Loki100 said:
well to answer your default question - "very". It seems to be becoming an issue of what you can do to the Continental Army as the key to this. And looking at that last sequence your problem is you outnumber it overall but are over matched by it at any one place. At least in the course of that last defeat you were able to chip away at a little, and unless it can rest on a depot that is the start of wearing it down.
It's rhetorical...I think. Maybe not. Anyway, yes...what to do with the Continentals is an open question. I don't really outnumber it, unless I concentrate damn near everything to fight it, which defeats my purpose anyway.
I was happy to see that I was finally able to pick a defensive position and inflict heavy damage on the Continentals, a first for me in the game. That alone was a boost in moral. Of course, the retreat to the north rather than the south wasn't what I had planned...
Doombunny said:
You may very well have been defeated at Hartford, but casualties like that are quite a blow, especially from a much smaller force. Good luck.
Exactly. I caught Hartford as a victory. I made Lincoln pay in serious blood to cross the river, and my forces retreated in good order to a decent position. I have other strong forces which can also bleed the Americans, though not in such strong positions.
Stuyvesant said:
So, the follow-up question becomes: is there a depot in Hartford?
I hope you can have a couple more of these 'losses' against the CA and then finish the whole bunch off, but fear that won't happen immediately - they're now on the wrong side of the Connecticut river and no longer have that river crossing penalty.
I don't know how supply works in WiA, but should you move that militia in New Haven across the river to cut off the road leading to the CA, or is that irrelevant for its supply? Or, alternately, would that simply mean sending that militia unit on a suicide mission, to be smacked around by a bunch of angry rebels?
Good luck, the CA amidst your lines has ratcheted up the tension a fair bit. I hope you can take Philly soon and use those troops to stem the the tide up North.
Hartford is at least a level two city, so it produces a fair amount of supplies in and of itself. Merely resting there, and controlling the road from Rhode Island should prevent his army from disintegrating this winter (it may even reinforce).
You are right in that Hartford was probably our best chance of hurting that army. If you notice, I started reinforcing Grey with troops from Burgoyne's command. I'm trying to balance slowing Lincoln down, without compromising my attempt at Albany in the spring.
There is no bridge from New Haven across to southern Connecticut. I would need to use boats, and there are still significant forces in New England garrisoning places like Newport and Boston. It wouldn't be worth the trouble of trying to 'cut off' the CA, since the militia would be easily destroyed.
The gathering of forces at Albany is also a source of significant concern. I want more forces committed to Pennsylvania than currently, but I am running out of troops to commit there.
Director said:
I'm not familiar enough with the game mechanics to be able to comment on strategy, but I do seem to remember that the British never really had men enough to securely hold New York and Philadelphia at the same time... Much less contemplate striking up the Hudson too.
The classic strategic question is: do you concentrate on defeating the army in the field and then occupy places, or occupy places in the hope of starving the enemy army in the field of men and resources? The classic answer is the former - beat the main fleet or army and then secure the victory. It troubles me that you seem to be trying to do both at once - or have I misunderstood?
Good point on the numbers of men. I have the benefit of Burgoyne's Corps that historically surrendered at Saratoga reinforcing my forces in New York (I didn't invade from Canada), but I have detached Cornwallis' forces to complete my invasion of the south...which amounts to me being
slightly stronger than Howe was in real life in the New York / Philadelphia area. I also have the advantage of having the main CA army still in New England, rather than sitting in North Western New Jersey, simultaneously threatening both New York AND Philadelphia. As it is, Lincoln can only strike at either New York or my Albany staging forces...he cannot come to the assistance of Philadelphia.
The problem with the classic interpretation is that it does not understand the true strength of the American forces in the revolution.
If we look only at regular army forces, I should win this war easily. However, the Continental Army was also buttressed by the local militia's (and further flung militia's). The militia acts as a space denier, and as cannon fodder for the regulars. I can thus decisively defeat the continental army in the field, and a new continental army could be raised in a few months out of the militia organization.
In essence, the militia's were called out when the British attempted to move into a new area, forced the British to fight for the new areas, and, when the British moved onto a new priority, re-occupied the old positions. Basically, anywhere the British went they were certain to be opposed...and the British had to garrison
everything with regulars in order to hold it. Quite a drain on resources.
The CA, on the other hand, does not need to garrison
anything. The militia does that job.
If I consider militia numbers in determining force strength, I am always outnumbered.
These ideas place this war squarely in a counter-insurgency campaign. I cannot trust anywhere to be loyal to the crown until I have changed the hearts and minds of the colonists themselves. My use of EPs has been designed to optimize this. As far as battles are concerned...my goal with the CA is to lure it into using up
time inflicting pyrric victories on itself while I use the space and time won by my lost battles to occupy strategic points (either for VPs, or to setup another pyrric victory for the CA).
I hope this makes sense...remember, I am a rookie at this.
OneWingedDevil said:
From what I can gather, the brittleness of his army really prevents him from doing either safely. Getting enough land/EP/whatever helps him raise militia-type troops to help him continue the Southern campaign might let him refocus his Regulars down there to smashing armies in the fields of the North. I imagine the rebels would be hurting a lot if he broke the Continental Army, as stacks that size are the main challenge to his better-equipped but low number of quality troops.
Of course, someone with actual experience playing the game could probably provide more insightful analysis.
Sort of. I think the effort required to break the CA would most likely break my army as well...not to mention being counterproductive, since the CA would be likely to reform in strength before I could again disperse to occupy all the places that need occupying on this continent.
Axe27 said:
Being a RUS player, it seems odd to see such small stacks running around, but it's obvious here that the Continental army can eat these huge losses directly to the face. My advice to you is to face Continental Army sized stacks on directly equal terms, ie, don't try to hold a river crossing with only 100 pwr versus the 300 pwr Continental army. The reason being is that the British (you) are playing on the American home turf - the Americans can afford to lose one thousand men, you however, will start having issues if you lose that many men in one battle.
I don't want to face the CA on equal terms. The losses incurred would quickly incapacitate my ability to occupy the colonies.
I want to inflict disproportionate casualties...but I cannot afford to concentrate fully to do so. Therein lies the dilemma.
loki100 said:
there is, unfortunately, a huge 'but' to that strategy. Well two actually. One is supply, if you make a monster British stack it will quickly be out of supply (or at least in limited supply) & that screws up its chances to recover losses, so you are on a downhill slide. I lost a PBEM spectacularly by going for a very concentrated British force. Second, unlike say playing the Reds in RuS, the way the VP game works out in the 'tax-evader's revolt' is the British will need a decent haul (pref to be ahead) early on ... and that means taking and holding a wide range of cities.
Exactly.
Of course, it is almost impossible to be 'ahead' in the early game...though Narwhal was right when he pointed out that I should have focused on New York / Philadelphia MUCH earlier.
Ah well...hindsight and all.
TO ALL:
I am traveling for Thanksgiving and will be away from the game. So...no update this week. Have a great week, and remember to be thankful for all your blessings!