At What Cost

[Straight Arrow]

At What Cost

Today tripax and I finished a pbem game that has been ongoing since April; I played the South and had to good fortune to win.

This evening, when I return home from work and opened the door, this sight met my eyes. The body of one of my sons, in a Federal uniform, fallen on the floor, with an American flag clutched in one hand and a rifle in the other. By his corpse was a sign that said, “You Won!”


[ATTACH]39038[/ATTACH]


[ATTACH]39039[/ATTACH]



I was happy to see the sign and delighted with the attention, but I was then horrified. I couldn’t help myself and bent down, stretching out my hands and crying out, “Not at this cost!”

A bit of fun play acting by my family. But near, much too near, to the real thing.

[Cardinal Ape]

I got the immediate urge to say something. But now I am at a loss for words.. It got a bit too real, too quick. A very powerful statement by your son.

The war you and tripax fought was the deadliest I have seen. By mid '63 the numbers were near 600,000, then in the short span from then until the spring of '64, the number almost doubled. Just shy of 1,200,000.

In a war like that, it may be safe to say that everyone losses.

[tripax]

Wow! I am taking a few days (more than a few, I think) to decompress before posting a full recap, but those images tear me apart. Thank your son for his lovely tribute to our game and to history (sorry to be cheesy). I do allow things to feel real (this is why I can't bring myself to play as the Confederacy), but I like to pretend that the casualties are all bruises and scrapes, and at the end everyone's horse and mule are returned to them and they get to go home and sow their fields.

When I play pbem, the wait gets to me sometimes, and I try to deal with it by attacking in all theaters and whenever an attack had a chance at succeeding. Recently, I've often thought about the idea that the goal should be the enemy's army and not the enemy's cities. I think that was one of my many downfalls - more maneuvering and less Cold Habor-esque frontal assaults might have been smarter. My only excuse is that I build support units like crazy early in the game, so I know there are plenty of HQs and medics. But it was definitely a very bloody war - I'm not sure if it was historically feasible to play like I did. From the "its just a game" perspective, I know losses were not dis-proportionate, but yeah, crazy casualty numbers. In my full recap(s), I'm putting together a rough table of all the major battles and losses (not including losses on retreats), so I can get a feel for how historic I feel things were at that level, but at the highest level, this was WWI-esque, I guess. My guess is that the Grey Fox steamroller strategies (Union and Confederate versions) are more or less the opposite - low casualty quick wars mostly in on one theater.

[vicberg]

Great AAR. The Union holds a manpower and mobility advantage. The ultimate goal is the destruction of the armies. That being said, there's a few strategic cities that make a big difference, but usually either because of it's strategic location in terms of rail lines or economic impact. Vicksburg, Memphis are examples of strategic and New Orleans is an example of economic.

With the huge mobility advantage that the Union has, there's no need to go up against level 5+ entrenchments. If the East is too difficult, defend there and go elsewhere. The coastal cities for economic impacts. The Mississippi for strategic. Coastal cities actually have both impacts as any type of bridgehead along the coast can be expanded to threaten interior lines and spread out the Rebel forces. And as the Rebels are being spread out, that open opportunities in the East.

Ultimately, the goal is to get the Rebels out of their trenches and on the move. That's the best opportunities for Union victories and defeat of Armies. To do that, it's a maneuver game.

[Captain_Orso]

I have three sons. I would be terrified if any of them had to go to war, and devastated, if anything ever happened to any of them. The two oldest just became fathers themselves a few weeks ago--I almost think they timed that --and both have the most adorable daughters. They would never know how much they would miss, if something happened to their fathers, but I would. I'm gong to choke the lump in my throat back at the thought of it, and be very grateful.

[Gray Fox]

Some pictures are worth a thousand tears.

I spent half my youth as a soldier. Like fireman or ER crews, soldiers don't care for the death and destruction that goes along with actually performing our profession. However, our work is necessary to preserve our children's future. Each of us is almost genetically coded to do this. For millenia we hunted the world's predators to extinction in order to create a safe zone for our offspring. Finally, only one real beast of prey remained, us. So we devised artificial borders to ensure a safe place for the generations to grow. However, a group's art and science doesn't guard those borders. Only those skilled in the art and science of war can. If the guards fail, then their children must submit to a foreigner's future. Those with superior military skill seemed almost to have a divine right, a manifest destiny or to be a master race to the conquered. Such lies came to a head in the 20th century. From the Guns of August 1914 until the Bombs of August 1945, over 100 million people died from war and the disease created by it. Today, a minor nation can possess an arsenal that would surpass this level of destruction in an instant. The methods of the past can no longer protect our children. We should now practice the art and science of compromise. Our ideas of equality, self-determination and basic human rights, have no borders. Those who would again mire the world in medieval ignorance or despotism are already doomed to extinction. The cost is that we must live with them now so that we can outlive them in the future.