Col_Kelly

We all make that mistake at first, no biggie. Antietam is a very fun battle but is indeed not worth a fight, regardless of the difficulty level imo.

Yes, three times yes. What difficulty are you on ?

The supply wagon trick is defendable but the other one is really, really dark.

From what I've seen shattered brigades aren't considered as losses. thats why it's impossible to inflict 100% casualties on the ennemy, even when you actually wipe him out. Concerning tweaks on prisoners cap I'm still pretty doubtful about that. With the new changes campaign seems pretty balanced on all levels and making it too easy wouldn't be fun. In early campaign getting 800 prisoners extra recruits per battle is already quite a game changer.

This cap is intended. in early beta there wasn't any and you could totally break the campaign's balance by abusing it. Imagine how easy the game would be if you captured 3k federals every mission....

Why does everyone picks that painting as a YT background XD

Normally it's intended to see the impact of your victories around Antietam / Stones River. Before that the AI will reinforce it's army no matter what as he has many available recruits (it's early war after all)

@philknox Since you seem quite specialized in military history I'll have to ask you a question that has bugged me for while : Who's the equivalent of Clausewitz for modern warfare ? Is there a consensual author out there to which contemporary generals (with field experience) look up to ?

It's technically an exploit because your units will go back in time so to speak (since the battle starts at the same time in the north and in the south) but it's not the worst one. In a way it's a workaround to counter the fact that the map is cut in two.

This is a known issue that will be adressed with next patch. Also you can send brigades from north to south and vice versa by placing them on the adequate border. As the new phase triggers you'll see them spawning on the border.

It seems that Sun Tzu has gone a bit out of fashion in the last decades but I still appreciate his advices, many of which have helped me with this game. The main advantage of Sun Tzu is also it's weakness : it doesn't bother with details. Still if you really apply a few of its ideas you will manage to beat the campaign rather easily : - An army avoids strength and strikes at weak points. In other words fall back whenever you don't benefit from a clear terrain/number advantage. Even when you only have the upper hand by a slight margin you shouldn't be fighting at all. - Do not ever split your army unless you have a huge number advantage, do not try to surround an opponent if the local advantage isn't 10/1 in your favor. - If you're on the offensive hide until it's too late for the enemy to understand your dispositions. - Feint an attack to reveal the enemy's disposition. - Do not repeat a winning tactic, adapt to the present context everytime. - Do not place your army in an organised fashion (one straight line fx) and go for a 'messy' battle line so that your opponent cannot get a clear idea of your intentions. Works very well with the AI. I know most of these sound obvious but most players don't stick to those tips. If you do there is little room for failure. On a more 'philosophical' scale I'm not a fan of Clausewitz (just my opinion) because he focuses to much on strength and it's application. Eastern philosophies are more appealing to me as they focus much more on deception, territory occupation and political goals. The Vietnam War is a perfect example of why a massive use of strength is ultimately pointless. PS : I'm really thankful for the OP's reading suggestions however, I'll definitly check those.

With a name like yours a short military career is to be expected ;). Joking ofc

I can only answer the last one for certain. I have my opinions on the others but lack solid knowledge. Grant wasn't drunk at all at Shiloh. The press needed a scapegoat to explain the heavy casualties and Grant's reputation as a drunkard was just as good as anything else. Here is an interesting report from Col. J.S. Stewart, a first hand witness. 'I was with him all day. I lay down with him on a small parcel of hay which the quartermaster put down to keep us out of the mud, in the rear of the artillery line to the left. He was perfectly sober and self-possessed during the day and the entire battle. No one claimed he was drunk.' Here is the article. If I remember correctly Grant was never drunk during a battle. He got wasted pretty hard after the Wilderness though. P.S. : As far as I know he never got married to a tranny but Julia Grant does look like a man under certain angles.

Btw don't you want to try a hard campaign ? There's only one on youtube so far and lots of players are gonna need a tutorial upon release.

Yeah I always found that quote puzzling, especially since what I consider to be his two best moves (Vicksburg campaign and his feint against the ANV at the beginning of the Overland) don't really respect that logic : in both cases he avoids direct contact to get in an advantageous position. In what context did he say that btw ? Seems like he was trying to make it look easy indeed.

Well they had a part in the making of the m1 Garand and even the m14 later on but I've never heard of the 1963 model XD

Springfield rifles were still a thing after WW2 ? Interesting

It's a pretty clear ratio : 10 kills = 1 captured weapon on Hard. Couldn't say what these are on normal and easy but they are fixed numbers as well. You can compare the AI's casualties with the numbers of captured weapons to figure it out. Not obvious I agree but with a bit of math it's at everyone's reach.

You should have at least 90.000 men to beat Washington on hard. 75-80 should be enough on normal. Most importantly you need to have a lot of brigades (70+) to hold all the fortifications with some reserves. Quick tip for Ft de Russy : You can stack a lot of brigades in reserves by piling them up, put them on top of each other and press hold. Tough one I know

I'm going for 14 canons batteries and it works just fine. Other than that, as Wright has pointed out, it's better to have many small batteries rather than a few large ones.

Artillery is only a part of the answer !

Taking a fort is a subtle art , not sure I want to give this one away, unless you're really blocked.

Going for a draw by capturing only two points is easier : the rewards are bigger than usual for this battle so it can still be worth a fight. Try some attack columns ;).

My bad, thanks for the precision

In a way this must have been an advantage, lack of 'military education' so to speak (Grant certainly was an educated man) leaves more room to innovation.