Let's cause extreme butthurt by defeating the North in AACW

[Cenobyte]

Hm, I currently don't have the game installed, so I cannot load your save and check it out by myself.

You can repair those destroyed parts of the railway, btw.

 

[Burning Bridges]

Speaking of Promotions

Here is an overview of all Generals which I have promoted during the Campaign.

John B. Hood.

Crap. Got the "dispirited leader" trait, so he seems only useful as a division leader under another commander.

James Longstreet

Probably my most successful General so far, promoted to Army General. I wanted him to take over command over the Army of Tennessee but for some reasons the game did not allow it. It may be a bug, because the option was there, it just didn't happen.

Patrick Cleburne

I had much hope in him becoming a great Corps General. Unfortunately he got the "dispirited leader" trait too, otherwise he would have been something like my pocket Longstreet. Now I don't know, the stats are excellent, but he gets a cohesion penalty. In defensive roles he should still shine.

He is still destined to become the new Corps commander under Beauregard, his defensive skills should be very useful as long as the Army fights on the Blobert line.

Robert Hoke

Pretty unspectacular Division leader, now promoted to equally unspectacular 2-star general.

John C. Breckinridge. The best Corps commander in the West I have, now promoted to 3-star general. He alsol kept his good stats and special ability.

William J. Hardee. An ok general, promoted to 3-star. He should be average to command Corps, or an independent stack.

 

[Burning Bridges]

You can repair those destroyed parts of the railway, btw.

I know. I destroy a lot of railway myself, and try to repair my own.

For example here, in a small operation my partisans have wrecked the whole railway behind the Union, they were pretty successful so far.

 

[Burning Bridges]

Ah and I just realize 4 turns and it will be December. It's time to start preparing for the winter.

If I can make it into the winter with intact fronts it will already be a big success, there will be new conscripts coming and I could replace my losses.

 

[Burning Bridges]

-- TURN 14 - 40,000 casualties for Union in single turn, Union morale plummets to 69 --

Second Fredricksburg!!

Fellow countrymen! There couldn't have been a better day for our cause!!!

Those people have attacked our impenetrable fortifications in Fredericksburg for the second time, and this time their losses are completely off the scale: 22,000 dead + 6,000 prisoners, to just 7,500 of our own!

Jackson, Early and D.H.Hill can be promoted

8 National Morale won!!

Celebrating confederate soldiers almost kill Lee.

Here the situation in the East.

Shall we counterattack before the Winter comes, to teach those people a lesson?

On the Blobert front, Cleburne has taken command over a newly formed Corps before Atlanta, but it's still very weak. worse, the AI managed to trap some 3,500 of his forces in Rome.This is not looking so good.

Hold out or retreat (already) to Atlanta?

In Meridian, Hardee and Breckinridge unite their Corps and thoroughly defeat an army of the Union.

+3 National Morale

Grant and Sherman unite at Jackson and defeat Johnston, who I wanted to move in the direction of Vicksburg ..

He retreats, and is now unable to help the Vicksburg Garrison, who looks in danger again.

A loss of Vicksburg would however not weigh so much as it would have at the beginning, because it already cost the Union dearly.

The situation int the West.

Vicksburg is cut off again, this time by the main force of Grant and Sherman (50,000)

Johnston is beaten back and must find a place to reorganize. Luckily for us, one of Gardners brigades has taken over Natchez by a surprise attack, and we capture another supply unit and a transport ship. West Baton Rouge is also ours.

Breckinridge and Hardee win a battle for Meridian, and look like they can hold out.

Things also look bright around the Alabama river, where Polk, Ewell and Wharton defeat union forces in the area and re-establish control over the eastern parts of our supply chain.

In Mobile Bay, our gallant CSS "Erika Falx" is preventing a quick Union outbreak into Alabama, or so I think (if I put a warship on offensive, this should mean riverine transport cannot pass through, right??)

In Ft. Smith, Holmes and Price forces withstand yet another attack (they received the hold at all cost order, and will either be victorious or die as heroes). It looks like they could hold out.

In Texas our army moves sluggishly and has achieved nothing so far. If things don't improve it may be time for some more command changes.

The objectives screen: 40,000 casualties for the Union, in just one turn!

Lincoln must be absolutely mad. How long can he let them attack again and again after such losses?

 

[Morkar Left]

The AI seems a bit inactive or are your defensive positions that good?

 

[eklektyk]

*40,000 casualties for Union in single turn*

that was really nice, but for how long Union can withstand those level of casualities before they fold and U win coz arbitrary points in Morale?

 

[Burning Bridges]

The AI is just 19 points away from morale breakdown. You can see that in the "objectives" screen. It also shows that the CSA is 99 points away from their breaking point, so we are not losing by any means.

I have already gathered information how to disable sudden death in a running game, so we can hopefully continue the campaign.

And no, the AI isn't inactive by any stretch. It only makes a big mistake, by attacking my trench line in the East, instead of simply going into North Carolina. In my opinion capturing North Carolina (and cutting off Virginia) is the easiest way to defeat the CSA, and in a future game I plan to play a campaign as the Union to demonstrate this.

 

[Burning Bridges]

-- TURN 15 --

Late October, I am beginning to make the first preparations for the Winter, one of them is slowly pull back the Mississipi Army to Alabama, where it can be supplied (hopefully).

Johnston moved to Natchez, together with most of my transport fleet, next turn I plan to evacuate most of his stack by sea (transport capacity is however a little limited).

Breckinridge and Hardee struck out simultaneously from Meridian, Hardee captured the important town of Gainsville, and we have control of the railway behind Meridian.

Breckindridge defeated a Union Division, but unfortunately the planned surprise move to recapture Merdidian is abandoned. Now he is running dangerously low on supply again.

In Northern Georgia a Union army moved through our defenses in the Blobert line, and now threatens Atlanta.
We could assemble some forced there but it's not sure they are ready yet.

The good thing is that this gave Cleburne's new Corps some time to assemble and he is now almost ready.

Another problem arose in Florida, where Union forces broke out and captured Brunswick, just a few days before our reinforcements arrived. They are now threatening Savannah, but only if we do not react quickly.

In the East, the Union armies have fallen back and Jeb Stuart is the first to exploit this by a quick offensive, recapturing some lost territory in Virginia. We are currently considering a major offensive in the East, which would mostly hinge on the supply situation and the weather.

What really sucks is that we will receive hardly no conscripts for another 6 turns, and we cannot replace all our losses. This already rules out any costly attacks which would cause major casualties.

What also really sucks is that the eastern armies do not receive enough supply either, this constant lack of supply must be something with the patch or my railway, and the necessary micromangement with currently 10 (!) wagon units begins to suck. I invested heavily in my railroads but still the supplies do not come for forward, it's as if it's an inbuilt feature in this campaign that the Confederates are constantly understrength because of lack of supply.

I promoted Jackson to rank of Army General, and hope to be able to put him in command of the Army of Mississipi until next spring. If I could put Jackson against Grant that would change things drastically.

Also promoted: D.H.Hill, seems to be a good Corps leader (I think he even gained stats!)

Jubal Early, after his promotion. A reasonable Commander, but with some problems.

 

[Burning Bridges]

-- TURN 16 - Longstreet's cowardice creates grave crisis for the Confederates --

Will Lee's courageous Fall Offensive eventually turn into a costly strategic mistake?

A very stupid situation in Virginia threatens Lee's Army. In the south the counter offensive by Stuart and Hill gives reason for great hope and is quickly recovering lost ground. But on the main front Longstreet, who was supposed to help Jackson in Fredricksburg, inexplicably retreats with 20,000 men, back to Petersburg, leaving Lee and Jackson in a completely hopeless situation. In the next turn they are facing 100,000 or more with just 30,000. I just don't know how long they can withstand such numbers.

I also don't know how the Union could replace the losses of the previous battles so quickly. This is so frustrating, just 3 turns ago their (eastern) army lost 30,000 men, and now they are attacking again in full strength.

Stuarts successful advance in Northwest Virgina.

Hood takes back Grove Hill.

In the West, the situation is still very confusing, for both sides, but we managed to bring back some order.

Johnstons HQ and 7,500 men have been evacuated from Mississipi by sea, and take up their new base in Blakeley, Alabama, just opposite Mobile. We now also recaptured and repaired all of the railway east of Meridian, and constructed a new depot in Montgomery. These measures aim to establish a stable winter front with reasonable supply chain, although I am beginning to doubt that the game will ever allow us have working supply in this campaign.

Some part of Johnstons forces remain in Mississipi and Louisiana, ca 8,000 in Vicksburg, ca 7,000 in Baton Rouge, and we ferried some 2,500 men into northern Texas, where a new Union offensive lingers.

In retrospect, the campaign in Mississipi was chaotic, and while we did not achieve the decisive victory we wanted, we also did not suffer defeat. While we lost large parts of Mississipi and northern Alabama, the Army of Mississipi survived the campaign and inflicted some losses. We also keep several bases along the Mississipi, and most important, Vicksburg, which can now be supplied over the river.

The loss of Mobile was of course a major setback, but we just didn't have the forces to defend it at the time.

Our secret new Wunderwaffe sunk for the second time. I wonder if there is really a submarine unit in the game?

 

[Cenobyte]

The thing you have to look for is not only the supply chain, but also supply consumption and supply generation.

The general rule is, that the larger a city, the bigger its supply generation. That's why New Orleans is so important. It's by far the biggest city in the southern Confederacy. And this is also the reason why the Union don't have so much supply issues. They have all these large cities in the north. Depots, forts and harbours provide additional supply points. You can check the supply production in the supply filter, as well as your current supply stocks in cities, forts and depots (but I guess you already know that).

Railroads are then used to forward the generated supply to the frontlines and your units. In general, supply can travel 3 regions and prefers to move along railroads. But the higher throughput of railroads is only used if you have spare capacity in the supply phase of a turn. So if you spend all your railroad capacity on moving troops around, there won't be any capacity left for the supply phase. 1/3 of your total pool needs to be unused (iirc) to allow for rail-based supply distribution.

And in terms of supply consumption, it might simply be that your army is currently too large for your supply production capabilities (even though I doubt that).

 

[Burning Bridges]

-- Turn 17 - Zu Tode gesiegt? --

We are slowly losing the war. Not because we lost many battles, but because the 1863 campaign is simply designed that way.

There are practically no conscripts, and therefore my armies receive no proper replacements.
The Draft option remains disabled for 16 turns, of which 10 have passed. Even though in that agonizing period the Union losses were almost 2:1, they probably received enough conscripts and replaced all their losses by now, while we didn't, so in fact the combat losses are more like 1:0 in their favor. This way it is getting pointless to think about a counter offensive.

No matter what I do, or how many supply wagons I capture (I must have taken already 8 such units from the enemy), food for my armies is almost permanently barely enough for 1 turn, so a lot of men simply die of atttrition, even around Richmond Virginia, which is demoralizing.

I am also slowly getting overwhelmed by numbers. In the last turn I had to give up Fredricksburg, because I could simply not risk to lose Lee and Jackson. They were outnumbered more than 3:1 and had no food. It is simply impossible to win battles that way.

While all of this is historically correct, for 10 turns or so I have been playing Hungry Confederates - the game, it's becoming tedious.

Grant has brought his stack to full strength again, and now attacks 25,000 hungry, weakened Confederates in Gainesville. It doesn't look too good here either, though I could send them some supply wagons over the river.

After a ridiculously long siege (Cheatham retreated, moved to a wrong province, was deactivated for 2 turns etc), Confederates have finally recaptured Matagorda in Texas.

 

[Burning Bridges]

The thing you have to look for is not only the supply chain, but also supply consumption and supply generation.

The general rule is, that the larger a city, the bigger its supply generation. That's why New Orleans is so important. It's by far the biggest city in the southern Confederacy. And this is also the reason why the Union don't have so much supply issues. They have all these large cities in the north. Depots, forts and harbours provide additional supply points. You can check the supply production in the supply filter, as well as your current supply stocks in cities, forts and depots (but I guess you already know that).

Railroads are then used to forward the generated supply to the frontlines and your units. In general, supply can travel 3 regions and prefers to move along railroads. But the higher throughput of railroads is only used if you have spare capacity in the supply phase of a turn. So if you spend all your railroad capacity on moving troops around, there won't be any capacity left for the supply phase. 1/3 of your total pool needs to be unused (iirc) to allow for rail-based supply distribution.

And in terms of supply consumption, it might simply be that your army is currently too large for your supply production capabilities (even though I doubt that).

Have you played the '63 campaign yourself?

Armies have become huge, and there are only 2 or 3 towns in the whole Confederacy that produce enough supplies for such large armies (and they are as far back as Charleston).

With Mobile & New Orleans lost (as well as Memphis and Nashville), there seems to be hardly enough supply for the large army which I built up, and definitely not enough conscripts. I have played the 1861 campaign several times, and won every time, I wanted something harder but I guess I should have gone for 1862 instead!!

 

[Burning Bridges]

Here is the savegame: CSA Turn 17

My latest interpretation is that from here on it will only a long agonizing spiral into defeat. In spite of my best efforts on all fronts, I think I cannot win.

The war will probably go on for a year until all my men have died from hunger

 

[Cenobyte]

Have you played the '63 campaign yourself?

Armies have become huge, and there are only 2 or 3 towns in the whole Confederacy that produce enough supplies for such large armies (and they are as far back as Charleston).

With Mobile & New Orleans lost (as well as Memphis and Nashville), there seems to be hardly enough supply for the large army which I built up, and definitely not enough conscripts. I have played the 1861 campaign several times, and won every time, I wanted something harder but I guess I should have gone for 1862 instead!!

Hmm, I'm afraid I haven't. I usually only play the grand campaign of the AGEOD games. But yeah, your situation surely seems to be quite desperate. Maybe you could just restart with the 1862 scenario?

 

[Gondolin]

Is there any way you could win a morale victory now? Can you simply throw your troops at the Yanks and inflict enough casualties to defeat them?

 

[Burning Bridges]

Good question. Union morale is very low, but already recovering. Last last turn they were only 19 points away from a defeat, now it is 21 again, and in the next turns it could be even more.

I thought time was working for me but it actually works against me. If I lose Richmond now, or one of my armies, I will never get the Union under 50 points. That's actually why I am so desperately trying to avoid defeat in a major battle.

Of course one could theoretically put everything on a single card, by ordering a simultaneous banzai charge of all available forces, which tries to capture 2-3 major towns and win several battles, thereby somehow getting the 20-25 required points. But I think it would not work, and it feels like a very strange gamey strategy as well.

 

[Running Fox]

I would post in this thread if the fucking level3 servers would not be timing out on 9 out of 10 requests...!

 

[Gondolin]

Good question. Union morale is very low, but already recovering. Last last turn they were only 19 points away from a defeat, now it is 21 again, and in the next turns it could be even more.

I thought time was working for me but it actually works against me. If I lose Richmond now, or one of my armies, I will never get the Union under 50 points. That's actually why I am so desperately trying to avoid defeat in a major battle.

Of course one could theoretically put everything on a single card, by ordering a simultaneous banzai charge of all available forces, which tries to capture 2-3 major towns and win several battles, thereby somehow getting the 20-25 required points. But I think it would not work, and it feels like a very strange gamey strategy as well.

It does, but I can't see any other options. Unless you can pull a wave of reinforcements out of some magic hat, you're dead.

 

[Burning Bridges]

Does anyone remember Shogun Total War before Mongol invasion? There was a similar situation with the Hojo horde, and the game reminds me a bit of that.
Fighting a horde is challenging for a long time, until it begins to suck.
Although in AACWs defense it must be said the game does not cheat, this is only so frustrating because of the starting situation.

Speaking of which, what are your experiences with the game?
I played the '61 campaign many times, and never had much problems to win (both Union and CSA). This was my first '63 campaign, and I find it a bit too hard (though it certainly can be beaten by a better general than me).

Next campaign will definitely be 1862, hopefully that offers a good compromise. I also still have the French-Indian War in WiA to play.

 

[Cenobyte]

For me, I usually play the grand campaigns to get used to the game and play through the whole time covered by the game. But I agree, once you get used to the system, the grand campaign usually isn't much of a challenge. That's why I prefer to play via PBEM after a while. I think I've never really tried the smaller scenarios, not even in WiA with its huge number of different scenarios.

 

[Burning Bridges]

I think this game is quite challenging but the computer needs a certain numerical advantage. The question is just how much.

The historic scenarios don't make allowances for that at all. So you must try to find a point where the balance suits yourself. Everyone new to the game will start with 1861. And that will be interesting until you realize that it's not much of a challenge.
If you play the Union you cannot lose because you have such an overpowering economic advantage, and if you are the Confederates you cannot lose either, because you have the better generals and enough time to make up the disadvantages you start with.

I think 1862 is the year to go now, balance should be fine, because the Union has a numerical advantage, but at least the CSA still have an economy with which to fight back.

After this campaign I would say that 1863 is quite challenging for the CSA player, not unwinnable (there is still a morale victory on the tables) but requiring a capacity to suffer which I cannot muster for a long time.
For the next time I go to 1863 I am thinking about modding in foreign intervention - wouldn't that be cool?.

 

[Morkar Left]

Hmm, that's what I wondered with inactive AI. I guessed they should have a lot of reserves ready in 1863 compared to the CSA to do some pressure. Seems like they finally kick in the door.

Why not do some "What if" scenarios? In one you could try to win by national moral and in another you could cheat in foreign intervention (if you're able to do it). Both should be entertaining and I suppose the first one wouldn't take too long either way. And for the second one I was always curious how this looks like / how worthwhile it is.

 

[GarfunkeL]

My latest interpretation is that from here on it will only a long agonizing spiral into defeat. In spite of my best efforts on all fronts, I think I cannot win.

Reminds me of the Soviet campaign in Allied General. It's pretty much impossible to win the first two scenarios (Winter War and Barbarossa in Latvia) so you cannot build up your core forces, meaning that you play two frustrating battles before Moscow '41 with hopefully enough tenacity left to bother with continuing. Which is why I have never finished that campaign.

 

[Norfleet]

Of course one could theoretically put everything on a single card, by ordering a simultaneous banzai charge of all available forces, which tries to capture 2-3 major towns and win several battles, thereby somehow getting the 20-25 required points. But I think it would not work, and it feels like a very strange gamey strategy as well.

I dunno, that sounds pretty realistic to me. People in history have, in fact, done precisely this when faced with the alternative of Certain 3D Doom.