• 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.
A nice bit of maneuvering out there in Vancouver! It's interesting to see the US fighting in so many theaters and so far abroad in 1877; repeated conflicts with a globe-spanning power like Britain necessitates a wider involvement. If these Anglo-American conflicts keep breaking out every decade or so, I feel like the US military is going to be a rather fearsome thing by the 20th century.

Thanks! Yeah the war developed in stages. I kept thinking we could end it... I quite might need a larger army.

Wait, this general was a real person?

I loved the severe penalties the UK took in Seattle/Vancouver. Some excellent maneuvering there.

Well... That was actually an Easter egg for those of us old enough to remember a TV show called Miami Vice (the '80s version - have they redone it like they did Magnum PI and Hawaii 5-0?). Don Johnson was the actor, and he was famous for tropical suits and sports cars and sunglasses. :D Did I lay it on a little thick?



Of course, any cop would tell you there aren't any detectives out there wearing gold watches, or getting scolded for banging up the motor pool's Ferrari. :D

Thanks, about the maneuvering!

The US is doing really well here. It's strange that the UK won't negotiate.

Will you add more war goals as payment for the British being intransigent? Maybe some more land in Africa?

Why not annex Canada?

Oh, if you've got 3 million soldiers you're going to take your time coming to the negotiating table... :D Yes, I'm likely to add more goals.

Thanks for reading, everybody! A reminder to please vote in the Q3 2023 AARLand Choice AwAARds! Voting has been a little thin this cycle, and there is slightly more than a week to go until the voting ends! If you haven't finished your ballot, please wrap it up. I added a new AAR today. No pressure to vote for this AAR, but I definitely appreciate any who do!

Rensslaer
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Well... That was actually an Easter egg for those of us old enough to remember a TV show called Miami Vice (the '80s version - have they redone it like they did Magnum PI and Hawaii 5-0?). Don Johnson was the actor, and he was famous for tropical suits and sports cars and sunglasses. :D Did I lay it on a little thick?
Thanks for the info! Of those three, I've only seen Magnum P.I. They did do a 2016 film of Miami Vice, and a TV reboot will probably happen at some point.
 
Dear Readers -

I apologize for being busy lately. We just had a new granddaughter born, and I'll be flying out to see her. I was also ill briefly with a bad cold and I've been working on my fiction writing IRL.

I'm feeling fine now. I have an update planned out and I just need time to assemble the screenshots for it. Hoping to have some time while I wait for the plane.

Also - some big news! Many on this forum have asked about my fiction writing -- the epic fantasy novel I've published and the two others in the series I'm working on. I have finally republished the original novel on Amazon. I can't post a link here, but my writing blog is linked in my profile and anyone could go search for Edwin Hanks Author or my novel called Uprooted on Amazon. It has NEW cover art (kind of embarrassed about the old art!) and I'm very proud of that, and the writing in the book.

I thank everyone for your support, and hope to be back in business with this AAR soon -- maybe tomorrow, maybe in a couple of weeks, depending how much time I have.

Thank you!

Rensslaer
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Congrats on the republish and on the new granddaughter! I hope you have a great visit. Take your time with the update and enjoy the family!

I'll check out the book on Amazon and look forward to the next update whenever it comes. :)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Congratulations on the grandaughter! It's always good to be with family around this time of year. Your book looks ery interesting and is something I'll have to check out when I have time.
 
Congrats on the republish and on the new granddaughter! I hope you have a great visit. Take your time with the update and enjoy the family!

I'll check out the book on Amazon and look forward to the next update whenever it comes. :)

@VILenin thank you on both points! I had about 9 days to spend with both wee little granddaughters and had a lot of fun.


Congratulations on the grandaughter! It's always good to be with family around this time of year. Your book looks ery interesting and is something I'll have to check out when I have time.

@jak7139 thank you!

So... Yesterday I did get maybe 1/3 to 1/2 of an update ready for this. Going to finish hopefully in the next 2-3 days.

Thank you for your readership and kind comments! I definitely love comments. Sorry the pace has slowed.

Rensslaer
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:


The War in Africa and Asia, 1876-1877

Recall, if you will, that I’m posting these updates geographically, so we step back from the last update, which ended in 1877, to the initiation of hostilities against British troops in Africa, beginning in April 1876.




Some of the conscripts drawn from the general population had been sent straight to the major port cities, to be transported overseas. Many of them never expected to be sent all the way to Africa. But on 25 April 1876 the first landings were made in Guinea, and the troops began to spread out.

It was discovered there were not very many British troops here to oppose. By the end of August, the entire colony was subdued and occupied.



By September, American troops were marching overland to dislodge the small garrison at the former Liberian province of Freetown, which had been taken over by the British (while the rest of former Liberia had been seized by Spain).

Weirdly, even as the United States Army defeated the Redcoats at Freetown, British colonies which had been developing for some years began establishing themselves as colonies. Thus, the British were able to retreat to Bopolu in October, when it had not even been a colony in September!



No matter, US troops began to occupy the province before the retreating British could arrive (a favorite technique of mine, if you haven’t noticed – here’s the strategy element: US troops in this game are faster than the British (not sure how typical that is) and so I routinely complete a battle and leap ahead of the retreat, forcing them to attack my dug-in troops).

Across the seas, in Oceania, America’s Japanese allies have done good work in capturing British New Guinea.



But the British still will not come to the table. Even with an offer less than half of what’s been earned.

Alas, the next card must be turned.



In January of 1877 US troops land in Capetown South Africa.

Now, unlike the previous efforts in Africa, this is NOT to be an unopposed or lightly opposed landing. We’ve chosen a province that’s mountainous, and which is covered by other mountainous territories so we might expand before we meet the enemy in combat. Scouts had determined that, while we don’t know for sure there aren’t redcoats hiding out in Calvinia, they’re most likely in eastern South Africa, and will take some time to get to us. Time enough to dig in.

We had expanded perhaps further than originally intended when the British appeared, sure enough. Were we ready for 42,000 troops against our 6,000, albeit dug in and with artillery support?



Battle was joined in February 1877, with intense fighting. More American troops were brought up in nearby Beaufort (another mountainous province) behind them to ensure a proper route of retreat, and to form the second line of defense.

The soldiers in Port Elizabeth fought a dogged battle, and enemy casualties were thought to have been almost 3 times American. It demonstrated the strength of a small, dug-in force with the rules of engagement (maneuver allows only cavalry to attack more than one square from their position in the ranks, so only 7 of the 11 British brigades in front line combat could engage – the others had to wait. (Also note the -3 to attack the British suffer because of our dug-in positions and the hilly terrain).

What happens in those cases, by the way, is that the organization of those units in combat suffers, on both sides. Eventually the most wounded units retreat and fresh units take their place. Fortunately, the British have committed all the troops they have in South Africa to this battle, whereas the United States was drawing new fleets of transports closer to the Cape of Good Hope every day. If we continued to replace our casualties, eventually we would prevail.

But it would not be at Port Elizabeth.



A surprise flanking movement caught the American defenders in a bad situation and a strategic withdrawal was necessary. The Americans retreated toward Beaufort, but the British advanced instead toward Mossel Bay, which was fine so far as we were concerned. It would result in another battle with conditions similar to the previous, but it would involve a larger front and not so imbalanced forces.

The British had lost 2,000 soldiers, and the Americans about 500 at Port Elizabeth. Moreover, the defending troops in Beaufort, finding that they would not be attacked, moved forward to Port Elizabeth to fill in behind the British and cut off their supply lines once they had engaged at Mossel Bay.



By the time the Battle of Port Elizabeth had been resolved, US troops had arrived overland from Sierra Leone and begun to occupy British-held Nigeria. Meanwhile, across the oceans again, US troops were landing in the New Hebrides islands, finding that the Japanese had already occupied New Britain.

And when the Battle of Mossel Bay commenced in mid-March 1877 the British had a -6 to their die rolls due to the lack of a commander and the terrain and dig-in bonuses of the United States in the hills around the bay (a -4 overall benefit to the USA). By the first of April, the Americans were severely punishing the British for having made such a rash move.


By the beginning of May, a victory for the USA was assured by the arrival of Gen. Don Jonhson and enough troops to match the British, with higher organization. The beleaguered British finally surrendered on May 17, 1877 – the loss of their entire S. African command. They lost approximately 16,000 casualties (vs. about 5,000 for the US) and the other 22,000 laid down their arms.

By July 4, 1877, American troops were either in control of or besieging the remaining British defenders throughout all of South Africa. At the same time, US troops were also moving into the last of British Nigeria, such that those provinces would also soon be occupied and their bases denied the Royal Navy. The islands of the Atlantic, similarly.



Finding nothing more to do in South Africa, Gen. Randolph Brown’s troops landed instead in Mauritius, north of Madagascar, and in early August the British garrison there surrendered.

The United Kingdom continues to deny any reasonable offers of peace at the negotiation tables, so fighting continues…

In the Pacific Ocean, though British ship losses had certainly mounted, and their lack of bases was telling in other theatres, in the regions of Oceania the British remained preeminent around Australia and New Zealand while Japan and the United States held their own in the latitudes of New Guinea and nearby. Increasing numbers of US ironclads, based out of Lae, began challenging British squadrons off the coast of Australia. But that would be hard fought.



Sailing ships of the United States Navy, having sailed all the way from California, managed to blockade some of the British ports in Australia, and unfortunately discovered some very strong British troop strengths therein.

By the very end of 1877, though, it was thought that US transport steamships could deposit troops in Auckland New Zealand, while blockade ships could keep the defenders on the northern island from crossing. This gambit was proved overly confident as the HMS Black Prince (ironclad) and company found the steamers after they dropped off their cargo.

While the Lincoln and Grant were able to escape, and other ships managed to maintain a sufficient blockade, naval combat in this theatre remained dicey.

Besides the Maldives, where US troops landed at the end of the year, any victory against Britain would have to be determined elsewhere…
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
US troops in this game are faster than the British
This seems like something out of a completely different game, like EU4 or Civ (i.e. US troops move 10% faster or make more money just because they're Americans). I do know that if two armies are going to arrive in a province on the same day, whichever TAG is higher in the code takes priority. But it seems like that is not what happened here.
Alas, the next card must be turned.
This year, Africa. The next, London!
Were we ready for 42,000 troops against our 6,000, albeit dug in and with artillery support?
No general on the British side is probably helping, but this looks like a guaranteed defeat.
The United Kingdom continues to deny any reasonable offers of peace at the negotiation tables, so fighting continues…
Perhaps the British think they can wait this out like they did with Napoleon. Unfortunately for them that won't be the case.
Besides the Maldives, where US troops landed at the end of the year, any victory against Britain would have to be determined elsewhere…
What's the UK's war exhaustion looking like with all these occupations and blockades?
 
It's a shame that the invasion of New Zealand failed, but the rest of this war is going well enough that it shouldn't matter.

How much do you plan to demand? Many Americans died to conquer those African possessions... or will the US make the British release nations instead?

Britain probably should've surrendered when the US first offered them the chance...
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Sorry it's been a while since feedback! Still getting back in the routine after the holidays and 2 trips, etc.

This seems like something out of a completely different game, like EU4 or Civ (i.e. US troops move 10% faster or make more money just because they're Americans). I do know that if two armies are going to arrive in a province on the same day, whichever TAG is higher in the code takes priority. But it seems like that is not what happened here.

Perhaps the British think they can wait this out like they did with Napoleon. Unfortunately for them that won't be the case.

What's the UK's war exhaustion looking like with all these occupations and blockades?

@jak7139 I don't think it's an arbitrary "Americans are faster than the Brits" bonus. I think there must be some technology where we're ahead of them. I just haven't looked it up.

I'm not sure where the Brits exhaustion is. And unless I find it in a screenshot I'm not going to be able to find out since I no longer use that computer. Sorry! I would think it's high

It's a shame that the invasion of New Zealand failed, but the rest of this war is going well enough that it shouldn't matter.

How much do you plan to demand? Many Americans died to conquer those African possessions... or will the US make the British release nations instead?

Britain probably should've surrendered when the US first offered them the chance...

I'm not sure the invasion failed for sure. I may have gotten navy ships there in time to keep the Brits from cruising the strait. I don't remember for sure.

I'll limited by the internal British AI because I can't convince them that they're not stronger than I am still. They're routinely dismissing perfectly reasonable offers and I'm not even able to get 50% of what they "owe" me according to warscore. I'll ask for stuff but not as much as I want, or else this war will never end! :D

Update will come relatively soon. I just have to gather the screenshots and type it up. This month for sure!

Rensslaer
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Dear Readers,

I am concerned that we've only seen 6 votes so far in the The 2023 Yearly AARland Year-end AwAARds, and there's less than a month to complete the balloting (ends Feb 3 and it may take a bit to finish your ballot, so it's good to get a jump on it).

This is a yearly award to honor the best writers of the best AARs of 2023. It is configured differently from the Q42023 AARLand Choice Awards (also currently running with less than a month to vote!) -- the Year End awards allow you to choose the best AARs on the forum by category -- Comedy, Historybook, Narrative, etc.

I do hope that you'll go take a look and put in a ballot, even if you can't complete it all. I'm not asking you to vote for this AAR (though I'd value it if you do), but please do go through what you're reading (at least) and rank those AARs. If you are more serious about it do some additional reading (as I am doing) and find worthy AARs you hadn't previously looked at. You all know which AARs you really love to read -- just go ahead and let us know by voting!

Thank you!

Rensslaer
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Okay well I was all ready to prepare an update to finish off our war with the United Kingdom but I have my 4 pages of notes that got buried in a pile because I was reorganizing the house/office but I haven't finished yet. :) So I'll wait until I can find the notes.

Update still coming soon!

Rensslaer
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Finally caught up with this AAR after it popped up in the voting in the ACAs and the YAYAs.

For those of us who do not play the Victoria games, you make your game-play AAR very accessible. For me, it is often difficult to read AARs from games I do not play. So thanks for your approach that is appealing to the non-player.

This AAR has caused me to read some reviews on the debate regarding game preference between Victoria 2 and Victoria 3. Although much of the history of this period is appealing to me, still not convinced to jump into either.

I think the difficulty Paradox has here is they must make the UK the dominant superpower during this period but from your play-through it appears they have not threaded the needle just right yet. It seems some countries are overpowered (Mexico) as evidenced that it took two wars to equal what was taken during the Manifest Destiny period and the single original timeline Mexican-American War. (Not sure what owning that huge chunk of Central Mexico will yield you, but that is truly disheartening to the Mexicans after your third war with them. Doubt that any Mexican politician would have agreed to that peace treaty, from what I know of Mexican politics and history.)

On the flip side, are other powers like France, or even Spain, underpowered? If they were more powerful, they would be distractions to the UK, which seems squarely aimed at reclaiming chunks of Canada or the US.

This also doesn't seem to model how the Mexican-American War was a training ground for U.S. generals who would shine on both sides in the coming U.S. Civil War. As others have said earlier, that war, for you, seemed like not much really. Your political policies are laudable, looking forward to see if the game will allow your goals.

The names of the generals also seem to be somewhat disappointing, as you have mentioned. Guessing the game doesn't allow you to add or change names, which is too bad. As a gamer who has interest in the U.S. Civil War, that's a missed opportunity, but I understand this was meant to model British imperial might first.

On both those topics, I do hope you will at least find time to finish this latest war with Great Britain (although I realize with your other writing goals and the season that may need to wait). Looking forward to seeing the latest exploits of Gen. Don Johnson and how he may triumph (or not) in the latest war. :cool:
 
Last edited:
  • 1Love
Reactions:
First, let me just say to everybody that I pulled out my notes and was going to start writing the next update tonight, which should conclude this war with Britain. Now, mind you, it's still quite a massive update, and it'll take me a few days to put it all together. But I'm getting a start on it. :D

@Chac1 wow I really appreciate your long, detailed comment! There's alot to tackle there.

I think I'm naturally biased toward Vicky 2 because I was on the Beta Team, and wrote the Manual and Strategy Guide -- I have been immersed in V2 for more than a decade now, and I simply love the system -- practically everything about it. Any game is going to have flaws, but to my mind V2 and HOI 3 are the two most perfect games Paradox has ever produced.

I've tried to get into V3. The graphics in V3 are breathtaking! Sometimes I'll just watch the graphics for a while as I switch from one task to the next. I'll honestly spend hours gradually working through all the complex mechanics. And they're astonishingly good -- the broad scope of V3 and everything it attempts is staggering. V2 was really complicated. V1 was really complicated! But V3 sought to be everything its predecessors were, and more. I really love the concept. But one thing I know from being on so many Betas is that the more complicated a game is, the harder it is to make it all work properly, and the harder it is to get good, competent AI to model what real leaders might do. I feel like that became V3's albatross. And then there are the other two things which they decided to do differently -- the combat model, and the mapping system for tracking what countries are gaining territory. When I saw the flags extending across the face of continents I thought it was distracting and silly. I've tried to get into it, but it's really a dealbreaker. I've heard there is a mod and/or changes to later versions that makes it track province control with color hatching like V2, but I have yet to see it. The combat... I can understand the "frontal combat" model. I thought HOI 3 did okay with it, despite the drawbacks of AI. But V3 forces you to trust the AI to command your forces, while I've always gained advantage (as Napoleon did, for instance) by very specifically controlling how my armies moved. It doesn't work with a frontal command model. Napoleon and most generals since have trusted their underlings to make decisions on the fly, guided by their overarching orders. But the difference is they TRUSTED those underlings. And they'd get rid of them if they didn't. I DO NOT trust the AI to competently manage combat. So I suppose that's an exploit -- maybe V3 is trying to level the playing field by making us all trust the AI -- but I have a hard time watching my commanders do stupid stuff without being able to remove them for incompetence. :D

In sum, I'll just point out that V2 is a 14 year old game now, and V3 is new and flashy. When EU 3 came out, most Paradoxians happily switched from EU 2. But V3 is still struggling. I think there are more active AARs in the "old" V2 forum than in the new V3 forum! And it's partly because it's so different from the things we've come to love about Paradox games. I feel like they just got the mix wrong, and made a couple of bad design decisions they can't take back without V4.

Sorry... Long sidetrack there. :)

From a design standpoint I don't think anyone set out to make the UK the center of anything outside of the box and the name. The fact is that the UK pretty much ruled the world back then, from a Eurocentric standpoint, and it was the most powerful country because of all the things it controlled. And since Victoria games simulate all those things, then the UK remains the most powerful country in the game. The fact that they aren't trouncing the US in these wars (and, frankly, the fact that they decided to go to war with the US so much to begin with) is more due to the limitations of AI. In a multiplayer game the US would have the Royal Navy sitting off all its ports, but in my game it's having trouble figuring out where to be.

I think Mexico isn't overpowered, necessarily.... I take that back -- it has way too many good generals, and way too strong of an army to be realistic. That's partly because the game is "balanced" and allows countries to avoid historical pitfalls they found themselves in. To be fair, V1 was a great game, but it was really deterministic -- if it happened in real life it was scripted to happen in the game unless certain things made it impossible. V2 was a step forward because it tried to model how countries really can work, and left much of the scripted determinism behind. But because of that it's possible, for instance, for Siam to take on the Great Powers and to actually become one (that was my first V2 AAR, back in 2010 -- I Am Siam :D). But the main reason why it's harder to take historical conquests to match the results of OTL Mexican-American War is because of the warscore model. For balance purposes they didn't want countries growing too fast so they limited conquest.

France and Spain? Well, despite Spain's being a dominant power in EU by the time of Victoria it was really a spent and dying power. Many of the handicaps ascribed to the American South during the Civil War could be said of Spain during this period. They were like the third generation of spoiled children living on the riches their predecessors had fought and bled for, but not willing to put in that much work to keep it. And France had, by this time, become a continental power and not a world power. Britain was still very much focused on remaining a world power (partly because the Napoleonic Wars showed them they maybe didn't want to be limited to continental power).

I'm running out of time, but to wrap up let me say I came late to being a fan of the US Civil War. Both the USCW and World War I were always last on my list of military history interests because I just couldn't imagine the sheer bloody cost and the means of fighting which caused such wanton bloodshed. In recent years I've become somewhat of a fan of the USCW and have learned alot about it. World War I also, to a lesser degree. But you're right -- I wish my USCW had been more realistic, and I do now find it a rather fascinating period of time. The leaders were, many of them, also very interesting studies. In my V1 narrative Fire Warms I had a scene with Gen. Sheridan, and you might be interested in a novel I've recently fallen in love with that involves Gen. Sheridan quite a bit!

Anyway thank you so much for your comment! :D

I'm working on that next update....

Oh, and EVERYBODY remember to vote in the 2023 YAYAs and Q42023 ACAs! No need to vote for this work or my other, though such support is appreciated, but definitely go out and make sure those writers and AARs you read and enjoy are getting credit and recognition!

Rensslaer
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Great to see your passion for this game @Rensslaer . I can understand why. Obviously your DNA is in the game. I get it. That many years with a game and as part of the Beta team it is understandable why you don't want to move to something that you have issues with aesthetically.

Not as wound up with CKII, but I've been devoted to that game for eight years, so I understand getting into a game and sticking with it.

Thanks for the suggestions on Sheridan. Been to many of the battle sites where Sheridan featured strongly in the outcome. He is quite interesting.

Have to agree with your assessments over-all regarding military might in the 19th Century. Great Britain was the superpower. But as some historians have also pointed out, the North fielded 2.1 million men at arms during the USCW and the British had about 200,000 worldwide at the same time. Yes, the British fleet was superior to all and that is what made Great Britain the empire of the 19th Century. I understand the balance issues game-makers face and the Paradox philosophy for many games has been to model the world. As you point out though, it would have been unrealistic for Siam to become a major power yet you did that in your earlier play-through and AAR.

France and Spain? Well, despite Spain's being a dominant power in EU by the time of Victoria it was really a spent and dying power. Many of the handicaps ascribed to the American South during the Civil War could be said of Spain during this period. They were like the third generation of spoiled children living on the riches their predecessors had fought and bled for, but not willing to put in that much work to keep it. And France had, by this time, become a continental power and not a world power. Britain was still very much focused on remaining a world power (partly because the Napoleonic Wars showed them they maybe didn't want to be limited to continental power).

Have to agree with these assessments too. Spain's weakness was why the U.S. targeted them in the Caribbean and the Pacific at the end of the 19th Century. But who is balancing out the British in the 19th Century to keep them from deciding to take back the Colonies? Russia? (The British alliance with France and Turkey in the Crimean War was a victory over Russia but quite costly.) Germany? Austria? These powers don't really balance out British might in the early 19th Century, although the picture starts changing on the other end of the century. How do you stop that from happening without it being overly deterministic as you point out in your answer?

Looking forward to the next update, but please take your time. We know this war with Britain is quite complicated.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:


The War in Europe 1876-1877

A bit of history, just to remember… The United States Revolutionary War against Great Britain lasted from 1775 to 1783. The “War of 1812” (which was arguably a distant annex to the Napoleonic Wars, related to British interference in trade with France and British impressment of sailors to fight the French) lasted from 1812 to 1815.

Within the scope of this AAR the third war with Britain – a British attempt to regain New England – lasted from 1842 to 1847. The fourth war with Britain – a British intervention in the First Mexican American War – lasted from 1854 to 1858. During the period of peace with Britain the US had fought their Second and Third Mexican Wars.

This fifth war between the United States and United Kingdom had begun in January of 1876 – another attempt by Britain to regain New England for the Crown. Again to bring our readers up to speed, the previous two updates have covered the United States’ efforts against the British in 1) the Americas, and 2) in Africa and Asia. This update will cover 3) the United States’ efforts against the United Kingdom on the continent of Europe (the first time the US had the temerity to so act).



In May of 1876 there was still fighting between British and American forces along the border with Canada, US troops were just beginning their campaign against the British colonies of west Africa, and it wouldn’t be until January of 1877 that US troops would land in South Africa.

But in May of 1876 the United States made its first wartime landing on European soil. You’ll recall that the British (long time back) had captured three Portuguese provinces, and had retained them in the peace treaty. Now the United States took advantage of their isolation and captured them.

American Admiral Cyrus Armstrong took a fleet of ironclads and commerce raiders across the northern passage to Scotland and began making a reconnaissance of the British coastline to see if he could sense where the defenders were. He found virtually nothing (actually he found absolutely nothing, but then he couldn’t see into London itself, or any other of the interior lands).



He also saw nothing of the Royal Navy until he had nearly crossed back into the Atlantic. An inferior force of British ironclads and monitors found him and waylaid his stately progress.

Meanwhile the British were still refusing generous peace offers.

The battle off the coast of Britanny continued to be a battle site for many months. A succession of fleets were sent to aid Armstrong and as they got beat up in combat they were withdrawn to one of the captured British ports in Portugal or Gambia. Both sides were losing ships, but the United States was losing commerce raiders, while the British lost ironclads.

In May an initial force of 15,000 American soldiers arrived off the coast of Ireland, drawn by suggestions that there were not masses of British troops present. Intent on finding a secure landing spot in the British Isles, their own reconnaissance determined that Ireland was NOT such a place.



The constant ferrying of troops across the Atlantic had worn the transport ships down, and many were in need of maintenance and repair. It was decided that most Transatlantic journeys would be via the Northern Passage, crossing by Newfoundland, Greenland, Iceland and the Dutch Faeroes so that land would always be nearby in case of emergency.

More naval battles were scattered across the Middle and South Atlantic. Brazilian and Venezuelan ships were even aiding in the wearing down or destruction of Royal Navy ships, including a number of transports which were rumored to have been carrying troops bound for the Americas.

A newly arrived US Navy fleet of ironclads engaged with a spotted fleet of Royal Navy ironclads in order to keep them busy while the troopships skirted around the danger zone.

In mid-June the first American troops came ashore at Stirling, terrifying Scottish mayors and citizens by their sudden appearance. A week later it was the Americans’ turn to be terrified, as Redcoats, four times their strength, attempted to cross from Ireland.



It then became a race to reinforce or withdraw the troops who had already been landed. The choice was bolstered by the fact that other convoys of steam transports were already en route to the location from New York and Savannah. They would reinforce and, somehow, would hope to hold.

Now, back to our strategy discussion. I was really hoping there wouldn’t be ANY British troops in the British Isles. I knew that was silly to hope for, but I’ve seen the Paradox AI do such things previously, and I gambled. I had meant to have a fleet free to sit between Ireland and Scotland to prevent an amphibious crossing. I’d had to send that fleet north to the North Channel to keep those British ironclads busy. So those troops I’d seen hanging out in Ireland, some of them, had crossed over.

So this became a test of attrition and the range of fire for regiments on the combat board (we’ve discussed this before, but here we go again for any who missed it). So I had one cavalry regiment that had advanced to Glasgow. This was intentional – I’d actually intended to seize Dumfries eventually, which is a one-province bottleneck between Scotland and England proper. If I’d had time to reinforce beforehand I’d have gone for that. But as it was I’d had to stuff someone into Glasgow as a stopgap for these incoming Brits from Ireland.

Glasgow is a good battleground because of its topography – I had dug in for +3 (represented as -3 to the Brits), they had a -1 for amphibious invasion and a -1 for the Glasgow hills. That’s -5 added to the -2 for not having a leader (I didn’t have one either, so this canceled out). So they could have rolled a 9 and I a 5 and I’d still have a better modified combat roll than they did.

The next thing to note is that this single cavalry regiment fires against the infantry opposite it on the board. The Brits have 60,000 troops, but because of the combat range on the board in this game (I don’t think there were any changes to this after the game came out) the British are actually only attacking me with the one infantry across from me, the infantry next to it and the cavalry next to it – 9,000 troops from 3 regiments. They’re the only ones that can reach me. The cavalry on the far right wing (the British left, but you know what I mean) cannot fire because it can’t reach me even though cavalry has one more square range than infantry. The Brits also have their artillery, which I’m sure helps a lot.

But my goal here is to delay them long enough to get reinforcements, so we’ll sacrifice this unit and then reinforce it before it’s defeated if we can.



Despite the magnificent job the Boise Cavalry were doing, keeping the far superior British army bottled up at Glasgow, it was clear it couldn’t last. It was even apparent that the initial invasion of Scotland wouldn’t likely survive very long against those odds. It was decided to mount another invasion at Bristol, to attempt to occupy more territory before the northern troops could move south.

This whole invasion was by hook or by crook. It was a near thing, and might even be folly. But once committed, it was decided to support the decision and move forward.

Tragically, on July 4, 1877, the last defenders at Glasgow surrendered, and 58,000 Redcoats marched north against 7,000 Americans at Stirling.



Fortunately, for the United States, by this time 35,000 US troops had been freshly landed at Bristol and Cardiff, in Wales, and at Southampton, in southern England.

Furthermore, the initial die roll of the British in Stirling was abysmal! They rolled a 2, modified by -6, while the US rolled an 8, modified only by the -2 for no leader. British casualties were 3 times the American. The week after, these odds and rolls did not improve. But over time, inevitably, the Americans faltered, and by the end of July were defeated.

By this time naval battles had developed between Land’s End and Brittany, at the entrance to the English Channel, and in the Hebrides in the North Channel of Scotland, and clashes were also occurring in Donegal Bay off the coast of Ireland. Two more battles were ongoing in the stretch between Brazil and Africa. By the end of July Adm. Armstrong was punishing a fleet of British ironclads at the mouth of the Thames.

The US Navy, at this time, had been using commerce raiders and ironclads in battle, but using men-of-war as lookouts and tripwires along routes of travel to ensure that the US coastline and acquisitions would not be snuck up upon. Once American troops were in the British Isles, many of these men-of-war were shifted to blockade duty around the coastlines of Great Britain.



After the loss of 9,000 troops to the British in Scotland, the 2,000 who remained dug in around Edinburgh feared that the 57,000 Redcoats would come for them next. Amazingly, they watched as the British moved inexorably south, not stopping to destroy them. The British realized that the real battle for control of the Isles was in the south.

It became a game of catch me if you can. The next set of troop transports landed more forces in Scotland, and they spread out in anticipation of needing to secure territory over the long term without a likelihood of the British Army returning to the north.

The British columns arrived near Oxford at the beginning of September and began skirmishing with elements of Gen. Edward Ford’s command (about 9,000 soldiers). Ford’s troops had not had time to fully dig in, so the clash could have been unfortunate. But die rolls and conditions combined to make it a fairly bloody fight for the Redcoats at the onset.



Note the 69,000 British troops in Ireland who can’t contribute because of my men-at-war blockading. Also note that I had a hell of a lot of transport fleets en route, enabling me to put a lot of troops on target at a time. South Africa, by this time, was winding down, as a theatre, so I shifted my attention to Europe, and even sent some unnecessary troops from west and south Africa to England instead, carefully skirting around some marauding British fleets that I would engage with my fleets of ironclads and commerce raiders to keep them busy.

While Gen. Ford battled at Oxford – again, an ultimately doomed battle, by itself, against so many of the enemy I had 12,000 troops positioned at Bristol, ready to dash in to relieve Ford and keep the battle going so my other troops had time to secure the provinces they were sieging. We fed troops into Oxford as necessary to keep the fires stoked, so to speak.



On September 8 the battle at Oxford was ultimately lost. We’d run out of troops in the south to feed into the battle. All our armies retreated to Bristol, and the British followed. We had lost 3600 troops, the British lost 2300. Not terrible, considering the mismatched size of forces.

The goal had to be to reduce the organization of this British army and cause it casualties until it could no longer menace our invasion force. We’d lost our advantages at Oxford, slim as they were in the first place. By moving the battle to Bristol we had some terrain advantages, staged artillery, and a fresh commander who could take over from Ford. Gen. William Cook picked up the battle in the middle of September and began causing 2,000 casualties to the British per week.

Even as more troops arrived from the United States, we continued to feed fresh troops into the battle and the British continued to wear down. Bad die rolls in the last week of the month (modified rolls of -3 vs. 9) caused British casualties to skyrocket to 10:1. American troops began to filter into position around Bristol to prevent a British retreat and force a surrender. But, even as Scottish provinces in the north surrendered and were secured by American troops up there, there were not enough troops to fully surround the British in the south.

By the middle of November, 1877, the British had lost 15,000 casualties and the Americans were not beaten. Only 38,000 remaining Redcoats retreated to Shrewsbury, to the northwest, where they found Gen. Russell Jackson waiting with fresh troops. The tough contest continued, as did the inflow of more and more American soldiers from Africa and America. It was these reinforcements who rushed to continue the fight, and also finally succeeded in surrounding the British who were pinned at Shrewsbury.



On November 30, 1877, the unnamed general who had led the sole defending doomstack in the British Isles finally admitted defeat. Fully 11,500 of his soldiers had fallen at Shrewsbury, and another 16,500 had fallen in previous battles in Scotland or, mostly, at Oxford. Another 32,000 remaining beleaguered and exhausted soldiers laid down their arms at Shrewsbury.

With another 69,000 British soldiers trapped in Ireland and unable to cross due to the American blockade of sailing vessels, there was nothing and no one with which to further defend England. The UK had continued, even until late into 1877, to refuse American entreaties of peace, which were very generous, because they insisted the British Empire remained strong and unbowed.

Unfortunately for them, their Royal Navy was mostly locked in battle or blockaded in port, and their many remaining soldiers were in India or Australia or other places around the world without means of arriving to the defence of London.



On December 14, 1877, the British Empire signed a peace treaty with the United States, giving up British Guyana in South America, the British Lesser Antilles in the Caribbean Ocean, Sierra Leone in west Africa (a coaling port which could prove useful to United States’ military or commercial efforts, either), and Northern New Guinea, just north of Australia.

It was clear the United States had ambitions for a global port network for her oceangoing ships, be they private, or perhaps military. It was also to allow her to better project against any future enemies.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
It's impressive how tough and strong the UK is even with a player outright controlling the US, the other super powered faction (ignoring China).

If they focused on conquering Europe rather than the US, they'd have won by now
 
  • 2Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
A bit of history, just to remember… The United States Revolutionary War against Great Britain lasted from 1775 to 1783. The “War of 1812” (which was arguably a distant annex to the Napoleonic Wars, related to British interference in trade with France and British impressment of sailors to fight the French) lasted from 1812 to 1815.

Within the scope of this AAR the third war with Britain – a British attempt to regain New England – lasted from 1842 to 1847. The fourth war with Britain – a British intervention in the First Mexican American War – lasted from 1854 to 1858. During the period of peace with Britain the US had fought their Second and Third Mexican Wars.

This fifth war between the United States and United Kingdom had begun in January of 1876
So twenty-one years of war out of one-hundred-and-one years of American independence. The anti-British sentiment has got to be unshakable in the US. And it probably won't fade.
I knew that was silly to hope for, but I’ve seen the Paradox AI do such things previously, and I gambled.
EU4 is the same way. Whenever the AI gets a colonial empire, the majority of its troops never seem to be at home.
Despite the magnificent job the Boise Cavalry were doing, keeping the far superior British army bottled up at Glasgow, it was clear it couldn’t last.
According to US census data, Idaho's 1870 population was a mere 14,999. These cavalrymen make up a sizeable portion of the territory's population. I'm sure if any of them survived being captured that after the war they would have quite the story to tell.
Ford’s troops had not had time to fully dig in, so the clash could have been unfortunate.
How long does it take for a unit to dig in fully?
The UK had continued, even until late into 1877, to refuse American entreaties of peace, which were very generous, because they insisted the British Empire remained strong and unbowed.
This AI is not so much a Perfidious Albion as it is a stubborn one.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Good to see this AAR's latest....

It's impressive how tough and strong the UK is even with a player outright controlling the US, the other super powered faction (ignoring China).

If they focused on conquering Europe rather than the US, they'd have won by now
As you noted in some of your answers, the AI seems fairly stubborn. Why is the AI directing Great Britain toward its obsession with the U.S. when as @TheButterflyComposer notes the British could have knocked out other European powers by now?

Looking forward to seeing where this goes now. Does winning this war set up the US like the Spanish-American War did at the end of the 19th Century?
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
The US has humiliated Britain. Maybe actually landing soldiers on the island of Britain itself will make the British think twice about declaring war on their former colonies?
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions: