First C.S.A. Campaign. Union AI dropped acid.

[Poorlaggedman]

First off, I love the game. I played an older, hex-based game just like this which I believe was its predecessor but was vastly inferior.

I jumped up and bought the game a couple years ago and just now got into it. played 2 union campaigns so far, before patching. Love the new content... at least I think I do. I've spent a few hours reading through on this forum on different topics but I really don't want to follow a generic made-to-order strategy to win as the C.S.A. which somebody else thought up. I'm aware of the challenges but I thought I'd at least have a few turns to breathe at the start...

But playing as the C.S.A., I knew it'd be tough, but holy crap. I didn't even have my "Army of the Potomac" or Shenadoah Force activated for me to use before the Union army was inside Manassas. Then then made a beeline through Fredericksburg, with a smaller Union force there laying siege to it. This big Union army then went sprinting to Norfolk, captured it... while other enemy probe from West Virginia aggressively. All the while I am dithering around thinking I'm smart trying to cut them off I was a little unnerved, because I knew it was bad. But moving my armies without even divisions or Corps enabled yet, which IMO is absurd, I'm trying to amass troops, build blockade runners, and manage the whole war.

So the Union all this time immediately starts printing money, calling for volunteers as often as it can, it even starts conscripting in maybe June of 1861 if that's even possible. Exceptional taxes, etc. All this time I'm thinking WTF? I never had to do any of that as Union in my pre-patch campaigns, especially not this early. I have called for volunteers maybe 3 times, sold bonds twice, printed money once (by Oct 1861) and bought maybe 4 x 10 railroads. My blockade runners are bringing in a combined 15 money per turn plus I'm raiding Union shipping. Supply situation seems to be fine, I built a depot in Western Tennessee and one in middle Virginia (west of Richmond).

My armies which I have been busy using to mop up the small forces the AI has left behind trying to siege Fredericksburg and Richmond are losing cohesion like theres no tomorrow and moving incredibly slow even after I dumped supply wagons and siege artillery (the one from norfolk). So here it is approaching winter (Oct, 1861) and a 20,000 man corps leaves Norfolk and crushes the brigades I had at Petersburg and now I've got Johnston on the James Peninsula having beat back a Union attack from there with low cohesion moving slow as hell back towards Richmond. A Shenendoah force on offensive posture also with low cohesion doing nothing to attack the Union troops laying siege to Richmond. I noticed a pretty large increase in loss of Cohesion, but then again I am using rail less because I like to keep at least some rail left over plus I can barely move the big armies.

Out West is not nearly a problem. I'm hoping to corner this freaking Union army at Norfolk (which is probably being supplied by sea now) and destroy it but by the time I get that done I expect a 100,000 man force to show up near D.C. and start ravaging middle Virginia. I am recruiting a decent number of troops but honestly I'm just waiting for Corps and Division to be enabled so I can start playing the freaking game without 35% combat penalties. I attached generals to most brigades which I could but everything feels like a mess and I'm feeling like I got the shaft with the Union already making a March to the Sea through Virginia and taking all the exceptional measures.

I'm playing on 2nd AI difficulty ranking, AI aggressiveness 2 (mid), AI detection bonus 3 (mid), AI activation bonus 3/4 (hard)

Thanks for reading. Any help would be appreciated.

I'd also like to mention that the very first campaign i started as C.S.A. with the newest patch I chose "w/ kentucky" having no idea it meant a huge swath of the middle of the country was unpassable unless I violate their neutrality or wait patiently for the Union to. A heads up in the description of that campaign would really help.

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

The AI uses alot of options. Players will too unless you want to make house rules. If you choose not to use options, it will be harder. Buy more rail and use it. Slogging around on foot, especially in bad weather, isn't a great idea if you can avoid it. Figure out where the union is aiming for and get some troops there in entrenchments. The war is still a war before corps and divisions. It's usually alot more chaotic before then because you can't form lines of supporting corps. But chaos was the nature of 1861 anyway. They were learning how to fight.

[Jim-NC]

Welcome to the forums Poorlaggedman.

The w/Kentucky is a mod with a more historical start, and a change in how Kentucky is handled. As states secede, you can move through their territory (as opposed to the original, where you could move anywhere).

If your troops are moving and in attack posture, then your cohesion will go way down. As Pat says, use your rails, and anticipate where the enemy is going to be and move there first, blocking them. Watch the terrain, as mud kills cohesion and makes your troops real slow (from your description, it sounds as if Johnston is moving through mud trying to get to Richmond).

[Leibst]

I'd also like to mention that the very first campaign i started as C.S.A. with the newest patch I chose "w/ kentucky" having no idea it meant a huge swath of the middle of the country was unpassable unless I violate their neutrality or wait patiently for the Union to. A heads up in the description of that campaign would really help.

Wait for the union to attack kentucky, and after this when you can get into kentucky dont do it the first turn but the second or you will loose a lot of troop cohesion.

Concerning the rest of you game... well IMO you have to practise more, you need to understand better how this game works, read the Wikipedia, read AARs, specialy CSA ones.
A few tips: dont spent money in building depots as the CSA its strange that you need it.
Put all your garrison out of the cities and in avoid combat posture.
Before divisions CSA can make very powerful stacks, with a 2 stars general and 4 powerful brigades(Longstreet etc...).
Use the comunication units, build some of them are useful to add more brigades to some stacks without penalization.
Avoid penalization for lack of command as far as you can.
Dont move units low of cohesion, let them rest they will fight and move better.
try with this, good luck!

[Captain_Orso]

Where to begin..

Whether the Union is attacking from the Shenandoah, the Peninsula, Norfolk or Manassas, you have the advantage of being at the apex, you have the inside route to every avenue of approach. Use this to your advantage. Pick your target and hit it hard, then pick your next target. If the Union is Zerg-Swarming protect your depots at all cost and watch them starve for lack of supply. Speaking of supply, DO NOT leave your supply trains behind. They move just as fast as your troops other than fast movers and cavalry. Without supply you are in just as bad of a situation as the Union. And use your rail connections. They let you react to a threat as fast as it rears its ugly head. If you don't have enough capacity you will have to invest in more. It only dissipates 3% per turn and the rest can be used over and over again every turn. It's a great investment.

If your forces are dropping very low on cohesion, they will fight poorly or not at all. it is better to rest them a turn or two before attacking with them again, preferably on a depot, preferably in passive posture if you can protect them from attack while they are resting. Once they have recovered they will move fast and fight hard again.

About Norfolk and Suffolk. That can be supplied only by sea by the Union and the only way to block that is to blockade the James Estuary water region. For that you will need 8 or 12 naval elements. Most gunboat units have 2 elements. They can be in defensive to blockade, which lets them stay in place much longer, but they will have to return to port when their supplies run low. Transports add greatly to the longevity of a blockade fleet. Also, batteries entrenched at level 3 and higher that can bombard into the James Estuary will reduce the number of elements that you need to blockade Norfolk.

You will have to be careful with blockading though. The Union navy is very powerful and Athena likes to use it in ways that I never would have. I've seen her pull nearly the entire Atlantic Blockade out to push into the James Estuary on the turn that the Virgina became active, because she 'thought' I might send her straight out to sea. She can be radical.

If you can contain to a reasonable extent Athena's rampaging, the best defense is sometimes a good offense. Use your fast troops and fast leaders to sneak through and into Maryland, Pennsylvania or upper West Virginia and watch as she reals like a cow struck on the head (sorry baby, you know I love you:love . Let her run headlong into you once or twice to give her a bloody nose and then slip out again. Most of the time she will leave most of those troops up north for a while leaving you much less pressure in Virginia.

Those are some tips, not absolute recipes. Be resourceful and agile. No plan ever works exactly as you planned it.

[MarkCSA]

Welcome to CSA vs. AI! Basically your Union AI opponent will hit every single button giving it cash and troops, which is why you will see BIG stacks of boys in blue running around while their NM is 75 before long. The trick here is to really really pick your battles and grind their NM down even lower.

And oh yeah, *always* keep 30k guys in Richmond.

[Longshanks]

Once you get a bit more familiar with the AI, you can "game" it to death - and you'll eventually win them all and tire of the beautiful but erratic Miss Athena (there are some threads on how to adjust the settings to get a better game with the AI). Then you'll want to start playing some PBEMs. Even if you play against another inexperienced player you will really learn a lot of new stuff about the game. Expect to get bludgeoned many times, but if you stick with it you'll soon be a fearsome opponent! Best wishes!

[Poorlaggedman]

If the Union is Zerg-Swarming protect your depots at all cost and watch them starve for lack of supply.

Are these losses reflected in the list of "combat losses" in the objectives? How can I estimate their supply level accurately without getting into a major engagement with an enemy who is probably entrenched on the coast?

About Norfolk and Suffolk. That can be supplied only by sea by the Union and the only way to block that is to blockade the James Estuary water region. For that you will need 8 or 12 naval elements. Most gunboat units have 2 elements. They can be in defensive to blockade, which lets them stay in place much longer, but they will have to return to port when their supplies run low. Transports add greatly to the longevity of a blockade fleet. Also, batteries entrenched at level 3 and higher that can bombard into the James Estuary will reduce the number of elements that you need to blockade Norfolk.

So if I put some artillery fortified adjacent to the harbor entrance then it will impede their supplying of it? Also, raiding their shipping in the Union shipping lanes will reduce their Ocean transport capacity?


Also I take it, Athena is the AI?


Thanks for the quick and thorough responses, I figured they would come because hardcore communities like this are always the best.

But chaos was the nature of 1861 anyway. They were learning how to fight.

The Union doesn't seem to be abiding to this learning curve in my scenario.
They also seem to have Corps already unless I'm dreaming. It also seems gamey to me for the Union to impose a draft and start exceptional taxes in the first couple months of the war when nobody has any idea how much is going to be required to actually fight it.

[Jim-NC]

Athena is the name for the AI.

Starvation losses do not show up as "combat losses" on the F9 screen.

As for supply, use one of your comparable stacks. Let's say they have 2 divisions in a stack. Look at a stack of yours with 2 divisions. The supply usage will be similar. As a side note, everyone except supply wagons carry a maximum of 2 turns worth of supply (wagons hold a max of 80 points of supply).

Artillery helps with ships in the adjacent water area. When entrenched, they lower the number of ships required to blockade the port. If you don't blockade the port on seashore areas, then the union can continue to get supply. Forts will also block supply getting to areas (like Charleston SC - if you hold one of the 3 forts, then the union has big supply issues).

[Captain_Orso]

Are these losses reflected in the list of "combat losses" in the objectives? How can I estimate their supply level accurately without getting into a major engagement with an enemy who is probably entrenched on the coast?

You will not get reports of enemy units taking hits for lack of supply and/or bad weather. You also cannot see how much supply a unit has, but you can see if they have a supply train with them. All units carry 2 turns worth of General Supply (GS). If they don't have a supply train, after 2 turns they will be out of GS and start taking hits and cohesion loss. They may, if they are lucky and it's not too large of a unit, pillage the region they are in and you will see a pillaged marker appear in that region. Once the region is pillaged, it cannot be pillaged again until the next years harvest season, so the unit you are observing is now on it's last literal straw.

Also, just look around the enemy units. If they haven't captured a supply source (a depot or a town with supply) and they don't have a supply train, then they don't have a supply source nor any reserves. The math is simple, 2 turns.

So if I put some artillery fortified adjacent to the harbor entrance then it will impede their supplying of it? Also, raiding their shipping in the Union shipping lanes will reduce their Ocean transport capacity?

You cannot block or hinder supply going into a coastal harbor unless you blockade that harbor outright (Brown-Water Blockade). Check where the Exit-Point of the harbor is by hovering your mouse pointer over the harbor and it will display this. Hover your mouse pointer over that coastal region to see how many elements are needed to blockade that harbor--only fighting ships/boats count and a gunboat is as good as an ironclad or an armored frigate at blockading. The number of elements that you need can be modified by what artillery can bombard into those Exit-Point regions. If the enemy has coastal batteries there (check your pre-war coastal forts, they generally need 12 elements per Exit-Point, because you have coastal artillery in those forts) the number will go up. If you also have batteries that can bombard into those Exit-Points, the number can down. It depends on how good the artillery is at bombarding shipping. Coastal Artillery is excellent, Rodmann's and Columbiads are good, 10lb-ers are okay, and the rest don't have the range to do much of anything on coastal waters (on rivers it can be a different matter, but it follows that same principle).

Raiding will lower the amount of money and War Supply (WS), that the Union gets, and it my lessen the mount of supply being transported, but generally the Union's capacity is so great that you will hardly affect the amount of supply getting to harbor through your raiders.

Also I take it, Athena is the AI?

That's my baby . She's the god of war and like any woman, will drive you nuts if you let her .

Thanks for the quick and thorough responses, I figured they would come because hardcore communities like this are always the best.

The Union doesn't seem to be abiding to this learning curve in my scenario.
They also seem to have Corps already unless I'm dreaming. It also seems gamey to me for the Union to impose a draft and start exceptional taxes in the first couple months of the war when nobody has any idea how much is going to be required to actually fight it.

AFAIK Athena cannot break the rules, no divisions before you can have them, no corps until you can have them too. Same with mobilization etc. As MarkCSA noted, she's printing money like crazy to go places and buy things. What a gal .

If you can stave off her advances (do you really want to?:neener , she will start getting the credit card bills and she will have to slow down. If you can hit her a few times and cause her to loose NM she will slow down that much quicker. And then it's your turn.

[Pocus]

(..)
That's my baby . She's the god of war and like any woman, will drive you nuts if you let her .

(..)

.

nuts? where, where?


Athena uses a lot of options to push the player into his better self Quite often the AI are conservatives with all their resources but it can make for dull games. Here, for options this is the reverse, she is very aggressive with that.

[Captain_Orso]

Nuts, here, me . Athena is the master of micro management. If you check out her moves and buildups you think you see only chaos. But wait a couple of turns and those random looking stacks suddenly evolve into fighting forces. And if you show any signs of weakness anywhere (and she's got the eyes of a hawk) she will show you her disdain for your amateur attempts to resist her will.

She may not have the intuition that a human player has, but she makes up for a lot of that through her unfogiving tenacity.

Somebody else should do her shopping though .

[Pocus]

You mean build unit algorithm?

[Captain_Orso]

If I can believe the message log she is going hog-wild as the Union printing money, raising exceptional taxes, etc. I assume that everything gets so expensive and NM drops so low -- not only from her credit-rampage though -- that she eventually doesn't have enough money left over to build divisions and leaves loose units mucking up her army stacks so that they have -35% effectiveness. But If she build those unit's into divisions, she'd have some really hard-hitting forces. This was the situation in the 2 games I played as the CSA by the middle to end of '63

Plus I've seen army HQs standing around doing nothing when she only had one army on the map, and IIRC once when she didn't even have that, but had Grant*** standing in the same region -- in a drunken delirium? -- with Lee, Longstreet, Jackson, and 2 other corps waiting just to smash him.

I'll admit that my personal play as the Union is far more conservative when it comes to doing anything that might raise inflation, unless I'm really in a national emergency. '61 is spent mostly hanging on tooth-and-nail to not get smashed by Johnston and Beauregard. But by the end of '61 my navy is putting the squeeze on Jefferson and the shipping fleet is filling the coffers.

As a human player I know that there is hardly a chance with the generals I have on the field to do the things historically Lincoln thought his army should be able to do. To amass debit and inflation to build a massive army that can't be used to good effect makes no sense to me, so I don't do it; they are just cannon fodder. When Athena does this unrestrained buildup and she leaves the least little chance that I can catch her unsupported anywhere -- and before corp structure is available that is difficult -- I will hit her in detail with everything that I can muster. And I've been known to pursue armies to their complete destruction given the chance.

I don't think the buy-now, pay-later policy is productive for the Union as a beginning strategy in that scale. She -- pardon the expression -- castrates herself by the middle of '62 with that, and after that the CSA is building on parity with the Union. With the CSAs superior leadership they will be driving the Union NM down and flying high themselves, and though the Union will start getting their best leaders, they won't be able to afford to give them enough troops to exploit their usefulness.

All the above is my personal opinion and experience. YMMV.

[Poorlaggedman]

I ended up losing this campaign FYI a month before the election of 1864. I had held out decently, but my NM was ground down and I lost Richmond and a LOT of troops there to a huge army. I actually took more casualties than the Union too. As tough as it is, I suppose its nice to have a challenge.

The one after it I either lost too or gave up. And just gave up on another after losing Richmond and my armies in Virginia being hopelessly battered. In past years as with other games, I'd be more inclined to 'reload' in these circumstances. My new alternative is quitting.

It just seems like there should more than one AI "type." It's kind of silly for the AI to always do daring Sherman-style marches to the sea on me.

The lack of being able to build Divisions and Corps still really irks me, I am very much lacking in leadership at the start of the war. I usually put a bunch of commanders together in a stack. But I am playing with *highly* randomized leaders so sometimes I'll get Johnston or Beuregaurd as a 1 strategically and this really causes a large command penalty.

How should I organize forces in this early period without divisions and corps? Should I keep much smaller stacks or bigger ones? I am trying to field as many signal corps, medical corps, as possible to help out with command penalties.

thanks

[Philippe]

I haven't played the game enough to be able to give any meaningful advice. You mentioned that you wish there were more than one AI type. I think there are different AI aggressiveness settings, and maybe you should try playing the game with a different configuration. It's very easy to not pay attention to what the configuration will do and then wonder why the game play is so weird (or whatever). And maybe randomized leaders is not a good thing?

[Poorlaggedman]

I'm only playing on the "normal" aggressiveness level. I'm afraid playing lesser would result in a boring game. I might have to though.

I randomize leader because i think it is kind of lame to just go off of historical abilities. As commander you shouldn't really know who your star leaders are right off the bat, as with the enemy.

[GraniteStater]

I would demurr to an extent. In this conflict, the opposite sides had a decent idea of who the other fellow was.

In the film Gettysburg, Martin Sheen as Lee remarks, "Are you acquainted with General Meade? He is a very able general, but cautious. By the time he is approaching us here, I will be on the Susquehanna."

It didn't turn out that way, but some on both sides had a very good idea of whom they faced.

In general, I have had little experience with the CSA, although more so, recently. I am currently playing an AI game with the Union on Lieutenant, decent intelligence of my side, and the most restrictive Active/Nonactive settings, IIRC. Just in the late summer of '61, but is an interesting game. Setting Replacements available at Depots only is a good setting also, I think.

[soloswolf]

I would demurr to an extent. In this conflict, the opposite sides had a decent idea of who the other fellow was.

I totally agree with this. Most commanders of note knew many of the men they were facing, and likely had a relative understanding of their strengths and weaknesses. I have never used random leaders, in part, because of this.

In the film Gettysburg, Martin Sheen as Lee remarks, "Are you acquainted with General Meade? He is a very able general, but cautious. By the time he is approaching us here, I will be on the Susquehanna."

I think you are mixing your quotes. Yours above seems to mistake Lee's thoughts on Meade for McClellan. The quote I think you are referring to to in Gettysburg is: "George Meade. Pennsylvania man. Meade would be cautious, I think. Take him some time to get organized. Perhaps we should move more swiftly. There may be an opportunity here."

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

I think low randomization can be fun. High is too much though, especially since it makes many generals nearly useless at 0-2 strat rating.

[GraniteStater]

I totally agree with this. Most commanders of note knew many of the men they were facing, and likely had a relative understanding of their strengths and weaknesses. I have never used random leaders, in part, because of this.



I think you are mixing your quotes. Yours above seems to mistake Lee's thoughts on Meade for McClellan. The quote I think you are referring to to in Gettysburg is: "George Meade. Pennsylvania man. Meade would be cautious, I think. Take him some time to get organized. Perhaps we should move more swiftly. There may be an opportunity here."

Well, I wouldn't quote me on this.

[Philippe]

What makes this war fascinating is that the generals on both sides were walking around with the equivalent of superior intelligence briefings on the characteristics and personalities of many of their opponents in their heads. Many of them knew each other as former colleagues, schoolmates, instructors, or students, and had a pretty good idea of what they were up against. That basic intellectual baggage gets reduplicated less effectively by large intelligence staffs and voluminous reports in modern armies. Nothing beats having played poker with someone for enough years to be able to tell when he's bluffing, or knowing what someone is likely to do when he's in danger of being put on report.

[Poorlaggedman]

Yeah but they didn't have a strategic/offensive/defensive rating of each other. I like the randomization because it spices things up, I don't just want a reenactment of the Civil War

[GraniteStater]

Which is why the option is available.

[Poorlaggedman]

Ughh.... this is happening more and more. And I've been plagued by this throughout my campaigns as the South. The Yankees are simply much better fighters than my guys. Even when I win battles, Sometimes i'll lose 500 guys and they will lose zero and not even rout. I had a yankee Corps besieged in Tapahonick, Va... I had two Corps there under Lee and Jackson on offensive posture (NOT assault). And this is what happens. And it's like this all the time. I havent fought against the Yankees and won a serious battle in the Eastern theatre and came out winning on casualties. It's Fall 1863, and while I'm holding up well so far, this is really starting to take the fun out of the game. Seriously, I'm getting very annoyed at battle results. I understand and accept setbacks but all I get are setbacks while I pull strings to commit 2 and even 3 times as many troops as him and I STILL get butchered even when i win.

The siege icon was up before the battle and it only involved the enemy inside the besieged city, which BTW was the first full turn of it being under siege. I really don't get how/why the battle even happened since I never had them on assault and the Union is in defensive stance.

Even though I'm doing well strategically and winning battles in the West... I CANNOT give any remote kind of knockout punch on any level to anything except a garrison. Both Corps were sufficiently commanded and had been in the position before the turn ended. It's about 166,000 casualties me, 140,000 Union




I fully expect this besieged Union Corps to just waltz out, board a transport and go home for furlough even though my army is still besieging them

[Poorlaggedman]

Man... now I'm confused. I can't find a pattern to these battle results at all

The Union had a decent command penalty (20 something units not sufficiently commanded). But still... Outnumbered 2-1 and stompin em like that?

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

The battle results show all the forces in the region regardless of which forces actually commited. So with multiple stacks, you may only be getting half of the forces commited or something. Don't focus too much on the manpower numbers either. The power number is much more important. Outnumbering 2-1 doesn't mean as much when you have a 35% combat penalty and the enemy is dug in.

[Captain_Orso]

I think that the breaker in both those battles was the frontage at least partially, but especially in the second.

In the first battle Lee is attacking with a 3 offensive rating vs Heinzelmann with 4 defensive. Heinzelmann is in the town and well entrenched. Lee is on attack RoE and Heinzelmann on defend. The way the game works, if the Union can instigate Lee into attacking a general engagement will ensue. This sounds strange, but if one single regiment (cavalry for example) tries to sneak out and gets caught a full engagement can be triggered. With Heinzelmann defending, entrenched, in the town and with a defensive rating higher than Lee's offensive rating, these could lead to such a repulse.

In the second battle the discrepancy is even greater. Butler with offensive 1(!!) attacking Longstreet with defensive 7(!!) will cause a massive difference in frontage. It was another Friedricksburg!

[willgamer]

In the second battle the discrepancy is even greater. Butler with offensive 1(!!) attacking Longstreet with defensive 7(!!) will cause a massive difference in frontage. It was another Friedricksburg!

The screen shot looks like Butler's a 2, but yeah... what he said.

[Poorlaggedman]

Shouldn't the first one's report say that 100% of his force was in town? I don't think this was the case, as he was physically showing outside of the town plus the screenshot appears to have no Union troops in town.

In the the second "Fredericksburg" I had actually just moved Longstreet's Corps into the province on defensive stance, I'm guessing the engineers had something to do with being entrenched to 200 so fast before Butler attacked.


BTW, with my siege in Tappahonnack, it might not actually be a siege while I have him besieged, the structure totally breached with 12 breaches in his defenses, a test battle showed that he is fully supplied. I'm assuming that the town has a status as a port which leads to the river into the Chesapeak bay. So I'm wondering how to cut that off, maybe by setting my troops to "bombard passing ships" and putting a small feet there (as if they would survive!)

I also have a battery of siege artillery I put in each of the two Corps besieging this Union Force in addition to many other batteries of various artillery, why are they not inflicting any hits on the defenders??

Also I've seen frontage mentioned here but I'm not real certain with it... Are certain provinces easier to defend because of it.

Example:
Attacking Hampton Roads from Fort Monroe: Hard
Attacking in the great planes: easy.

Thanks