Railroads...too easy?

[pgr]

So file this under a suggestion for a future patch balancing job.

After playing a fair bit, I'm coming to the conclusion that the movement by rail function oversimplifies to a too great degree the complexity of moving troops by rail.

As it stands, there is no penalty for moving large numbers of troops, and you can unload from trains into battle areas with impunity. This tends to make rail-lines the sight of many a blitz movement or feigned withdrawal. (Take the RR bliz to Louisville if KY opens early for example). I know the ability to move by rail is limited by the rail pool, but if you have been building it up, it's not that big of a limitation.

In reality of course, it was incredibly complicated to move large (corps sized) bodies of troops, and would be very dangerous to be caught by the enemy while still mounted inside a train. You don't just load up and go. Rolling stock has to be assembled, troops assigned to cars, the timetables set up so there isn't a huge traffic jam, and time to re-organize when all the troops arrive at the destination. The idea that you can pick up and go in a day is absurd.

Now I don't expect a re-design of the system, but it might make sense to make the rail pool work a bit more like the river pool. When you use river pool assets, the unloading bit at the end takes time, if you run past a fort you get shot up, and the amphibious assault penalty makes you think twice about landing in a contested area.

I would suggest suggest programming a movement penalty for large units (say over 5 elements) at both the start and end points of rail movement. This would mean that a larger stack might have to take 5 or 6 days to load and 5 or 6 days to fully unload from rail movement (with a cohesion hit). That would provide a good amount of friction for rail movement of corps sized formations (without destroying the ability to transfer long distances.) There should also be a combat penalty, like the amphibious assault penalty, for a unit being mounted on rail transport during combat. That would make people less cavalier about whisking troops around on trains too close to the enemy. I could see depots helping in reducing the delays for the loading and unloading of rail based troops, which would encourage depot to depot transfers.

By attaching a downside to rail transport, I think it would cut down on the overly aggressive use of rail transport. In reality, rail transfers were done well in the rear, and troops dismounted well before they entered into combat. A corps strung out by rail transport would take days to reorganize at the end of a trip, and if the unit was actually caught while still on the trains... it would be a disaster.

As it stands now, the current model encourages fast and loose play with railroads.

[RebelYell]

Hear, hear.

[havi]

No now u r totally wrong.. I would say it took max 1-2 days to get 10000 men in the train even in 1860.. I have been in Finnish army and have been trailed in mikkeli via joensuu via rovaniemi over 1000km just 2 days yes we have trucks and diesel trains but the loading of trains and offloading didn't take as long as 2-3 hours sand I don't think the technik was different then as now just drive the cars or mules in the lavet and that's it.. And our transport train was over 5km long what take us to Lapland. So I think it is quite realised as it can be u can't model the train wrecks or something random as that.

[GraniteStater]

there is no penalty for moving large numbers of troops

No penalty, as such, but you pay more.

The Union can get to an excellent RR position by late 62, where it doesn't have to worry too much, anout RR&R in general. In my PbeM, I've gone several Turns without having to add capacity.

Now, for what you propose: bear in mind that Regions are not small and that Turns are two weeks (15 Days). Crossing a Region is one (1) Day.

Entering a Region on the 15th Day, debarking and then running into battle? I can see your beef. That's kind of what the Battle Delay Option is for, though, is it not?

All in all, though, the ideas aren't bad and I could see enjoying the changes, even. I can see that loading and unloading might not have been as time-consuming as shipborne traffic, though.

[RebelYell]

No now u r totally wrong.. I would say it took max 1-2 days to get 10000 men in the train even in 1860.. I have been in Finnish army and have been trailed in mikkeli via joensuu via rovaniemi over 1000km just 2 days yes we have trucks and diesel trains but the loading of trains and offloading didn't take as long as 2-3 hours sand I don't think the technik was different then as now just drive the cars or mules in the lavet and that's it.. And our transport train was over 5km long what take us to Lapland. So I think it is quite realised as it can be u can't model the train wrecks or something random as that.

1 day for loading and offloading and a small cohesion loss, that would be enough to not do it just for a whim?

[havi]

just cohesion loss is enough ! because how long it takes to step of the train in soldier with out of enemy fire not long i think!

[John S. Mosby]

just cohesion loss is enough ! because how long it takes to step of the train in soldier with out of enemy fire not long i think!

I've been thinking the same thing while reading the suggestions. We're talking getting on and off a train. As GS stated, we pay for it, it's not free. Same system as AACW which was good. I vote leave it alone.

[ArmChairGeneral]

I vote leave it alone.

Me too. The CSA rail pool is extremely limited as is: adding more penalties to rail movement and combat would hurt the CSA disproportionately. Also, as GS pointed out the Delay setting will solve some of the issues if desired.

I agree with pgr's original point (ahistorical RR blitzes) but am willing to accept the current abstraction, despite the resulting flaws.

[pgr]

No now u r totally wrong.. I would say it took max 1-2 days to get 10000 men in the train even in 1860.. I have been in Finnish army and have been trailed in mikkeli via joensuu via rovaniemi over 1000km just 2 days yes we have trucks and diesel trains but the loading of trains and offloading didn't take as long as 2-3 hours sand I don't think the technik was different then as now just drive the cars or mules in the lavet and that's it.. And our transport train was over 5km long what take us to Lapland. So I think it is quite realised as it can be u can't model the train wrecks or something random as that.

Well Havi, I'm sure it worked like clockwork for you in the Finnish army, but you have to admit you participated in well planned operations. Already, your special troop train 5km long is a testament to good staff work and planning. In 1860, there are no 5km long trains. We are talking 10 cars maximum. The largest unit you could hope to transfer together in a single train would be a brigade, and even then baggage, artillery etc would be all jumbled up and needing reorganization at the destination. Divisions and Corps would need a whole series of trains and precise timetables to keep the thing from turning into a gigantic mess. And that assumes that you can re-direct the appropriate amount of rolling stock, which spends its time moving supplies all over the place, to assemble in the right spot at the drop of a hat. (Even today it can take three days to get the right boxcar from one side of Chicago to the other). You might have all the rolling stock in the world on paper, but getting it to the right spot takes time and there is a definite fixed bandwidth of what you can push down one set of tracks.

Now I poked around a little bit to get some dates on Longstreet's big rail move to Georgia, and found this article (which admittedly is a bit of a mess). Key dates: The move is ordered September 6. First trains arrive September 9 (not all mind you, just the start of the move). The lead elements of Longstreet's corps start moving by train on the 9th. The corps does not all move together. It is Hood's division, General Lafayette McLaws' division, then Colonel E.P. Alexander's artillery battalion (Pickett was sent by rail as far as Petersburg). Hood's division arrives starting on the 18th of September, and is present enough to march in position by the 20th of September to win the battle of Chickamauga. That is just one division. McLaws' didn't arrive until a few days later, and Alexander's artillery was still in South Carolina when Chickamagua was being fought.

This was a once in the war kind of effort that took 12 days to get just parts of one division moving and in place (3 days before the material could be assembled), and we can move a whole army every turn at the drop of a hat and have them arrive all at once ready to go?

I'm not trying to kill RR movement here, but there needs to be some friction added. Just like certain orders (destroy RR or build/destroy fort) require a certain number of days, a RR move order should have a day delay for loading and unloading. (Once moving, I'm fine with the one turn per region). I see no reason why it can't be linked to weight. Small units (brigades) would move the same day, but over a certain weight it will take longer time to start to make the move. For a division, we are talking a day or two for loading and unloading, but full corps should have significant time penalties.

And there defiantly needs to be a combat penalty for "loaded"troops (that extends from when troops start loading to when they finish unloading). Troops on trains are not organized for combat, they are organized for being fit into small storage units. A force in that condition would have no cohesion whatsoever if it found itself suddenly attacked while in transit.

So I say same day loading and unloading for brigade sized stacks, 2-3 day loading and unloading times for division sized forces, and 5-6 day times for corps sized stacks (Which means that a corps sized redeployment by rail would take at least two turns). If you are willing to break up your stacks into little pieces, you could still move quickly and rapidly, but if you want to move the whole house at once, it should take some time.

(I can see how for the south, it could hurt the ability to do some hit and run stuff, but rail mobility shouldn't be the answer. If anything, moving by rail should be roughly the same model (with the same potential combat downside, as moving by water)

[pgr]

just cohesion loss is enough ! because how long it takes to step of the train in soldier with out of enemy fire not long i think!

Try forming a division in line of battle with it's elements mixed up along 50 KM or rail line, with the guns on one end and the artillery horses on the other, and with all the staff officers in lord-knows-what dining car... hard enough for a parade, impossible under fire.

[pgr]

All in all, though, the ideas aren't bad and I could see enjoying the changes, even. I can see that loading and unloading might not have been as time-consuming as shipborne traffic, though.

If anything, loading and unloading on ship should be simpler. That's because ships are bigger and you can keep a unit together in the same vehicle. 1860's railroad passenger cars could hold 75 people. That means yo have to chop down formations to the company level and then reassemble them on the far end. Infantry at least are simple. Cannons need flatcars for the guns and cattle cars for the animals. Give me a big steamboat that I can fit 1,000 men with all their guns, equipment, and animals in one run, over 100 little rafts sent 10 by 10 down a single stream of iron.

[GraniteStater]

I swear to God, I can always tell a landlubber.

It's not that simple. Where are you going to embark? On a pier? A wharf? These are not the same thing, by the way. How do you get on the vessel? A gangplank? How many for a particular vessel? How about your bulk items? How about animals? Oh, cargo nets - powered by what, in the 19th century? Oh, steam...oh yeah, that's just everywhere.

At the larger ports and facilities (as in the North, mostly), yeah, you've got dock facilities. Look, I used to work on a party boat as a teenager, taking folks out for mackerel and cod. We had a good sized craft, sixty feet, with a beam of about ten or twelve. Most all of the guests were on the fore and aft decks, the cabin was midships. Mackerel was twice a day; cod a whole day. Even for a relatively short three hour trip for mackerel, we'd have maybe eight to ten customers aboard. It would still take half an hour to board them from a floating wharf, secure what needed to be secured, cast off and start to get under way. Then another ten minutes to clear the Point on Plum Island and through the mouth of the Merrimac and out to sea - and that was quick and we were only going maybe three miles offshore.

So, about 45 minutes to board a dozen people, say, and get underway. That's with no crapola to bring on board.

Your regiment doesn't just hop aboard, friend. It takes time and organization and stowing things properly and inspecting things, 'cuz landlubbers have no idea of what happens in a swell with loose items, and captains have been known to be a mite particular about what they consider shipshape and Bristol fashion. And the captain's word is final and The Law, without question, any questions at all. You do things his way or start swimming.

Getting your regiment on a train is easy as pie, next to embarking on a vessel meant to stow a regiment, or even a company.

[pgr]

I swear to God, I can always tell a landlubber.
Getting your regiment on a train is easy as pie, next to embarking on a vessel meant to stow a regiment, or even a company.

Well sailor, you clearly don't have any experience with the organized ballet that is a railroad switching yard on a tight schedule and the maddening snarl when it all goes wrong. There is a lot more to it than just hopping on a train. I didn't mean to imply that water transport was easy, just that train transport was as difficult in its own way. And of course I'm not talking about regiments here, I'm talking about divisions and corps.

(Oh, and for the animals, use gangplanks and walk them in the hold. I'm sure it would be hell for a fishing boat, but a peace of cake for a river boat designed from the keel up to transport bulk cargo and livestock)

The attachment civil-war-city-point-dock.jpg is no longer available

At least form the Neptune, I can walk them out the side of the Neptune all together, form up on the dock, and be on my merry way. The same amount of cargo would have to be split up amongst all those little box cars, the cars assembled into multiple trains, each sent in such a way that there isn't a crash, and then all assembled at the far end. Not the simplest thing in the world.

[Ol' Choctaw]

Most of the delay is already built in. Try to get from Richmond to Memphis in 2 days of real travel time. Try to get a division plus to Corinth from Tallahassee in 10 days. It just won’t work.

Most of what you are looking at is already built into the game by the slow travel speeds.

[GraniteStater]

Well sailor, you clearly don't have any experience with the organized ballet that is a railroad switching yard on a tight schedule and the maddening snarl when it all goes wrong. There is a lot more to it than just hopping on a train. I didn't mean to imply that water transport was easy, just that train transport was as difficult in its own way. And of course I'm not talking about regiments here, I'm talking about divisions and corps.

(Oh, and for the animals, use gangplanks and walk them in the hold. I'm sure it would be hell for a fishing boat, but a peace of cake for a river boat designed from the keel up to transport bulk cargo and livestock)

[ATTACH=CONFIG]27141[/ATTACH]

At least form the Neptune, I can walk them out the side of the Neptune all together, form up on the dock, and be on my merry way. The same amount of cargo would have to be split up amongst all those little box cars, the cars assembled into multiple trains, each sent in such a way that there isn't a crash, and then all assembled at the far end. Not the simplest thing in the world.

form up on the dock, and be on my merry way.

It's still more complicated than you might think. I can load boxcars simultaneously, for instance, more or less; on vessels you must have dedicated entries and egresses. Walking 500 head of cattle up a gangplank could very well take you all day. How about the feed? Troughs? Water? Their bio-egress? Wait 'til you get to the mules.

Cargo can be a bit easier, but you still have to prep it for mass handling or haul every item on board, one at a time.

I can just about guess you've never been involved with boarding and casting off. Cow falls off a RR ramp, it's a busted limb - falls off a gangplank, it's in the drink - and you have to fish it out, no matter what. Yes, developed port facilities speed things up a lot - but I used my example to illustrate that a Boarding Involving Nothing and Unimpeded still took 30-45 minutes to complete, i. e., be truly under way. Extrapolate, please - maritime boardings take a lot longer than landsmen think. Why do you think container ships are not just an improvement, but a revolution in cargo handling?

[pgr]

I can load boxcars simultaneously, for instance, more or less

Not at all. Train stations are as specialized for loading equipment as are docks. You can only load heavy stuff into boxcars where there are platforms that reach to the level of the of the cars. Often times this means loading one car at a time. Load a car, move forward, load a car, move forward etc. (Now men can hop on and off, but you can't do that with the baggage train)

Unloading without a station is akin to disembarking without a dock. Sure there are ramps and such, but the meter drop from the wagon to the ground and down the slopes of a RR grade, is more than enough to break a horse's leg or a wagon axle.

So again, I'm suggesting that this complexity be reflected in a delay at the start or the end of RR movement (or both). It would work on the same principle as the command point penalty. (The smaller the unit, the quicker it goes).

And Ol' Choctaw, I'm not thinking Richmond to Memphis. I'm thinking more Corinth to Nashville with a a three division Corps. I'm noticing in this little tournament we are having that I can race to raid an open Nashville one turn, and be back in Corinth to beat Grant the next without breaking a sweat. Is it fun? Sure. Was it possible? Of course not (or else they would have done it all the time).

This wouldn't even have to be a permanent feature. Attach it to the Historical Attrition or Simple Supply sliders. Just for me, in an otherwise wonderful game, it strikes me as a bit too arcade style.

[GraniteStater]

BTW, per the picture above:

Note the cargo entries are on the freeboard, i. e., above the gunwhales. Right away, this tells me we're not looking at a seagoing vessel, almost without doubt. Anyone with salt-water harbor experience can tell you why in a second.

Tides. Something landsmen almost always overlook. You see, maritime designers are chary of putting large holes in the hull, salt or fresh, they're just kinda funny about that. So, essentially, all cargo has to enter through the deck(s), and any serious cargo vessel has more than one deck, and bulkheads, and a host of other design features that someone who hasn't experienced the problems involved with designing a vessel simply doesn't think of, not that they are at fault, they just aren't used to thinking about certain things as a habit.

Now, if you're tied up in Brooklyn, you want some method of getting on and off, regardless of where the gunwhales are compared to a fixed pier - or, you're moored to a floating wharf, which now introduces a whole other set of considerations. All the floating wharf does is transfer the tide criterion from the vessel to the wharf, essentially. You just can't escape the tides, the fact that your relative heights and approaches change every six hours - and, as a matter of fact, are changing every instant, perhaps not dramatically, but still changing.

Then there's the current. This should start to illustrate that one doesn't shove off and go. That's why there are harbor masters, among other things. If you are a sailing vessel, you might not leave for days, because there's not only the tides and currents, but also the wind. Read S. E. Morison's account of the discovery of the New World, where he, in the 1950s, watched a a vessel try to spank out of Kingston in Jamaica to set a course to the eastward - the craft didn't get under way on her journey for over a week, she'd tack all day and end up where she began by sunset.

Nothing against landsmen, they're just not used to thinking about what's really involved - I don't expect them to be, I know very little about RR yards and stockyard management, myself.

The great advantage of maritime traffic is the ability to transport bulk quicker than overland transportation, always has been, for millennia. But embarking and debarking is slow, much slower than other forms of cargo transfer. Until container ships. You see, containers aren't just convenient, they alleviate the stowage problem greatly - and stowage is probably the greatest concern and takes more time than anything else, sans containers.

[GraniteStater]

Not at all. Train stations are as specialized for loading equipment as are docks. You can only load heavy stuff into boxcars where there are platforms that reach to the level of the of the cars. Often times this means loading one car at a time. Load a car, move forward, load a car, move forward etc. (Now men can hop on and off, but you can't do that with the baggage train)

Unloading without a station is akin to disembarking without a dock. Sure there are ramps and such, but the meter drop from the wagon to the ground and down the slopes of a RR grade, is more than enough to break a horse's leg or a wagon axle.

So again, I'm suggesting that this complexity be reflected in a delay at the start or the end of RR movement (or both). It would work on the same principle as the command point penalty. (The smaller the unit, the quicker it goes).

And Ol' Choctaw, I'm not thinking Richmond to Memphis. I'm thinking more Corinth to Nashville with a a three division Corps. I'm noticing in this little tournament we are having that I can race to raid an open Nashville one turn, and be back in Corinth to beat Grant the next without breaking a sweat. Is it fun? Sure. Was it possible? Of course not (or else they would have done it all the time).

This wouldn't even have to be a permanent feature. Attach it to the Historical Attrition or Simple Supply sliders. Just for me, in an otherwise wonderful game, it strikes me as a bit too arcade style.

You know, I'm not unreceptive to this, but I really, really wouldn't expect this to be implemented anytime soon. It's a whole 'nother design project, really, maybe small, but would still need to be thought out well. I just don't see getting a lot of people involved with SQAing possible effects on other parts of the code, for instance.

I'd lobby for this in CW3, I would say.

[lycortas2]

GraniteStater,

I feel your pain when it comes to shipping.

I have played quite a bit of Europa Universalis, and have tried since EU1 to get cavalry loaded at a 1:4 ratio with infantry. And the 1:4 is just for around Europe trips not across the Atlantic. I am disgusted when i see people in multi player ship 20,000 cavalry across the Atlantic on a transport force capable of carrying 20,000 infantry. Besides the space differences i have heard anecdotes of how many horses were lost in each crossing. You wouldn't be 20,000 cavalry when you arrived!

Mike

[Ol' Choctaw]

I am really not in favor of making any changes to the current transportation system!

Still, I will comment on rail or sea movement for horses or any other livestock, it is not a forgone conclusion that they will just walk on.

Anyone who has ever loaded any stock can tell you that. And that does not include the problems once they are loaded and the chances of them coming down with some disease, accidents, or supplying them.

[khbynum]

BTW, per the picture above:

Note the cargo entries are on the freeboard, i. e., above the gunwhales. Right away, this tells me we're not looking at a seagoing vessel, almost without doubt. Anyone with salt-water harbor experience can tell you why in a second.

Freeboard is the distance from the waterline to the lowest point at which water can enter the ship. A gunwhale (rail, basically) is the highest point on the side of a ship. Why would a gunwhale be lower than a freeboard?

Tides. Something landsmen almost always overlook. You see, maritime designers are chary of putting large holes in the hull, salt or fresh, they're just kinda funny about that. So, essentially, all cargo has to enter through the deck(s), and any serious cargo vessel has more than one deck, and bulkheads, and a host of other design features that someone who hasn't experienced the problems involved with designing a vessel simply doesn't think of, not that they are at fault, they just aren't used to thinking about certain things as a habit.

If you have several decks and there are openings into each, how do you accomplish that without putting holes in the side of the ship? What do bulwarks have to do with anything, it's just sailor talk for a wall.

Now, if you're tied up in Brooklyn, you want some method of getting on and off, regardless of where the gunwhales are compared to a fixed pier - or, you're moored to a floating wharf, which now introduces a whole other set of considerations. All the floating wharf does is transfer the tide criterion from the vessel to the wharf, essentially. You just can't escape the tides, the fact that your relative heights and approaches change every six hours - and, as a matter of fact, are changing every instant, perhaps not dramatically, but still changing.

A floating dock obviates the problems caused by tides, since the ship and dock are at a constant level relative to each other.

Then there's the current. This should start to illustrate that one doesn't shove off and go. That's why there are harbor masters, among other things. If you are a sailing vessel, you might not leave for days, because there's not only the tides and currents, but also the wind. Read S. E. Morison's account of the discovery of the New World, where he, in the 1950s, watched a a vessel try to spank out of Kingston in Jamaica to set a course to the eastward - the craft didn't get under way on her journey for over a week, she'd tack all day and end up where she began by sunset.

You finally begin to make sense.

Nothing against landsmen, they're just not used to thinking about what's really involved - I don't expect them to be, I know very little about RR yards and stockyard management, myself.

I think if I look up a bunch of arcane terms on the internet and use them as if I know what I'm talking about, I can fool a lot of people.

The great advantage of maritime traffic is the ability to transport bulk quicker than overland transportation, always has been, for millennia. But embarking and debarking is slow, much slower than other forms of cargo transfer. Until container ships. You see, containers aren't just convenient, they alleviate the stowage problem greatly - and stowage is probably the greatest concern and takes more time than anything else, sans containers.

In reply to a previous post, I'll bet I can load a platoon of soldiers on a boat, any boat, faster than you can load a group of drunken fishermen of equal size

[GraniteStater]

Let's start with your last - obviously you didn't grasp the example. How about that platoon? Gonna take any equipment with you? The point was, it took about 30 - 45 minutes to board and be under way, past the entrance. That's with folks bringing very little aboard and practically nothing to stow. Sure, you're gonna load a platoon of 40 soldiers faster than that, with their equipment properly stowed and all set for casting off. Right.

Freeboard is the distance from the waterline to the lowest point at which water can enter the ship. A gunwhale (rail, basically) is the highest point on the side of a ship. Why would a gunwhale be lower than a freeboard?

You're right, but you're not. I was using the term incorrectly - it's been quite a while since I've written about ships. Still, freeboard, now that you mention it, is from the waterline to the gunwhales. The gunwhale, BTW, is not "the rail, basically", not at all. Some vessels don't have rails. The gunwhale (pronounced "gunnel") is, essentially, where the hull proper meets the main deck, the weather deck, whatever term you prefer. Usually, inboard of the gunwhale, you find the scupper.

If you have several decks and there are openings into each, how do you accomplish that without putting holes in the side of the ship? What do bulwarks have to do with anything, it's just sailor talk for a wall.

It's 'bulkhead', not 'bulwark.' And if you have to have it explained why you don't want a whole buncha holes in the hull, don't take anyone near and dear on a moonlit row on the lake.

A floating dock obviates the problems caused by tides, since the ship and dock are at a constant level relative to each other.

As long as you want to flaunt your knowledge, docks don't float - neither do piers. There is a thing called a floating drydock, but that's a vessel, really. I addressed this point when mentioning the wharf. All you have done is transfer the boarding problem from the vessel to the wharf. The wharf (floating) is connected to what, exactly? Usually a dock, or a pier, or, as we did at the Island, we ran an amtrac out and back to deploy and retrieve the wharf (the captain was reluctant to bring a 60' twin-screw diesel right next to the beach - we jolly tars are funny like that). So now, you have gangways going from the pier to the wharf. It's still the same problem, don't you see?

I think if I look up a bunch of arcane terms on the internet and use them as if I know what I'm talking about, I can fool a lot of people.

I'll try real hard not to take that as a personal insult, no matter how strongly it resembles one. I don't look things up to impress people on the internet, I'm not 12 years old.

[khbynum]

You got me on bulwarks and floating wharves; my mistakes. I stand by the rest.

You're a skilled debater, I'll give you that. Glossing over your mistakes by pointing out those of your opponent is good technique (freeboard, gunwhale; I know how it's pronounced). Ignoring points scored by belittling them and moving on (access to decks) also works, but less convincingly. Boldly asserting you know what you're talking about is, of course, not likely to impress the judges.

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullsh*t."

W.C. Fields

To get back on topic, starting on July 23, 1862, Braxton Bragg began moving the Army of the Mississippi from Tupelo to Chattanooga. The first elements arrived on the 27th after an almost 800 mile transfer south to Mobile, across the river and onward by rail. Within 2 weeks he had transferred almost 30,000 infantry. The artillery, wagons and cavalry came overland via Rome, so it wasn't like he moved a functional corps-sized unit. His army didn't start crossing the Tennessee River until 19 August. Still, in game terms that's better than a corps worth of infantry 800 miles (plus a ferry crossing) in 2 weeks. He didn't have that nice, non-historical rail link between Selma and Montgomery that we have in the game. My point is that it was done and should be allowed in the game. I don't have a problem with rail movement as currently implemented, especially since the game allows us to upgrade Southern rail capacity in a way they didn't do historically.

[GraniteStater]

Sir,

Do not bother addressing me again - ever. I, on my part, shall studiously ignore whatever it is that you wish to impart, no matter how cogent or truthful. Why? Simple - I am thoroughly tired of your habit of ascribing motives to others and imputing that I, for one, am employing debating tricks or other such devices. I, for one, do not post here to argue or win points. I sometime stick to my guns on a point, because I believe that a clear exposition might be helpful. These forums are about a game. A simple illustration of the difficulties of boarding maritime vessels is all I intended. Apparently, this ran counter to your sensibilities.

I am all too often wrong , mistaken, in error, have the wrong information or draw hasty conclusions. When I do so, I apologize. We adults do that with each other, because we realize that no one has all the answers.

I have extended you every courtesy and then some. In particular, this last time, you seem to have been gunning for me, for anyone who would wonder why holes are bad in hulls is just simply being argumentative for its own sake. I do not care for this. I don't mind a spirited discussion, no matter who agrees or not, but to bring up concerns that a seven year old sheepherder from the Gobi who had never seen a boat would simply find risible beyond parody simply demonstrates your all too apparent intent to be annoying, even at the expense of your own intellectual reputation.

I state this in public so that perhaps you might get some feedback from others here and perhaps you can participate here much more constructively, though, as I said, don't bother with me. God knows, I'm far from any kind of a role model, but at least I don't make statements just to provoke others, nor do I ascribe someone's views to clever debating tactics and wily rhetorical tricks.

[khbynum]

Spare me the self-righteous indignation. Anyone who reads the forum knows what you are. You've already been caught out on the obtuse mathematical references and now on the nautical ones as well. You're a phony. A well educated, well read, articulate, skillful bullshitter. If you think that was an ad hominem attack, how's this: You should really be a politician.

Edited to remove "erudite". He isn't.

[GraniteStater]

One last time - oh yes, I did make an obvious error in math. Gee, you know what? Isaac Newton did, too. Shakespeare uses 'bad grammar'. Lord Kelvin thought heavier-than-air flying machines were impossible. I worked for a chemical engineer who hooked up an unlabeled canister that was acetylene and almost blew the lab up.

As far as dock work goes, I don't think you've 'caught me out' or anything of the kind - rather, I should think that howlers like why hulls can't have holes in them just shows you for who you are - but, then I don't have to fill in the blanks, do I?

I've had enough. Ol' Choctaw and I have disagreed at times, and did so today, but I don't question his motives and I don't just simply call him names. I certainly don't go out of my way to deliberately insult people.

There's probably a PM in your future and a big blank space waiting for your log-in. I must say, to quote Hamlet, " 'tis a consummation devoutly to be wished."

And BTW, Lord Haw-haw, my disagreements with O'C are of an intellectual nature, really. When it comes to the game (this is a game forum, right?), O'C knows his stuff and makes contributions. Most people around here know more about the game than I do, which is why I like to participate (plus some humor - try it some time). To tell the truth, I don't think I've ever read one positive post by you about the game; I don't even think I've seen a question about the game. What I have seen are some quite possibly cribbed references from your 'immense ACW library', if I have your quote right - with hardly any word of what the import of these weighty facts nd figures might actually mean or pertain to the question at hand - no discussion, just trotting out that on such and such a date, the Umpty-umpth Semi-Cavalry Cooking Corps had beans for lunch.

This is about a game, and history is relevant, but most of us try to make it pertinent to the point under consideration. And guess what? Some of us don't even care about the history, some here actually just want to enjoy a game.

And the forums. God knows, I'm no shining example, but at least I don't throw bombs and actually try to have a conversation.

Kids.

[khbynum]

One last time - oh yes, I did make an obvious error in math. Gee, you know what? Isaac Newton did, too. Shakespeare uses 'bad grammar'. Lord Kelvin thought heavier-than-air flying machines were impossible. I worked for a chemical engineer who hooked up an unlabeled canister that was acetylene and almost blew the lab up.

No, you didn't just make a mistake. You went on at great length, offering proofs by PM, babbling about wax tablets, the square root of two and moral certainty of the ancient Greeks, none of which had anything to do with a mistake that a student in freshman algebra wouldn't have made. Except to make you look erudite. BS

As far as dock work goes, I don't think you've 'caught me out' or anything of the kind - rather, I should think that howlers like why hulls can't have holes in them just shows you for who you are - but, then I don't have to fill in the blanks, do I?

You keep coming back to this. You said that cargo ships have more than one deck and supplies have to enter to the decks. Well, American ships of the Civil War era didn't carry cargo above the weather deck, except perhaps some shallow draft riverboats. So, how do you get the cargo onto a deck below that without a hole in the hull? It wasn't my idea, it was yours. BS

I've had enough. Ol' Choctaw and I have disagreed at times, and did so today, but I don't question his motives and I don't just simply call him names. I certainly don't go out of my way to deliberately insult people.

I haven't mentioned any other forum members. They will have to express their own opinions. BS

There's probably a PM in your future and a big blank space waiting for your log-in. I must say, to quote Hamlet, " 'tis a consummation devoutly to be wished."

Could be.

And BTW, Lord Haw-haw, my disagreements with O'C are of an intellectual nature, really. When it comes to the game (this is a game forum, right?), O'C knows his stuff and makes contributions. Most people around here know more about the game than I do, which is why I like to participate (plus some humor - try it some time). To tell the truth, I don't think I've ever read one positive post by you about the game; I don't even think I've seen a question about the game. What I have seen are some quite possibly cribbed references from your 'immense ACW library', if I have your quote right - with hardly any word of what the import of these weighty facts nd figures might actually mean or pertain to the question at hand - no discussion, just trotting out that on such and such a date, the Umpty-umpth Semi-Cavalry Cooking Corps had beans for lunch.

I've offered a couple of opinions, with evidence, in this very thread. I also don't recall bragging about the size of my library or offering any other details of my private life in posts to this forum. By the way, cribbing is the deliberate use of someone else's work without citation, as one's own. It does not include referring to secondary sources in a general discussion. When I do so, it is in the context of the topic under discussion. When I quote them directly, I put the statement in quotes and cite the reference. Since you seem to have gone back through all my posts, you know that. BS

This is about a game, and history is relevant, but most of us try to make it pertinent to the point under consideration. And guess what? Some of us don't even care about the history, some here actually just want to enjoy a game.

And the forums. God knows, I'm no shining example, but at least I don't throw bombs and actually try to have a conversation.

Kids.

One last time.

Edit: remove the word "verbatim", to distinguish between cribbing and plagiarism. He didn't accuse me of the latter.

[soundoff]

One last time.

Hmmm .....now I've been the first one on GraniteStaters case when he's come on just a 'tad' strong but you are pushing it a bit khbynum. Let it rest.

[GraniteStater]

You don't understand the difference between a hull and a deck, then.

I apologized for my error and admitted I went into a tailspin. I apologize all the time - to my wife, my step-kids, my co-workers, strangers, the odd drunk or two, and most especially my cat. I try to follow the carpenter and realize that life isn't about me, or my happiness, or my ego, or what I want out of it, it's about something very important, which, I sincerely pray, you might realize. Humility is hugely underrated and more people should try it. God knows, I need to.

You mentioned your ACW lit in another thread and forum.

You should really, really, really try not to be confrontational. I'm am fully aware I am assertive, overly sarcastic, a shockingly bad chooser of words at times and sometimes, just a royal PITA. But I don't try to get in other people's faces and shout "BS" at them.

One of these days you're going to figure out that you might owe me something. And yourself something, too. In the meantime, as an old salesman, I hate to say it, I don't think you could sell space heaters to Eskimos, not the way you tend to address me, at any rate.

You know, I just happened to read your last post in the History forum - you're perfectly capable of being polite and making a point. Why you have conceived and choose to display this animus towards me is unworthy of you - towards yourself. Yeah, I lost my temper a few posts ago, but I don't hold grudges. Your first PM ever to me decried my literary and posting style. Tuff noogies, grow up, really. Stop being incendiary, needlessly.

And try to remember that a deck is not a hull, please.

[soundoff]

You don't understand the difference between a hull and a deck, then.

I apologized for my error and admitted I went into a tailspin. I apologize all the time - to my wife, my step-kids, my co-workers, strangers, the odd drunk or two, and most especially my cat. I try to follow the carpenter and realize that life isn't about me, or my happiness, or my ego, or what I want out of it, it's about something very important, which, I sincerely pray, you might realize. Humility is hugely underrated and more people should try it. God knows, I need to.

You mentioned your ACW lit in another thread and forum.

You should really, really, really try not to be confrontational. I'm am fully aware I am assertive, overly sarcastic, a shockingly bad chooser of words at times and sometimes, just a royal PITA. But I don't try to get in other people's faces and shout "BS" at them.

One of these days you're going to figure out that you might owe me something. And yourself something, too. In the meantime, as an old salesman, I hate to say it, I don't think you could sell space heaters to Eskimos, not the way you tend to address me, at any rate.

You know, I just happened to read your last post in the History forum - you're perfectly capable of being polite and making a point. Why you have conceived and choose to display this animus towards me is unworthy of you - towards yourself. Yeah, I lost my temper a few posts ago, but I don't hold grudges. Your first PM ever to me decried my literary and posting style. Tuff noogies, grow up, really. Stop being incendiary, needlessly.

And try to remember that a deck is not a hull, please.

And don't you keep pushing it GraniteStater. Its not only the two of you that lose....it does the board no favours either. To the both of you just let it go. Lifes too darned short and AGEOD gamers should be better than this.