I bought this recently but I haven't really figured out how to play. I do the tutorials, and I start one of the battle scenarios. Guess what? I have no leaders who can form a corps. With out a Corps my division commanders (who only have one star) can only command one brigade on account they get scared if they don't know who's immediately above them. So anyone who's played this have some tips for beginners?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 21, 2010, 07:39:57 AM
I bought this recently but I haven't really figured out how to play. I do the tutorials, and I start one of the battle scenarios. Guess what? I have no leaders who can form a corps. With out a Corps my division commanders (who only have one star) can only command one brigade on account they get scared if they don't know who's immediately above them. So anyone who's played this have some tips for beginners?
As I learned from PDH, you dont need any corps. Stack up your guys into a division and send them against the South. the command penalty will be neglible compared to the numerical advantage.
I found that didn't work. I just wish the game wasn't so bitchy about who I can promote, who can be active this turn etc. I often have commanders who don't serve any known function. They sit around in cities locked in place. This doesn't seem to be a problem in the South. Apparently slavery extended to chaining up Federal military officers.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 21, 2010, 08:37:36 AM
I found that didn't work. I just wish the game wasn't so bitchy about who I can promote, who can be active this turn etc. I often have commanders who don't serve any known function. They sit around in cities locked in place. This doesn't seem to be a problem in the South. Apparently slavery extended to chaining up Federal military officers.
The South also has a lot of chained units. Over 90% of them, actually.
These units will be unfrozen with time, to represent the build-up and the fact that nobody really wanted a conflict in the early months of the war.
Generals who can form Corps are two stars or above. Army generals are three stars or above. There will be some at start.
A divisional general (single star) can have more than one brigade in his division (note that brigades are formed by regiments, which have different equipments). You can form divisions of varied sizes. Try 2-3 brigades + cavalry or artillery. I usually try to form divisons about 7,000 men in size, but don't be surprised to find yourself with 9,000+ men divisions.
You'll be able to promote more generals as they get experienced in battle (their stars will start to flicker. Note their seniority. If you give an extra star to a general that is less senior than another, you will take a VP hit. It can be rather large if his seniority is quite low, and is multiplied/reduced by that generals' political rating - i.e. their ability to gather support in Washington/Richmond
Raz, just play the south. Game is meant to be played by Southern fanbois, and is quite fun.
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2010, 09:33:50 AM
Raz, just play the south. Game is meant to be played by Southern fanbois, and is quite fun.
Never!
I was playing small battle scenarios so some feature may not come in to play. But still at Manassas the Union should be able to form Corps. I have the old codger Scott in Washington but he does nothing. I'm not sure why he's even in the game. I can't use him.
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2010, 09:33:50 AM
Raz, just play the south. Game is meant to be played by Southern fanbois, and is quite fun.
:yes: Berkut's rigorous testing through one and a half years of the game of this proves it to be true.
Quote from: Habbaku on April 21, 2010, 10:20:19 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2010, 09:33:50 AM
Raz, just play the south. Game is meant to be played by Southern fanbois, and is quite fun.
:yes: Berkut's rigorous testing through one and a half years of the game of this proves it to be true.
There is no need to waste weeks of my time proving what was obvious. I learned that lesson with all the other ACW games.
They are all going to be broken as long as the developers "balance" the game around the Southern SP experience.
Quote from: Tamas on April 21, 2010, 08:05:03 AM
As I learned from PDH, you dont need any corps. Stack up your guys into a division and send them against the South. the command penalty will be neglible compared to the numerical advantage.
Not true, I made corps, very large corps commanded by the useless Union starting commanders - but a 30k man corps (say, 3 of them) in 1862 can do a lot of damage in Virginia...even if it is Hunter leading them.
It only takes a game year or so to get a batch of promotable union generals you don't want to instantly send to the retard camp on the west coast.
Maybe I'll just dive in to a full game. See how much of the South I can burn down. What is the difference between the Grand Campaign and the Grand Campaign w/Kentucky?
If you are talking about the early start, you'll spend most of the early months calling out hordes of militia regiments and skirmishing in the armpit of America, Western Virgina and Missou.
I want to command General Lyon and banish the Confederates from my fair state.
Though really it's just to tide me over till the WWI gold edition (which should work with Vista). From a gaming perspective WWI is much more interesting since the war is more balanced and many events could have conceivably gone another way (Such as Italy, Turkey, The US staying neutral or entering the war).
Quote from: Razgovory on April 21, 2010, 08:19:02 PM
From a gaming perspective WWI is much more interesting since the war is more balanced and many events could have conceivably gone another way (Such as Italy, Turkey, The US staying neutral or entering the war).
:contract: Greece and Romania, as well. WW I is such an awesome situation for gaming.
Quote from: Habbaku on April 21, 2010, 08:32:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 21, 2010, 08:19:02 PM
From a gaming perspective WWI is much more interesting since the war is more balanced and many events could have conceivably gone another way (Such as Italy, Turkey, The US staying neutral or entering the war).
:contract: Greece and Romania, as well. WW I is such an awesome situation for gaming.
:yes:
Quote from: Razgovory on April 21, 2010, 07:19:18 PM
I want to command General Lyon and banish the Confederates from my fair state.
Lyon makes for an adequate army commander in the west or east after he gets promoted up. He is wasted in the Trans-Mississippi after he is promotable, especially once Curtis arrives.
Lyon is my hero for driving treason out of this state. Sadly he was killed in the noble fight else he would have been recognized as an able commander by Lincoln and won the war by '63.
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2010, 10:52:21 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on April 21, 2010, 10:20:19 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2010, 09:33:50 AM
Raz, just play the south. Game is meant to be played by Southern fanbois, and is quite fun.
:yes: Berkut's rigorous testing through one and a half years of the game of this proves it to be true.
There is no need to waste weeks of my time proving what was obvious. I learned that lesson with all the other ACW games.
They are all going to be broken as long as the developers "balance" the game around the Southern SP experience.
The war did last 4 bloody years, and could have been won by the South at a couple of points. Why wouldn't there be some balancing?
The South never stood a chance to win.
Quote from: Jaron on April 23, 2010, 01:59:01 AM
The South never stood a chance to win.
If they managed to hang on to Atlanta until the election, Lincoln could have lost.
If Lee's Maryland campaign was successful, the Brits would have recognized the Confederacy.
The British would have never done that.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 23, 2010, 02:01:22 AM
Quote from: Jaron on April 23, 2010, 01:59:01 AM
The South never stood a chance to win.
If they managed to hang on to Atlanta until the election, Lincoln could have lost.
If Lee's Maryland campaign was successful, the Brits would have recognized the Confederacy.
No way. The vast difference in manpower and industry doomed the Slavers' cause to failure right from the start.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 23, 2010, 02:01:22 AM
Quote from: Jaron on April 23, 2010, 01:59:01 AM
The South never stood a chance to win.
If they managed to hang on to Atlanta until the election, Lincoln could have lost.
If Lee's Maryland campaign was successful, the Brits would have recognized the Confederacy.
Was that recorded in the minutes of Parliament? Even if Lee completely destroyed the Union army in the East they were still going to lose in the west.
Tim is why the confederates get such a boost in these games - really, really, they had a chance! I swear!
Tim, McClellan supported continuation of the war in 1864 as well...and it was going to be over by spring of 1865.
Quote from: Tamas on April 23, 2010, 05:14:11 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 23, 2010, 02:01:22 AM
Quote from: Jaron on April 23, 2010, 01:59:01 AM
The South never stood a chance to win.
If they managed to hang on to Atlanta until the election, Lincoln could have lost.
If Lee's Maryland campaign was successful, the Brits would have recognized the Confederacy.
No way. The vast difference in manpower and industry doomed the Slavers' cause to failure right from the start.
That I can't agree with. Northern victory depending on fully mobilizing and exploiting the manpower and industrial advantages, and committing to a long, bloody struggle to force the vast southern territories into submission. In the context of the US political system and heritage, that required extraordinary political leadership to pull off. Fortunately for the Union, they enjoyed such leadership.
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2010, 10:52:21 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on April 21, 2010, 10:20:19 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2010, 09:33:50 AM
Raz, just play the south. Game is meant to be played by Southern fanbois, and is quite fun.
:yes: Berkut's rigorous testing through one and a half years of the game of this proves it to be true.
There is no need to waste weeks of my time proving what was obvious. I learned that lesson with all the other ACW games.
They are all going to be broken as long as the developers "balance" the game around the Southern SP experience.
Why make a game in which one side, the North, is playable only to maul the South like ping-pong rebels in EU3, with the South stand absolutely no chance to win or even survive by 1865? Where is the fun in that?
That doesn't sound like a good ACW game at all. Unless you picture a new No Greater Glory, which would be kick-ass. I'm all ears.
Yeah, maybe the leadership is a little bit overrated and I don't like to see Lee or Jackson, which were comparatively mediocre commanders in the grand spectrum of legendary military commanders, be given the same stats as Frederick the Great and Maurice of Saxony, but still the South had politically and military attainable objectives in the ACW : survive as long as possible to provide for some sort of compromise and dwindle the North's political willingness to crush the rebellion by making it as bloody and harsh as possible for them.
Lee's ANV wandering within miles of Washington DC in 1863 and in good strength certainly would have been politically uncomfortable for the North, and even potentially humiliating. If the South had won all its battles rather than some, the North would have reached for a political compromise sooner or later, as the North's war effort and willingness to fight was far from total except in Lincoln and Salmon P. Chase's minds.
Quote from: Drakken on April 23, 2010, 03:02:18 PM
Yeah, maybe the leadership is a little bit overrated and I don't like to see Lee or Jackson, which were comparatively mediocre commanders in the grand spectrum of legendary military commanders, be given the same stats as Frederick the Great and Maurice of Saxony
They should be given much better stats than Frederick and Maurice, who would have been piss-poor civil war generals given their deaths and serious bodily decomposition as of that period. Not to mention the difficulty a French-speaking Prussian monarch would have commanding the loyalty of unruly, republican English-speaking volunteers and conscripts.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 23, 2010, 04:01:48 PM
Quote from: Drakken on April 23, 2010, 03:02:18 PM
Yeah, maybe the leadership is a little bit overrated and I don't like to see Lee or Jackson, which were comparatively mediocre commanders in the grand spectrum of legendary military commanders, be given the same stats as Frederick the Great and Maurice of Saxony
They should be given much better stats than Frederick and Maurice, who would have been piss-poor civil war generals given their deaths and serious bodily composition as of that period.
Still better than any Union general excepting Lyons and Grant though.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 23, 2010, 04:01:48 PM
Quote from: Drakken on April 23, 2010, 03:02:18 PM
Yeah, maybe the leadership is a little bit overrated and I don't like to see Lee or Jackson, which were comparatively mediocre commanders in the grand spectrum of legendary military commanders, be given the same stats as Frederick the Great and Maurice of Saxony
They should be given much better stats than Frederick and Maurice, who would have been piss-poor civil war generals given their deaths and serious bodily decomposition as of that period. Not to mention the difficulty a French-speaking Prussian monarch would have commanding the loyalty of unruly, republican English-speaking volunteers and conscripts.
I want to have your smart-assed babies. :)
The basic fact is that there were plenty of lousy Union commanders, usually political appointees, and oddly enough there were plenty of lousy Confederate commanders, usually political appointees. One of my ancestors proudly stood in the latter group - Gen Henry Wise of Virginia.
There also were some damn fine commanders on both sides - but rating Confederate commanders as far better because of post-war deification by Lost Cause retards is stupid.
Foote said it quite well, (to paraphrase) that the Union fought the war with one hand tied behind their back as the Northern economy was growing in all ways throughout the conflict. Had there ever been a chance of things going badly, they could have untied the other arm and REALLY whipped up on the South.
I demonstrated that the Union could do much worse then they did in 1861. I somehow lost Springfield Illinois. I have no idea how the Confederates got there. They also took Pittsburgh but that's not so bad. I took Richmond. Kinda, My guys besieged it but there was so many retard generals cluttering up the area I accidentally moved some of them south of the city.
Is there a certain arbitrary point in the game where you can form corps?
:yawn:
Why are you yawning you beet eating wagon driver?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 24, 2010, 05:04:55 AM
Why are you yawning you beet eating wagon driver?
The ability of you people to analyze the historic movement pattern of Grant's nanny's eyes, and its effect on the 2nd battle of Manassas is fascinating and scary at the same time.
You could have instead made yourself useful and answered my question about Corps. I had to look it up instead.
Quote from: Tamas on April 24, 2010, 05:10:58 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 24, 2010, 05:04:55 AM
Why are you yawning you beet eating wagon driver?
The ability of you people to analyze the historic movement pattern of Grant's nanny's eyes, and its effect on the 2nd battle of Manassas is fascinating and scary at the same time.
Tamas is so cute when he throws his little tantrums over his shitty WWI thread being sent off the rails.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 24, 2010, 07:54:02 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 24, 2010, 05:10:58 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 24, 2010, 05:04:55 AM
Why are you yawning you beet eating wagon driver?
The ability of you people to analyze the historic movement pattern of Grant's nanny's eyes, and its effect on the 2nd battle of Manassas is fascinating and scary at the same time.
Tamas is so cute when he throws his little tantrums over his shitty WWI thread being sent off the rails.
This isn't the WW1 thread, and that was far from being the only one thread derailed into an ACW discussion. Hell, there used to be an ACW-hijack meme FFS.
Quote from: Tamas on April 24, 2010, 07:58:59 AM
This isn't the WW1 thread, and that was far from being the only one thread derailed into an ACW discussion. Hell, there used to be an ACW-hijack meme FFS.
:yawn:
Quote from: grumbler on April 25, 2010, 07:12:11 PM
Quote from: Tamas on April 24, 2010, 07:58:59 AM
This isn't the WW1 thread, and that was far from being the only one thread derailed into an ACW discussion. Hell, there used to be an ACW-hijack meme FFS.
:yawn:
Why are you yawning you something eating something driver.
Back on the subject, the AI sending cavalry raiding deep in the North and the Midwest, deeper than any logistics and living on the field would allow, always kills the mood for me. There's so much suspension of disbelief I can allow.
I mean, JEB Stuart disappeared without a trace only to come back from the Twilight Zone late on the second day of Gettysburg, and he didn't go that far North. I don't remember Confederate cavalry reaching the Great Lakes either.
Quote from: Drakken on April 27, 2010, 09:21:12 AM
Back on the subject, the AI sending cavalry raiding deep in the North and the Midwest, deeper than any logistics and living on the field would allow, always kills the mood for me.
I mean, JEB Stuart disappeared without a trace only to come back from the Twilight Zone late on the second day of Gettysburg, and he didn't go that far North. I don't remember Confederate cavalry reaching the Great Lakes either.
The game amused me by sending corps sized units on raids. Chopping Jackson up near New York or Bragg up in Cleveland always gave me a giggle.