Washington is impossible?

[Spoon!]

https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/843718939631170191/C8E02F3F0DE39F1AE20DFCEE6C56788DD13B1AEB/

I'm sorry, what? 171376 troops, all three star brigades with 754 three star guns? This would be a challenge with a full army, but the stage before this was all about breaking 90k union troops from super entrenched positions. There is no amount of tactics or strategy that I can employ here to hold off this zergswarm.
I feel like I'm just being trolled here by the devs.

I mean, honestly. I've made it a point to wipe out each enemy army from the field whenever possible. In each minor and grand battle that allowed for it, time wise, I inflicted as many casualties as possible. But after each battle, the ai just poops out an equal amount of new elite troops for the numbers that it had lost.
And now... this.

Frankly it feels a bit insulting. If the intent is to make a wargame, maybe not have the enemy spawn a 'final boss' army out of thin air?

[diegrndrst73041]

I did it. Of course it was on Colonel level.

[Dallara]

19,655 Soldiers on 11th April 1865 in the Battle of Washington ? You did something wrong in your campaign.

[Caramirdan]

Originally posted by DMRH:

19,655 Soldiers on 11th April 1865 in the Battle of Washington ? You did something wrong in your campaign.

QFT

[Spoon!]

Are you guys forgetting that before this particular stage of washington, you're tasked with dislodging some 90k soldiers from heavily fortitied positions, spread out over quite a lot of space, while you dont have unlimited time to do it? While there is no indication before hand that you then have to fight a wooping 171k 3* soldiers afterward, instead of the campaign being over.
I guess you guys are you just deliberately being daft?

You have no idea how many soldiers I went into the washington battle with, you dont know what difficulty I am playing on, you dont know what kind of tactics or strategies, I played the campaign with. You just make a dumb assumptions and feel smug about it.
When you assume, you make an a$s out of u and me.
But right now, mostly just u.

Useless posts.

[maniacalpenny]

Originally posted by Spoon:

Are you guys forgetting that before this particular stage of washington, you're tasked with dislodging some 90k soldiers from heavily fortitied positions, spread out over quite a lot of space, while you dont have unlimited time to do it? While there is no indication before hand that you then have to fight a wooping 171k 3* soldiers afterward, instead of the campaign being over.
I guess you guys are you just deliberately being daft?

You have no idea how many soldiers I went into the washington battle with, you dont know what difficulty I am playing on, you dont know what kind of tactics or strategies, I played the campaign with. You just make a dumb assumptions and feel smug about it.
When you assume, you make an a$s out of u and me.
But right now, mostly just u.

Useless posts.

What difficulty were you playing on, what was the stated intelligence army size of the enemy army, and how many troops did you bring in to the battle of Washington?

[UtahSteel]

Just about to start Battle of Washington as Confederates on normal difficulty level...have a starting army of 85,000 But reading what is ahead sounds like mission impossible .. I did know that trying to reduce the enemy force in future battles by racking up kills does not work and only victory in the shortest time with fewer losses is important.

[Spoon!]

Originally posted by maniacalpenny:

What difficulty were you playing on, what was the stated intelligence army size of the enemy army, and how many troops did you bring in to the battle of Washington?

Diffculty: major general
Supposed enemy army size according to the utterly nonsense campagin map report:

https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/843718939632334729/6C522B243A19766C32D40A4BA449CFFA8AEBEB4B/

Army size I started with: https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/843718939632335203/A9DDF3AD772C79CE9775E3E14CA7F01E14870C60/

Originally posted by bamajab:

I did know that trying to reduce the enemy force in future battles by racking up kills does not work and only victory in the shortest time with fewer losses is important.

Does not work at all, indeed. The supposed intelligence always reported an army size between 50 to 60k throughout the campaign, but the enemy always, consistently, fielded far far more troops than that, each battle. It's a purely placebo feature they added.
When I let myself be defeated in washington to get the end screen, it says the union has lost over 600k troops, plus several thousands of cavalry and arty.
Yet I am to believe that they can field some 270k men in defense of washington with most of them being 3star elites.
Sounds legit.

[Caramirdan]

There are a few threads with great advice on taking down this final battle.

How did you handle this fight on Col and BG?

[mhenry_101381]

Originally posted by Spoon:

Originally posted by maniacalpenny:

What difficulty were you playing on, what was the stated intelligence army size of the enemy army, and how many troops did you bring in to the battle of Washington?

Diffculty: major general
Supposed enemy army size according to the utterly nonsense campagin map report:

https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/843718939632334729/6C522B243A19766C32D40A4BA449CFFA8AEBEB4B/

Army size I started with: https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/843718939632335203/A9DDF3AD772C79CE9775E3E14CA7F01E14870C60/

Originally posted by bamajab:

I did know that trying to reduce the enemy force in future battles by racking up kills does not work and only victory in the shortest time with fewer losses is important.

Does not work at all, indeed. The supposed intelligence always reported an army size between 50 to 60k throughout the campaign, but the enemy always, consistently, fielded far far more troops than that, each battle. It's a purely placebo feature they added.
When I let myself be defeated in washington to get the end screen, it says the union has lost over 600k troops, plus several thousands of cavalry and arty.
Yet I am to believe that they can field some 270k men in defense of washington with most of them being 3star elites.
Sounds legit.

The game CLEARLY mentions that Grant and the Army of the Potomac is closing from behind and you need to capture Washington. Historically, the Army of the Potomac was 2 halves, one half guarded Washington and the other half was the one in the field. I beat Washington on Colonel difficulty with the only issue being Union calvary taking Washington's VP and having to race any spare troops to take it back. To take the forts, surround them and fire away. When someone shifts inside the fort, charge toute de suite with bayonet with everyone. Bring supporting troops to follow the intial breach and flank the other defenders. Historically, the Washington garrison was used to support Grant during the battles of The Wilderness, Spotsylvania Court House and Cold Harbor becasue he lost half his men due to battle. The garrison was also made up of battle hardened veterans who were unable to be used in the field. So yes, it is feasible to have 1 and 2 star units in the garrison. However, you are playing on MG difficulty, this isn't supposed to be easy. This is supposed to serve you, your ass on a platter. The only choice you have is how you want it prepared.

[Aluminum Elite Master]

A few things:

#1 - There's even a difficulty beyond MG, by toggling that box on the set-up screen for 'Legendary Mode' or whatever. Is that what this is on?

#2 - Cold Harbour is more about holding out than attacking, as CSA. Just sit back and obliterate the enemy... even on BG, I wouldn't suggest trying to advance unless you spot a very, very weak point of their line. The men lost attacking an entrenchment can be severe if you have no easy way to flank it, after all. There's little need to advance for the most part, and it will typically leave you with too few units to stand behind the trenches and fire into any charging Union units that do make contact with the front line.

#3 - Washington *is* overkill. After all, it's a totally hypothetical scenario, with no historical basis to it. This makes it the best candidate to turn into a massive set-piece that serves as the hardest challenge in the game. Which makes sense, given how this is more of an arcade approach than UG:G was (as in, three units of a division can route past the others, and those that they route past don't even bat an eye at the fact that half the division is being driven from the field, morale-wise). I look at Washington as being just the biggest possible challenge of the game... but I think it was over-done, a bit, because the forts at Washington are so much harder to properly flank without using a cannon-fodder unit to draw fire here and there while better units do the killing for you. On the other hand, during Richmond, there are a couple forts you can flank easily from behind with almost no casualties.

#4 - The number of artillery pieces in the game is entirely absurd. The CPU, even at lower levels, just spawns artillery out of thin air... I sometimes fill my armory with 100+ captured 6 Pdr's alone by Gettysburg... plus another 100+ of 12 Pdr Napoleon's. At the rate I destroy enemy artillery (usually with telescopic sights and no casualties), the enemy should be only fielding a single full 24-gun battery in any battle after Fredricksburg. I totally agree that Washington supremely over-does the artillery, but that isn't unique to Washington, as the whole campaign needs a major tweak to the artillery. But yes, Washington is comical in how many artillerymen will die on the Union side... often to the point that their casualties outpace their infantry's.

[mhenry_101381]

Originally posted by Aluminum Elite Master:

A few things:

#1 - There's even a difficulty beyond MG, by toggling that box on the set-up screen for 'Legendary Mode' or whatever. Is that what this is on?

#2 - Cold Harbour is more about holding out than attacking, as CSA. Just sit back and obliterate the enemy... even on BG, I wouldn't suggest trying to advance unless you spot a very, very weak point of their line. The men lost attacking an entrenchment can be severe if you have no easy way to flank it, after all. There's little need to advance for the most part, and it will typically leave you with too few units to stand behind the trenches and fire into any charging Union units that do make contact with the front line.

#3 - Washington *is* overkill. After all, it's a totally hypothetical scenario, with no historical basis to it. This makes it the best candidate to turn into a massive set-piece that serves as the hardest challenge in the game. Which makes sense, given how this is more of an arcade approach than UG:G was (as in, three units of a division can route past the others, and those that they route past don't even bat an eye at the fact that half the division is being driven from the field, morale-wise). I look at Washington as being just the biggest possible challenge of the game... but I think it was over-done, a bit, because the forts at Washington are so much harder to properly flank without using a cannon-fodder unit to draw fire here and there while better units do the killing for you. On the other hand, during Richmond, there are a couple forts you can flank easily from behind with almost no casualties.

#4 - The number of artillery pieces in the game is entirely absurd. The CPU, even at lower levels, just spawns artillery out of thin air... I sometimes fill my armory with 100+ captured 6 Pdr's alone by Gettysburg... plus another 100+ of 12 Pdr Napoleon's. At the rate I destroy enemy artillery (usually with telescopic sights and no casualties), the enemy should be only fielding a single full 24-gun battery in any battle after Fredricksburg. I totally agree that Washington supremely over-does the artillery, but that isn't unique to Washington, as the whole campaign needs a major tweak to the artillery. But yes, Washington is comical in how many artillerymen will die on the Union side... often to the point that their casualties outpace their infantry's.

As for #3, Jubal Early led an attack on Washington in July 1864, but as for taking the city, it wasn't worth the cost. The Battle of Fort Stevens and exhaustion from the July heat slowed Early's II Corps enough to allow the City's defenders along with arriving VI Corps veterans to man their posts and provide too much of a challenge to overcome. If it didn't happen, Early would have overrun the city's "feebly manned" posts and taken the city. How long could he hold it? Who knows?

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-washington-dc-came-close-to-being-conquered-by-the-confederacy-180951994/

[glen525]

i did it on the middle level, i lost over 40k troops, the union lost almost 90k. the pucker factor was very high. most of my units had 1,500 troops in them at the beginning, by the end, many were down to 300 or 400 men.

[mhenry_101381]

Originally posted by glen525:

i did it on the middle level, i lost over 40k troops, the union lost almost 90k. the pucker factor was very high. most of my units had 1,500 troops in them at the beginning, by the end, many were down to 300 or 400 men.

On Colonel difficulty, I walked in with 120,000 with 4 corps, each about 30,000 +- a few thousand. Myself (1st Corps), "Stonewall" Jackson (2nd Corps), Longstreet (3rd Corps), R. E. Lee (4th Corps). I ended with 90,000. No idea how badly beaten the North was. They piled up around certain forts and I just kept feeding more troops to their defense. A lot like Mule Shoe, historical. They fed troops by the division and bogged down their own attack. I fed by the brigade and kept them at bay. Working on BG difficulty now. I remember the times when Richmond and Washington D.C. came out and we were wating on recon from the brave few to attempt it first. I was on the Wilderness Campaign on USA and CSA campaigns at the time.

A well used tactic I used was gather my calvary, then wreck moving artillery and any supply wagons. I also distracted infantry then flank attacked with a division, causing a morale drop for the enemy.

[maniacalpenny]

Originally posted by Spoon:

Originally posted by maniacalpenny:

What difficulty were you playing on, what was the stated intelligence army size of the enemy army, and how many troops did you bring in to the battle of Washington?

Diffculty: major general
Supposed enemy army size according to the utterly nonsense campagin map report:

https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/843718939632334729/6C522B243A19766C32D40A4BA449CFFA8AEBEB4B/

Army size I started with: https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/843718939632335203/A9DDF3AD772C79CE9775E3E14CA7F01E14870C60/

Originally posted by bamajab:

I did know that trying to reduce the enemy force in future battles by racking up kills does not work and only victory in the shortest time with fewer losses is important.

Does not work at all, indeed. The supposed intelligence always reported an army size between 50 to 60k throughout the campaign, but the enemy always, consistently, fielded far far more troops than that, each battle. It's a purely placebo feature they added.
When I let myself be defeated in washington to get the end screen, it says the union has lost over 600k troops, plus several thousands of cavalry and arty.
Yet I am to believe that they can field some 270k men in defense of washington with most of them being 3star elites.
Sounds legit.

The army size from intelligence does matter, actually. It sets the maximum number of troops the AI can deploy in a given battle to either the army size number, or the minimum force deployment for the battle. On MG in the final campaign, this is something like 60k for Halls' Ferry, 70k for Hardin's Pike, and 100k + 170k for Washington.

Honestly, I generally agree with how army intelligence size works in the game with the exception of Washington, which has a somewhat ludicrous minimum force deployment. Generally what this means as the Confederacy is that at some point, probably at the start of the Overland campaign, you should shift your strategy from an aggressive strategy to a more conservative one, and allow the Union army size to increase while conserving your own force as much as possible. All in all, 57k is too few men to have brought to Washington. You can try restarting from Cold Harbor or the start of the Overland campaign and play more conservatively. Aside from not going for full enemy army wipes, you can do things like win on day 1 or 2 of Cold Harbor (thus negating the massive attacks on Day 3), and skipping Saunders Field (If you can't get a good result. In theory if a lot of your losses are on cheaper units it should be worth it due to the 20% return from medicine, and an overall increase in veterancy).

[Kyo Gnome]

i agree with maniacalpenny

early game if you don't play aggressively you can face 140,000 enemies at Antietem on legendary difficulty.

I got this down to 70,000 (at Antietam) by playing aggressively and kept the army intelligence down to ~50k yet still faced that 110k on day 1 and 220k on the 2nd day at washington. I had to scrape the campaign because I only had 95k myself and lost ~30,000 day 1.
so far I have only been able to win against 3:1 odds.

halfway through the campaign you have to change your play style and build your army at minimum 120k for legendary. I would be more comfortable with 140k against what I faced.

I am also scared of facing 500k at Washington if I play conservatively though.

This was also very surprising because on my legendary union campaign I only faced 100k at Richmond which was a cake walk against my 110k