The PBEM game is too frustrating

[von Beanie]

I believe that something needs to be done to rebalance the PBEM game.

A smart CSA player that never attacks can create several strongpoints that are nearly invulnerable. On the other hand, the Union player is expected to advance long distances into enemy territory, garrisoning every town on the way as well as all of the critical rail supply networks in his rear.

I have finally lost my temper having my rear area rail lines destroyed by invisible units. The Union simply isn't strong enough to garrison everything in the rear areas, and have forward armies capable of defeating a well dug-in enemy. As the game stands right now, the CSA is simply too powerful to defeat if the CSA player chooses a conservative (defensive) strategy.

I also can't understand why the Union supply network is so fragile, but the CSA supply network seems nearly invulnerable to serious disruption. It doesn't seem to matter that I'm sitting in both Charlottesville and Petersburg, the CSA armies around Richmond are in fine fighting condition and can remain static in their trenches. In my opinion there needs to be a better way to force the CSA to maintain a substantial network of cities to remain in supply.

At a minimum, raider units trying to disrupt rail lines in well-garrisoned enemy regions (i.e., between towns with substantial garrisons) should be subject to a fairly high risk of failure and immediate destruction. In my opinion, to expect the Union to garrison every rail line area to prevent such a tactic unbalances the PBEM game.

Has anyone else had these problems, or am I just way off-base?

[Clovis]

Use riverine and sea supply when possible. don't garrison anything. You simply can't. Create some reaction groups to fight raiders.

Build wagons. A lot. Avoid to be totally dependant of railroads. After all, Sherman did that in 1864 and 1865.

Go to maximal blocus. Take the South harbours.

With the units you will have removed for garrison duties you should have the manpower to make an attrition war

[Pocus]

If the CSA play static in front of you, then attrition him by landing in his back, he can't do both. He should not be able to prevent you from advancing on the whole front too, particularly in the West where you can move by river easily.

[von Beanie]

First, if you don't garrison the towns in enemy areas, they rebel and partisan units soon appear. So that doesn't seem like an option.

Secondly, because instituting martial law apparently causes you to lose victory points (according to the rules book), it would seem reasonable that you should ease up on an area as soon as you firmly control and are garrisoning all of the towns in an occupied state. And yet, when I have >70% Union control of every town and rail area in a state, the rail lines start self-destructing. I had thought that enemy units (invisible to me) were doing this, now I'm wondering if it is automatic (like the Baltimore riot event in 1861) and is triggered by removing martial law from the state.

So what am I missing here? Must you garrison every rail area you are using for a supply line to prevent the self-destructing rail lines? Or is there something I'm missing regarding the control of long rail lines in enemy territory?

[Jagger]

First, if you don't garrison the towns in enemy areas, they rebel and partisan units soon appear. So that doesn't seem like an option.

Secondly, because instituting martial law apparently causes you to lose victory points (according to the rules book), it would seem reasonable that you should ease up on an area as soon as you firmly control and are garrisoning all of the towns in an occupied state. And yet, when I have >70% Union control of every town and rail area in a state, the rail lines start self-destructing. I had thought that enemy units (invisible to me) were doing this, now I'm wondering if it is automatic (like the Baltimore riot event in 1861) and is triggered by removing martial law from the state.

So what am I missing here? Must you garrison every rail area you are using for a supply line to prevent the self-destructing rail lines? Or is there something I'm missing regarding the control of long rail lines in enemy territory?

Well I have only played through 62 so far in PBEM.

I am using militia and cavalry posted along certain vital railroads to keep them open. Although I depend heavily on supply via rivers. I have a lot of supply wagons as well. I also garrison all cities with militia and have significant cavalry available to counter raids. Either cavalry or milita quickly rebuild any damaged railroads.

I do not use martial law or habeas corpus at all as I don't feel the loss of VPs is worth the benefit. Even without the loss of VPs, I see very little benefit to martial law or habeas corpus.

As far as I know, loss of military control of a region will not result in self destructing railroads. However if military control drops below 25%, you will not be able to use that railroad. Once conquered, keeping a militia unit in the region will prevent military control from dropping. If already below 25%, a militia or cavalry unit stationed in the region will gradually raise military control above 25% allowing use of the railroads. To raise military control quickly, put a division into the region for a turn and then leave a militia unit to maintain control.

If railroads are not available at a particular time, consider using river transport.

[Clovis]

First, if you don't garrison the towns in enemy areas, they rebel and partisan units soon appear. So that doesn't seem like an option.

Sherman didn't garrison in 1865. He destroyed. Burn depots in cities conquered, destroy railroads, you will cut the CSA supply system and even if cities are revolting, I highly doubt your opponent will be able to rebuid it, as the cost in War supply is high. And if your blockade is sufficiently strong, it will never had more than a few WS to do so.

And WS being necessary to build new units or buy replacements, attrition and lack of supply will lessen its entrenched armies...

[PBBoeye]

Yes, the point of Sherman's march was to debilitate, not strengthen Northern stocks and supplies. So as ugly as it is - destroy.

[McNaughton]

Well the CSA in this scenario is working along their interior supply lines. It is easy to keep supply open when your lines are interior. The Union supply, when advancing, gets stretched out and thin, easy to disrupt even using minimal forces.

Facts are, the CSA Cavalry routinely cut Federal supply lines (J.E.B. Stuart rode around the Army of the Potomac on numerous occasions, wreaking havoc).

Start taking out their fortresses and major coastal cities (Mobile, New Orleans, Charleston), and see what happens!

[runyan99]

Just a comment,

I did a check recently on the manpower available to the CSA player in version 1.04. I suspected perhaps it was too great compared to the historical strength available, making the game too easy for the CSA.

Historically, the CSA had about 450,000 men under arms at the beginning of 1864. I started counting my troops in a 1.04 game advanced to March 1864, and stopped counting when most of my forces added up to about 400,000 men, with some more to count. I estimated the manpower to be close to historical.

In my opinion, taking strong tactical defensive positions is exactly how the CSA should have tried to win the war, instead of fighting offensive battles as they so often did. If the original poster finds it hard to defeat a CSA opponent who stands on the strategic defensive, well, sorry but too bad.

[LSSpam]

Well I have only played through 62 so far in PBEM.

Maybe you should advance slower then. By mid-62 the Union army had only gotten as far as the Memphis/Decatur/Nashville line, so really only the Nashville-Lousville railroad even had to be protected.

And, mind you, even that DID historically get cut and pulled Buell all the way up to Kentucky before Buell could reestablish his supply line and move back down to Nashville.

So unless you're holding a frontline along the Ohio River and still have trouble re-supply, it sounds like you're either

1) Having historical supply troubles or
2) Are pursuing an a-historical strategy, which is fine, but you ought to expect a-historical results (including possibly being over-extended beyond your manpower and harrassed to death).

If you want to procede historically try a methodical advance either along one rail axis (like Louisville, to Nashville, to Chattanooga, to Atlanta) or along the rivers. Use gunboats to block access across rivers, run militia garrisons all along your rail lines, and use strong points to react and repair.

And expect to have supply disrupted still and have to repair it. Historically by 1864 the garrisons at Nashville and Memphis were as large as most Confederate armies.

In terms of disrupting the confederacy, as most everyone else noted the way you split Confederate manpower, historically again (i'm a relative newbie to the game), would be with naval actions. The confederacy was historically forced to committ large forces to contain landings in the Carolina's, and an entirely new front was opened up in New Orleans. Put a few divisions at Savannah and you'll really put a crimp in his ability to hold Tennessee for instance.

[James D Burns]

Use riverine and sea supply when possible. don't garrison anything. You simply can't. Create some reaction groups to fight raiders.

Well they should garrison strategic cities at a minimum, and I'd say any supply depots would be just as critical as strategic cities if not more so. But small towns holding few supplies probably don't need garrisons.

Jim

[denisonh]

I think that there is a problem that does hurt the Union player, and that is the effect of entrenched Armies demolishing passing riverine formations.

I think that forts and key cities should be critical in controllng the river, but I do not believe forces entrenched OUTSIDE a city or fort should have as big of an impact as they currently do. Nor should they be subject to extensive damage from bomardment either. Units entrenched to deal with a ground assault will not be optimally located to deal with naval interdiction, nor will units deployed inland be subject to naval bomardment.

This problem devalues taking forts such as Donelson or Island number 10, as any place with an entrenched army and a lot of artillery controls passage. This makes it to easy to for CSA player to stop the Union from using the Mississippi.

I think that it needs to be relooked.

[roboczar]

If the entrenched units have cannon, I don't see a reason why they wouldn't be able to bombard riverine units.

The south can't be everywhere at once, and the Union can. Use your transport capacity and flank your opponent. Break things. Blow stuff up. You aren't going to be able to just dash down the Mississippi or run up the Peninsula to Richmond. Stick you Army HQ in a port city and send corps down the coast, wrecking anything that isn't guarded. It'll take a while, but the Southern opponent will never be able to keep up and will start suffering cohesion/strength hits from low supply, making it easier for your front line troops to carry entrenched positions.

The Union can afford to fight a totally defensive war in the West until you've got support on the lower end of the river and can move both ways, wrecking depots and rail as you go.

[AndrewKurtz]

If the entrenched units have cannon, I don't see a reason why they wouldn't be able to bombard riverine units.

The south can't be everywhere at once, and the Union can. Use your transport capacity and flank your opponent. Break things. Blow stuff up. You aren't going to be able to just dash down the Mississippi or run up the Peninsula to Richmond. Stick you Army HQ in a port city and send corps down the coast, wrecking anything that isn't guarded. It'll take a while, but the Southern opponent will never be able to keep up and will start suffering cohesion/strength hits from low supply, making it easier for your front line troops to carry entrenched positions.

Artillery simply dug in along a river would have been pounded by gunships. To be a threat, more significant fortifications were required. In game terms, I view this as building a fort.

So, if it wasn't obvious, I agree with the original comment that artillery simply entrenched shouldn't be a major imprediment for gunships. If you want to impede the US Naval forces, you should have to use the artillery to build a fort.

[denisonh]

My point is that the forts which are histroically significant to control the river are less important than histroically because of the current way this is adressed in the game.

Unless you are defending an attack from accross the river, most of your guns will be entrenched facing elsewhere. Not to mention not every location along the river is well suited for controlling the river, where as the forts are in locations that do.

I think it needs to be refined to insure the histroical river forts and towns are the critical objectives they were historically, and that simply having a river side location and guns does not eclipse the capabilities derived from garrisoned forts and towns in stretegic locations

If the entrenched units have cannon, I don't see a reason why they wouldn't be able to bombard riverine units.

The south can't be everywhere at once, and the Union can. Use your transport capacity and flank your opponent. Break things. Blow stuff up. You aren't going to be able to just dash down the Mississippi or run up the Peninsula to Richmond. Stick you Army HQ in a port city and send corps down the coast, wrecking anything that isn't guarded. It'll take a while, but the Southern opponent will never be able to keep up and will start suffering cohesion/strength hits from low supply, making it easier for your front line troops to carry entrenched positions.

The Union can afford to fight a totally defensive war in the West until you've got support on the lower end of the river and can move both ways, wrecking depots and rail as you go.

[runyan99]

I agree.

Since forts can be built, i think only forts should interdict sea and river traffic. Simply digging in infantry shouldn't be enough.

Force the player to construct forts where he wants to stop river traffic.

[roboczar]

Defining historic river cities as objectives is a pointless exercise. The supply model in itself should be incentive enough, and the advantage of controlling the Mississippi to any Union commander who wishes to control the Western Theater is apparent because of supply.

Making them objectives in game terms isn't needed, and unduly forces the course of the war. I am certain that you can win the war as the Union by leaving out some portions of the Anaconda plan and diverting resources elsewhere. Perhaps the Union commander doesn't feel like controlling the river is important, and assaulting the confederacy by sea is? By making them game objectives, you hamstring creative war plans and you end up playing the same game over and over and over again.

As to the forts, I could care less. Any entrenchment over 5 is good enough for me. The forts around Vicksburg that kept the Union steamers and gunboats at bay for months were barely more than heavy entrenchments, but they did the job superbly until they were taken from land by Grant.

EDIT: Just as an aside, I've always found objective-based games to be disappointing to play. Objectives should be objectives because it's necessary for the player's strategic plan, not because of some arbitrary set of points it gives you. I think ACW does a good job of keeping silly objectives to a minimum and thereby increasing the flexibility of war planning.

[denisonh]

Entrenched forces representing the town or fort garrison would well represent the forces you mention keeping the Union at Bay at Vicksburg.

But those same guns weren't also facing east to defend the land approaches to Vickburg. That is how Grant got to Vicksburg, via the land approach.

In the game, all you do to replicate that is entrench outside the city and you can do both with the same forces.

My suggestion is to have the in town/fort garrison address the river rather than the other forces in the hex. It forces the kind of trade off a commander would have to histroically make: guard the land approach or the river approach.

As for objective cities, some of them already are, such a Memphis.

Defining historic river cities as objectives is a pointless exercise. The supply model in itself should be incentive enough, and the advantage of controlling the Mississippi to any Union commander who wishes to control the Western Theater is apparent because of supply.

Making them objectives in game terms isn't needed, and unduly forces the course of the war. I am certain that you can win the war as the Union by leaving out some portions of the Anaconda plan and diverting resources elsewhere. Perhaps the Union commander doesn't feel like controlling the river is important, and assaulting the confederacy by sea is? By making them game objectives, you hamstring creative war plans and you end up playing the same game over and over and over again.

As to the forts, I could care less. Any entrenchment over 5 is good enough for me. The forts around Vicksburg that kept the Union steamers and gunboats at bay for months were barely more than heavy entrenchments, but they did the job superbly until they were taken from land by Grant.

[roboczar]

I've had no trouble working with the model the way it is now. The Union has huge advantages in attempting to control the Mississippi, so I don't really feel all that bad about it.

If anything it forces you to be methodical as you move up the river, instead of blitzing troops from Cairo to New Orleans in a single Campaign season. The ease at which the Union player can crisscross the river and keep both banks clear while at the same time having a commanding presence in every other theater is enough to convince me that the Rebs need a break.

[roboczar]

Also remember that Sherman cleared all opposition on the left bank of the river while Grant defeated Van Dorn at Holly Springs, and later, Johnston at Vicksburg, who were the only opposition on the right bank. Grant understood the need for controlling both banks, and the Union player should too. You can't just transport your troops willy nilly up the river without having done the legwork first.

[PBBoeye]

So if you build a fort using artillery units, what 'units' are in the new fort (as far as artillery)? Do they become emplaced heavy guns?

[denisonh]

Are you playing PBEM? A human opponent will be a little more savvy in taking advantage of this problem than the AI, which goes back to why this thread started.

It is not an issue of giving the Union a free ride, but making the player put assets towards controlling the river rather than get "free ride" with defending the river and landward.

I've had no trouble working with the model the way it is now. The Union has huge advantages in attempting to control the Mississippi, so I don't really feel all that bad about it.

If anything it forces you to be methodical as you move up the river, instead of blitzing troops from Cairo to New Orleans in a single Campaign season. The ease at which the Union player can crisscross the river and keep both banks clear while at the same time having a commanding presence in every other theater is enough to convince me that the Rebs need a break.

[denisonh]

I do not endorse being able to "transport your troops willy nilly up the river without having done the legwork first", but make sure that is not overly easy to simply lock the land and river approaches with the same assets.

Also remember that Sherman cleared all opposition on the left bank of the river while Grant defeated Van Dorn at Holly Springs, and later, Johnston at Vicksburg, who were the only opposition on the right bank. Grant understood the need for controlling both banks, and the Union player should too. You can't just transport your troops willy nilly up the river without having done the legwork first.

[LSSpam]

If the entrenched units have cannon, I don't see a reason why they wouldn't be able to bombard riverine units.

Because an entrenched army is focused on defending against an opposing army, not intredicting riverboats. Pemberton's Army of Mississippi isn't going to put it's back to the Mississippi and then position all of his guns facing the river and hope for the best that Grant doesn't attack and destroy his army.

[roboczar]

He did just that actually... 31 guns on the river, 115 on the approaches to the city. But anyway, yes, I am playing PBEM. It doesn't matter though, even if you're playing the AI, it's still good strategic sense to make sure that you actually have clear access up and down the river by defeating forces on both sides, that's what I'm saying.

I'm also saying that to a careful and competent commander, it shouldn't matter whether the Rebs have infantry all up and down the river, because you've taken pains to clear them out the first place. Why are you worrying about Rebs entrenched on rivers, unless you're trying to run troops past uncleared counties? This is a war, not the America's Cup.

Let the Rebs entrench on rivers. They don't have much else going for them. If you're Union, plan for a hard fight and don't try to ferry troops down a river you haven't cleared.

[AndrewKurtz]

One question based on the original. He mentioned having the rail in his rear destroyed by invisible units. Are these areas conquered territory or loyal territory?

I would think that, if in a highly loyal area, you would get info on enemy units. At a minimum, you would know they are there. I understand how that could happen if supply is being cut in conquered areas. But if the area is in loyal prvinces, I'm not sure they should be invisible.

[LSSpam]

He did just that actually... 31 guns on the river, 115 on the approaches to the city.

That was Vicksburg. The Vicksburg fortifications. We're discussing entrenchments I believe.

[roboczar]

And I'm saying that a 5+ entrenchment level is more than enough to accomplish the same task on any river tile. That's why you get the little cannons poking out of the wooden walls when you go above 5 entrenchment level; it's practically a fortification in game terms. Why couldn't a commander on a river adjacent position play the same kind of game Pemberton did at Vicksburg?

[denisonh]

There is a territory that adjoins Ft Donelson to the south(Humphreys, TN). An entrenched force with artillery controls both the Tennessee and the Cumberland.

That was the whole purpose of gaining Fts Donelson and Henry, to control the access to these rivers.

If Humphreys will do that, having Donelson/Henry is really uneccessary for the CSA. By leaving token forces there and putting a stronger Corps there that adjoins Nashville, the CSA gets to create a strong position without having to be "bothered" with the necessity to hold Fts Donelson/Henry. And he does it with a single force doing three function.

Somewhat ahistroical and nonsensical IMO.

As for the "America's Cup" comment, if you don't like my arguements refute them rather than engage in patronizing commentary.

He did just that actually... 31 guns on the river, 115 on the approaches to the city. But anyway, yes, I am playing PBEM. It doesn't matter though, even if you're playing the AI, it's still good strategic sense to make sure that you actually have clear access up and down the river by defeating forces on both sides, that's what I'm saying.

I'm also saying that to a careful and competent commander, it shouldn't matter whether the Rebs have infantry all up and down the river, because you've taken pains to clear them out the first place. Why are you worrying about Rebs entrenched on rivers, unless you're trying to run troops past uncleared counties? This is a war, not the America's Cup.

[roboczar]

I'm sorry you chose to be offended by my comment. It was intended as humor to lighten up what is turning into a silly debate.

I also don't see the problem with that tile. You can either a) take Ft. Donelson/Henry and attack Humphreys or b) go around the forts and take Humphreys first, before moving up the peninsula, or even c) ignore the area, strike south into Alabama and draw the offending corps out of the area. Why you have to do this historically is beyond me. The forts still do what they are supposed to do if they are garrisoned, you just may find yourself with the additional task of removing enemy forces from Humphreys. It's not an insurmountable problem... as long as you aren't trying to rush boats up and down the river, or depend on the river for supply.

EDIT: Also, it's only a problem if you wait too long (past Aug. 1861) to take the area. There is absolutely no way a confederate player can field multiple corps (or even one) there unless you didn't seize the initiative early. You have Polk to deal with, and mostly militia.