AGEOD Forums

Fern

Why not a compromise solution... Leave the "full" interdiction rule at 4 ships, remove the "Offensive" posture altogether. Any number of ships less than 4 provides a reduced chance of interdiction... For example... 4 ships = Full interdiction 3 ships = 75% chance of interdiction 2 ships = 50% chanc...

Fern

Fern: please, can you find if confederate generals were UNACTIVATED during these turns? If they werent, this problem is totally discarded in this battle. Union corps: Grant (6-6-4) Army: Activated Thomas (5-5-8) Corps: Activated Pope (4-5-5) Corps: Activated Berry (5-4-3) Corps: Activated Confedera...

Fern

mikee64 wrote:
Too bloody?

Union:
80.000 KIA. WIA or MIA out of 130.000 (61%)

Confederates:
42.000 KIA/WIA/MIA out of 67.000 men (62%)

Yes, I think it is way TOO blody

Fern

After taking Fort Henry I would consider in game terms that Fort Donelson defenders (and survivors of the first battle outside the fort region) were entrenched inside the fort. It means that if the deffender was attacked by Grant it was forced to win the combat or face total annihilation for lack of...

Fern

If they fled, probably the first thing they did was to throw away their equipment. It reminds me an scene of Troy, the movie, when the Greeks fled before the advancing Toyans, but the poor guys carried with them their shields, while for sure that would be the first thing a soldier would throw away ...

Fern

GShock wrote:Another factor we weren't briefed on, is the national morale which might also have played a key role in the CSA will to fight after such big losses in the first battle.

Union National Morale before the battle: 96
Confederate National Morale before the battle: 101

Fern

Be sure I will do it next time.

Thanks!

Fern

If I had known it, I would have saved it, Arsan.

leure:

No log. There is a small one created when I started the game with no info about the battle

Fern

First of all, the generals named in the attached pics and the names you gave have differences, and i can't exactly figure who commanded who and how many by just looking at the battle screens, so i can only make guesses. If your brother gives exact information about the current status of the forces ...

Fern

Another explanations: The lone CSA division did not support at all the army/corps (and/or was not supported) Not fully commanded There was just one unit not fully commandered at start. My brother doesn't leave units not fully commandered if he's not forced to do so, specially if they are corps. It ...

Fern

Pocus' explanation doesn't make a wrinkle. It's perfect and working as intended. It was the player's "mistake" in my opinion. He should have selected blue-blue. By selecting Blue-Orange, he gave more value to holding that trench. We should try to make the game better than it already its. I love it ...

Fern

When we see what appear to be inflated "loss" numbers, it's helpful to remember that these are not all KIA. Many of the men reported lost are actually just too wounded to fight again soon. Some will be invalided home, and some of them can be considered to make up the replacements that come back int...

Fern

If you look at this in a historical perspective I can think of two great examples of conflicts to this grand a scale with these kinds of relative casualty amounts... One is Stone's River...the Confederate Army of Tennessee was sliced and diced in this battle, it's strength reduced to nearly 20,000 ...

Fern

The last battle, the one where Johnston should have retreated as soon as possible, given the disparity of forces, indicate a retreat attempt from the South. So I believe here that the attempt was made but failed. The last battle was a small one. Most losses were caused during the first two battles....

Fern

To bk6583: Please tell me a big ACW battle (ours was 99.000 men against 77.000 men) were the winning side lost more than 50% of the men (from 99.000 down to 48.000) while the losing side was was almost anihilated, losing about 80% of his force (from 77.000 men down to 16.000 men). A.S. Johnston had ...

Fern

My brother is angry because he lost almost a full army during our grand campaign game. I would ask if those great losses are ok. The forces: CSA Army of Mississippi (4-2-1) Level 7 Entrenchment, defensive attitude (blue option), sustained defense (orange option) Army reserve under AS Johnston (Harde...

Fern

My Brother could cross the Tennessee into Chatanooga despite my gunboats blocking the river crossing. However he had plotted the movement of his unit under 1.10, while river ships did not block crossing, then 1.10a patch was applied, but the previous movement order had not been cancelled. If he had ...

Fern

Hi Fern, the display of Men, Guns and Horses was introduced quite some time after release with a patch. So it might be, that there are still some flaws in the unit DB concerning this. So if you find a unit there the number of Men/Guns/Horses is obviously wrong please report and we can correct this....

Fern

It seems Mexican batteries have men assigned to them, but they have no horses or guns. Is it correct?

Fern

No it isnt your english Im disagreeing with, its your reasoning which seems to me at times to be non-sequitur;or maybe I am not making myself clear? 1. If they are willing (rebs) to charge up a hill while being shelled by gunboats. One would certainly expect them to charge across a river while bein...

Fern

No Offense, this example is almost ludicrous....comparing gas warfare to river crossings?...youve tried to make the comparison, it doesnt fly IMO Both things (river crossing in face of enemy naval opposition and starting gas warfare during WWII) could be done, but no one was ever done. People who c...

Fern

A 130-pounder was a special heavy version of the 10" Dahlgren designed to fire shot (aka Super 10). It was generally mounted as a pivot gun. I have read that the 130 pdr mounted on the wooden ram CSS Webb was the rifled version of the 64 pounder smoothbore (8 1/2"). They were called James guns and ...

Fern

Then your problem is with the movement rate across rivers. That shouldn't affect gunboats. It's a fine balance between conflicting needs and game compromises. Everything (movement rate across rivers, use of gunboats etc.) is related. Note the word 'Perhaps'. Perhaps Confederate gunboats backed off ...

Fern

Disclaimer: I'm solidly of Fern's point of view. Random $.02s worth: 1. Mobile land arty had zero experience at shooting moving targets; fortress arty was ranged into known kill zones that opposing boats were forced to cross. 2. To move any sizeable force would require large numbers of transports o...

Fern

From my reading completely unopposed forces in the CW did cross rivers pretty much at will. Certainly within a 15 day stretch, even if the river was in flood during part or all of that time. This is supported by facts. However river crossings doesn't take 15 days in the game, but a few ones. Even l...

Fern

But that is not how the game simulates it if gunboats physically prevent crossing large stretches of river for substantial periods of time. At present the game allows players to cross any river sector anywhere and anytime provided no enemy riverine forces are present. Even if there are enemy forces...

Fern

In all the historical CW instances I can think of where land forces attacked gunboats, the gunboats were the objective, not crossing the river. AFAIK, It was always Confederates. The Union never had to bother. It means that no crossing in face of enemy gunboats is recorded for a sizeable force, doe...

Fern

Then I should be the one apologizing. You should not. My sentence sounded really harsh, but, please, be sure it was not my intention to offend you. I invite debate on this issue. I don't know everything. No one knows everything, but I am sure we are able to get mucho more info from you, Americans, ...

Fern

Exactly well said....the problem was practicality where an army crossed, why would you bother to build pontoon bridges, unlimber artillary, and shell gunboats when you could march a few miles either way and cross at a much shallower point.... It would be right if there was a ford every few miles. W...

Fern

Did I imply that? I can can make snide comments too, if I choose to. Sorry Jabberwock. I am a Spaniard, so I don't command English. I did not want to sound harsh. I wanted to say just what I said. You, Americans, as a whole, know the history of your Civil War better than us, foreigners. I think it ...

Search found 41 matches

Bloody Battle, is it correct?

Mexican Artillery