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

[oscar]

Nice to see a Let's Play for a strategy game that ended up with an actual defeat.

 

[Norfleet]

Well, it ain't over till the fat lady sings, but I guess that this episode tells us that the Civil War effectively had gone into mopup by '63, since if even a gamer can't beat it against the mere AI, neither could the people there.

 

[Morkar Left]

I'm sure there are plenty of strategy experts who manage to win in the game from that point. But they have the advantage of knowing the history and the outcome of certain moves compared to their real counterparts, of course.

 

[GarfunkeL]

You could probably win it after you are familiar enough with how the AI moves and you know the gamey exploits to use.

 

[Burning Bridges]

Technically I'm a long way from being defeated, I just had a morale breakdown when the campaign became too frustrating. That plus the hot weather, so the game is currently on hold.

 

[Morkar Left]

I think there would be no need to play till the bitter end anyway when losing is inevitable. It would make for a boring LP, too.

That plus the hot weather, so the game is currently on hold.

Ohh, yeah. It's a bad time to play games at the moment.

 

[curry]

Your plan backfired and ironically you ended up being the one with extreme butthurt

 

[Burning Bridges]

Well I think theoretically I could still win by morale, but I lost interest when I realized that the kind of total victory that I was hoping for is absolutely unattainable.

It is simply frustrating when you spend 1h/turn and inflict such major losses as I did in late summer/ early fall 1863 but then 4 turns later realize how easily the AI can replace all losses.

But I'd still recommend this campaign if you want something rather challenging, I'm sure you can do better than me.

Also, I'm positively surprised that so many people know this game and follow such an LP, I may attempt another one in a few months (in which the butthurt will eventually be forthcoming). I usually play AACW once or twice a year, after a week or two I'm burnt out.

 

[Rumsfeld]

I realise things look bleak but it would be good to see one or two more turns, even if just to see how ruthless the AI can be.

 

[oscar]

Yeah I would like to see this go to the bitter end, as most strategy LP's end up with the map fully painted.

 

[Norfleet]

I'm sure there are plenty of strategy experts who manage to win in the game from that point. But they have the advantage of knowing the history and the outcome of certain moves compared to their real counterparts, of course.

Yes, but those people are experts at gaming the system. Bridges here can be considered to be about as competent as any of their real leadership, with the benefit of total oversight of everything, and he's having a really rough time of it. Plus the real Union wasn't being run by a bad AI. It seems unlikely that the real deal could have pulled this off just with alternate courses of action, based on how things are turning out. Clearly by this point, the bad moves they had made back in '61 and '62 had most likely doomed them. Honestly, this sort of matches the historical record, where most of the major turning points at which the South could have dramatically won had passed by this point. The South had no chance of winning by attrition, and never did: Winning for the South was always going to be by the dramatic capture of a critical victory point.

 

[Kipeci]

I wouldn't be so sure that the Confederacy wouldn't have been able to squeak by with a victory. Certainly not a victory militarily-- it's true that they would have been ground into the dust eventually, but if it'd been made much more painful for the Union to advance, it was entirely possible that the Union might have given up. If not for a string of victories that boosted Union morale, Lincoln might not have been reelected , leaving the pro-peace McClellan as the president. Many people in the Union balked at the emergency measures of the law and the huge price being paid to take down the Confederacy, and they were willing to let the South go in peace. McClellan ended up getting 45% of the popular vote, and again that was as late as 1864, when it was especially clear that the Confederacy was screwed.

 

[Norfleet]

45% of a popular vote isn't really that big of a number. That is well within the margins of "normal" wins, and is, in fact, on the "clearly losing by a healthy margin" zone. If the winning candidate were to get 60% of the vote, that's considered to be a landslide blowout victory.

 

[Kipeci]

When you consider that the Democrat's entire platform was being discredited by the Union just mopping up its victory in the South with relative ease, it's surprising that they got only about ten percent behind the incumbent in the popular vote. If the Confederacy was still a viable, decently sized fighting force, inflicting huge casualties as in this Let's Play, that'd be another thing to consider entirely.

 

[XenomorphII]

45% of a popular vote isn't really that big of a number. That is well within the margins of "normal" wins, and is, in fact, on the "clearly losing by a healthy margin" zone. If the winning candidate were to get 60% of the vote, that's considered to be a landslide blowout victory.

While that is true, the point was that was still pretty close when you consider that the only issue was the war, that the other candidate's platform was end the war and give the CSA independence, and that Atlanta had been taken not terribly long before the elections happened.

Also the Confederacy shouldn't be shooting for outright military victory, but instead be playing defense and just wearing down the Union that way until either: they give up, they give you an opportunity to strike something important, or until foreign intervention can be gained.

Edit: Also I am curious what bad moves in particular you are referring to in 61 and 62 (the main thing I that comes to me is allowing themselves to be provoked and attacking Ft. Sumter and doing Lincoln the favoring of letting him claim that he was just defending himself). The first major Union victories (that I can recall) of the war were in the Summer of 63 (Gettysburg Campaign and the fall of Vicksburg).

 

[Burning Bridges]

Edit: Also I am curious what bad moves in particular you are referring to in 61 and 62 (the main thing I that comes to me is allowing themselves to be provoked and attacking Ft. Sumter and doing Lincoln the favoring of letting him claim that he was just defending himself). The first major Union victories (that I can recall) of the war were in the Summer of 63 (Gettysburg Campaign and the fall of Vicksburg).

I have studied the war only rudimentary, but I believe there were a lot of strategic mistakes in the West. In particular, leaving New Orleans undefended.
In the East they had Bobby Lee, but in thew West there were many military failures because they lacked equally skilled commanders. For example Van Dorn's foolish move on St.Louis.
Then there were the many political mistakes like a failed cotton embargo, which denied them of their most important income, but did nothing to bring Britain into the war.

By 1863 it had already cost them most of Missouri, Arkansas, Mississipi and Lousiana. At the point on which the game began they had already lost half their territory in the West, with the enemy now operating along the big river, and in their heartland.

Aren't there many theories why the Confederates lost the war? One being that the whole idea of the Confederacy was faulty, too many state rights left the government powerless in times of a war. Davis demanded the same powers of administration as Lincoln but never got them. This allowed the black market economy, hunger, inflation, 2/5 of the troops being absent without leave, things that eventually killed the Confederacy. Then of course the superior economic output of the union. It is said that at the beginning of the war the whole amount of goods produced in the Confederate states being less than a fourth than the state of New York alone. Their economy depended completely on export of cotton but they did not have a navy to protect it.

Lastly, foreign recognition (and possibly later, intervention) could not come without at least partial emancipation of the slaves. I think this whole slave issue was perhaps their biggest weakness. Lincoln shrewdly exploited it by simply declaring all slaves free, as long as they were in a Confederate state. Everyone in a union state could keep their slaves. And even if the Confederate realized that they had to free the slaves to get recognition, and that they had not gone to war because many other things, they could not do it because that would have been killed by internal dissent.

 

[Norfleet]

When you consider that the Democrat's entire platform was being discredited by the Union just mopping up its victory in the South with relative ease, it's surprising that they got only about ten percent behind the incumbent in the popular vote. If the Confederacy was still a viable, decently sized fighting force, inflicting huge casualties as in this Let's Play, that'd be another thing to consider entirely.

It's possible. On the other hand, the Confederacy has a large number of advantages the real Confederacy didn't have: A human gamer running the show against an AI whose grasp on subtlety is probably limited mostly to frontal assault. As far as a decently sized, viable fighting force goes, it appears they're starving to death and the morale of their leadership(read: the player) is collapsing. If things had gone the way they have in this LP, '63 would have been a hell of a lot more brutal than the real history, but the Confederacy would have thrown in the towel 2 years early and guaranteed a landslide reelection for Lincoln.

But who knows? Maybe he can still turn it around.

 

[Burning Bridges]

Since we are now discussing the war, there is something else that I often have to think about. Lincoln is considered the greatest president of all time, but the more I look the more I have the impression of a very cold, rational, calculating power seeker who cared about the law only as long as it served his purpose - which just happened to be mostly very progressive for the time, so he got away with it.

First of all, there is a lot of blood on his hands. When a large number of states decided to leave the Union (which was possibly a righteous move), he chose to rather have millions die instead of letting it go peacefully and see if the differences could be resolved in time. Was there really no other choice? The majority of southerners was not against the idea of an America of united states, they just wanted more states rights, and the North wanted less (and got it eventually).

There are countless examples of Lincoln breaking the federal law if it served his plans, and instead of seeing them as that - illegal acts - today they are just used as examples how incredibly intelligent he was. Banishing dissenters without trial, ignoring court rulings, sanctioning the terrorizing of the civilian population (e.g. Shermans Georgia campaign) when it weakened the confederate morale and economy. Then the incredible hipocrisy of freeing the slaves only where they were not under his sphere of influence (he did however certainly want to emancipate the slaves, and he freed them later).

I also see a problem with the election in 1864. The war was waged because the North considered the South still a part of the Union, but also denied their citizens the right to vote. I know this may sound a bit outlandish, but if you add in he southern states, Lincoln could not have won a majority of the american people. How could anyone say his policy was legitimate, if it was only supported by 55% of northerners and perhaps 10% of southerners? (a pure guess of course, the number could be higher)

Lastly, Lincoln eventually freed the slaves, which was certainly his most humane act. But when you look closer you will discover that after the war blacks became even more empoverished and rightless, were killed by the thousands north AND south and it took almost 100 years until they really got (nearly) equal rights. So was the majority americans really concerned about the blacks, or was the emancipation just a byproduct of a war fought over not letting states leave the Union?

Not that you think I'm some right wing supporter of slavery, I just watched and read a lot about the war and often thought the interpretation is always one sided in Lincolns favor. Just take a slightly different position, accept that a lot of americans (not only southerners) at the time simply believed slavery was right, states leaving the union was right, and it looks a lot different.

Lastly, I am sure you have all watched films like Easy Rider, and agree that the film manages to get across a rather anti - South message. But if you consider all that was done to the population for example by Sherman or Butler under the Union flag, couldn't you also understand why people would hate and want to kill a Yank provocateur with the name of Captain America and a huge union flag painted on his tank, who basically comes to their country and shits on everything they believe in?

 

[Burning Bridges]

When you consider that the Democrat's entire platform was being discredited by the Union just mopping up its victory in the South with relative ease, it's surprising that they got only about ten percent behind the incumbent in the popular vote. If the Confederacy was still a viable, decently sized fighting force, inflicting huge casualties as in this Let's Play, that'd be another thing to consider entirely.

It's possible. On the other hand, the Confederacy has a large number of advantages the real Confederacy didn't have: A human gamer running the show against an AI whose grasp on subtlety is probably limited mostly to frontal assault. As far as a decently sized, viable fighting force goes, it appears they're starving to death and the morale of their leadership(read: the player) is collapsing. If things had gone the way they have in this LP, '63 would have been a hell of a lot more brutal than the real history, but the Confederacy would have thrown in the towel 2 years early and guaranteed a landslide reelection for Lincoln.

But who knows? Maybe he can still turn it around.

The difference is that the Confederates had no choice , I have

I could let it run for some turns, but it will not do with just 1-2, because strategically the situation is not hopeless. Defeat could still be years out. But I just realized that without conscripts I can probably not reconquer anything, as I had planned and initially succeeded in 1863. Or in case you played the game, when have you ever seen the draft option disabled for 16 turns - which is equivalent to more than 8 months?

If there really is interest, I may continue this LP at some point, just to see what will happen. I am just not sure when I will have the motivation to devote so much for such a desperate cause, don't forget this game is very time consuming.

 

[Norfleet]

Well, you can't start an LP about "causing extreme butthurt" and then QUIT out of extreme butthurt! That's just WRONG, man! You gotta see it through. If you say the situation is not hopeless, then you have to see it out to the point where it is.

 

[Burning Bridges]

I can still create lots of butthurt, some even call me the butthurt-maker.

Hey sometimes you just gotta give up a position, and move to the next. I am sure there is a passage in The Art of War to back this up, I am just too lazy to look it up.

Before I forget, here is the latest savegame. If you have a masochistic streak, feel free to download it and tell us how it went. You may even score a morale victory of you really push for it.

 

[Gondolin]

To the list of mistakes made by the Confederacy I'd like to add the stupidity of declaring war without having a navy capable of defending the Mississippi, their major ports and their huge coastline. For an analysis of the Confederacy's failed attempt at centralization, I recommend "Beating Plowshares into Swords: The Political Economy of American Warfare, 1606-1865," by Paul A. C. Koistinen.

 

[Burning Bridges]

But what could the confederates do about that? They had no control over the US navy and they sure could not wait until something changed.

 

[Burning Bridges]

Look, here I found what Sun Tsu has to say about this:

2. If your job is boring you, it is time to move on.
In his second chapter on the economics of competition, Sun Tzu said, “Managing a drab army. You suffer sharp losses.“ He pointed out that this time is costly. You cannot be stalled in your career. If you bored in your job, you must leave

This time is costly, exactly. That's why it's right to not finish a campaign as soon as you know you cannot win.

 

[Gondolin]

But what could the confederates do about that? They had no control over the US navy and they sure could not wait until something changed.

Slavery was bound to become an issue sooner or later. Everybody had known that since the first rows over the Articles of Confederation, in 1777. The Union had some Southern presidents who could have at least tried to get a navy base built at New Orleans. If nobody else, Polk could have used the Mexican-American War to push such a project through Congress. At worst, Southern planters & merchants could have quietly built a private commercial fleet capable of being armed for war. Better than nothing.