Wars in America: A 'how-to' AAR

[loki100]

This is proving to be very interesting - keep up the good work and the rapid pace of updating too.

I'd be grateful if you could offer some insight on supply as well. It seems that especially the French just go behind enemy lines without much consideration. Is that because of the Indian troops?

I've been panicking about supply all 1755 to be honest, esp after losing so much in RoP.

My instinct is, at least for the French, the system is more forgiving than it is in RoP. My light units (Indians and the French Couriers) seem to carry enough with them for the entire season (I see it declining over time but never to a point of concern). I've not really moved my combat brigades away from my bases and the ports on Lake Champion but the one regular battalion I did send behind a raiding party ran low on supply and had to go back to Niagara ... so my instinct is sending regulars off into the widlerness will backfire, but the irregulars seem pretty immune to supply constraints.

If so, I was far too cautious in my moves.

[Narwhal]

I was actually writing the Beginner's corner about supply, but I have just been interrupted by my girlfriend so it is going to be tomorrow

[Thorgrimm]

Braddock's force was joined up by Washington, who had a quite an experience of the area since his traitorous attack on Jumonville's diplomatic expedition and then his capture by the French reaction force coming from Duquesne. This had started the war. As Horace Walpole said : The volley fired by a young Virginian in the backwoods of America set the world on fire. I always wondered whether the Americans knew this part of G. Washington history.

Loving the AAR. Good job guys!

I knew about it and am very glad he did it.

Without the Seven Years War in North America the British may not have tried to get the colonies to pony up the money to foot the bills the war caused. And without that the American Revolution may not have occurred. So, yeah, as a Yank I am darned glad he sparked off the war. And all Americans ought to be glad he did too.

Now I have a question for you Narwhal, who was Washington a traitor to? The British? No, he just attacked British enemies. The French? Not even possible. He never was under French jurisdiction and hence, could not have been a traitor to them. So I suspect that statement was due to your heritage and the fact the French got kicked out of North America due to this war.

Also, Mr. Walpole is incorrect. The war was already raging in Europe and it was only a matter of time before the hostilities spilled over into the colonies. So Washington did not set the world on fire, he only ignited a relatively small part of that world war, unless he is also blamed for the fights in India and around the world too.



Cheers, Thor

[loki100]

fascinating set of views ... but without donning my proper mod font, maybe a debate to take to the History forum rather than here?

[Narwhal]

fascinating set of views ... but without donning my proper mod font, maybe a debate to take to the History forum rather than here?

Sure. Sure. I will just want to correct a small point on the dates [I like Washington a lot - so I was not trying to claim he was a bad dude or anything].

Also, Mr. Walpole is incorrect. The war was already raging in Europe and it was only a matter of time before the hostilities spilled over into the colonies

Washington's first expedition (different from Braddock's) was in (may) 1754, the war of 7 years started in 1756 in Europe. Of course, the Old Fritz would not have needed Washington to attack Saxony and Austria, and it would have spilled over eventually

So I suspect that statement was due to your heritage and the fact the French got kicked out of North America due to this war

One could then say that good ol' Washington then kicked both the English AND the French from America, AND the French from India, making him three times as awesome...

The rest, which is contentious in my opinion, is taken to the History forum.

[Narwhal]

I'd be grateful if you could offer some insight on supply as well. It seems that especially the French just go behind enemy lines without much consideration. Is that because of the Indian troops?

I came home later than expected today, so I won't be able to update today as expected. As I am travelling tomorrow, you will have to wait until Friday (normally). With some luck Thursday evening, but don't count on it [being alone in an hotel can help with an AAR, though]

[Vinraith]

First off, thanks for this, I've been trying to make sense of WIA for a little while now. I'm pretty comfortable with most of the basic mechanics at this point, but the main thing I don't understand is how you evaluate the value of targets. I know that there's the "Objectives" ledger page showing "cities to take to win" and "cities to take for VP's," but what then is the value of the other towns, forts, and points of interest? You guys mentioned several instances, for example, where taking a fort would result in a change in native behavior, how do you know that? Is it just experience or is it spelled out somewhere?

I've been very frustrated because it's so difficult for me to determine the value of a given target, and consequently I can't plan because I don't know the consequences (in game terms) of taking a given structure or city. Any help sorting that kind of thing out would be awesome, you've done so much in this AAR to clarify everything else.

Anyway, thanks again for the excellent AAR, it's been a great read so far and enormously educational as well.

[loki100]

First off, thanks for this, I've been trying to make sense of WIA for a little while now. I'm pretty comfortable with most of the basic mechanics at this point, but the main thing I don't understand is how you evaluate the value of targets. I know that there's the "Objectives" ledger page showing "cities to take to win" and "cities to take for VP's," but what then is the value of the other towns, forts, and points of interest? You guys mentioned several instances, for example, where taking a fort would result in a change in native behavior, how do you know that? Is it just experience or is it spelled out somewhere?

I've been very frustrated because it's so difficult for me to determine the value of a given target, and consequently I can't plan because I don't know the consequences (in game terms) of taking a given structure or city. Any help sorting that kind of thing out would be awesome, you've done so much in this AAR to clarify everything else.

Anyway, thanks again for the great AAR, it's been a great read so far and enormously educational as well.

I agree, thats the hardest part ... is learning how to 'read' the map. The basics are easy enough in that the objective cities if you hold them all you win outright and the others contribute to VPs. Now the VPs only come into play if you reach turn 103 without a clear outcome - so basically unlikely.

As to which forts change behaviour I've been relying on Narwhal's advice, but Albany is very important to the British as both sets of their Indians (Iroquois and Mohicans will opt out if they lose it) and apparently Dusquense was key to a lot of mine. One frustration with the AGEOD games is the manuals aren't that brilliant at explaining stuff which is why its handy to team up with experienced players (& check out their website as there is a lot of useful discussion over there).

For the French at the start the two missing objectives are tantalisingly close (Albany and that port on Lake Ontario - Owego), but I suspect beyond your capacity to seize (but it would be interesting to try out a blitzkrieg style all out push for them in 1755 - you'd either win big or lose decisively).

So from my mistakes in 1755, the biggest was ignoring (or in my defense not being aware of) the threat to Duquesne, I should have gathered the bits and pieces I had their and attacked Fort Cumberland (or set up an ambush - I've the forces for that but not really done one yet). Not sure I did much wrong in Newfoundland (in that I don't think there was much I could do to that large English army) and around Lake Champlain I can redeem the mistake with my orders in 1756 in any case.

I think, and its no more than that, that the British can follow a fairly linear strategy - take out key forts, move slowly up to the St Laurence river, take Louisbourg (which is clearly key), the French need to be more indirect. Even around Lake Champlain I'm actually outnumbered, elsewhere I lack the forces to do more than fight skirmishes with small garrisons - what I'm feeling my way towards is which of these is worth taking out and which aren't. So in my posts I'll discuss more of how I was trying to read the game & I'll leave it to Narwhal to supply the info on how the game works.

One other good thing, is with the small number of units, in SP you can afford to run 1755 time and time again till you have some idea of options and strategies.

Glad you're enjoying it.

as an edit to this

reran 1755 with SP this afternoon, managed to not only defend Fort Duquesne but to burn Fort Cumberland to the ground and to get into the position where I've got the Indians in the south all mobilised and ready to burn things in 1756. Key is to be very agressive in the first few turns, your couriers are pretty ok to move in winter so just leave the regular battalions in forts. Still lost Grand Pre to the AI though. Going back to my RoP where I was too agressive at the start, meant I was much too cautious in this game compared to what I could have done.

[Narwhal]

August 1755 – The murder of Sangarecha – and a LOT of information on supply

My attack on Fort Duquesne was a outstanding success, as the outnumbered enemy retreated in front of my forces after a short battle :



He is now locked inside Fort Duquesne, which I am now sieging ! If Fort Duquesne falls, a tremendous blow to the French interests will have been dealt !



Very, very sad news in August. The 9th of August, 1755, a party of French soldiers enters the Indian village of Geneseo, South of the Ontario. Then, then, they seized the Indian Leader Sangarecha, and they killed him !



Yes, I know, they said it was a “battle”. Yeah, right. A battle, only one Indian died, and it was the leader. And they want us to believe that the 30 dead French are not the murderers, killed as a just retribution, but soldiers who died “in combat”. Right !

[Note : In game term, Sangarecha was killed during the retreat, where the Indians received 3 hits (60 dead) – I know it, because if he had been killed in battle Loki100 would have seen it on his own battle record]
I am now short of one of the best leaders of my side, and I only have Sir Willian Johnson left for now to lead Indians...

In memory of the murdered peaceful Indian leader, I want to make a graveyard of the leaders killed by the French :



This will get larger quite soon, unfortunately.

The Indians vowed to avenge their fallen leader. They are now at my command. I ask them to join me in my victorious campaign on the Champlain :



“Victorious campaign”, because as you can see, Shirley’s column progressed unopposed. I want to pursue the retreating French and destroy them, while taking the strategic location of Crown Point. The French raiders I left behind me will be destroyed in due time… later.

The Indians are not the only victims of the murderous French. New England is especially raided – and there is little I can do for now, except taking the cities where the French come from :



That’s quite is occurring right now in Nova Scotia, with the siege of Grandpré… only the siege of Grandpré is not succeeding for now :



I have a problem of supply, as my sieging army is now short on it. I am going to do a swap of supply wagons, sending an empty supply wagon unit to Halifax, and receiving a new one I have in stock there (the one I paid EP for).

Beginner’s corner : supply

A soldier marches on his stomach said Napoléon. In Birth of America, supply is in my opinion one of the three most important concept (with posture and leadership) - and also the most complex by far.

Disclaimer

I will not cover ammo supplies, only “regular” supplies, AND I might make a few mistakes doing so.
Supply works significantly differently in WiA compared to other AGEOD games (RoP, AACW, PoN, RUS) – so if you want to use this guide for another game, be cautious.


What is supply ? How do I have information on my level of supply ?

Each element (except leaders) in your army consumes supplies. Even your supply wagons consume supplies each turn. Supply can be counted in two ways – in “supply units” and in "turns" (months) – beware, I will have to use both way of counting.

The maximum supply a unit can carry depends on the unit :
- Most “regular” units (incl. cavalry, guns but not siege guns for some reason) can carry 2 months (turns) of supply.

- Irregulars can usually carry 4 months of supply

- Indians can carry no less than 6 months of supply. If you count the fact that they are usually in small groups, and thus able to “feed” on the land, it means you don’t need to follow supply for your Indians in most of the cases.

Note that this does NOT mean that two regular units can carry the same amount of supply, or even that Indians carry more supply units : but for a given "type" a unit consuming more supplies carries more supplies). For instance, let me show you some supply consumption, and show you where to see the current level of supply by the same occasion:




Now the supply wagons.

A supply wagon element can carry 16 “bonus” supply units, for a total of 64 supply units for a complete supply wagon unit (4 elements - I hope it is clear). This means that the impact of a unit of supply wagon in a large army will be minimal (1 month ?) but it will adds up with more supply wagons.





Units in province with allied supply wagons will first “eat” the supply units of the wagons, then their own, even if the wagons are not in their stack. Let me show you this :

With the wagons, the stack has only about 50% of its maximum supply



Without the wagons – the stack has more or less the same quantity of supply , but now it has 100% of its maximum supplies. All the supplies eaten so far were the supplies provided by the wagons.


Supply wagons and transports work the same way in this regard. Not bateaux, though.

What happens if you are short on supply ?

Short on supply but still something to eat : nothing.

Not enough supply : Your army loses its combat efficiency very quickly, and receive hits. The first turn, as only you probably only have a small deficit of supply in your stack, not much. The following turns – much more.

How to produce supply ?

Supplies is produced in (almost) every province. The supply produced every turn corresponds to the "supply level" of a province, with the rule 1 supply level = 5 supply units produced per turn. You can see the supply level of a province by hovering the mouse over it. Here is the production per structure ; note that both the manual AND the wiki are wrong :

- The countryside of a region generates 0-6 supply levels (0-30 supply units), depending on civilization level, weather and looted status. It can go up to 12 in rare circumstances (Manhattan for instance). When enemy armies co-exist in the same region, the region’s supply is distributed proportionally to the percentage of military control.
- Cities generate 3 supply levels (15 supply units) per level,
- Indian villages generate 2 supply levels (10 supply units),
- Ports generate 2 supply levels (10 supply) units per level, except if blockaded,
- Stockades generate 2 supply levels (10 supply),
- Forts generate 3 supply levels (15 supply) per level,
- Depots generate either 10 or 20 supply levels (50 or 100 supply units) per level. I don’t know when it is 10, and when it is 20 (I think that depots existing since the beginning of the campaign can be set to 20 instead to 10 if the dev feels like it). Remember you can create depots anywhere by sacrificing 8 elements of supply wagons or transport ships (including bateaux). Basically, large armies WILL need depots to operate.

Examples :



Albany produces 3*3 (city) + 1*2 (harbor) + 1*20 (depot) + 1*3 (fort)+3 (countryside) = 37 supply levels = 185 supply units.



Nova Scotia produces 3*3 (city) + 4*2 (harbor) + 1*20 (depot) + 2*3 (fort) + 6 (countryside) = 49 supply levels = 245 supply units.



Duquesne, here In February 1756, brings 1*2 (harbor) + 1*3 (fort) + 1*10 (depot) + 3 (countryside) = 18 supply levels = 90 supply units.

In addition to this :

- Loyalty of a region has an impact. Supply production is multiplied according to the Loyalty percentage of the region plus 50%. For example, if a region is completely loyal (i.e. 100% loyalty) the base supply production in the region would be multiplied by 1.5. Only the independence war scenarios have a loyalty status for provinces.

- National Morale. For every two NM above 100, the amount of supplies produced by a supply source is increased by 1%. For every two NM below 100, the amount of supplies produced by a supply source is reduced by 1%. Impact is minimal.

How are supplies consumed ?

Units consume supply at the beginning of the turn.
All units will consume units the following ways :
- First, all the supplies in the stack are pooled
- Then, the stack will use the supply units generated by the STRUCTURES controlled in the province they are in.
- Then, if it is not enough to replenish the supply level, the stack will use the supply units generated by the STRUCTURES controlled in the (immediately) neighbouring provinces (provided you control the neighbouring provinces as well – if a city is sieged, it won’t help, of course).
In both cases, supply units received above those needed for the turn will be used to replenish the supply level.
- If there are still not enough supplies, the unit will make the “countryside” contribute. Each unit (starting with the one with the highest "patrol" value) needing to find supply will do a “foraging” test (high chance to succeed in a rich province, little chance to succeed in a frozen mountain). If it succeeds, it is fed for the turn. If it fails, the region is “looted” (red circle with fire, which may disappear each spring). No more foraging test is possible on a looted province, which produces no more supply. There are some difference in the looting rules whether you are "looting" your own territory or not, but let's forget that.

On looting, please note that Indians and I believe Raiders always loot the enemy provinces they enter into, except if said province is protected by an army not in a structure. Also note that, according to the Manual “In addition, in the French And Indian War scenarios, the French gain VPs through looting.”

Do I need to remember all this ?

No…. Just go in supply mode :



- Each crate represents [b]three[b] supply levels. As a supply level = 5 supply units are produced each turn, 1 crate = 15 supply units. Note that in most case, if there is a structure, the first crate is hidden by it.
Remember that in WiA, supplies not carried by troops / wagons do not stock up in cities. It is lost.

- The color shows whether the province produces more supplies than is consumed (in green – in this case you will also see crates), produces more or less the same quantity (in yellow), or produces less supplies than is consumed (in red). Note that obviously if the color is red but your army carries lots of supplies, it is no problem… for now. If you have the full Continental Army waiting in Albany, chances are that you see both a lots of crates and a red color (all those crates are not enough).

Try to think this way :



With these tools, just have a good idea of what province produces how much, and who is lacking supply in your forces – and then forgot everything I said before.


A few extra considerations on supply :
- Boats work the same way as land forces (for instance, they can draw supply from neighboring land province), but water provides no supply at all (obviously).

- A sieged fort / depot / city produces no supply, a blocked port (by winter or by an enemy force) produces no supply. You can have a sieged fort with an unblocked port (thus lowering the impact of the siege) or the opposite. Units in landlocked / blockaded structures will eat through their supply every month, then surrender. I hope you have some supply wagons, or a relieving force !


- When a stack with a supply wagons is hit by bad weather (in winter most of the time), the stack will trade supply units from the wagons (and only the wagons) to receive less (down to none) damages.

- Having much more supply than needed can be very important, as it allows your element to recover their strength (“number of men”). If you want to compensate for the inevitable attrition due to time (i.e. : illness, desertion, …) you will need at least a small excess in supply.

End of the massive but important Beginner’s Corner

[Narwhal]

but what then is the value of the other towns, forts, and points of interest?

Most of the time, their value is what you think you (or your opponent) can make out of it and no events are associated.
For instance, even if it brings no VP, you might want to take Fort Cumberland south of Fort Duquesne as the French, because it is a stepping stone for the English to attack Fort Duquesne (his troops will rest and shelter from the elements there, before moving on Fort Duquesne with maximum cohesion). Similarly, everything on the West river of the Champlain is important, because it is basically the only way to go from Albany to Canada on foot.
For the same raison, I will focus on taking Grandpré (strategic objective, true, but did not need to be) and Saint-Jean, because they are the obvious bases for the French to either threaten or attack Halifax or to raid the NorthEast. This two cities are important for this reason.
Generally speaking, ports on the Great Lakes are of tremendous importances. And you might want to take any place with depots, because your opponent will use it to recover health and supplies.
But it is true that one of the thing that makes BoA outstanding - and difficult - is that you are really free to move on the map. There is no "corridor" forcing your attack along a defined path, and making some spots obviously strategic (with the Champlain exceptions). Where you are going to push, and what you are going to consider unimportant, is all a matter of arbitration. For this reason, you WILL have to let some troops behind, and not put all your troops on some artificial "frontline", like we see too often in other games.

Now, in many scenarios, some events are associated to the fall of some buildings. You have to play the game to "discover" them, even though it is sometimes quite obvious. Generally speaking, you would play alone before playing PBEM, so those "surprises" are actually fairly pleasant as they add uncertainty in your playthrough. Quickly enough, you will know them and will be able to play PBEM on a equal footing.

At worse, you can read the scenario events (if you can read that sort of stuff) in a Word file.

[Narwhal]

One frustration with the AGEOD games is the manuals aren't that brilliant at explaining stuff which is why its handy to team up with experienced players (& check out their website as there is a lot of useful discussion over there).

I agree, and it actually makes them very unprofessional. On the other hand, the game changes A LOT over time.

For the French at the start the two missing objectives are tantalisingly close (Albany and that port on Lake Ontario - Owego), but I suspect beyond your capacity to seize (but it would be interesting to try out a blitzkrieg style all out push for them in 1755 - you'd either win big or lose decisively).

Taking the two objectives does not give you an automatic victory - the game carries on, and a massive English reaction force is on its way after the fall of Albany...
Blietkrieging is very possible in '56 and maybe '57. Actually, in my game against Anazagar (I was French), he succeded to take both objectives... for not keep them.

So from my mistakes in 1755, the biggest was ignoring (or in my defense not being aware of) the threat to Duquesne, I should have gathered the bits and pieces I had their and attacked Fort Cumberland (or set up an ambush - I've the forces for that but not really done one yet).

True. Taking Fort Cumberland is the best opening move in the area. Except if you want to tempt the English into an ambush.

Not sure I did much wrong in Newfoundland (in that I don't think there was much I could do to that large English army)

Not much to do there if the English is really committed.

reran 1755 with SP this afternoon, managed to not only defend Fort Duquesne but to burn Fort Cumberland to the ground and to get into the position where I've got the Indians in the south all mobilised and ready to burn things in 1756. Key is to be very agressive in the first few turns, your couriers are pretty ok to move in winter so just leave the regular battalions in forts. Still lost Grand Pre to the AI though. Going back to my RoP where I was too agressive at the start, meant I was much too cautious in this game compared to what I could have done.

Better luck next time

[Narwhal]

September 1755 – Setback on the Champlain

September 1755 sees my first military setback, as my attack on Crownpoint is stopped :



As you can see, I lost despite my superior number. This is due to the superior quality of the French troops, their guns, and also their defensive position.

As the Indians sent last turn arrived, I am going to attack again. But as Shirley is not active, he will be sent to lead the defense of Albany – Sir William Johnson will lead the attack (with a CP malus).



My main target is to kill some French, as we are in September and i. thus I won’t be able to keep any position in the area anyway in winter and ii. My provincials are going to go back home quite soon (in December), so I will willingly "trade" them for French regulars, if you get my meaning.

Here is what is going to attack :



I decide to do a conservative attack, as I don’t want to lose too big in case of failure :



Beginner’s corner : Posture and RoE

As you have seen, I give orders to my troops for the next 15 days. But what happens if my troops meets the enemy ? Do they engage ? Do they flee ? Well, much depends on who is your commander… and what posture (a.k.a. “stance”) and Rule of Engagement (ROE) you gave them.
You control that here :



There are 4 postures :
- Assault Posture (RED icon): your unit will attack any enemy army it encounters, and assault any structure it finished its moves on, if it can (i.e. it is not a fortress). If you want it to assault every structure it sees, even if its move is not finished, you need to select the “All Out Attack” ROE (see below). Highly NOT recommended, but Baris used it successfully in Saxony in our PBEM with AAR.
- Attack Posture (ORANGE icon) : your unit will attack any enemy army it encounters, but not the structures
- Defensive Posture (BLUE icon) : your unit will not attack any enemy on its own, but will block its movements if some conditions are met. It will also fortify, thus increasing its bonus each turn (up to a maximum of a level of entrenchment of 2, which means 2 months of defensive posture at the same place). Finally, it wil consume less cohesion (or recover more).
- Passive posture (GREEN icon) : your unit will move out of the way (in another province) if it is in the same province as an enemy army, whatever that other army’s posture is. If it is forced into battle, it will try to retreat ASAP. The unit will also recover a lot of cohesion.
Small stacks in Passive posture are very difficult to force into battle, except if the opponent has a very, very large army with units inside who have a high Patrol value.
Remember that if a General is not activated, he CANNOT choose the Assault or Attack Posture.

That there are two related special orders :

- “Evade Combat” which allows small units (a few cav, irregulars, raiders), to avoid combat and enemies without actually “moving out of the way”. Small stacks only.

- “Ambush” will allow unit to, well, try to set up an ambush (might fail), i.e. attack the enemy with a high surprise bonus and with the opponent having no range bonus if he has guns. Ambush only works if the unit does not move or if you are sure it ends its move in an area where they can ambush (i.e. downtown Manhattan is out).
In term of posture, keep a defensive one when you ambush ; if the ambush is successful, in game term, it will be as if your unit is the one "attacked" (it will keep its entrenchment and other bonus of “defensive” posture, while the opponent will have no defensive bonus at all).

Once the battle has started, you might want to decide whether your army attacks aggressively or not. Those are the Rules of Engagement (ROE). There are 4 of them, with different names depending on your posture :

- All out attack / Hold at all cost : The army will NEVER retreats, whatever the odds are. It can still rout, though. It is to be used VERY carefully, because whole armies can be destroyed because you gave that order at the wrong moment. On attack, “All out attack” will also translate into more losses for everyone, especially you. Finally, “all out attack” + “assault posture” will make your stack attack everything it meets.
- Sustained attack / Defend : The “standard attack”. Your general will take the initiative in retreating if he feels the situation gets… difficult.
- Conservative attack / Defend and Retreat : The army will fight a little, then retreat, except if the general believes he is clearly winning the battle. Losses will be limited for both sides. Good to use when you are not quite sure of what you will meet.
- Feint attack / Retreat if engaged : Your army will retreat very quickly (Feint attack) or immediately. I almost never use “feint attack”, but it can be good to exhaust / slow down and enemy or to scout his forces. “Retreat if engaged” is handy, though.

You can see what Posture I selected by looking at the color (and shape) of the icon on the upper right corner of the picture of the general on the map. Sir William Johnson has the Conservative Attack ROE.

End of Beginner’s corner

Not much other news : I am still sieging Grandpré with no results :



And I am still sieging Fort Duquesne with good results (breach !). Siege guns are extremely efficient :



With a breach, I would like to assault the position as now my opponent has little defensive bonus. Unfortunately, Braddock is NOT activated, and thus can only assume defensive position.
I am afraid Loki100 will send everything he can to break the siege, so I order my troops to “Hold at All Costs”.




Finally, I need MOAR SUPPLY !

[loki100]

I am afraid Loki100 will send everything he can to break the siege, so I order my troops to “Hold at All Costs”.

hah, unfortunately my troops were off burning forts and generally enjoying themselves elsewhere

[Fadi_Efendi]

What you are doing with this AAR is becoming increasingly impressive! It certainly convinced me of giving the AGE games another shot. With my limited experience so far (a couple of scenarios played in WiA, plus the demos of PoN and RuS) I was a bit intimidated by the OOC system as well as by the following impression: It feels as if there is a "correct" strategic formula (Where to build a depot? How many units set to defend, how many attached to the mobile armies? How to organise the troops?) which is very difficult to discern even by playing the game.

Keep up the good work. I am certain I am not the only one eager to see where this goes.

[Vinraith]

Most of the time, their value is what you think you (or your opponent) can make out of it and no events are associated.
For instance, even if it brings no VP, you might want to take Fort Cumberland south of Fort Duquesne as the French, because it is a stepping stone for the English to attack Fort Duquesne (his troops will rest and shelter from the elements there, before moving on Fort Duquesne with maximum cohesion). Similarly, everything on the West river of the Champlain is important, because it is basically the only way to go from Albany to Canada on foot.

<snip loads of useful stuff for the sake of page space>

Thank both of you for your informative responses.

I think what I've not been grasping is the importance of, and the mechanics surrounding, cohesion. In your "typical" TBS game one captures new locations in part for their strategic advantage, but also in part for their economic power. Here, obviously, "economic power" doesn't apply in the traditional sense (one can't use a captured city to raise new regiments, or fund the raising of new regiments). The positional advantage still applies, clearly, but it sounds like the most important thing about capturing any particular town/fort is having a place to shelter and recover cohesion. Is that right?

Any plans for a beginner's corner on cohesion?

Thanks again for the great AAR, I'm enjoying it enormously.

[SirRight]

You two should build campaigns (if the game even allows that). I am sure they would be as professional as the ones that come with the game!

[loki100]

What you are doing with this AAR is becoming increasingly impressive! It certainly convinced me of giving the AGE games another shot. With my limited experience so far (a couple of scenarios played in WiA, plus the demos of PoN and RuS) I was a bit intimidated by the OOC system as well as by the following impression: It feels as if there is a "correct" strategic formula (Where to build a depot? How many units set to defend, how many attached to the mobile armies? How to organise the troops?) which is very difficult to discern even by playing the game.

Keep up the good work. I am certain I am not the only one eager to see where this goes.

In my limited experience with AGEOD, I'm not sure (even human-AI) that there are many 'correct' moves. There are clearly bad ones (I'm good at finding those), but the game systems are very fluid. Even more than V2 or late era EU3 games, it captures that idea that in the wars of the late eighteenth century there was no real concept of a front line, just points of manouvre (usually fortresses).

So take depots, for the French in this game, unless it goes spectacularly well and you're off to ensure that New York became Nouvelle York, then I can't see why you'd need to build one as you are operating broadly in your own region or with raiding forces that really need no supply. I suspect that for Narwhal to move up Lake Champion towards Mont Royal, he'll need a RoP sequence of depots (& from the in game log I know he's raising them).

I think its where the games are hard to get into ... you look at the map, your forces and it is not clear what to do next, and so entrancing when you do (I'm doing a leisurely RoP using the Prussians and the Austrian AI is not in the slightest operating as I had in my RoP AAR) as the options open and close down as the game and moves develop.

Thank both of you for your informative responses.

I think what I've not been grasping is the importance of, and the mechanics surrounding, cohesion. In your "typical" TBS game one captures new locations in part for their strategic advantage, but also in part for their economic power. Here, obviously, "economic power" doesn't apply in the traditional sense (one can't use a captured city to raise new regiments, or fund the raising of new regiments). The positional advantage still applies, clearly, but it sounds like the most important thing about capturing any particular town/fort is having a place to shelter and recover cohesion. Is that right?

Any plans for a beginner's corner on cohesion?

Thanks again for the great AAR, I'm enjoying it enormously.

I think in this system, places become of strategic worth because they are ... the VP/Strategic City issue is secondary. So Narwhal took Grand Pre because it was a threat and it now means he can end my raids into upper New England. I've two forts to the north of Duqeusne that are, in my mind (we've just swopped the April 56 turn) strategic if I am to defend the Western Great Lakes.

Especially for regulars, you do need to lurch from fort to fort, and as Narwhal showed above, in a fort you regain org much faster (& can sit out the winter with some safety). For irregulars, they are less important, except as winter bolt holes.

But having lost Duquesne, I can't really raid that deep into English territory in 56, so in that sense alone, its changed the 'map', its brought new areas to importance and removed others from the active regions.

You two should build campaigns (if the game even allows that). I am sure they would be as professional as the ones that come with the game!

I believe the AGEOD games are easy to mod, but more you can change variables and mechanics to suit your views as to how things should be.

The scenario list in this game is pretty complete, I can't think of a major military campaign in N America from the 1750s to 1815 that isn't already covered.

Thanks for the comments. As above, we're just swappng moves for the early (winter) turns of 1756. I've got a couple of things I don't want to reveal too early, so it may be a while before any 1756 related updates are safe to publish, but I've got a couple of ideas that, if not to regain the strategic advantage, may upset the English juggernaut ...

[Vinraith]

Especially for regulars, you do need to lurch from fort to fort, and as Narwhal showed above, in a fort you regain org much faster (& can sit out the winter with some safety). For irregulars, they are less important, except as winter bolt holes.

Yup, that's the kind of thing I'd like to hear some more details on, just to get a sense of how often a given army under given circumstances needs to stop and recover, or stop and shelter. This is a very cool, and very different, kind of strategy game to what I'm used to!

[Stuyvesant]

Started reading this, only finished loki's introductory post, but I will - time permitting - follow along.

BTW: Thanks for mentioning the freebie, loki! It made me realize Paradox still had my old email address. I updated it and lo and behold! Got a newsletter today! Free game (not that I'm going to have any time to play it, but that's a different story)!

[Narwhal]

I was a bit intimidated by the OOC system as well as by the following impression: It feels as if there is a "correct" strategic formula (Where to build a depot? How many units set to defend, how many attached to the mobile armies? How to organise the troops?) which is very difficult to discern even by playing the game.

Keep up the good work. I am certain I am not the only one eager to see where this goes.

Thank you !
What does OOC means ?

There is "no" correct strategy in Wars in America. The map is very fluid and evolves very quickly. It all depends on circumstances.
Of course, players will most of the time have the same opening (in the FIW, for instance, English seizing Grandpré, French destroying Fort Cumberland), but quickly it all depends on the situation.

The game still needs some experience to be played at a good level in PBEM. Having played the scenario single player is necessary to avoid being surprised by large events. You also need experience to be able to judge the chance of being surprised by winter, the approximate chance to win given your forces and what the opponent have, and a few other things.

But still, there is no "winning" strategy. Each game you will play, including against the computer, will be very different. Depending of where the front will move, you will want to build a depot to a different place. Depending on where is your target, you will want to mix a lot of light infantry with only a few regular and no artillery, or have an "heavy stack" with mostly regulars, and some militia to make the number, or any combination thereof.
And there are a lot of different scenarios in addition to this. Add to those available Vanilla the two "modded" Grand Campaigns, both made by Hobbes of AGEOD forum : Pontiac's War and King's William War (that one will be available in a few weeks).

I think what I've not been grasping is the importance of, and the mechanics surrounding, cohesion. In your "typical" TBS game one captures new locations in part for their strategic advantage, but also in part for their economic power. Here, obviously, "economic power" doesn't apply in the traditional sense (one can't use a captured city to raise new regiments, or fund the raising of new regiments). The positional advantage still applies, clearly, but it sounds like the most important thing about capturing any particular town/fort is having a place to shelter and recover cohesion. Is that right?

What I like with AGEOD games is that, realistically and contrarly to many other strategy game, it is not because you captured a province that you are more powerful. This allows for a game in which you can recover after a decisive defeat - those games are rare and more interesting. See my RoP AAR for an example.

I will try to make a Beginner's Corner for Cohesion, but not in the next post (no opportunity). Basically, it makes the game very interesting. Contrarly to, say, EUIII in which weather or long march killed 10% of your troops but allowed thye rest to fight at full capacity, in BoA it will kill 10% of your troops and force the rest to fight at 50% capacity or less, making planning of offensive very, very important.