well I'll reveal the real nature of the Spanish army in the next post ... but it is fair to say they are not that committed to saving New France
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
well I'll reveal the real nature of the Spanish army in the next post ... but it is fair to say they are not that committed to saving New France
March-April 1762: A few minor setbacks
So March opens with Narwhal eliminating fortresses I'd already abandoned
as you can see, while I've cleverly distracted him, Montcalm has seized back control of the army and is on his way to liberate the oppressed bakers of Mont Royal
and in the South, the mighty Spanish army prepares to deal the death blow to that piddling little English force that arrived
April brings a small setback
Nothing that we didn't have under complete control but a pity nonetheless
ah, ok, time to unveil plan B ... can I reach New York before ....
So March opens with Narwhal eliminating fortresses I'd already abandoned
as you can see, while I've cleverly distracted him, Montcalm has seized back control of the army and is on his way to liberate the oppressed bakers of Mont Royal
and in the South, the mighty Spanish army prepares to deal the death blow to that piddling little English force that arrived
April brings a small setback
Nothing that we didn't have under complete control but a pity nonetheless
ah, ok, time to unveil plan B ... can I reach New York before ....
Ah, pity.
Time for the last march of Montcalm.
Cue the dramatic, last hope musical score!
Time for the last march of Montcalm.
Cue the dramatic, last hope musical score!
Well crud. 
Montcalm had a not-so impressive looking army (armette?) before he marched on Montreal. Afterwards... well, he didn't have much of anything afterwards. And somehow I doubt that the Spanish will pick up the slack.
At least you continually have less that needs defending - and wasn't it Sun Tzu who said 'He who defends everything, defends nothing'? If that's the case, maybe the reverse can hold for you?
Montcalm had a not-so impressive looking army (armette?) before he marched on Montreal. Afterwards... well, he didn't have much of anything afterwards. And somehow I doubt that the Spanish will pick up the slack.At least you continually have less that needs defending - and wasn't it Sun Tzu who said 'He who defends everything, defends nothing'? If that's the case, maybe the reverse can hold for you?
Well crud.
At least you continually have less that needs defending - and wasn't it Sun Tzu who said 'He who defends everything, defends nothing'? If that's the case, maybe the reverse can hold for you?
you mean the important phrase - "he who has nothing to lose has already lost?"
Mars - April 1762 – The dernière résistance
The Nouvelle-France is living its last days in the frozen North.
In April, the last “free” French strongpoint in the North is taken :
As you can see, several criminal French Indians were caught and forbidden to ever play with matches again.
Québec is still holding in March, surprisingly :
What are they holding even though they don’t have a chance ? French pride ? Waiting for reinforcement ? A peace treaty in Europe ?
The situation is solved in April :
There goes Canada.
As you can see, Montcalm is still, with Murray, in the tiny province of Mont Royal (which holds Montréal). Both forces share the small local food production, but as the English hold Montréal, the English also have the very significant supply production of Montréal.
The torture for the French… smelling the fumes from the baker shops, early in the morning… so close… so unreachable ! If it is any comfort, the English will quickly make the French baker shops more English, by forcing all bakers to boil their bread in water before serving them. Probably.
La Nouvelle Orléans is still holding, but it should not last :
In March, the landing is done :
In April, my leaders arrive :
The Nouvelle-France is living its last days in the frozen North.
In April, the last “free” French strongpoint in the North is taken :
As you can see, several criminal French Indians were caught and forbidden to ever play with matches again.
Québec is still holding in March, surprisingly :
What are they holding even though they don’t have a chance ? French pride ? Waiting for reinforcement ? A peace treaty in Europe ?
The situation is solved in April :
There goes Canada.
As you can see, Montcalm is still, with Murray, in the tiny province of Mont Royal (which holds Montréal). Both forces share the small local food production, but as the English hold Montréal, the English also have the very significant supply production of Montréal.
The torture for the French… smelling the fumes from the baker shops, early in the morning… so close… so unreachable ! If it is any comfort, the English will quickly make the French baker shops more English, by forcing all bakers to boil their bread in water before serving them. Probably.
La Nouvelle Orléans is still holding, but it should not last :
In March, the landing is done :
In April, my leaders arrive :
Last edited:
May - June 1762 – England’s final victory
In May 1762, Montcalm is, finally, defeated :
What can I say ? He really fought until the end, and only now can I inflict him a clear defeat. Montcalm is like General Lee : (almost) never defeated in battle, still lost the war.
And now, Montcalm, just like Lee, will be forced to surrender :
Montcalm has nowhere to go with his one thousand men : no settlement produces enough supply, and I could just move to destroy them anyway.
In the South, my generals arrive in May as well :
Now I had a problem : my supplies were running low and my main general was not activated – and thus could no assault. And of course, as my forces are in Nouvelle France (now rechristened as “Newer England”), no way I send any supply or troops before next year…
Thus, I decide to assault without my general, even if I know that doing so I will have an horrible command penalty.
And thus, in June, the assault of Nouvelle-Orléans began :
And began horribly :
Will the French pull an Andrew Jackson on me ?
Well – no :
That was close, but close is not enough !
With the fall of Nouvelle – Orléans (now rechristened as “New Glasgow”), I know control all my objectives :
And, consequently :
The American Front of the Seven Years War is closed – forever.
In May 1762, Montcalm is, finally, defeated :
What can I say ? He really fought until the end, and only now can I inflict him a clear defeat. Montcalm is like General Lee : (almost) never defeated in battle, still lost the war.
And now, Montcalm, just like Lee, will be forced to surrender :
Montcalm has nowhere to go with his one thousand men : no settlement produces enough supply, and I could just move to destroy them anyway.
In the South, my generals arrive in May as well :
Now I had a problem : my supplies were running low and my main general was not activated – and thus could no assault. And of course, as my forces are in Nouvelle France (now rechristened as “Newer England”), no way I send any supply or troops before next year…
Thus, I decide to assault without my general, even if I know that doing so I will have an horrible command penalty.
And thus, in June, the assault of Nouvelle-Orléans began :
And began horribly :
Will the French pull an Andrew Jackson on me ?
Well – no :
That was close, but close is not enough !
With the fall of Nouvelle – Orléans (now rechristened as “New Glasgow”), I know control all my objectives :
And, consequently :
The American Front of the Seven Years War is closed – forever.
As a side note, Loki100 slightly exagerated the "Spanish reinforcements"
Here is what they had in Cuba :
The first force and the fleet are mobile, and while not game changing could have helped cover Nouvelle Orléans.
The Cuban fleet was not enough to carry the army, but Loki had some more boats in saint Domingue :
Combined, those two fleets could have brought the Spanish army anywhere !
I simply suppose that Loki did not notice he had those forces "unlocked"
Here is what they had in Cuba :
The first force and the fleet are mobile, and while not game changing could have helped cover Nouvelle Orléans.
The Cuban fleet was not enough to carry the army, but Loki had some more boats in saint Domingue :
Combined, those two fleets could have brought the Spanish army anywhere !
I simply suppose that Loki did not notice he had those forces "unlocked"
Last edited:
so first - many thanks to Narwhal for the game - it really opened my eyes to the sheer fun that you can with the AGEOD system as MP. Since I'd only even played one AGEOD game (RoP) and that as SP (& lost), it was very generous of him as there was no way would it be a real challenge for someone of his experience.
Second, hopefully this has convinced people to give WiA a spin - its a real gem and SP you can rattle through a campaign season (except in the American war of disobedience scenario) at a fair clip.
Third, hopefully between Narwhal's explanations and my mistakes, its given an idea how the game plays both its mechanics and how to develop movement on the map.
As to the end, no I didn't see the force in Cuba. As happened a few times, I got too focussed on a particular manouvre and forgot to look for the larger picture. With that mob I probably could have defended New Orleans for 1762 till the regular army was redeployed from Canada. Its good to know though, in that if the French are still in some control over Canada, that Spanish force is potentially a real threat to the small corner of America you've not already burnt down. But, on the other hand, the problem with that Spanish force is no commanders and no mobile supply wagons ... excuses excuses
Thanks to all for reading and commenting.
& .... don't forget to vote in the ACA awards
Second, hopefully this has convinced people to give WiA a spin - its a real gem and SP you can rattle through a campaign season (except in the American war of disobedience scenario) at a fair clip.
Third, hopefully between Narwhal's explanations and my mistakes, its given an idea how the game plays both its mechanics and how to develop movement on the map.
As to the end, no I didn't see the force in Cuba. As happened a few times, I got too focussed on a particular manouvre and forgot to look for the larger picture. With that mob I probably could have defended New Orleans for 1762 till the regular army was redeployed from Canada. Its good to know though, in that if the French are still in some control over Canada, that Spanish force is potentially a real threat to the small corner of America you've not already burnt down. But, on the other hand, the problem with that Spanish force is no commanders and no mobile supply wagons ... excuses excuses
Thanks to all for reading and commenting.
& .... don't forget to vote in the ACA awards
Last edited:
Thanks guys. The killer mistake for you Loki was losing that strategic fort so early in the war. (forgot the name)
It must be Fort Duquesne. Great game guys. Let's never again let the French lose my country shall we?
you are spot on - I lost the game in the first campaigning season. Having tried 1757 a few times SP since, its very easy to hold Duquesne and burn down the English fort and raid deep into the English cities behind - I think the AI looks at it and thinks its not worth sending regulars to a certain ambush so uses the forces elsewhere.
The AI seems to prefer (or it maybe due to how I play the French) pushing east along Ontario, take out Fort Niagara and then move towards Detroit that way.
Add to that mistakes over stances, mistakes around getting too often trapped in forts, not boosting the supply output of Mont Royal etc ....
Well - thank loki100 for the game. It was daring of you, not only to battle a seasoned played, but also to have this battle shown to everyone in this AAR. So, thank you.
I actually played poorly in my opinion. I used your inexperience to take Duquesne early, so really 1755 was good for me, but then I was completely unable to capitalize on my advantage to attack Niagara much earlier. My attacks were in general poorly coordinated and quite inefficient, the best example being 1759 - 17610: I try to land in Québec MUCH too late in the year (due to poor transport management), left too late as well, and thus could not land again early the following year. So I tried to land in New York and then come from the South, but it took me a full year - a full year during which my "Champlain" army was alone. If I had not landed in 1759 at all, I could have started 1760 with two armies at once in Quebec and maybe end the war one year earlier.
This is just an example, there are other such failures in my attempt to take Niagara - remember it took me something like 3 attempts, even though I was unlucky in one case.
Also, I was very lucky in 1760, as Loki100 did several "beginner" mistakes :
- Not trying to sortie in Montréal when I had just arrived ; I would probably have been defeated
- Attacking in Joliette with Montcalm, allowing me to maul his army.
Without those, I would have had a minor victory.
On the other hand, Loki100 had the strategy of not trying to go for victory at all but instead try to force me to settle for a minor victory (which would have saved the French Quebec from a time - and maybe English America in the long run). Thus, quickly, I had such an advantage in Victory Point that I could not lose :
Wise strategy since it was the first time Loki100. It should have made things easy for me at the beginning, but I did not dare take too much risks, that why I did not capitalize on the early Duquesne fall, but when we arrived at the end of the game and brought the war in the core French territories, I was faced not a badly depleted army like I used to in this scenario, but a powerful army. This made things... difficult, and it took me time.
As a bonus, National Morale :
So Great Game, Loki !
I actually played poorly in my opinion. I used your inexperience to take Duquesne early, so really 1755 was good for me, but then I was completely unable to capitalize on my advantage to attack Niagara much earlier. My attacks were in general poorly coordinated and quite inefficient, the best example being 1759 - 17610: I try to land in Québec MUCH too late in the year (due to poor transport management), left too late as well, and thus could not land again early the following year. So I tried to land in New York and then come from the South, but it took me a full year - a full year during which my "Champlain" army was alone. If I had not landed in 1759 at all, I could have started 1760 with two armies at once in Quebec and maybe end the war one year earlier.
This is just an example, there are other such failures in my attempt to take Niagara - remember it took me something like 3 attempts, even though I was unlucky in one case.
Also, I was very lucky in 1760, as Loki100 did several "beginner" mistakes :
- Not trying to sortie in Montréal when I had just arrived ; I would probably have been defeated
- Attacking in Joliette with Montcalm, allowing me to maul his army.
Without those, I would have had a minor victory.
On the other hand, Loki100 had the strategy of not trying to go for victory at all but instead try to force me to settle for a minor victory (which would have saved the French Quebec from a time - and maybe English America in the long run). Thus, quickly, I had such an advantage in Victory Point that I could not lose :
Wise strategy since it was the first time Loki100. It should have made things easy for me at the beginning, but I did not dare take too much risks, that why I did not capitalize on the early Duquesne fall, but when we arrived at the end of the game and brought the war in the core French territories, I was faced not a badly depleted army like I used to in this scenario, but a powerful army. This made things... difficult, and it took me time.
As a bonus, National Morale :
So Great Game, Loki !
Last edited:
What I wonder, from your point of view. THe french global strategy rarely change in this campain, you don't have much choice. How could the French do something else?
Well - I believe you are wrong. The French have some alternative strategies. In this case Loki100 kept his main army "in being" in the middle of Canada for most of the game - while I was fighting irregulars and an handful of men. He could have been more aggressive, and for instance take Albany - or try to.
By the way - thank you General_Hoth. As you know and thanks to your effort, in the next patch, all troops trained by the French will become irregulars instead of regulars. This will allow the French to carry on their initial strategy through all the game instead of being stuck in defense once their irregulars and indians are dead.
By the way - thank you General_Hoth. As you know and thanks to your effort, in the next patch, all troops trained by the French will become irregulars instead of regulars. This will allow the French to carry on their initial strategy through all the game instead of being stuck in defense once their irregulars and indians are dead.
Last edited:
I think what you have to do in the good years (55-57) is create multiple pressure points and try to integrate your regulars with your irregulars. In the south, if you are both quicker than I was (& a bit more patient) you can 5 bns of regulars and about 10 units of couriers & indians. Ok the English will always be able to beat you - but you've forced a real diversion. Also your irregulars can melt away when the English arrive in force and strike elsewhere. In the north its harder, as if you are on the offensive you need to find a way of crossing Ontario or bridging the Champlain gap. I'd spend lots of EPs on those inland naval reinforcements and the supply wagons in another play through. If you end 57 well into English dominated N America, you can absorb 57-59 on their terrain. You then do get a real boost from the Spanish at the start of 62 that has some impact.
but it would be good if the French had more irregulars, I'd burnt through mine by 1757 (mainly out of aimless attacks and not reinforcing), it'd keep the war nice and asymetric all through.
I think, off a couple of SPs for the early years, that control of Lake Ontario is very useful.
By the end game, Loki had a powerful army, but he lacked strategic depth - represented by the lack of supply. While on paper he could match Narwal's troops, in a war of attrition he was bound to lose. I think the game captures that very well.
May I ask why you played the countries you did? Based on experience, the other way round might have allowed for an even greater game.
May I ask why you played the countries you did? Based on experience, the other way round might have allowed for an even greater game.
for me, it was simply a matter of retaining some pride. Lose with the French (ok thats what happened in any case), losing with the English (though great for General_Hoth) would have been so embarrasing.
You are right about the relative strengths. It wasn't just Narwhal's lunge for Trois Rivieres that was critical it was all the supply he captured (ok I should have better escorted but with the size of his army approaching no escort would have been any real defense). Without that supply, I think I'd have withstood normal attrition much better. You can see in that last battle that Narwhal too was at the stage where combat losses=lost elements, so his army was in a mess (just mine was in a terminal mess).