Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Taggart

Ensign
  • Posts

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Taggart's Achievements

Landsmen

Landsmen (1/13)

7

Reputation

  1. That's because... he is a novice game designer. He was doing mods before this, with no concerns on making money in a software and game design market. It's a completely different beast.
  2. I don't see how that's relevant. It doesn't change the fact that it was a foolish decision to attack at Gettysburg, circling back to the focal point of the argument: Gettysburg was Lee's blunder.
  3. Well, that definitely answered my question. I'm more curious than anything about that calcs you're using to get your figures. I'm not disputing your data anymore on this, as you've solidly made your point. Merely curious about the equations you're using.
  4. David, Don't construct this as me attacking your point of view, but I'm curious as to where you're getting these statistics and facts. If you can point me or Nick to where the data is, we can more confidently contribute to this discussion. EDIT: By the end of it all, really the most important aspect of artillery in the ACW is to cause shock and confusion. Obviously there's going to be casualties, but I'd prefer the most impact from artillery be to condition and morale.
  5. That's the point though, isn't it? Just to see if you could actually do it.
  6. David brings up good points. I think you'd do well, Nick, to incorporate even a degree of changes with his above comments in mind. Well done, dude.
  7. There's a factor not taken into account here. It doesn't matter how many Union troops you kill. The Union had a much stronger economy amid the blockades. That alone makes it a war of attrition for the Confederacy. The Union, because of their economy and larger population, can continually field more troops; an advantage the Confederacy didn't have. Even if Lee had won at Gettysburg, it would have come with great cost. He'd have to abandon his campaign regardless, or be stupid enough to press on Washington. At Pickett's Charge, Lee almost broke the center. Almost. Even if he had broken the center, there were two more Corps in reserve and on the way. The blunder of Lee's pursuit of attack at Gettysburg lost him the battle. The South could've won the war, but it wouldn't have been by an invasion of the North. If they pursued defensive campaigns like they had in the early stages of the war, before Lee and Grant's invasions, with political pressure from Washington to Union armies, they would've made it too costly for the Union to fight. A price paid in blood. But, let's assume the war, up until Gettysburg, went exactly as it had. If I were Lee, I would've disengaged during the night. Longstreet argued this very thing on the first day. He didn't want to attack at all. If you disengage the Federals, find good ground between them and Washington, the politicians in Washington would order Lee's army to be destroyed. The North would've failed in this endeavor, with the Army of Northern Virginia on good positions, the result being the Union army in full retreat. I'm with Longstreet on this one. It was stupid to fight at Gettysburg at all.
  8. You missed the entire point behind this image. I mean, seems to me that you blew this way out of proportion. You realize it's a joke image, right? Made out of boredom? Furthermore: ...this an example of an inappropriate use of the CSA flag that is not in line with it's historical context... ...to Northerners this combination is an insult to the historical truth... ...to many Southerners this combination is also perceived as an insult to the South... ...the Butcher Grant going South with his wife's family and plantation in Missouri is inconceivable if you've read Grant's perspectives on the Union. ...it's another misuse of the Confederate flag intended to incite controversy. Basically its an insensitive insult to everyone North and South and a misuse of a potent symbol of hatred... Seriously, Dave. Is everything a big deal to you? Does it matter that much to you that you'd turn this into a fiasco?
  9. Antietam is going to be an awesome battle to play!
  10. I think what it comes down to is that we trust different sets of data, which isn't an issue. Maybe I'll catch you online one of these days!
  11. I appreciate that! I liked it enough to make it my profile pic, so...
  12. The moderator can go ahead and delete or lock this post if they choose. It's not worth the headache.
  13. And I agree. I'll also concede to your point about artillery, because I was unaware of those statistics, in terms of actual inflicted casulaties. But what I'm saying is that I've yet to see the supposed effectiveness of artillery for the Union that you're talking about in an above post. I've stacked guns all over the place and have always had to duke it out with infantry. Every time. Artillery, in my experience, is not making the dent you're talking about. I haven't experienced that, even when I'm manually choosing which units my artillery fire upon. It's been the same for my experiences as the Confederates. Consequently, that means the artillery in the game is still in line with historical accuracy. The only time ​​I've ever seen artillery do some serious damage in this game so far, with the current patch being the only relevant circumstance, in which the result is a routing enemy unit, is when canister is being fired. Some firsthand accounts of canister were described as wiping out entire companies at a time, so that makes sense. I can't agree with your summation of artillery in this game, because I haven't observed it to be true. As far as having skirmishers, I agree, as well as agreeing on your stance about their effectiveness. Skirmishers don't rely on the cohesiveness of the line to be effective. On that, it only makes sense that their effectiveness in the game is historically accurate, because rifles in a skirmish style of combat, to a degree similar to modern warfare, are vicious. Mounted cavalry, too, in this game is also accurate. I actually despise having them on the field because they can't do hardly anything other than recon, which is what they were primarily used for. The eyes of the army. In the capacity that the game depicts the mounted cavalry, it's accurate. I can't agree with you on this, bud. Through my observations, it just doesn't make sense what you're saying about the game.
  14. I disagree. I'm a massive civil war buff and I see alot of things in this game that are historically accurate. The deadly nature of rifled muskets, as compared to the smoothbore muskets, makes it where you can't use traditional Napoleonic tactics as much. That's just a fact. Lining up in this fashion, with rifles good out to 500 yards, was stupid. It's actually a downright retarded way to conduct a battle with the technology. That's why it's that much worse when you walk out into open ground, or even just attacking at all. Artillery technologies saw a climb in effectiveness, as well, where the old methods of delivering canister and shell shot had evolved. The theme of Civil War combat is getting shot and bombarded to pieces. That's the reality of it. Which is also where the complaint of some players comes from - getting shot to pieces. The reality of the matter is the above technological advancements, using tactics and strategies that are literally behind the technology, is the situation players face in this historical setting. That's no conjecture, that's fact. To stray away from that would be historical inaccuracy.
  15. Put it into the perspective of holding a gamepad. The controls are simple and effective, but it's dependent on the freely moving and accurate motions of a mouse. Unless you're a wizard on the gamepad, from countless hours of call of duty no scopes, it's going to be really irritating to control the game with a controller.
×
×
  • Create New...