mainiac

"With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in..." The idea of executing the defeating rebels would undo the very foundations of this great nation. We are bound together not as slaves owned by a master but as free men united in the love of freedom and tranquility. Time has shown that it is necessary to end the power of the slaver by taking away his slaves, not his life. A "legal" succession wouldn't have allowed them to steal federal property to fund their war effort. Not even the most obstinate copperhead would have supported a policy of continuing to tax the north to furnish federal arsenals in the south if they had done something. And inevitably they would face the unpleasant reality that most men in the south loved the union and the first round of secession conventions failed. It was only after the rebels attacked South Carolina and forced battlelines that they were able to cobble together the votes for their rebellion. So your "legal" succession would have failed all the sooner as they would fight rifles with sticks and stones.

I want the best rifles in the hands of the guys with 100 shooting skill but why the best leaders? If you put a 3* with raw recruits, you can unlock a perk on them. If a unit is just a little short of a perk a one or two star general can get them that perk. Also green troops might suffer efficiency penalties if they are under a low ranking commander while veteran troops wont have a problem under the same leader.

It's kinda easy to deplete the enemy army during the campaign. It would be nice if you would just be able to attack Richmond/Washington anytime the enemy army drops below a critical strength. So for example if you completely trounce the rebels at Gaines Mill you get to go straight to Richmond from there. After all, if the Union had won the seven day's battles that's what would have happened. Then you could have a nice climactic battle against the remnants of the enemy army plus a bonus influx of emergency troops.

He should have worn a patch over that. Then when he saw people with eyepatches he could act all superior to them and whatnot.

Because the mission is far harder then historical. The enemy has 10 times the troops but I'm expected to attack at reckless speed. I'm not saying I want the mission to be borderline impossible. I neither want such ridiculous feats to be possible in the game mechanics nor do I want the game to expect such ridiculous feats.

The complaint was that they were invulnerable to bayonet charges, even 8 to 1. You said it was WAD. You demonstrated beating Maryes Heights with cheese.

1) If Mayne heights is supposed to be impossible without cheese, then why is it in the campaign? 2) I dont believe that Confederate troops got engaged with bayonets at Mayne Heights so I don't get why you would say it's historical for them to be invulnerable to bayonet charges. If you get in a gun duel in the open ground you will certainly take 8-1 casualties as the Union... if not worse.

Right click on a regiment to swap it out during deployment.

The size of forces is crazy at Crampton gap. Wikipedia says that in the historical battle, the Confederates fielded 2100 men with one battery of guns and a small cavalry force. In game I'm now staring at 9 confederate brigades with 42 cannon and detachment of dismounted scouts, about 20,000 men in all. So the confederates have 10 times their historical strength in infantry and cannon. And I need to attack. Against a force of nothing but 3 star elites. Uphill. In 3 hours. As I see it, there are three problems here. 1) I'm not saying that this mission is currently impossible (I have won it) but it should be borderline impossible. If the game is balanced around absurd missions like this being a challenge then realistic balance of forces are going to be absurdly easy. 2) While it can be fun to play "what-if" and imagine Crampton gap as a larger battle, I would enjoy having some smaller scale engagements in the game as well. Not every battle needs to be huge! I would much prefer if instead of making the confederate forces 10 times larger, the Union forces were limited to create a smaller engagement. As a Union player I have regiments of 2000 or 2500 by this point. I think that the Union regiments at Crampton gap were about 1000 men in size based on the number of regiments shown in this map here: http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/southmountain/maps/cramptonsgapmap.html . For a side battle I think it would make a lot of sense to reduce a regiment down to it's historical side, the extra troops would be left behind. Reducing the number of troops would be a very straightforward way towards creating a more historical feeling and balanced battle. Give the Confederates five 300 man regiments and one 600 man regiment (Cobb's legion) and reduce their artillery down to 6 guns. Limit the Union to 1,000 men in a regiment or 4 guns in a battery. It would be possible but not easy to take the high ground with the starting four units, especially if they start out exhausted. When the Union get's it's additional 5 units it has overwhelming force but not much time to apply it (especially if they start out exhausted). 3) If this is a huge battle with 20k troops on each side, the objectives and rewards should be changed to reflect that the battle is different. When the Confederates deployed 2000 men to Crampton's gap it was a delaying action. By taking enough time they gave Jackson's forces sufficient time to capture Harper's Ferry. As such the Union suffered a strategic defeat for not taking the gap quickly enough. If the Confederates had deployed 20,000 men to Crampton gap they wouldn't have had 20,000 men to besiege Harpers Ferry. It's wouldn't be a delaying action anymore. It wouldn't matter if the Union forces sat there for three weeks let alone three hours, Harpers Ferry wouldn't have fallen without a force to besiege it. The strategic situation would be a lot more like Antietam in fact, a draw would probably force Lee to retreat back into Virginia while a Union victory would imperil the Army of Virginia. So if Crampton's Gap is going to be made into an ahistorical major engagement make the victory conditions reflect that situation. Thanks for reading. I'm sure that there are other battles where the balance is a work in progress it's just this one really jumps out at me.

At Malvern hill I initially held the left forest with like you had there but eventually had to fall back under sheer weight of numbers to avoid envelopment. At that points, the fortifications become useful. After that, the right fortifications were useful. Sure the rebels were shooting at the guys in the fortification but I had troops just south of the woods flanking them.

I dont usually have a problem with my fortifications coming under concentrated fire because I'll usually have another unit supporting them. You try to concentrate fire on my field fortifications, I concentrate fire on your flanks. I tend not to use them for infantry regiments because usually there is a better option available. But they can be extremely useful as a place to park detached skirmishers.

Glad to see that you think the original topic was worth talking about then.

If you want a respectful discussion then please don't derail discussions in this fashion. It's extremely annoying to me when I raise a legitimate, frustrating topic and you treat me like an idiot who is discussing something else entirely.

In that case I am asking why you are ignoring the situation I laid out in the OP and instead asking stupid questions.

The account makes no report of them trying to vacate the premise so I don't see why you assume they were.