on)!", but having seen the bullet hole in his uniform where his heart would've been, I suspect his last words were more like, "s-URG!"

[W.Barksdale]

Rather than disperse my forces trying to defend every inch of Confederate soil, my general strategy will be to withdraw to more defensible terrain and/or narrower frontlines whenever convenient, focusing on in-depth defense of a few key areas, in the hopes of luring my opponent far from his lines of supply and communication and forcing him into decisive battle on ground of my choosing. This may not be good for morale, but I'm guessing it will give me a better chance of winning in the long run.

Mobile defences are a good strategy. Be sure to make use of your interior lines to smash any divided Yankee invaders. Maintain a screen with cavalry to ensure surprise.

In the early war, I will wait for the Union to invade Kentucky, then pump as many units out of KY and MO before they're overrun. I plan on waging an aggressive campaign in the west up to the Missourri river as far as St Louis, then blowing the depots and tearing up the rails in a scorched earth withdrawal to a defensive line in AR and TN. I plan on building a lot of gunboats, coastal artillery, and ironclads to control the Mississippi. Also, fair number of blockade runners. No commerce raiders (don't see much point).

USA Athena will quickly invade KY. Pbem really depends. Eitherway it doesn't change the mobile defence in the west. Like you say, be sure to control the river with emplaced guns (ironclads/gunboats aren't terribly necessary early on). Blockade runners are good! Be sure not to buy too many all at once. In MO, be sure to get the three 10lb's in '61 and the four in '62 then your golden. KY is harder vs an experienced player.

No printing paper money except for emergencies - 6% war bonds and graduated income taxes whenever possible, try to keep inflation low. No embargo unless it looks like I have a decent chance for foreign intervention. Light industrialization in TN and VA to bring supplies closer to the front (or is this too close? VA I will hold at all cost, but TN I will sacrifice if necessary). Also, minor investment in railway and major investment in riverine transport.

Don't worry about money as CSA. Always use 8% bonds and the highest tax. And ALWAYS use the cotton embargo!!! I wouldn't start industrializing until your army is filled out. Build up railway fast. Then slowly river as the situation dictates. Recruiting, either go with the 1k or 2k boutys. The diminishing returns really hurts with the 3k ones (unless for some reason you have lots of extra money) After this, if you have excess WS and conscripts, hit the printing presses and use everything!

As far as battle strategy is concerned, the emphasis will be on interior lines of operation (i.e., set the width of the battle front and operate within it, not without), but I also hope to use numerous small cavalry raids to disrupt enemy transport (is this an effective strategy?). Set ambushes where possible, maybe set up weak corps as "carrots" to invite attack, placing the main battle force "stick" behind them to hopefully join the battle afterwards (will this work?)

K good you recoginise interior lines. Cavalry raids are real nice if your opponent has not taken this into account! It can really mess up plans. As CSA you want all your forces massed as much as possible. Don't leave anyone over exposed an experienced player will destroy them. Use your cavalry and irregulars to screen the main force, then use your interior lines to smash any exposed yankees. Be sure tho to always keep the bulk of your army between the main enemy force and the given strategic objective (in most cases anyway, unless you like gambling)

[John Sedgwick]

Thanks for the reply, Mr. Barksdale! Some good points there, particularly the advice to print money if you have an excess of men and materiel - might as well use them sooner rather than later, I suppose. Since money hasn't been an issue for me, I've come around to using the cotton embargo whenever I can, more for the morale boost than anything else. I'm curious - why do you say not to buy too many blockade runners at once? Ineffective use of resources? My thinking was I'd try to get 10-12 brigs in each blockade box ASAP to bring in more WS over the course of the game.

Be sure tho to always keep the bulk of your army between the main enemy force and the given strategic objective (in most cases anyway, unless you like gambling)

Yes, I learned this lesson painfully in my last '63 campaign! I don't like to gamble unless I think the potential payoff far outweighs the worst imaginable reversal (I'm an eternal pessimist when it comes to war plans), but I also tend to play very aggressively to sieze the initiative, so sometimes it's hard to resist the temptation to overreach on the offensive!

[W.Barksdale]

why do you say not to buy too many blockade runners at once? Ineffective use of resources? My thinking was I'd try to get 10-12 brigs in each blockade box ASAP to bring in more WS over the course of the game.

Maybe I should clarify a bit. My point is just don't spend too many resources on brigs right at the start. The Federals will be buying infantry and artillery. It would be a shame to have a bunch of brigs by the end of '61 only to lose control of the James and leave Richmond and Norfolk open to blockade by loosing control of the peninsula (or a similar situation elsewhere).

The rebels need artillery to control the rivers and to help defend against the more numerous yankees. Ships compete for resources with artillery. 10-12 brigs quickly is fine. Just be sure to slowly add to this without jeopordizing your artillery production.

One more thing, place all your brigs in the caribbean box. Don't bother with the the atlantic one. You need two turns to get back to port from the atlantic box. From the other you need only one turn (in most cases).

[John Sedgwick]

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I definitely won't neglect my artillery. I probably neglect my infantry the most, since it's low on my list of priorities - after ships, artillery, and cavalry/horse artillery forces to raid and counter enemy raids. I imagine this would get me into a lot of trouble vs. a human controlled Union.

Makes sense focusing on the Gulf blockade box, I've naturally gravitated towards doing just that. Is there any upper limit/diminishing returns to this strategy? i.e., would 20 brigs in the Gulf bring back as much as 10 each in the Gulf and Atlantic blockades?

[charlesonmission]

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I definitely won't neglect my artillery. I probably neglect my infantry the most, since it's low on my list of priorities - after ships, artillery, and cavalry/horse artillery forces to raid and counter enemy raids. I imagine this would get me into a lot of trouble vs. a human controlled Union.

Makes sense focusing on the Gulf blockade box, I've naturally gravitated towards doing just that. Is there any upper limit/diminishing returns to this strategy? i.e., would 20 brigs in the Gulf bring back as much as 10 each in the Gulf and Atlantic blockades?

If I remember correctly, there were some posts a while back where someone had done statistical analysis on the blockade boxes. I think about 10 brigs for each one was the optimum level, and you are less likely to be sunk in the Gulf as well. Of course, it could be 1.16 has changed all this. Who really knows?

Charles

[Ol' Choctaw]

Well, John Sedgwick, after a PBM game what do you think about this now?

As an overall strategy in the east I would rather leave the Shenandoah Valley devastated and concentrate on holding Manassas until Oct. if I can get away with it.

A couple of times I have used most of my water transport to send Beauregard down to attack Ft. Monroe.

Once it took me three turns to take it but it eliminated the threat to my flank. Without that secure base most any attack in that quarter is doomed due to lack of supply.

In the early going I concentrate primarily on infantry, though those units with artillery are very helpful.

Moving the Norfolk guns to Suffolk will do a lot to keep both human and AI out of the James River. A bombardment or two usually makes them see reason.

You should tell us what you have gleaned from the experience.

[John Sedgwick]

Well, Ol' Choctaw, I believe my overall strategy was sound, even knowing Yellowhammer would likely (correctly) assume I would be following this plan. But I did indeed learn a lot from the experience, and there are a lot of things I would've done differently in retrospect.

The scorched earth withdrawal from the Shenandoah served my purposes well in the early game, shortening my defensive lines and refusing battle while I was relatively weak on that front, but afterwards I was a bit unhappy about sacrificing the initiative there, and of course I failed to hold Manassas for very long (should've taken my Valley forces and concentrated in Manassas sooner - lost a lot of cavalry trying to reinforce it in a hurry when he was about to attak), although I'd rather maintain a flexible defense and avoid battle than try to hold Manassas until October and risk defeat. Overall I'm not very happy with my performance in the east, as Yellowhammer had the initiative more often than not. I likely would've been better off abandoning my plans to retake the Valley other than massed cavalry raids in the rear to keep him off balance, but I wanted at least a toehold in the Shenandoah as a possible springboard for an invasion of the north (which I never seriously contemplated, but wanted Yellowhammer to think that I was). Above all, I wanted to prevent Yellowhammer from concentrating his forces in any one area, so I was more than happy to see him split his efforts between Fredericksburg and the Peninsula. You make a good point about the Norfolk guns, but I was actually hoping he'd try a landing in undefended Suffolk - I had a ton of columbiads sitting in Norfolk with orders to bombard (I eventually moved these to E. P. Alexander's siege train division under Bory in Richmond to act as an artillery reserve once I decided the threat of amphibious invasion had passed).

I think it was you who said that as a Union player you'd like nothing more than to see the Rebs cut and run in Missouri, and you're right. In hindsight I would like to have played more aggressively in this theatre - still following a scorched earth strategy, but at least making more of a fight of it and threatening St. Louis as long as possible. So I think I could've done better in the west, but he always had a lot more forces defending cities and depots in Missouri (including a whole army in St Louis) than I had in theatre, so my plan seems to have worked insofar as I tied down some of his forces with minimal forces of my own, and he never invaded Arkansas.

Then there's Kentucky, which was the focus of my efforts, and here my strategy worked very well. I wanted to prove to myself that the war would be won or lost in the west (as I'd argue it was historically - the east was a sideshow to me, whereas it seemed to be the focus of Yellowhammer's efforts), and that I could cut off and destroy an entire army or at least a sizeable portion of it, even against a human opponent, by using the rivers as a force multiplier. Originally I had planned to do this around Louisville, but I ran into some speedbumps here (at one point he tried a frontal assault on the city, exactly as I had hoped, but was prevented from doing so by my own navy, which was intended to cut off his retreat, so I shot myself in the foot there - lesson learned), and after my first counterattack at Louisville (which apparently surprised Yellowhammer - presumably he expected me to do a scorched earth withdrawal to Bowling Green) failed to achieve decisive results, I decided to dig in and wait for him to overextend himself. When he finally did so around Lexington, I pounced on the opportunity and ran with it. In retrospect I should've tightened the noose sooner, and logistically his forces proved far more resilient than I expected (maybe he snuck in some extra supply with Grierson and Sheridan's cavalry?) - it wasn't until the very last battle that he began to run out of ammunition (still with 70% of units in supply). But overall I'm very happy with the results in Kentucky. Even if he had managed to extract some or all of his forces, he had to throw away an entire campaigning season trying to do so.

So, to summarize, I've come to the conclusion that I should play more aggressively in the west and not burn the depots until I have to; I should more carefully concentrate my forces in the east and not try to hold the Valley if it means weakening my defensive lines; and finally, in Kentucky I've learned that major rivers are my friends

[Coldsteel]

Very cool thread. . . this was a fun read.