Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Bigjku

Members
  • Content count

    116
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

45 Excellent

About Bigjku

  • Rank
    Able seaman
  1. Here are some shots of what I did. http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=956628087 That is my initial defensive position for my troops. You can see the Cav division kind of lurking off to the edges. http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=956628210 You can hopefully see what I mean by using the cav against the flanks to disrupt attacks. http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=956628252 http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=956628306 http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=956628442 You can see the results. There are broken brigades that have to reform and then a division worth of infantry chasing around against troops they have no hope at all of catching. This relieves all sorts of pressure against your infantry. http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=956628497 http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=956628544 As the numbers build up you can see the use of the Cav as a screen in town to buy me time to get redeployed south of town. With their cover bonuses getting the cav out of those spots isn't all that easy for the CSA. Here you can see the ultimate final position I tend to occupy on day 1. You can eventually see the Cav division retreating through my lines. Beaten up but having served their purpose. My units get a good amount of time to rest while the CSA units march and fight. http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=956628594 http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=956628776 I like this picture just to show the crap pile of CSA bodies I can make in that position. http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=956628645 http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=956628976 They finally come in and attack. Reserves move in at times when there are threats to the line. Some cover to the east gives us holding power there. Guns to the west really hurt the enemy badly if they move in that direction. http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=956629050 http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=956629087 We are able to cave in their right side by massing for a counter attack on that open ground. Look at all the dead traitors. Warms the blood really. http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=956629016 There you can see the final act of the cavalry division. The guns are left exposed. Might as well trade that division for some dead artillery. Will pay off later. I would say don't be overly aggressive when you are unsure. If the CSA starts breaking your units they can and will pressure you enough that its hard to rally anyone. Don't get flanked through town or to the East of town. When its time to pull back do so.
  2. The difficulty is going to be day 1 really. After that IMHO it's very hard to lose unless you really screw up. Day 1 he is gonna get piled into with superior numbers. Day 2 is cake. Just bail on the forward exposed positions down south and run everyone back to the roundtops and cemetery ridge. Day 1 will be a struggle. My short advice. Don't sacrifice much of Buford's fire power holding seminary ridge. Make a demonstration and fall back North of town and out of sight. You need to hold them so your corps can hold a line running Southwest anchored by town to the East. Establish a strong line there backed by artillery and make the opposition fight on open ground. When they try to swamp you near town cave in their flank with Bufords cav in dismounted actions on their flanks. Then have the cav disappear again. You will need to fall back as the map progressively opens to the East because they will get around you. The cav division can hold them for quite a while in town. Ignore the fortifications south of town IMHO. Secure a line far enough South to defend the VP but not fight the enemy in the cover of town. Pull the surviving cav behind your lines. Usually you can work it around your west flank to really disrupt their artillery support which they don't often bring through town but instead move down the ridge. Its going to be messy. No way around that. If you have a full up 40,000 man corps you can often go on the offensive day one and each subsequent phase. If numbers are in the 20,000's per corps I would be worried about that.
  3. Civil War History: 'What If' scenarios

    http://a.co/gywA099 That should be a segment from Catton's book that covered the immediate post battle state of things. I and III corps were basically destroyed. II corps was down by a third. The army would recover and one can argue it should have attacked when it had Lee cornered during his retreat. But I am not so sure it wouldn't be a blood bath pressing up against prepared fortifications. Obviously if you could wipe out the AoNV it's probably worth it but again he was relatively new to high command and I believe all his senior commanders at the time advised him not to attack. I can forgive the mistake there that I won't in Mac simply because Meads command tenure at that point had basically been one ongoing crisis. As for McDowell he didn't handle his troops particularly well at Bills Run and frankly soldiers just had lost confidence in him. Leaving him in command was probably impossible post Bull Run and certainly after 2nd Bull Run. He was just seen as bad by his troops.
  4. Civil War History: 'What If' scenarios

    Meade had days to take control of the army prior to fighting. Could he have moved more quickly at Gettysburg? Sure. But the AoTP was in very poor shape after that fight compared to its condition after Antitem. All Mac needed to do at Antitem was commit his forces in a coordinated fashion and then put in the reserves and he could win on the field. Meade couldn't do much differently until day 4 really. At that point the army was down to around 55,000 effectives IIRC and had lost its two best corps commanders. Yes he wasn't aggressive there but his situation was far more excusable than Mac's. McDowell was a big part of Second Bull Run and Union forces weren't well handled there. I don't see him building up the army needed to actually win the war.
  5. Civil War History: 'What If' scenarios

    I don't see that Lincoln had much choice but to change commanders when he did. The burden was on the Union to attack. McDowell had lost confidence from the army and frankly Mac was a fantastic organizer and trainer for the AoTP so he wasn't a know poor choice at that stage. Really that army was probably better organized and equipped than almost any army fielded elsewhere except for the fact it had too many corps for much of the war. The troops were also well trained and really did hold their own just fine until general confidence was lost in commanders. Even then it was more a grumbling problem than a willingness to follow orders thing. Bringing Pope East wasn't insane. In theory the government should have released McDowell to come down to join the Penninsular campaign rather than shield Washington but I don't see any reason to suspect that Mac wouldn't have decided that he was up against yet more CSA troops and adopted the same posture. Post Antitem Mac had to go. His failure there was abject IMHO and Lee should have been destroyed. His subsequent actions didn't show he understood the urgency of the Union being seen to fight. Burnside lost the confidence of his commanders and either you had to let him clean house or fire him. Hooker you could make an argument for keeping but Chancellorsville was very poorly handled and should have been a war winner. Meade did fine. Once Grant was in place Lincoln largely let him alone. Grant realized in a civil war that one of the key issues is continuing to fight. Time wasn't on the governments side if it was being inactive. This makes the presidents claim that all he was looking for was a general who would take the tools he was given and fight ring true. Once he had that he left the war mostly to Grant to conduct.
  6. Major General difficulty? More like "McClellan" difficulty

    The missions can be beat. The real question is why at least for the Union which I mostly the first two missions need to be as difficult as they are while also having basically nothing to do with gameplay in every battle that follows. They are just very poorly designed missions. They add nothing to the game and risk turning players off to the product before it starts to shine in later missions.
  7. Legendary CSA campaign

    It's interesting to watch you at Shilo. I have thus far only played Union in campaign and talked to people mostly about how to have success with that battle. The first thing is to not get split. The flank marches are too long and can be dealt with with skrimishers or falling back. But if you get split you are screwed as the Union. In general I think it's the biggest thing the AI needs to learn is the risk of not concentrating its forces. That disposition was basically suicidal. Fighting the CSA at Gaines Mill they never made any attempt to unify their forces and let me sit right in the middle even though I only had one division holding the critical crossing against two corps worth of troops with one on either side. A simple attack from both sides, or even showing the intent to do so, would drive me out and let them move south in mass. They never showed any interest in anything other than objective points.
  8. What's Your Favorite Battle?

    With the full release there just needs to be an unlimited resource and manpower option if the player wants it. Just to let them play around. There is no reason not to do it really.
  9. What's Your Favorite Battle?

    There was innovation and movement late in the civil war but it may just be beyond this engine to simulate it. To me the big tactical change that really would get the Union forces moving was the reorganization and equipment of the cavalry when Wilson was the Chief of that part of the army. Making them pretty much all into mounted riflemen with Spencer's gave the Union the ability to strike over a wide area with forces that could very much outshoot equal or greater numbers of infantry. Under Sheridan they unhinged Lee's positions around Richmond. Under others (and Wilson eventually) they played a large role in the final campaigns in the West for the Army under Thomas. By the end of the war they were moving offensively as detached cavalry armies and were able to seize entrenched positions when they needed to. I would love to be able to experiment with having a force of 15-20,000 cavalry with Spencer's in the late game as the Union. But I am not sure the engine or the maps support what one would want to do with such a force. And I know damn sure you can't get that many carbines no matter what you do.
  10. Civil War History: 'What If' scenarios

    I did say slightly overrated, not horribly so. Gaines Mill and the whole 7 days campaign kind of falls into the problems I mentioned elsewhere that Lee suffered on the offensive. At Mechanicsville he intended an attack with 60,000 men and got less than 1/3rd of that into action. At Gaines Mill while Lee won but didn't achieve the large scale result he wanted as the V Corps got away and gave better than it took really. The Seven Days battles are interesting in that it seems Lee beat the man McClellan more so than he beat the AotP really. But it started a mental slide for the army that wouldn't be fully dealt with until 1864-5 really. Lee set out to destroy an isolated and outnumbered part of the Union Army and couldn't get it done. Second Manassas was a strong victory but again Lee set out to destroy an isolated piece of the Union Army and didn't quite accomplish what he wanted. The late war battles once people started digging in I view with less credit to both sides. The side of the tactical offensive generally started losing if forced into action on a certain timeframe as the war moved along. Lee was very good. But despite a few good chances to isolate and destroy parts of the Union Army at 7 Days, 2nd Bull Run , Day 1 at Gettysburg and North Anna he never got the job done. We can make up any number of excuses as to why the facts to some degree speak for themselves. It is really the one thing missing from Lee's resume is that he never forced a major enemy formation into surrender or outright rout. He was never even really able to put himself in a position to do so. A large part of it comes down to he was usually on the wrong end of numbers. But even when he had local superiority it didn't get done. And often the reason was a common fault he did not seem to correct during the war. Ambiguous orders due to poor staff work, subordinates who didn't act in concert with his plans and movements that left his forces dispersed rather than concentrated during many offensive actions were problems in 1862 and never really got solved. Those issues are also directly attributable to his major personal fault which was an unwillingness to deal with personal conflicts directly. It's fair to be critical of these things. There is no Donadlson or Vicksburg for Lee. There is no Rossbach. No Austerlitz, Ulm or Jena and Auerstadt. No Saratoga or Yorktown. Yes the odds were generally against him but they weren't absurdly tilted most of the war. Other generals won strategically critical victories against odds. Lee really didn't. He traded casualties in varying proportions to the enemy for time. When finally pressed by a Union general that had a clear strategic objective and determination to fight the issue out Lee would fight hard but be maneuvered into an unwinnable position that was guaranteed to destroy his army in the long run.
  11. Civil War History: 'What If' scenarios

    Honestly I think blaming sickness gives Lee way too much of a pass. He moved aggressively in invasion of the union twice and both times he ended up with his forces scattered and was forced into battle not in accordance with his plans. In general I think his tendency towards vague orders and nebulous suggestions (plus poor staff work) came back to bite him in the ass every time he didn't have the advantages of fighting on his home turf. To me an interesting what if is the one regarding Hooker at Chancellorsville. Take that victory away and Lee has Fredericksburg and....nothing else all that impressive. And Fredericksburg was more or less a product of Burnsides stupidity. I think Lee is slightly overrated.
  12. Any Advice for Nashville?

    The dirty little secret is the South, while it had a lot of initially quite effective brigade and division level commanders had very few people with talent above that level and did a piss poor job of finding and cultivating anyone younger into those roles. In the West it was a pretty much constant clown show of commanders. I can't indeitify any senior level commanders at the corps or army level that were ever all that effective. Maybe Johnson would have been good. Maybe not. You need depth on the bench. In the East Lee's appalling people management failings are often overlooked but that had a huge impact on the war. He wouldn't run poor officers out of the service but just out of his command. Inflicting them elsewhere and causing problems. One would be hard pressed to name a significant officer that served under Lee that would perform any role on their own with much distinction. Contrast this with what came out of the camp of Grant. Numerous officers that would go onto army level commands with success. Numerous technical innovators promoted. Bad officers were routinely sent home entirely. Grants willingness to deal with personnel issues was a huge plus for the North as his influence spread. Lee's unwillingness to do the same was a huge hurdle for the south. Many of the crap officers in the West were his cast offs after all. The Union won in part because it had more men and resources, but so did the British in 1777 and they didn't win. The Union also won because they were simply better led on balance from the top down as the war moved along. The AotP would achieve parity enough with the AoNV for efficiency that its superior size held them in place. Everywhere else Union armies were pretty much better across the board by 1863 and beyond. Better commanders, better supplied, better equipped and once Grant was fully in charge much more precisely directed in their operation than CSA forces.
  13. Best cannons at the moment?

    I can do the big kill numbers with 24 pounders but the emplacement of the guns is critical and they can support maybe two to three brigades across a front. 10 pounders main advanatage is that they can probably effectively cover 2-3 times the frontage.
  14. What's Your Favorite Battle?

    I like Stones River as the Union and Chickugama as the Union which many seem to hate. I love Shilo as well.
  15. Hjalfnar fighting for the Union!

    What kind of muskets are you carrying in your first few brigades? I am guessing pretty high end for this early? You have a lot of idle troops in the reserve pool. I would get them deployed soon even with 1842's or even Farmers as the game scales quickly in terms of troops needed over the next several major battles.
×