GCACW Tactics: Tricks of the Trade
2. The Power of the Force March
Force march my larger units before attacking, especially to bring about flank attacks with potential combat/retreat losses and to lower the attacking unit’s potential losses. Force marching reduces a unit’s combat value and disorganizes it, but that can be an advantage. Reducing the size of units puts them on a smaller column of the combat results chart, so the lost “ratio” modifier may be worth it for gaining a prepared attack and a lower likelihood of losses being inflicted on my own attacking units. And although force marching makes the unit disorganized, the unit may just be disorganized after the combat anyway. Because force marching typically forces the unit to take a manpower loss, this technique is especially applicable for the shorter scenarios, when there is no worry about how much manpower will be left for the unit several turns later.
In the South Mountain scenario (HCR), in the very first initiative for the USA (it gets the 1st initiative automatically), I was able to get a huge bundle of movement points for Cox (marching with Reno), both by rolling a ‘6’ for movement in the normal march, and then another ‘6’ in the force march (I never said I wasn’t lucky). I then attacked Colquitt from just the side I wanted to in order to cause a retreat loss. And in the force march, rolling the ‘6’ caused a 2 manpower loss for Cox, which brought him down to a disorganized 4 manpower, with 3 combat value. Having 3 combat value brought him down to a lower column on the combat results chart (making it almost impossible for him to lose any manpower in the attack), so I viewed that as a benefit.
3. Combat Losses are better than Objectives
Choose inflicting combat/retreat losses instead of achieving objective hexes unless the gain of VPs for the objective hexes is quite high relative to possible combat losses I can inflict. Yes, I am still talking about combat/retreat losses. For example, in the McDowell scenario (SIV), Jackson has the choice of marching for several days clear across the map to reach some objective hexes, or attacking the USA’s Banks’ corps, which starts in the same general vicinity as Jackson. As the Rebs, I chose to attack Banks rather than undertake a several days’ march for uncertain objective hexes. VPs gained from combat losses cannot be taken away, while it is easy to lose an objective hex, and it often takes concerted effort, deploying several units, to avoid losing an objective hex. As the USA in most scenarios, I find it hard to control any specific one hex, given the typical CSA ability to concentrate its forces, and their leaders’ high tactical values, and the dreaded Lee (or Longstreet) assault bonus. If a CSA leader initiates an assault, it may get an automatic +3 modifier in the attack (+1 for the assault, +1 at least because they have the higher tactical values, and +1 if the Lee/Longstreet modifier is in effect.) That is pretty powerful stuff for the USA to overcome in keeping any one hex. For example, in the Bloody Spotsylvania scenario (GTC), the VP gain for the USA controlling Spotsylvania Court House is tremendous, perhaps a game winner, but a very tough chore for the USA to pull off. That’s exactly what my opponent in that scenario made me, as the USA, try to achieve (unsuccessfully for me), rather than what I wanted to do, which, as you may guess, was to win on combat/retreat losses (see number 1 on previous page).
One comment about the strategy of choosing combat/result losses over going after objective hexes: I often have to at least make progress towards the objective hexes, and thus draw my opponent into battle. Otherwise, my opponent, who knows what I am doing, can use various defensive methods to blunt my attacks, such as flanks refused markers, moving units next to each other to protect each others’ flanks (I hate attacking bunched up units), or the old standby, just running away. The difficult judgment for me as the aggressor is identifying the right balance between going after the objective hexes vs. trying to inflict combat/retreat losses.