"Offensive" into Virginia?

[bk6583]

Well, after playing the Union for several campaigns I confess to not paying much attention to this. What exactly is required to keep from losing a whopping 10 NM? I actually moved Schurz with a cavalry force into Manassas on offensive posture and won a small victory but didn't take the place. Isn't Alexandria in VA - where I've had a whole corps?

[Coregonas]

Not exactly sure, but either 10 units or 10 elements are required 1 area from richmond.

Seem most USA players just ignore this event and lose the 10 points.

[GShock]

Not exactly sure, but either 10 units or 10 elements are required 1 area from richmond.

Seem most USA players just ignore this event and lose the 10 points.

Usa loses at 40 NM ? Takes a miracle to beat them down the NM, perhaps this event should double the NM loss to push the Union more into offensive.

[Jabberwock]

Perhaps there should be a second event (tested simultaneously, with comparable NM loss) that has reachable objectives (like Manassas or Fredericksburg). That could push union players to be more aggressive, without being a potential game killer.

[Doomwalker]

That sounds like a good idea. I could handle the second event with a comparable NM lose on it. But I would not like to see the event as it stands raised in NM points.

I have yet to avoid this penalty in any of my games.

[Jabberwock]

Actually, I'd personally like to see three related events:
-7 NM for not moving to the noth bank of the Rappahannock
-5 NM for not crossing the Rappahanock (using the original event area, with some minor changes)
-3 NM for not attacking Richmond

That way, there would almost be a guarantee of a fight at Bull Run, a good chance of the Union trying to push further, and everyone could give up on 3 NM. Odds are most players would lose 8 NM that way, and non-aggressive players would lose 15.

I'd also like to see a loss of 1 NM for every 2-3 turns that the Union doesn't have any significant forces in the "Close to Richmond" area. Right now it is too easy to sit back and wait for late '62. Significant might be defined as a smaller force than this event uses, but larger than a few raiders.

[Banks6060]

I dunno if I really dig this idea. While I really get annoyed at Union players who just sit around for 2 years outside Washington while they promote better generals from the west....I still think the game addresses this appropriately.

If you're the Union and you just sit there, you're libel to be attacked by a much better led army during 1862 and will likely be both outmaneuvred and outmatched in battle anyway. So I think strategically there is already incentive enough to get your butt goin' before an ambitious CSA player decides to take the war north. Which is, IMHO, what drove politicians to persist in demanding the war stay on the Virginia side of the line historically....that and taking Richmond.

What I think might be a nice compromise is making Richmond worth vastly more NM for the Union if they capture it.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[bk6583]

[HTML]

I dunno if I really dig this idea. While I really get annoyed at Union players who just sit around for 2 years outside Washington while they promote better generals from the west....I still think the game addresses this appropriately.

If you're the Union and you just sit there, you're libel to be attacked by a much better led army during 1862 and will likely be both outmaneuvred and outmatched in battle anyway. So I think strategically there is already incentive enough to get your butt goin' before an ambitious CSA player decides to take the war north. Which is, IMHO, what drove politicians to persist in demanding the war stay on the Virginia side of the line historically....that and taking Richmond.[/HTML]

What I think might be a nice compromise is making Richmond worth vastly more NM for the Union if they capture it.

Are you speaking from a PBEM experience (mine is strictly against Athena)? If left alone, by 1862 Union corps sitting in the three regions from Harpers Ferry to Alexandria, with a strength of 1600-1700, with 20 pounders and/or Rodmans, entrenched to level 7-8, can be very tough nuts to crack. I'd be curious to read from posters what strategies a human CSA opponent conducts to disrupt this.

[bk6583]

I dunno if I really dig this idea. While I really get annoyed at Union players who just sit around for 2 years outside Washington while they promote better generals from the west....I still think the game addresses this appropriately.

If you're the Union and you just sit there, you're libel to be attacked by a much better led army during 1862 and will likely be both outmaneuvred and outmatched in battle anyway. So I think strategically there is already incentive enough to get your butt goin' before an ambitious CSA player decides to take the war north. Which is, IMHO, what drove politicians to persist in demanding the war stay on the Virginia side of the line historically....that and taking Richmond.

What I think might be a nice compromise is making Richmond worth vastly more NM for the Union if they capture it.

Are you speaking from a PBEM experience (mine is strictly against Athena)? If left alone, by 1862 Union corps sitting in the three regions from Harpers Ferry to Alexandria, with a strength of 1600-1700, with 20 pounders and/or Rodmans, entrenched to level 7-8, can be very tough nuts to crack. I'd be curious to read from posters what strategies a human CSA opponent conducts to disrupt this.

[arsan]

As the CSA, i would stay put on the east with enough corps to defend Virginia and send reinforcements to the west.
The norths will lose in the end if he stay put. CSA gets higher VP per turn than USA. The CSA can afford to play defensively. The USA don't. They should attack or lose.

The problem, as Banks states is that there is not as much pressure on a USA player to attack on the east as there were historically.
This event is good because of this, but is too "all or nothing".
Usually the USA has no way to get to Richmond so soon , so they just wait and absorb the NM loss and wait to 62 to move on Virginia.
More events like this, but with moderate effects and requisites like the ones Jabber proposes would be better IMHO.
Regards!

[lodilefty]

It is relatvely simple to create an event that takes -1NM from Union per turn until they get to the 'Richmond Area'...

[Banks6060]

It is relatvely simple to create an event that takes -1NM from Union per turn until they get to the 'Richmond Area'...

This I would like....

Then of course you have to define what the "area" around Richmond should be. Perhaps one region...maybe 2 regions extending from Richmond in all directions??

[Banks6060]

Are you speaking from a PBEM experience (mine is strictly against Athena)? If left alone, by 1862 Union corps sitting in the three regions from Harpers Ferry to Alexandria, with a strength of 1600-1700, with 20 pounders and/or Rodmans, entrenched to level 7-8, can be very tough nuts to crack. I'd be curious to read from posters what strategies a human CSA opponent conducts to disrupt this.

Yes...alot of the gamey'er Union players like to just sit and wait in the east for a couple of years with their crappy generals and wait for Grant, Sheridan, Meade and co. to be promoted to Army and Corps level command until they actually make a move.

I think it's a rather annoying strategy....sometimes effective, but allowing an aggressive and knowledgable CSA player the initiative...with a vastly better led army SHOULD be incentive enough IMHO to get a Union player moving in '62.

CSA offensives, if they build up enough Supply Wagons, can go just about anywhere....as long as they maintain a defense along the Orange and Alexandria Railroad....you can move to Grafton, then Wheeling or Pittsburg....or up through Harper's Ferry Behind Union lines to Baltimore and Annapolis....even all the way to Harrisburg....hell.....provided you have enough supply, you could probably run all the way up to Philedelphia with a "Pocket Corps" under Jackson. Stealing those VP and NM cities adds up for the CSA.

Then there's the incentive to break the CSA entrenchments before they become too strong. All a conservative CSA player has to do is form a line of trenches from Harper's Ferry all the way down to Fredericksburg.....I dunno...I just think's there's already plenty of incentive for the Union player to get moving in '62 and I feel that players who don't are rather foolish...but that's just me.

Although, as I mentioned above....some extra NM incentive for being "near" Richmond might help.

[Jabberwock]

My proposal is something that could be tried in a mod, maybe added to vanilla someday if it works well and the community likes it.

Banks - You really don't want to give me that much insight into your thinking.

[Banks6060]

My proposal is something that could be tried in a mod, maybe added to vanilla someday if it works well and the community likes it.

Banks - You really don't want to give me that much insight into your thinking.

lol....I was thinking that very thing as I typed. Ah well....at least I've got you guys thinking now. (hopefully ).

[Coregonas]

I ll try to change Banks strategy into mine

[Banks6060]

ooooo....nice addition Core. Now we've got 'em wondering what's up our sleeve .

I hope Solo can get back on the horse soon....

[Jabberwock]

What horse? Nobody mentioned anything about a horse before. Is that a code word?

[Pdubya64]

Actually, I'd personally like to see three related events:
-7 NM for not moving to the noth bank of the Rappahannock
-5 NM for not crossing the Rappahanock (using the original event area, with some minor changes)
-3 NM for not attacking Richmond

That way, there would almost be a guarantee of a fight at Bull Run, a good chance of the Union trying to push further, and everyone could give up on 3 NM. Odds are most players would lose 8 NM that way, and non-aggressive players would lose 15.

I'd also like to see a loss of 1 NM for every 2-3 turns that the Union doesn't have any significant forces in the "Close to Richmond" area. Right now it is too easy to sit back and wait for late '62. Significant might be defined as a smaller force than this event uses, but larger than a few raiders.

Hmmm... correct me if I am wrong here guys- but historically, there was considerable pressure, both real and perceived, on Lincoln to essentially make "short work" of the despicable Confederates by driving on their new capital post haste and ending this two-bit rebellion.
Hell, at the Battle of Manassas, a freaking entourage of gawkers and thrill-seekers followed the Union army to the battlefield to see them woop the poor enemy and get back home to Alexandria for lunch!

My point is, maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to provide the Union player some of this "motivation" in order to simulate the prevailing wind of the people at the time. You can always wind it down around the time period after (almost) everyone realized the war would not be won in one day or one battle.

If a good script can be written to pull it off the right way, I say do it.

Pdubya (aka, the birthday boy...)

[AndrewKurtz]

Yes...alot of the gamey'er Union players like to just sit and wait in the east for a couple of years with their crappy generals and wait for Grant, Sheridan, Meade and co. to be promoted to Army and Corps level command until they actually make a move.

I think it's a rather annoying strategy....sometimes effective, but allowing an aggressive and knowledgable CSA player the initiative...with a vastly better led army SHOULD be incentive enough IMHO to get a Union player moving in '62.

CSA offensives, if they build up enough Supply Wagons, can go just about anywhere....as long as they maintain a defense along the Orange and Alexandria Railroad....you can move to Grafton, then Wheeling or Pittsburg....or up through Harper's Ferry Behind Union lines to Baltimore and Annapolis....even all the way to Harrisburg....hell.....provided you have enough supply, you could probably run all the way up to Philedelphia with a "Pocket Corps" under Jackson. Stealing those VP and NM cities adds up for the CSA.

Then there's the incentive to break the CSA entrenchments before they become too strong. All a conservative CSA player has to do is form a line of trenches from Harper's Ferry all the way down to Fredericksburg.....I dunno...I just think's there's already plenty of incentive for the Union player to get moving in '62 and I feel that players who don't are rather foolish...but that's just me.

Although, as I mentioned above....some extra NM incentive for being "near" Richmond might help.

Just call me Pinkerton...

[soundoff]

As an aside and as a general question has anyone made a decent fist of advancing into Virginia when they have been up against a decent PBEM player rather than the computer? I know I have'nt been able to crack it. The major problem I find is not the bonuses given by such as Jackson nor the entrenchment bonuses. The real killer for me is too many Union commanders going inactive at critical times.

I must admit I dont make the attempt anymore as it just turns out to be suicidal.

Mind you I like the idea of a continuing cost for not making headway on that front.

Regards

[Evren]

This will probably be more interesting as the new "Max Entrenchment Level" changes are implemented. A USA army that sits just outside Washington for the first two years will only be able to be entrenched to a Level of 5 or 6 thru 1862, making them somewhat more vulnerable to an aggresive CSA player.

That is a nice feature that already takes place in Jagger's Mod (but you have to change the max. entrenchment levels manually), but it can still cause a non-agression game in the west, if the CSA chooses not to attack. I think more radical changes should be done in order to push the players for an offensive in the east, but i think such changes can only take place in AACW2 earliest.

[Coregonas]

IMHO a lot of USA players asume as a Faith: I am not going for Richmond...This is imposible.

And yes it is difficult with Jackson & his trenches nearby

So they send a lot of Troops in the Tennessee area, to try getting superiority for promoting their flamboyant Grant there.

So they can not go for Richmond in a direct approach.

Also ... big size naval invasion (as USA did) seem too hard to master, but sure it would distract (as CSA did) a big part of the trenched troops there in manasas, and so on...

So USA players DECIDE: PROMOTING GRANT is my 1st TOP priority. I dont care about Richmond. I ll do it later.

[soundoff]

So USA players DECIDE: PROMOTING GRANT is my 1st TOP priority. I dont care about Richmond. I ll do it later.

You are probably right Cor though for me I'm not fussed whether its Grant or Lyon (assuming the event fires) or Hooker. When I play the Union side though I must admit I am concerned to get a least one Corp commander in the field who will 'usually' advance when I need him to.

As I said for me its not the power of Jackson & Co, nor the entrenchment that stops me from moving on Richmond. Its trying to get the commanders activated. Not only cant I force battle in such mode but theres the double wammy of a big fat combat penalty if you are attacked when inactive in enemy territory.

Hence I'd love to know who's achieved it consistently in PBEM or even feels they have a fighting chance?

[Coregonas]

I just believe no one even tries seriously.

we try to avoid playing historic mistakes, and go for outperform real history.

Remember 1st manasas was a CSA victory, as a lot of early battles.

An USA player say: I prefer not to lose a single battle (nor give NM to the enemy), I go other way around.

[chainsaw]

...As I said for me its not the power of Jackson & Co, nor the entrenchment that stops me from moving on Richmond. Its trying to get the commanders activated.

Yep - no matter what your intent might be, as a US player it comes down to will any of these lazy eastern theater bastards activate? Through mid 1862 it seems about 75% of the time the answer is "We're not ready yet! We need to change our socks! Ummm, we need a few more divisions...let's wait another month."

My favorite is when it's mud and blizzards then they come out of their slump. "On to Richmond! It might take 30 days to travel one region, and we will lose 80% cohesion, but we're ready to go now! Onward..."

My next game I'm trying the CSA (never have) to see what can happen when units actually activate and advance (what a novel concept)...
.

[Jabberwock]

As an aside and as a general question has anyone made a decent fist of advancing into Virginia when they have been up against a decent PBEM player rather than the computer? I know I have'nt been able to crack it. The major problem I find is not the bonuses given by such as Jackson nor the entrenchment bonuses. The real killer for me is too many Union commanders going inactive at critical times.

I must admit I dont make the attempt anymore as it just turns out to be suicidal.

Mind you I like the idea of a continuing cost for not making headway on that front.

Regards

I have done it once in PBEM, against a very good player, by making full use of amphibious capabilities, and then using every trick I know to avoid combat once I was there. It was pretty gamey. A dozen loose militia and cavalry running around just trying to survive does not constitute a serious threat to Richmond. As soon as the event checks were over, I got the survivors out of there.

[denisonh]

Yep - no matter what your intent might be, as a US player it comes down to will any of these lazy eastern theater bastards activate? Through mid 1862 it seems about 75% of the time the answer is "We're not ready yet! We need to change our socks! Ummm, we need a few more divisions...let's wait another month."

My favorite is when it's mud and blizzards then they come out of their slump. "On to Richmond! It might take 30 days to travel one region, and we will lose 80% cohesion, but we're ready to go now! Onward..."

My next game I'm trying the CSA (never have) to see what can happen when units actually activate and advance (what a novel concept)...
.

This the real problem I find as the USA player. I have Union in PBEM and will attack when I have activated Generals in 1861/1862. If a Union player "goes to sleep" out east, he allows the CSA player to divert forces West. Attacking the CSA player in the East in 1861/2 "keeps him honest", keeping forces out East.

Even losing battles is not bad as long as you can bleed the CSA player.

Even so, I have only avoided the NM penalty for the "advance into Virginia" one time.

[Banks6060]

This the real problem I find as the USA player. I have Union in PBEM and will attack when I have activated Generals in 1861/1862. If a Union player "goes to sleep" out east, he allows the CSA player to divert forces West. Attacking the CSA player in the East in 1861/2 "keeps him honest", keeping forces out East.

Even losing battles is not bad as long as you can bleed the CSA player.

Even so, I have only avoided the NM penalty for the "advance into Virginia" one time.

I think this is a pretty good reason to stay on the offensive. The last time I played as the Union in PBEM I went on offense throughout '62 and '63, now while I totally botched things up in the west and lost badly....I caused pretty nasty losses for my opponent in every battle in the east. Later, my opponent told me that if it hadn't been for winter of '64....his eastern army might have been bled dry.

It's kind of the "Grant approach" to fighting the war. Sacrifice lives to bleed your opponent....especially if he's the south. They can't afford bloody battles late in the war.