Battle of Washington

[Col_Kelly]

On 24/08/2017 at 6:12 AM, Hitorishizuka said:

As discussed elsewhere, army intel claims the Union should be limited to 125k only. I ended up facing a total of 60k+105k or so (rough estimates), which seems either unintended or non-obvious as to the way the mechanic works.

From what I've seen there's a minimum number of enemy troops for each battle to avoid steam-rolling the AI. So if the army stat is below said minimum the AI will still field a certain number. It should be displayed in-game somewhere but otherwise I kinda understand why the mechanic is here

[maniacalpenny]

On 8/23/2017 at 9:50 PM, The Soldier said:

Some things I should mention (more or less my fault) - the 20pdr Parrott Gun is at an acceptable level right now, though I was a bit too...enthusiastic in declaring their usefulness.

Eh, I've bought a metric shitton of them and I think they are quite good. They have a lot of range on the 3-inch ordinance rifle, which means longer range shell and canister. Cost for cost the 3-inch ordinance rifle is a better deal probably, but the higher density on the 20lb Parrots is very handy. Higher density means better value in brigade limited missions, gain experience faster, and require less troops/veterans. They are unmatched gun for gun in long range bombardments and although decently worse than the 24lb howitzer at close ranges, their long range canister still makes them quite formidable. Their formidable range also makes it easier to keep them alive, which is a very good thing considering the hefty cost of the gun itself and the very high costs of replacing the veterans of elite cannon batteries if any significant casualties are received.

 

On 8/23/2017 at 9:50 PM, The Soldier said:

I noted that they didn't perform quite as well as the 3-Inch Ordnance Rifles (except at very long ranges).

Is this gun for gun? I haven't tested it myself but my 20lb Parrotts rack up a lot of kills, more than I ever remember my 3-inch Ordinance Rifles getting. I have a hard time imagining that the longer range shell and canister as well as the increased damage, would not make a significant difference in the damage inflicted at medium to long ranges. If the 3-inch is better gun-for-gun my argument holds no water, but if the 20lb Parrott Gun performs decently better at medium-long ranges than the 3-inch gun for gun I am of the opinion that it is the better cannon, as in a game dominated by massed lines of infantry, brigade density is a very real consideration.

 

 

 

 

 

[The Soldier]

@maniacalpenny

The 20pdr Parrott works well at longer ranges than the 3-Inch Ordnance Rifle, but the Ordnance Rifle beats it out at closer ranges.  And with how I play at least, I tend to wheel my cannons up behind my infantry rather than leaving them back, as more often than not your guns are going to get more effective the closer they get.  Not saying the 20pdr Parrott is bad - in fact it's rather good - just that it's not good enough to warrant it being the most expensive and rarest gun in the Armory.

[Mukremin]

this is me at Washington.. i tried 4 times to win this battle, i failed every time. I just lose to many men taking the objectives let alone defending it.

Seriously thinking about restarting the campaign, or going way back to a better save game. MG is very hard, i did complete Union campaign on BG and MG. CSA campaign only on BG which was easy. Any help?

[Hitorishizuka]

7 hours ago, Mukremin said:

 

Seriously thinking about restarting the campaign, or going way back to a better save game. MG is very hard, i did complete Union campaign on BG and MG. CSA campaign only on BG which was easy. Any help?

You don't seem to have anywhere near the # of troops or even just brigades to have good success there. You also probably aren't really doing much with just 7 brigades on the left flank. It's possible to use the secondary attack (which starts things off) and make it all the way to Fort Stevens, so if this is all you have to work with I would consider beefing up that side, slacking on the "main attack" with only a few brigades to take the eastern fort, and then putting much more into Flank Right or Flank Left and trying to roll through the entire side from there. (Probably Flank Right, the left approach kind of sucks imo)

 

Still not a good situation. You really shouldn't be outnumbered in Phase 1 as attackers, considering what happens if you can even win this part.

[Mukremin]

1 hour ago, Hitorishizuka said:

You don't seem to have anywhere near the # of troops or even just brigades to have good success there. You also probably aren't really doing much with just 7 brigades on the left flank. It's possible to use the secondary attack (which starts things off) and make it all the way to Fort Stevens, so if this is all you have to work with I would consider beefing up that side, slacking on the "main attack" with only a few brigades to take the eastern fort, and then putting much more into Flank Right or Flank Left and trying to roll through the entire side from there. (Probably Flank Right, the left approach kind of sucks imo)

 

Still not a good situation. You really shouldn't be outnumbered in Phase 1 as attackers, considering what happens if you can even win this part.

Going to try that approach, have a bad feeling. Perhaps starting a new campaign or a better save game. I took too many losses taking the two forts prior to Washington. I made a mistake somewhere, dont know where. I did had a good run and had few losses up to the later part of the game.

[Mukremin]

I lost over 20.000 men to take the northern objectives. I still have to take the two southern forts. I have Washington, but i will lose a lot of troops to take the two forts. That will leave me with 40.000 or so troops against 100.000... lost cause.

[Hitorishizuka]

19 hours ago, Mukremin said:

I lost over 20.000 men to take the northern objectives. I still have to take the two southern forts. I have Washington, but i will lose a lot of troops to take the two forts. That will leave me with 40.000 or so troops against 100.000... lost cause.

Actually...with good fortifications and good artillery 1:2 is manageable. That's basically CSA Antietam, after all.

[Mukremin]

17 hours ago, Hitorishizuka said:

Actually...with good fortifications and good artillery 1:2 is manageable. That's basically CSA Antietam, after all.

In numbers yes. But not when they charge the north west fort with 8 brigades 😀

[Mukremin]

i have reverted to an older save game, bumped up my army and now have enough men to take on Washington. I pulled of the attack, now i am at the stage where i am defending. Managed to refill some of my depleted ranks.

[Mukremin]

lol now i face another dilemma, more numbers to the north or south? I kept North with ease but lost the South, felt i missed some brigades there.

[Mukremin]

Thank God! I have spent 530 hours on this game for the last 2 months according to Steam Completed 4 campaigns, 2 union 2 CSA and on BG/MG difficulties.

[LAVA]

1 hour ago, Mukremin said:

Thank God!

Time to start a new campaign, don'tcha think?

And BTW: Congrats!

[Albert Sidney Johnston]

6 hours ago, Mukremin said:

Thank God! I have spent 530 hours on this game for the last 2 months according to Steam Completed 4 campaigns, 2 union 2 CSA and on BG/MG difficulties.

Wow. That's seriously amazing. I salute you, general.