jimwinsor
General of the Army
Posts: 631
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 7:07 am
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Interesting July '61 Start

Sun Jun 24, 2007 1:43 am

I started up a brand new 1.05 game, and the new division rules seems to be working fine.

One odd thing I noticed concerned the AI, coupled with the opening events. On turn one, The CSA Athena got very agressive on me, and while McDowell sat in Alexandria (inactivated), Beauregard took his army out of Manassass, when thru Loudon, and invaded Maryland.

Okay...well, at the same time, I get the Forward to Richmond event, warning me of dire consequences if I do not push into Virginia. Hmm. Okay, the smart play would be to pull back McDowell, and protect DC/Baltimore...but then there's the stupid event. What to do?

So, I figure DC and/or Baltimore should be able to hold out at least one turn with their well-entrenched fixed garrisons, so I'll push McDowell into Manassass to avoid the nasty event consequences (even though he's still not activated).

Well, sure enough Beauregard assaults Baltimore, and gains a victory...but does not quite destroy Banks and the entire city garrison (they inflict 2500 casualties, suffer 500 or so).

But apparantly Manassas was not good enough for the national press...I STILL lost 10(!) morale for not be aggressive enough to fulfill the event. Sigh.

Anyhow, it seems odd to me to be getting this FTR event while Beauregard is advancing on Baltimore with a hoard of rebels in my rear. These opening events could stand a bit more tweaking IMO.

User avatar
Gray_Lensman
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
Location: Who is John Galt?

Sun Jun 24, 2007 2:10 am

deleted

User avatar
Winfield S. Hancock
Captain
Posts: 176
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:14 pm
Location: Lovettsville, VA, USA

Sun Jun 24, 2007 2:21 am

I believe to satisfy the forward to Richmond event you must move much closer to Richmond than Manassas, I think at least you must get south of Fredericksburg, or else you lose the VP. Probably better to take the VP hit at this point of the game than to risk major damage from a Reb invasion, for what its worth.

jimwinsor
General of the Army
Posts: 631
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 7:07 am
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Sun Jun 24, 2007 2:44 am

You're probably right.

User avatar
Jabberwock
Posts: 2204
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 12:12 am
Location: Weymouth, MA
Contact: ICQ

Sun Jun 24, 2007 4:58 am

:eek: Spoiler Warning! :eek:

To satisfy this event, you must have at least 10 units within the following area:

Albermale, VA
Spotsylvania, VA
Caroline, VA
King and Queen, VA
Louisa, VA
Buckingham, VA
Amherst, VA
Appomatox, VA
Henrico, VA
Charles City, VA
New Kent, VA
Prince George, VA

during August. I would suggest leaving them there for the whole month.
[color="DimGray"] You deserve to be spanked[/color]

Image

User avatar
Spruce
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 294
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:25 pm

Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:17 am

and for sure it's a little bit the simulation of the high hopes for an easy victory "to Richmond !" and the fourthcoming disappointment from it ...

User avatar
Spharv2
Posts: 1540
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 5:39 am
Location: Tallahassee, FL

Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:40 am

Spruce wrote:and for sure it's a little bit the simulation of the high hopes for an easy victory "to Richmond !" and the fourthcoming disappointment from it ...


Exactly, that event is really an incentive to move. It's something put in to simulate the pressure the Union public was putting on the government to "Go over there and teach those rebs a lesson". Specifically, to take Richmond before the first Confederate Congress could meet in Richmond. The North, like the South, figured one good battle would do the job, so they pressed an untrained and unready army forward overruling the commanders who would have preferred to sit tight and keep training. This event simulates the anger that resulted when the army failed to move, it was pretty overwhelming if you look at the papers from the time period. I can imagine if the army sat in Alexandria while a CS army ran around north of Washington, they'd be even more irate. The anger was quickly overtaken by the shock of the actual battle, but if the Union had failed to take any action, I can imagine the effect such a lethargic seeming command would have had on the already volatile public.

It's just lucky for the Union, to paraphrase Lincoln, that both armies were green together. If the army that marched to Manassas had met anything but another green army, it would have only taken one quick battle most likely.

How did you manage to let Beauregard get all the way behind you though? Even with McDowell inactive, I would at least try to throw the army in front of him and hope for the best. Maybe cause him to pull back if the casualties are high enough. :niark:

Conhugeco
Corporal
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 4:44 pm
Location: Maryland

Sun Jun 24, 2007 2:09 pm

Spharv2 wrote:... It's just lucky for the Union, to paraphrase Lincoln, that both armies were green together. If the army that marched to Manassas had met anything but another green army, it would have only taken one quick battle most likely....


And vice versa of course. I think it is helpful to remember that the South expected a short and decisive war too. After all, a southerner was worth ten yankees on the field of battle, don't you know. That braggadocio was disproven time and time again throughout the war. McDowell's force was much better organized than Beauregard's, and can be read, among other things, as one indication of the South's expectation of a quick and easy victory too.

So, how can the game reflect that? Perhaps some event that compels the rebels to hold Manassas for a certain length of time, at pain of some malus?

On a somewhat related note, in general the Union command structure remained far ahead of the Confederacy's throughout the war. It established divisions before the south, and implemented a corps structure well ahead of the rebs too. I would like to see this reflected in the game, and I think that simply limiting the number of divisions for each side doesn't fully reflect this area of Union superiority. In fact, the requirement for a leader to be active to form a division actually favors the Confederacy in an area where it should be penalized. Perhaps the rule should be that only an inactive general can form a division! Perhaps the inactive leaders were spending more time organizing and training troops compared to the glory-seeking "activists."

What do you think?

Dick
In response to a critic: "General Lee surrendered to me. He did not surrender to any other Union General, although I believe there were several efforts made in that direction before I assumed command of the armies in Virginia." -- Ulysses Grant

User avatar
McNaughton
Posts: 2766
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:47 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Sun Jun 24, 2007 2:52 pm

Well, in all but name the Confederates used Corps formations about as early as the Union out East, and out West, actually had better organization!

While true, that the Confederates were slow to enact Divisional commands, they were slightly faster than it appears to catch up to the union.

In the East, there were about 4-5 individual commands, which were organized and concentrated at the Penninsula during that campaign. Longstreet and Jackson held command of two of the largest formations (about 30 000 each, individually larger than either force during Bull Run), each becoming wings of the Army. Wings pretty much operated as Corps formations (Corps in all but name). They could be detached into independent commands (as Corps) and were subject to the high command of the army.

Out West, the Army of the Mississippi was organized into 4 Corps, 2 of which were organized by divisions, 2 of which were still organized as independent brigades (organized into divisions after Shiloh). The Union Army of Ohio and Army of Tennessee were organized in divisions, without any corps structure (which was why their numbered divisions went into high numbers, such as 7 and 8) and were under the command of the Army HQ directly (i.e., Grant held direct command over his 5 divisions at Shiloh). Later, like the Confederates out East, the Union forces were organized into wings of an army, then these wings became official corps.

The 'freedom' of Corps command was to allow them to be more than just a part of an existing army (i.e., Left Wing of the Army of the Cumberland), but as possible independnet forces (i.e. IX Corps was part of the Army of the Potomac, but could also be detached, with its existing command and designation, to be a part of the Army of the Cumberland).

So, in reality, the Confederates were only slightly behind the Union in the East, and ahead of the Union in the West.

jimwinsor
General of the Army
Posts: 631
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 7:07 am
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:24 pm

Spharv2 wrote:...

How did you manage to let Beauregard get all the way behind you though? Even with McDowell inactive, I would at least try to throw the army in front of him and hope for the best. Maybe cause him to pull back if the casualties are high enough. :niark:


Well, in 1.05 David Hunter is only a one star at the start of the July '61 campaign; meaning McDowell cannot create any corps right away.

This is a good change IMO...but it also means McDowell's army can really only exist in one space.

So, this aggressive AI opening move has plenty of room to go around McDowell; in this case he used Loudon.

I started the game again as an experiment, and the AI used the same opening. And the same second turn move...Beauregard seems enchanted with Baltimore for some reason. :)

Return to “AGEod's American Civil War”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests