The Campaign of 1863  

Go Back   The Campaign of 1863 > Southern Camp

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-12-2012
Nathan Bedford Forrest Nathan Bedford Forrest is offline
Junior Member
Cadet
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 25
Default Impossible

I've played several games and come to the conclusion that the south can NOT win this game.
The game is rigged against the south...from the disproportionate points per kill to the ENDLESS parade of northern units and militia the south doesn't have a chance...and then there's the random failure to follow orders by units and apparently invincible northern units...

There are many occasions where my guys morale is fine, the troop count is fine, the weather is fine, the geography isn't a factor and I have the enemy COMPLETELY surrounded...yet for some unexplained reason my guys don't follow orders to attack or even PROBE!...This has happened to me MANY times at and around York...and it happens EVERY game at Harpers Ferry.Those 2 northern units at Harpers Ferry can NOT be defeated. Hell, I can't even get my guys to launch a successful probe!

I know that the developers are trying to recreate a historic scenario but it's a fact that the south had better and more dedicated soldiers and leaders..lincoln had to try numerous commanders in the course of the war.
Lee was the commanding general for the south throughout...The southerners were more motivated because everyone knew that lincoln purposely started the war and provoked the south by attempting to resupply fort sumter in spite of the fact that the fort was in a "foreign" country (The CSA).

Whatever..the game is rigged against the south...No matter how brilliantly one maneuvers, no matter how one concentrates their forces, for no good reason the southern troops often don't follow orders.
All the north has to do is sit still..never maneuver, never attack anything and they automatically win...

Also..I've seen THIS happen hundreds of times...I inflict "heavy/severe/moderate" losses on an enemy while suffering "light" casualties...but "lost" the engagement because ...for no good reason..the game decided that I was forced to "retreat"..WTF?

For example. theoretically;If I attack with ten troops against an enemy with ten troops..and I kill nine of his while only losing 2 of mine..how in the hell am I forced to "retreat" and therefore "lose" the engagement?

Also..HQ is a useless unit...there ought to be a cost to the union army if I kill one..or all of their HQ units, which I have done...using HQ as a "scout" is ridiculous and not historically authentic.

Yeah, I'm frustrated...This isn't the first game I ever played and I understand military tactics and maneuvers fairly well...It makes no difference, though..the game is rigged against the south.

I'd like to hear any other opinions?
Thanks.
NBF
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-26-2013
beltsman beltsman is offline
Junior Member
Recruit
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1
Default

Well I can't really address the game issues, because I'm not having the same issues. My ANV is doing just fine and fighting well.

But you should realize that those "inferior" Northern troops and generals defeated the South and won many battles. The soldiers on both sides were Americans and neither was superhuman. Each side had poor leadership; the North more in the east, the South more in the west.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-05-2013
zobs1959 zobs1959 is offline
Senior Member
Corporal
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: A small cabin In Northern Minnesota
Posts: 123
Default

.....once again I have been 'schooled' by commander moseby. He played as ANV and thumped me most severely. Thus dispelling any notion that the south 'can not win'. I am still stunned by my defeat in York where he utterly layed waste to my VI and II corps...
It was a most excellent game up to that point....then things turned bloodily south, so to speak.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-06-2013
Roterneylastergen Roterneylastergen is offline
Banned
Recruit
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 11
Default

I am still hopeful of south winning the game..lets take the chances.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-20-2014
jpm jpm is offline
Junior Member
Recruit
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Franklin, TN
Posts: 4
Default

Evers, you are bleeding me pretty good. but i have plenty of blood left. i am leaving on a missions trip in the morning (10 days), so we will not get to finish. we'll try it again maybe, when i get back.
thanks jpm
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-24-2014
mesadmin3's Avatar
mesadmin3 mesadmin3 is online now
Administrator
General
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,621
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EVERS View Post
july 9 day
Stats Stats D
usa flag points 16020
csa flag points 9479
usa flag casualties 64369
csa flag casualties 61680
csa flag towns held 0
somebody enlighten me...why was it that my attack on Harrisburg faild....I had 10 brigades totaling 10,000 men with 5 artillery units attacking 2000 militia who were wholely unsupported my vanguard had 5000 troops set at determined attack and 6000 reinforcing them,,,,also the artillery failed to barrage.....someone has hacked me right?
We have a fairly secure system, so I don't think you've been hacked. If I were at home I could check in on the orders you issued and the combat result roll. From your description it sounds like either there was some data corruption from your orders issued (very rare, but it does occasionally happen) or some of your troops refused to follow orders (morale is key here)

Jeff
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-25-2014
mesadmin3's Avatar
mesadmin3 mesadmin3 is online now
Administrator
General
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,621
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EVERS View Post
Question: When attacking is it best to give attack orders to all units adjacent to the vanguard units? Instead of the reinforce command? And have those units supporting the vanguard to move in the vanguards tracks? With these supporting units also ordered to attack? Like an attack in echelon?
I'd say it depends on the situation. The awesome part of the reinforce command is that your troops can engage in multiple combats. So its really useful in defensive situations, but its range is really limited. Basically once your attackers attempt to leave their current hex they extend beyond the range of the reinforcing units. If you are counting on the "reinforcing" units to join in an attack I would definitely consider your "attack in echelon" strategy.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2010 Mutant Entertainment Studios