VigaBrand wrote:Rose Greenhowe and his daughter give the information about your plans. You can not kill this women, so there will be prisoners but alive. Beware of women they are very usefull in intelligence.
Gen. Monkey-Bear wrote:Yes, some of those newspaper articles are so gleefully immature with humor, that's the style we wrote in for high school newspaper to make our friends laugh Though I would stay away from slave/race humor if I were you. Just a warning
Hmmm, the movie shows there are a minimum of two corps in Loudon. There's a lot of movement here.
Washington is well protected, as is Harper's Ferry.
The intel here is terrible. I can't see what the hell is in there.
I've moved McClellan to Frederick City to join Dix. I've also placed all the units on a higher level of ROE in this region.
If the attack happens, I'm hoping Little Mac gets called in first, then he calls in support from the three surrounding divisions.
I have a division dug in in each of the counties here. HF has a larger division. Each division is listed as a corps (with one division). And, aside from that there is a separate militia dug in in each of the counties (so if the division moves, the militia will maintain the level of entrenchment).
Behind this there are militia dug in all the way to Harrisburg.
The Union will be able to do a partial mobilization next turn, giving it 550 points (22). I'll be unable to use all that without printing money (5).
I also have the Emancipation Proclamation. The EP gives the Union a big boost in NM (82) and VP (1120), plus reduces the Foreign Intervention (-1).
Why not do it? Game balance, border states become less loyal [Missouri- 8%; Kentucky- 42%; West Virginia 75%; Maryland- 62%; Delaware 91%]
as I woke this morning I realized you had your armies setup in a way that should have allowed you to conquer Washington.
If you didn't do what I think you should have, let's pause for a moment. [Checking the file]
No. You didn't do the attack that probably would have won the game. It may have failed, but the Southern effort is about taking your shots and rolling the die. I think if we test it we'll find it would have succeeded.
I didn't attack Washington because I don't know why I should have succes with that attack.
I retreat behind the river. How was that setup good for a tactical attack at washington? Il will save this backup file, so after the game we can switch side at this point and you show me what you mean.
I'd like to roll back one turn and tweak the defense (maybe).
Yes, this is for the turn that just ended (I think it is late October)
For your attack, I suggest that
Lee hits Washington first with either a standard or an aggressive attack.
Jackson (I'm not looking at the game, so this is from memory) follow the Lee attack directly with either a standard or an aggressive attack, but also be instructed to enter the city.
I'll send a slightly changed .ord file to you. I'm going to instruct the defense to include a static unit (it won't be able to retreat). That should keep my units in the region without the need for a stand and fight order. I think that would make the defense a bit harder to shatter. I'm not sure. It is using the system to exploit a rules bug.
Also, I want to see what happened to the Northern Navy. The navy was ordered all-in to Hampton Roads. Where are they? Delayed orders shouldn't have hit so many units.
If this works as I expect, you'd have taken Washington this turn. This is similar to the attack I used to take Strasburg earlier in 1862. It should work because Jackson will find weakened units outside Washington and will brush them aside to get inside. My changes to the navy and the outside units might be able to save the day for the North.
you are right. I can beat you, if I made a all-in attack on washington. I estimate more troops and so I decide not to attack you. It was a heavy battle with many casulaties for my side and I didn't take the risk, but it should be work.
Problem by this ideas are, you know your side exactly and I didn't know it. I don't see reserves from you coming by train and than help the fight or teh actual number of forces. So if I attack and there are more forces (I believe you are stronger there) than I suffer heavy losses without gaining somethink. So I didn't attack. And I overestimate the fortress. I was thinking, that I can not storm the fortress in one turn.
I send you the replay and trn. file, so you can look on my lost chance to win and we can continue our interesting game. Maybe you should send some reinforcments from Tennessee to washington or so.
Why didn't you defend your capital?
Your last question is really the key question: Why didn't I protect Washington?
In my defense, I thought I had adequate protection until about two turns ago. I hadn't realized, due to my own intel failure, how large Lee's forces were.
In part this is due to my having never played a PBEM prior to this.
What was in the area? Three divisions (including the District Home Guard of artillery that is static), another division in Anne Arundel, another two divisions in the area of Harper's Ferry with two additional divisions inside HF.
In the west 2 1/2 divisions in the area of Bowling Green, another at Knoxville, another two threatening Chattanooga, 1 1/2 in Western Kentucky and 3 1/2 in the area of Memphis.
Another 1 1/2 divisions in Missouri.
East 8 divisions plus two - three static forces of division size
Mississippi 9 1/2 divisions
TransWest 1 1/2 divisions
In my opinion, the heavy losses would have been worth the victory. In this case you would have taken the capital. Now, I'll be moving the government in advance of the attack that I expect you'll be executing. You'll need to weigh that as you consider what to do next.
In addition, I think the form of the attack was probably important. That form, if you followed my idea, was for Lee to weaken the forces, then the second corps in Maryland to enter with instructions to enter the city. I expect MTSG had the effect of calling in units from Alexandria for your side and from Anne Arundel for my side. If you used a different form, I'd like to hear about it.
I'll need to examine the file. But you actually saw the battle take place. Was it close? (I'm at work again and can't play till tonight).
Now, what do you think I've misunderstood? I need some constructive critique here. I am surprised, like you, in the way the Union defense didn't hold. I also think that if you wait you'll see a serious amount of firepower pouring into the area that could tip the balance in a close battle.
There are two factors that I think should be considered.
McClellan is a weak commander giving a terrible multiplier to forces under his command
My army suffered the loss of about 4 divisions under Lee's attack on Butler.
it was to easy to crossing the river.
You have to much in Harpers Ferry. Harpers Ferry has no depot (because you blow them), it is a hill countryside, so it will be okay, to have two divisions in it. Maybe less of them.
After the defeat on the peninsula, you maybe have to move some forces to the washington area from other theaters.
The 4 divisions from the peninsula are very hard to compensate and this falls in the phase where I can partial mobilise. So at my strongest point, you are weak in the main important area.
The divisions defending the Potomac were at maximum entrenchment, but only had four artillery with each. I was working on increasing the artillery with each unit.
But I was surprised they didn't contest the river crossings, choosing instead to withdraw. That did work to delay you, as you kept hitting the entrenchments in each region. I don't know if you ordered the units to ride through to a further county or not, but I suspect you ordered the army to attack one county at a time. I'd like to think the entrenchments act to slow an army compared to no entrenchments. But the system actually doesn't seem to force attacking units to deal with entrenchments in this way.
So, the entrenchments, which I spent a lot of time, but not a lot of manpower, on developing were not useful.
In total I believe I had up to 12 militias working on entrenchments from the river back through all of Maryland (and now parts of Pennsylvania.)
The divisions, once they withdrew, generally were folding into the Washington defense, making the capital that much tougher. So their job, if I may describe it as such, was to trip you, then move to the District. They each did that.
The three divisions that were on the Western flank of Lee's advance, in HF and Winchester, were tasked with attacking Manassas. Instead they ran into a force coming from somewhere in the rear to take Winchester. The result was that Manassas wasn't attacked (I have no idea how the loss of this supply would have impacted you.)
I really am not concerned with the loss of Winchester.
Obviously you are correct that I was too optimistic after the Lee Peninsula victories. Units should have been stripped from the West to aid the defense of the capital.
Those Western units would have been arriving at about this time.
I think with rail transport your troops from the west need maybe two turns to arrive in Washington area, that was the reason why I attack at the beginning the railway depot in Westvirginia. I want to cut this railway connection. Lee and Jackson need two turns too, to come from peninsula to washington area, so I overestimate your forces and with the winchester attack, you are lucky. If you strike at manassas in our real game, you will run into a reserve corps with nearly all my other corps around them and helping that corps. So you will suffer heavy losses by this assault.
That's true about the attack on Manassas. I had hoped the troops in Alexandria would have been involved in the attack on Washington though. But good point. I hadn't considered the MTSG element there.
Gen. Monkey-Bear wrote:That's a very interesting situation you have here. Of course as your audience member I want the game to continue so I can read the AAR, but in reality I think I would have just continued the game as is (before you pointed the better move to your opponent). Both sides made blunders in real life, and perhaps the failure to attack on Washington could be seen simply as General Lee losing his nerve at a critical time. Of course I think your decision to rewind a few turns was also good
Ace wrote:If your morale is as low as you say it is (67), you cannot issue emancipation proclamation. It has to be over 80.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests