How I (and You) Play the Game

[GraniteStater]

Couldn't think of another title. This is meant to be more of a 'philosophy' thread, wherein we can discuss meta-gaming subjects, how we approach things, etc., and free up some of the other threads from the spillover.

I'm just gonna throw some bullet points out.

* The 'Valvoline' Principle

> Years ago, a curvy & intelligent person was the first one to explain NASCAR racing to me. We watched it together and I enjoyed it, once I understood what was going on. I don't watch it anymore, because the loss of #3 took the heart right out of me. Anyhow, she remarked one day that there could be no motor oil that was demonstrably superior - because, if there were, everyone would use it to the exclusion of all else. This is the 'Valvoline' principle - if a Magic Bullet exists, then everyone would chamber up with Magic Bullets and nothing else. A game that has a Magic Bullet is not a good game, for reasons that should be obvious.

* The 'Basketball' Principle

> Bill James is a Number Cruncher Extraordinaire who, back in the '80s, started changing how baseball players should be looked at & evaluated. In a discussion I was reading, he talked about how baseball is an excellent game because it lends itself to different approaches to building your team, among other things. To illustrate a point, he switched to a basketball analogy: I say basketball is about shooting and athleticism; you say basketball is about rebounding and open lanes. Well, said Mr. James, you put your team together, I'll put mine together and we'll see who wins. Same thing in CW2 - we can discuss all day long how Cav should be used, how to play Cards (or not) & how to recruit. In the end, PbeM will be the judge.

* Remember, It's Just a Game

> For some, sad but true. CW2 shouldn't change your life, make you reschedule your wedding or get you fired because you can't stay off the forum at work. It can be educational about history, a fun model and even a real blast to play. The last thing it should be is a bone of contention amongst posters or something approaching Holy Writ.

* The Game is Ahistorical

It has to be - first, a model is not reality. Second, in this case, we should always remember that Southern industrial capacity in the fall of 1861 was, well, I hate to say it, laughable. What became the 11 states of the Confederacy produced the equivalent of one-third of the output of NY State alone. And you're declaring war, essentially, on not only New York, but a dozen others who can out-produce you on any given Monday? More than a few historians are just stupefied by the fact that it took 48 months to dissuade some of this, well, foolishness, if I may be forgiven.

* The Game is a Good Model

> I wouldn't play it if it weren't. The length of the war was caused, to some extent by considerations off the battlefields and, I think, by outstanding leadership in the early war by the CSA. The game incorporates these well. It also incorporates the fact that the North eventually weeded out the deadwood and finally did what it had to do to quash the rebellion as quickly as possible - this took a lot of changing of mind-sets, in the officers, the men, the general public and in the political class.

* The Basic Fulcrum

> Tres facile - the CSA needs to use the advantages it has to Win Fast & Win Big. Although on the strategic defensive, the CSA needs to be on the offense from the beginning. The Union needs to invade, but has to ramp up to do this & this can take a considerable amount of time. Getting to Sept 62 is the first Big Benchmark for the Union - get there in decent shape and issue the EP (myself, I will never, ever consider anything less than Full Emancipation). Take New Orleans. Keep Richmond on the front burner. Win in the center - once Tennessee is secured, the South has some Major Trubs here, although a look at northern Alabama and environs will show you that slogging down to Montgomery could be slower than you might think.

That's it for now. I have tried to be really 'Big Picture' here, we have many threads on tactics. Feel free to discuss what you will, but I guess I had to say it finally, at least all in one place.

As always, have a nice war.

[minipol]

A fun post to read. "Have a nice war", great way to end the post

[GraniteStater]

thx

[aariediger]

I look at the game as continuous cycle. First the Southern player builds and fortifies an objective, trying to foresee and forestall the impending offensive. Then the Union player looks over the situation and devises some crazy scheme. Once he unleashes his maneuvers and assaults, it is now up to the Southern player to launch a counteroffensive to throw a wrench into things and bring it to a halt. The Union really gets four summers to win this war. The Southern player has to take the operational offensive sometimes to hold onto anything.

As far as taking the strategic offensive as the South, obviously you do against the AI, but in PBEM? Personally, I’ve done it twice, once from a position of strength and one from weakness. My very first game I triggered Intervention, got greedy, and my invasion lasted one turn, losing like 25,000 or so to Meade’s corps guarding Washington. I then nearly lost the game in the next two years, because I couldn’t supply two whole armies in Virginia, but I held on to win on VP at the end.

The other game was probably the worst I’ve ever played, the North launched a big invasion of Savannah, and when my initial attempt to throw them into the sea failed, I just let them run wild cause I didn’t have the strength for three fronts. Grant ended up taking Atlanta from the other side. Later on, I tried to bag the whole lot of them, and moved a small, newly built two corps army under Lee, but I couldn’t punch through. I gave up, and railed Lee north, joined up with Joe Johnston’s men up near Richmond, and outran Mac’s army to Washington, and took it by storm. I did manage to smash Union corps left and right, but had to keep moving to keep feeding my army. I took Baltimore, Philly, and other towns, but Grant was marching overland through the Carolinas, and once he reached Richmond, I knew the game would be up. But, January1864 rolled around, and just so happened to wipe out another corps that very turn, and Union morale dropped below 60. The most fun game I’ve ever played.

[ArmChairGeneral]

One of the things I like best about the game is that it lends itself to a heuristic approach. Dorks like me who like to get into every little number have plenty to play with in this game, but none of it is strictly necessary. Pretend you Jefferson Davis and R.E Lee, act accordingly, and you will be rewarded. Don't hang around the mountains in winter, feed your troops, don't get into fights with larger armies and you will be perfectly competent.

I find in general that just about any reasonable strategy can be achieved if you are successful at maneuver and tactics in the field.

At some point I will be putting on my big-boy pants and facing off against a human being, but I am also quite happy with Athena as an opponent.

[GraniteStater]

That's it, that's the word I'm looking for to describe me - I'm whoreistic.

[Pocus]

Always nice to hear these kinds of posts! Without falling to fanboyism (and we don't want you to do that), positive comments fuel our will greatly!

[GraniteStater]

That is the really nice thing about the application - heck, you could use it to teach a college course on certain aspects of the American Civil War. And you don't have to be an expert on the muzzle velocity of Spencer rifles.

The more you know about the Civil War, the more you can play your hunches. But, it's a good program, too - Athena is a huge reason I've stuck with it. I'm not playing code, I'm playing all you guys in the cubicles, who spent months & months & months cackling about how this'll really surprise the player and came up with Nasty Wrinkle #104.

At the same time, you guys in the cubes are fair. Taking the time to learn how to play it well is rewarding. Those who like to do such things can get a Masters in frontage. Those who don't can compete with & even defeat the Number Crunchers. Nothing is guaranteed and there are no Magic Bullets.

You can play it lackadaisically and have a lot of fun. You can get wicked intense and have a lot of fun.

It truly is one of the best games I've ever encountered. WitP:AE is awesome, but, as a game, I'd give the palm to CW2. The target you set yourselves was in the 'Goldilocks zone', i. e., pretty much just right. Again, WitP:AE is an excellent model, but, unfortunately, does not lend itself well to a certain level of casual gaming - you'd better strap something on to play it halfway decently. And that's against an AI that is nowhere near as crafty as Athena. It's a bit too complex for a lot of very nice people who just want to play a strategy game.

I'm gonna digitize myself & marry Athena. Is that infidelity?

[Pocus]

depends, will you use Hard Activation?

[minipol]

I think that's inevitable
Besides Athena loves marching south

[GraniteStater]

Whadda buncha clowns.

[pgr]

* The Game is Ahistorical
It has to be - first, a model is not reality. Second, in this case, we should always remember that Southern industrial capacity in the fall of 1861 was, well, I hate to say it, laughable. What became the 11 states of the Confederacy produced the equivalent of one-third of the output of NY State alone. And you're declaring war, essentially, on not only New York, but a dozen others who can out-produce you on any given Monday? More than a few historians are just stupefied by the fact that it took 48 months to dissuade some of this, well, foolishness, if I may be forgiven.

Not to get into too profound of a debate, but I wouldn't knock the game as too ahistorical. As you are fond of pointing out, this isn't World War II and I would argue that relative industrialization is less important then one might think. In 61, New York may have had many times more industry than the entire South, but how much of that was "weaponized?" (Textile mills vs cannon foundries). The South may not have had the rolling stock or ironworks of the North, but she still was able to sufficiently produce and acquire the uniforms, muskets, and ammunition to field armies capable of holding off the Union for 48 months. On the same token, it took huge efforts and time to transform that vast industrial potential of the North into real war goods. Given all the trade offs necessary when trying to model the economy, I'd say Civil War 2 does a fare job of modeling the initial war making potential of the two sides, which gets increasingly tilted in the North's favor as time goes on.

Considering this thread is entering the realm of philosophy and and the game's French roots, I'm going to dust off my Sciences Po notes and invoke le général Desportes. (Fans of BFM TV should look for him next time France goes on an African adventure....or Ukrainian one for all we know).

Specifically, all offensives will reach a "point cluminant," or end point, where the combination of fatigue, lack of supply, cohesion loss will force the attacker to stop and regroup. Your boys will just get to the end of their tether. As the union, one has to do the planning for depots and supplies to make sure that your objective in front of you (Corinth, Richmond, Vicksburg etc.) can be reached before you hit the limit point, and then quickly consolidate to keep moving on. As the CSA, the goal is to stretch the federals beyond their limit point, and then counter attack when they have poor supply and cohesion (without getting stretched too far yourself).

In a way this turns things a bit on their head conceptually. The Union, as the attacker, is best served by advancing deliberately and cautiously forward so as not to out run its offensive capability. The rebels, strategically on the defensive, have to be mobile and aggressive in attacking advancing Federal troops that have outrun their support and haven't been able to consolidate.

That's my take on the big picture

[GraniteStater]

Excellent points.

[khbynum]

In a way this turns things a bit on their head conceptually. The Union, as the attacker, is best served by advancing deliberately and cautiously forward so as not to out run its offensive capability. The rebels, strategically on the defensive, have to be mobile and aggressive in attacking advancing Federal troops that have outrun their support and haven't been able to consolidate.

That's my take on the big picture

That, Sir, is as succinct a statement as to how the South could have won the war as I have seen on the forums. Trade space for time and counterpunch, just not to the extent A.S. Johnston was forced to in early 1862. Will it work in the game? As for the current National Morale debate, NM is required to make it a game, as opposed to a simulation. I'll know when I've won.

[veji1]

That, Sir, is as succinct a statement as to how the South could have won the war as I have seen on the forums. Trade space for time and counterpunch, just not to the extent A.S. Johnston was forced to in early 1862. Will it work in the game? As for the current National Morale debate, NM is required to make it a game, as opposed to a simulation. I'll know when I've won.

A.S Johnston had a moment to do that : Fort Henry / Fort Donelson. The fact that he missed the opportunity by having his forces too dispersed instead of keeping his manouvering force close to the center of gravity of the system was his failing... The problem though is that the CSA probably couldn't win the war that way, it would still have died slowly from anaconda. No, it sounds silly and napoleonic, but really the only way for the CSA to win was quick decisive victory in the east.

[khbynum]

Thanks for your reply. That's why I wrote that Johnston had to do it. He mismanaged his forces and got flanked out of position with no maneuver mass to counterattack until he withdrew all the way to northern Mississippi. Once lost, Tennessee was never regained. As for the anaconda, I don't think the blockade or even the loss of the Mississippi would have killed the CSA if they hadn't wasted so many lives on fruitless invasions of Northern territory. A quick early victory in the East could have triggered foreign recognition or even intervention, but how likely was it? Gen. Lee was disappointed with his victory at Fredericksburg because he hadn't destroyed the Union army. I think that battle was exactly the kind of victory the South needed. They just needed a lot more of them. I guess that makes me a Longstreet fan.

[Gray Fox]

Precisely, veji1. The CSA player must create a military force that can enter the kill box and execute exactly that head shot as quickly and violently as is possible. Only one of the game's strategic objectives is actually a strategic objective. Any Union player ignores that at his own peril.

[GraniteStater]

Without turning this into a History thread, I think anyone who wants to analyze if the South could have won their independence must take Shelby Foote's remarks in Burn's documentary into serious consideration. To paraphrase:

"They entered into a war they couldn't win. In the middle of the war, young men at Harvard were sculling on the Charles. The North fought that war with one arm behind its back. If the South had had more victories - and I mean a lot more - then the North would've taken that arm out."

One factory in Rollinsford, NH, made something like half of all the blankets issued to Union forces. That was one factory, a small group of mills, powered by the Salmon Falls on the Piscataqua River.

After the Emancipation Proclamation, there was no way the British Empire, which had abolished slavery in its dominions thirty years before, was going to aid, to any significant degree, a polity fighting to retain chattel slavery. No way. No UK, no France, either.

My personal opinion is that the South should've surrendered in late July of 1863 and spared everyone another 22 months of blood and destruction. After Gettysburg and Vicksburg, there was no realistic chance of making the North quit. I think Lincoln was pessimistic in the summer of 1864, although it took Sherman's capture of Atlanta to make things absolutely clear. Essentially, once the preservation of the Union fused with the destruction of slavery, then it would've taken a fantastical set of circumstances to break Union resolve.

The South had a very narrow window - what were they going to do in 1861, 1862, capture DC? The game allows it, but I think IRL - fat chance.

June 30th, 1862, the Peninsular campaign: there was an opportunity to destroy or capture half of McClellan's army. Jackson didn't come through, went the wrong way, etc. McClellan retreated to the shoreline, Malvern Hill - lived to fight on. Longstreet wrote after the war that that day was their best chance to win the war.

I think Shelby Foote's assessment must be taken very, very seriously.

The possibility makes for a great game, though. Personally, I love to see FI, even when I'm the Union (you have to switch sides, pretty much, in an AI game, for this). FI games are fun.

[khbynum]

You started the thread, "How I (and You) Play the Game". To quote myself, "Will it work in the game?". I'm not trying to turn the thread into a history debate, just telling how I play it. Despite the opinions above, a point was reached in the war, in 1864, where Lincoln briefly despaired of winning and it seemed that war weariness might actually cause the election of a "peace" candidate. Would the South have been in a better position to survive at that point if it had not squandered tens of thousands of soldiers in invasions? My point is that a strategy of active defense was a lot more likely to succeed that an attempt at a grand Napoleonic victory early in the war. Anyhow, to me the game is a sandbox for exploring alternatives. As long as it lets me do that, I don't care about NM or VPs. I probably shouldn't even be in this discussion, since I'm not playing the game, I'm playing with the game.

[pgr]

A.S Johnston had a moment to do that : Fort Henry / Fort Donelson. The fact that he missed the opportunity by having his forces too dispersed instead of keeping his manouvering force close to the center of gravity of the system was his failing... The problem though is that the CSA probably couldn't win the war that way, it would still have died slowly from anaconda. No, it sounds silly and napoleonic, but really the only way for the CSA to win was quick decisive victory in the east.

Well in a recent PbEM I just had the unplesent experience of having ** Grant completely creamed by A.S. Jonston. My forces were caught landing from transports and wiped out. (Two divisions, 15,000 Killed, Wounded, or Captured in one afternoon, although somehow all the leaders came through unhurt). As for real life, A.S. was stuck between Buell and Grant, and he decided that Buell would be the main effort. Had the two forts not fallen in less than a week, it might have been quite different.

I will say that big loss cost me 9 NM, but the national resiliency made up 6 of that in the same turn. Is it possible that the breaking point for NM is too low (at 25 or 30?)

Of course the stretch-em out strategy is a lot harder in Va. The CSA player really has to take some risks to cut off the Blue Monster from his base before he bear hugs you. For me, that means fighting like hell to keep him away from the coast, drawing him down the rail line in central Va, and making for Manassas.

And just to be the devil's advocate a bit Granite, one could argue that the closest the South came to winning was 1864 and the elections. Had Sherman not been stopped, or Grant bled a bit more white, Old Abe might have lost the election that seemed hopeless for him in the summer. I suppose that would be a NM victory in game terms, although I'm not sure how CW2 events the election.

[GraniteStater]

You started the thread, "How I (and You) Play the Game". To quote myself, "Will it work in the game?". I'm not trying to turn the thread into a history debate, just telling how I play it. Despite the opinions above, a point was reached in the war, in 1864, where Lincoln briefly despaired of winning and it seemed that war weariness might actually cause the election of a "peace" candidate. Would the South have been in a better position to survive at that point if it had not squandered tens of thousands of soldiers in invasions? My point is that a strategy of active defense was a lot more likely to succeed that an attempt at a grand Napoleonic victory early in the war. Anyhow, to me the game is a sandbox for exploring alternatives. As long as it lets me do that, I don't care about NM or VPs. I probably shouldn't even be in this discussion, since I'm not playing the game, I'm playing with the game.

I didn't mean to imply you were off-topic.

I did state my views. Essentially, I think any consideration of what-if has to take Foote into account.

Great game, though - like I said, I enjoy FI.

[aariediger]

I think the South's best chance was in 1864, but the crucial time period wasn't November, it was August.

August 29-31, 1864 Democratic National Convention

November 8, 1864 Presidential Election

March 4, 1865 Inauguration Day

If the war had been going significantly worse by August, a true peace candidate like Clement Vallandigham could have been nominated, someone who would end the war upon taking office. Once McClellan was nominated, even if he won, the South loses. McClellan was for a 'limited' war, in cold war terms. Further, he doesn't take office until March 4th, and Grant forces Lee's surrender a month after that. But what would it take for a true peace candidate to get nominated?

The Democratic National Convention takes place just days before Atlanta falls. When they chose McClellan, for all anyone knew, Grant and Sherman were both stuck for good. Nothing had really gone right in 1864, not yet. No Valley Campaign either. All of the things that are supposed to have given Lincoln the ability to win in November, they hadn't happened yet. If the south was going to win, they needed a bunch of Union disasters before the end of August. I talked about this before, but have no idea how to actually do any of it. What I do know is the current election stuff doesn't really match up with how a Democratic victory would happen, or what it would look like afterwards. In my opinion, the date that mattered was August 29-31, not November 8th.

[Ol' Choctaw]

Without turning this into a History thread, I think anyone who wants to analyze if the South could have won their independence must take Shelby Foote's remarks in Burn's documentary into serious consideration. To paraphrase:

"They entered into a war they couldn't win. In the middle of the war, young men at Harvard were sculling on the Charles. The North fought that war with one arm behind its back. If the South had had more victories - and I mean a lot more - then the North would've taken that arm out."

One factory in Rollinsford, NH, made something like half of all the blankets issued to Union forces. That was one factory, a small group of mills, powered by the Salmon Falls on the Piscataqua River.

After the Emancipation Proclamation, there was no way the British Empire, which had abolished slavery in its dominions thirty years before, was going to aid, to any significant degree, a polity fighting to retain chattel slavery. No way. No UK, no France, either.

My personal opinion is that the South should've surrendered in late July of 1863 and spared everyone another 22 months of blood and destruction. After Gettysburg and Vicksburg, there was no realistic chance of making the North quit. I think Lincoln was pessimistic in the summer of 1864, although it took Sherman's capture of Atlanta to make things absolutely clear. Essentially, once the preservation of the Union fused with the destruction of slavery, then it would've taken a fantastical set of circumstances to break Union resolve.

The South had a very narrow window - what were they going to do in 1861, 1862, capture DC? The game allows it, but I think IRL - fat chance.

June 30th, 1862, the Peninsular campaign: there was an opportunity to destroy or capture half of McClellan's army. Jackson didn't come through, went the wrong way, etc. McClellan retreated to the shoreline, Malvern Hill - lived to fight on. Longstreet wrote after the war that that day was their best chance to win the war.

I think Shelby Foote's assessment must be taken very, very seriously.

The possibility makes for a great game, though. Personally, I love to see FI, even when I'm the Union (you have to switch sides, pretty much, in an AI game, for this). FI games are fun.

Not so fast now!

It is not that cut and dry. A lot of people set out the war because they thought it was illegal. Yes, even in New England. All this is hard to quantify. More draft, more draft riots. New York took a bunch of Regiments, but there were a few others too. The Emancipation Proclamation was not very popular at the time either.

You underestimate the British Government’s dislike of the Union.

The history books will all say the Union was self sufficient but that is not the case. They depended on Europe for a lot of things they couldn’t do without. A couple of those were emery and whetstones. Try making metal parts if you can’t grind, sharpen, or polish.

In 63 Britain and France wanted to force a negotiated settlement of the war and they would have gone a long way to get it. Maybe even intervene. A trade embargo might have been more likely though. But with Vicksburg and Gettysburg back to back and the Russian Navy paying a call in New York kind of put the kibosh to that plan and it looked like the Union might win. It is one of those close calls that never get looked at too close.

The trouble with FI now is it is handled by the AI, so god knows what is going to happen.

[GraniteStater]

We have a history forum.

All I was doing was responding to one (1) statement in a post. I felt it might be useful, for those, perhaps, who had never seen Burns's documentary.

I am not going to debate 'wudda, shudda, cudda'. All I can say is that historians do speculate - it's unavoidable, to some degree, and can even shed light. When they speculate about what might have happened, they try to anchor it in conclusions that can be justified by the record.

Fact: A man in Britain ended up making a bet about the British public's leanings. He walked - walked, from Edinburgh to London, or a similar distance - the length of England, essentially (I know Edinburgh is not in England; please, the essential point is clear), carrying Old Glory.

He was met by crowds of onlookers, who cheered the Stars and Stripes the length of his march. In hundreds of miles, there was not a voice raised for the rebels.

Sometimes, small instances can be quite illustrative.

O'C, PM me if you want. Oh, just FYI - the UK wasn't self-sufficient in every single commodity or item. Neither has any industrial state been self-sufficient. And HM Gov't had so much interest in the rebel's prospects and the justice of their cause that they never met with their Southern 'visitors'.

[khbynum]

Believe it or not, Shelby Foote is not the only historian who has ever thought critically about the ACW (and I've read his magnum opus twice). "Fact:" (and you cite no reference), if that same man had walked that distance carrying the Stars and Bars, would the reaction have been any different? Maybe they just thought he was a loony and were cheering for the entertainment value.

No nation during the Industrial Revolution was ever self-sufficient (although we came as close as any), but please re-read pgr's post above. Despite all its handicaps, the CSA did hang on for four bloody years. It could have won with better strategy and I hope the game will allow that outcome. Just for the record, I think such an outcome would have been disastrous for the country and the world.

You keep directing people who disagree with you to the historical forum. Fine, it's your thread. If I start one there, will you participate?

Already done. I welcome all opinions.

[GraniteStater]

* What I stated is a fact. I know it for a fact. I don't have every reference to hand all the time. Google it if you wish. I wouldn't state something as a fact unless I had an extremely high confidence in my statement. I don't throw things out in discussions, here, in other forums, bars, my family or anywhere, just to win debating points.

* No industrial nation has ever been 100.00% self-sufficient.

* I am not redirecting people because they may disagree. I respect the bounds of this forum, which is not the History forum. We do discuss history here, but it should be pertinent to the game. Alternate possibilities that didn't occur, discussed at length, belong on the History forum, IMHO.

* Read Grant's Memoirs. Anyone who wishes to consider himself well informed on the ACW and has not read the book, needs to read it - needs to. He considers several points that get raised here often and it would be a poor student who would dismiss his opinions lightly.

One point Grant addresses is Union generalship. He says that Jackson was remarkable in the Valley; however, he contends that if Jackson had been facing Sherman, Sheridan, Thomas or some other outstanding Union leaders and not Banks and Fremont, it could well have been, and, he says, would have been, a different story.

I may or may not get into a discussion on the History forum. Perhaps. I think a perceptive reader may draw correct inferences about what I am likely to say, though.

I think Mr. Foote is correct. There was a possibility for another outcome - however, if he were still alive, he would probably say that it was a slim possibility at best. I agree - the South had all the time it needed to come up with a 'better strategy.' It is somewhat irrelevant to speculate about what strategies may have been better, for they did the best they could with the resources they had and I am sure made the best decisions they could. Lee felt that no one could have done a better job than Jefferson Davis in the office he held. AS Johnston's decisions, Polk's, Hood's - bad decisions (in hindsight, bear in mind) by them are more than balanced by MacClellan, Banks, Fremont, etc. Lil' Mac could have crushed the ANV at Sharpsburg, I've walked that ground and studied the events of that campaign - he should have, my word, man, he was given Lee's plans, for crying out loud! The Southern left at Antietam creek was so 'up in the air', it's not even funny. A co-ordinated attack along the entire line could not have failed to destroy Lee that day - and I mean destroy, MacClellan had a 5/2 ratio in warm bodies and the Potomac was right at the rear of Sharpsburg, it isn't far at all. Any kind of a retreat or rout would have been finis - if not for AP Hill, it still could've been, Burnside was finally across in strength and there was little left to stop him.

But it didn't turn out that way and historians, although using other possibilities to help understand what happened, are, in the end, concerned chiefly with what did happen.

P. S. - it's not my thread. It's Ageod's thread.

[khbynum]

Grant' s memoires? I have read them, what does that have to do with anything? He was one of the best generals of the war and his memoires are very well written, but he can also be self-serving and omit details that do not suit his image. The winners write the histories. He also never met Jackson on the field of battle*. The battle of Sharpsburg? Just proves my point that this was not the kind of battle the South should have fought, in desperate retreat from a failed invasion. Only a Lee could have saved that army, but perhaps only a Lee would have put it in that position to begin with. "I know it for a fact?". I can just see getting away with that in a professional discussion.

There is no need to continue posting in this thread, since every objection gets sidetracked into how much you know about the Civil War. Let me give you a hint: we all do.

*Can you imagine Jackson at the Wilderness, when Gordon tells Ewell he had found an exposed Union flank between the battle lines and the river? Jackson would have jumped on that like ugly on an ape.

[GraniteStater]

I am afraid you miss the point, sir.

I do not wish to debate the outcome of the Civil War on this forum. I pointed out that Grant, who was there, had an opinion about some alternative circumstances. This is called an example, to illustrate my main point, with which I concluded.

If I may, this is not a forum for peer review of historical articles. I told you that I knew something for a fact. I was kind enough to say that I would not do so unless I was very, very confident that it is a fact. I don't know if any search engine would return it - it is a tad abstruse. Nonetheless, this is the second time in this thread you have questioned my veracity. Let me be perfectly clear - people who know me well in non-forum life trust my assertions, for they know I do not say "I know," unless I consider something to be, essentially, a scientific or historical fact. Indeed, I think I have seen the wisdom, over the years, of the use of "it seems," and other qualifications.

I do not conduct myself in public or private life as an authority of any kind, except for one or two subjects, subjects in which I have had decades of experience, and even then, I much prefer to reach agreements with people, rather than win debating points. I strive mightily, as Lee strove, to be a Christian gentleman. My failings in this are impertinent at the moment.

I do not believe I have trumpeted my knowledge of the Civil War, in this thread, or any other. I have, on the contrary, learned much from my fellow posters, though we may differ on the conclusions we draw sometimes.

I did not start the thread to debate anything. If I may, permit me to finish by saying I hope you understand that I graduated from high school a long, long time ago and am unused to people presuming on my good nature.

[color="#00FFFF"]P. S. - if Our Gracious Queen is ever kind enough to bestow Her Presence among us again, I hope she will not be upset by this post, for she awarded me a ribbon, which has somehow been lost in cyberspace. The award was unique; she created it for me; it was my only ribbon; I was immensely proud of it and very honored to have it.

It was for Gallant Courtesy. I wish I had it for display, for it always reminded me to exercise moderation and forethought.[/color]

[GraniteStater]

I am afraid you miss the point, sir.

I do not wish to debate the outcome of the Civil War on this forum. I pointed out that Grant, who was there had an opinion about some alternative circumstances. This is called an example, to illustrate my main point, with which I concluded.

If I may, this is not a forum for peer review of historical articles. I told you that I knew something for a fact. I was kind enough to say that I would not do so unless I was very, very confident that it is a fact. I don't know if any search engine would return it - it is a tad abstruse. Nonetheless, this is the second time in this thread you have questioned my veracity. Let me be perfectly clear - people who know me well in non-forum life trust my assertions, for they know I do not say "I know," unless I consider something to be, essentially, a scientific or historical fact. indeed, I think I have seen the wisdom, over the years, of the use of "it seems," and other qualifications.

I do not conduct myself in public or private life as an authority of any kind, except for one or two subjects, subjects in which I have had decades of experience, and even then, I much prefer to reach agreements with people, rather than win debating points. I strive mightily, as Lee strove, to be a Christian gentleman. My failings in this are impertinent at the moment.

I do not believe I have trumpeted my knowledge of the Civil War, in this thread, or any other. I have, on the contrary, learned much from my fellow posters, though we may differ on the conclusions we draw sometimes.

I did not start the thread to debate anything. If I may, permit me to finish by saying I hope you understand that I graduated from high school a long, long time ago and am unused to people presuming on my good nature.

[pgr]

Let me try to push things back to the philosophical discussion...

I have a slight question about frontage. What governs if units successfully move from a reserve position to a front line position in a battle where there are more units than max frontage? I'm assuming that it isn't automatic for back line units to move to the front line, and that if the front line shatters you run the risk of everyone routing correct? (Heck that is why people don't sticking everyone in structures in the presence of the enemy.)

I ask because I want to know the in-game feasibility of attacking larger forces. I know the manual talks about the ability of a small force to hold off a big one in restricted terrain on defense, but is the same true on offense? Imagine you are Lee in Fredricksburg outnumbered two to one with Jackson and Longstreet, is allowing the Union to cross the river into the woods on the left and then assaulting them (with a force as large as the max frontage) a good idea or suicide?

Depending how frontage works, it seems like there is a possibility to let terrain act as a force equalizer. (Of course you have all the stats and terrain bonuses going against you, so it would have to be with high quality troops and good offensive leaders). I would like to hope that if you get a stack-o-doom in restricted terrain, with 100% hostile MC on three sides and you close the back door with some cav, that a properly lead small force could bag a bigger one.

(In the same spirit, do "fixing attacks" work, say (O)/(G), in preventing corps from MSOG? i want to know if it is possible to isolate and maul individual corps on a mutually supporting line)