Any Advice for Nashville?

[Albert Sidney Johnston]

Finally blazed my way into the final stage of my CSA campaign. I just finished the Siege of Vicksburg, which was one of the coolest, most challenging battles yet.

I've kind of hit a road block at Nashville, though. I can't devise any decent strategies besides blindly hurling my men US Grant-style into the Union fortresses. Anyone have any advice to minimize casualties?

[_Masterviolin]

Use a mortar brig.

[Keepbro]

Apparently the town is some sort of cultural center but since the culture in question seems to be country music that can be debatable. People advise going to Music row. Whatever that is. Supposedly a row of buildings where they "play" (and I use that word Inna slightly ironic sense) a lot of country music. Why that would be a tourist point is beyond me. In fact it sounds exactly like one of my circles of hell. 

Its also a slightly sucky TV show - I only watched one episode but I didn't care for it much. Again country music

In case you are not getting it I'm not a big fan of country music. 

[Col_Kelly]

You shouldn't be going for a victory at Hardin Pike. You can get a draw for only 9k casualties by forming one huge attack column and taking one VP.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=926924083

Then just raise your tincup and press forward, the AS Johnston way

[william1993]

there is a Vicksburg battle now?

[Albert Sidney Johnston]

9 hours ago, Col_Kelly said:

You shouldn't be going for a victory at Hardin Pike. You can get a draw for only 9k casualties by forming one huge attack column and taking one VP.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=926924083

Then just raise your tincup and press forward, the AS Johnston way

Wow! Thanks so much for the advice! 

[CSA Watkins]

9 hours ago, Col_Kelly said:

Then just raise your tincup and press forward, the AS Johnston way

[Captiva]

16 hours ago, Keepbro said:

Apparently the town is some sort of cultural center but since the culture in question seems to be country music that can be debatable. People advise going to Music row. Whatever that is. Supposedly a row of buildings where they "play" (and I use that word Inna slightly ironic sense) a lot of country music. Why that would be a tourist point is beyond me. In fact it sounds exactly like one of my circles of hell. 

Its also a slightly sucky TV show - I only watched one episode but I didn't care for it much. Again country music

In case you are not getting it I'm not a big fan of country music. 

Nashville has a multi Grammy Award winning Symphony Orchestra, a pro Hockey team that was in the Stanley Cup final this year, a pro Football team that has been to the Super Bowl, it's the triple A home of baseball's Oakland A's; has a great art scene, museum and performing arts center. Nashville also has a diverse music scene that rivals that of any other city. Country music simply put it on the map decades ago.

Your describing 1970's Nashville and even earlier. It's nowhere near that anymore. But if you only experience 2nd Avenue when visiting, then you might think it is still stuck in the 70's.

Music Row is an area near downtown that is the heart of music related businesses; publishing houses, recording studios, radio stations, video production houses.

It's far from being New York, L.A. or London, but it's no longer the city of Hank Williams' era either. 

 

Edited July 7, 2017 by Captiva
wording

[Captiva]

I'm still wishing the developers would include the Battle of Franklin, Tn. as part of the battle of Nashville, The two are extremely dependent on each other. The Battle of Franklin had a huge bearing on the final result at Nashville. It cannot be understated.

Besides, six Confederate Generals that are involved in various battles throughout the Campaign lost their lives at Franklin.

Still hoping to see it's inclusion.

[Albert Sidney Johnston]

6 hours ago, CSA Watkins said:

Tonight we water our horses in the Tennessee River!

 

Though hopefully, my charge doesn't come to the same result as Johnston's

[Albert Sidney Johnston]

Wait... does this mean I should have tried for a draw at Vicksburg, too? Because I went for the victory on that one...

[Col_Kelly]

Depends how much reputation you have and whether you need to spend some for extra resources or not.

[vren55]

On 7/6/2017 at 6:36 PM, Albert Sidney Johnston said:

I've kind of hit a road block at Nashville, though. I can't devise any decent strategies besides blindly hurling my men US Grant-style into the Union fortresses. Anyone have any advice to minimize casualties?

You can win Hardin's and without too much difficulty. I honestly found Hall's ferry more difficult.

Take the ENTIRETY of the first corps that you deploy (in my case, I had mine led by Mr. Albert S. Johnston, a log, inf, defender lt. General), stack in up in lines about 4 brigades wide roughly into this dense human wave, concentrate on the barricade where the forest is (top left  bend of the north fortress, where Col. Kelly deployed). Break through, and  give all your brigade movement commands (the left click on brigade, then right drag onto location to indicate facing) past union lines and into centre of fortress. Hit slow-play and continue adjusting brigades so their human wave doesnt get flanked (you might want one or two brigades on side).

This results in essentially an unstoppable hammer of CSA infantry slamming right into the most vulnerable section of the enemy lines and just make sure they keep going (charge a few 1 star brigades). Spread them out once you claimed position to establish a line in the woods. (also think about splitting one or two brigades to deal with the remaining ppl in the outer trenchworks). The point of this tactic is to create a BLOB of men that even if one brigade ones, the others can continue advancing or meleeing.

Once the next corps deploys. Rinse and repeat for the next fortress, this time hitting the left-most corner with the reinforcing corps. Use what you can spare with the1st deployed corps to reinforce. Always constantly watch your men as they blob-move and have them move southwest to push out the remainders once you gottena  footnote into the main fortress. Remember, keep the blob moving and keep the blob together (for the most part).

Statistics, Brig-Gen (med difficulty)

CSA 99806 inf, 0 cav, 81 guns, Union: 66314 inf, 1562 cav and 224 guns

Casualties CSA: 14727 inf, Union: 17719 inf, 96 guns, 149 cav 661 missing.

Hope that helps! And seriously, dont' draw. You need the men for washington. Thus, NO PRISONERS... NO MERCY!!!!! NO DRAWING!

 

Edited July 9, 2017 by vren55

[CSA Watkins]

On 7/7/2017 at 1:26 PM, Captiva said:

I'm still wishing the developers would include the Battle of Franklin, Tn. as part of the battle of Nashville, The two are extremely dependent on each other. The Battle of Franklin had a huge bearing on the final result at Nashville. It cannot be understated.

Besides, six Confederate Generals that are involved in various battles throughout the Campaign lost their lives at Franklin.

Still hoping to see it's inclusion.

Yes, Franklin was a costly Battle for the AoT, as you said it's a part of or leading up to the Battle of Nashville. One Battle does effect the other, to further add to your info-----

Battle of Franklin - Aftermath:

The Battle of Franklin cost Hood 1,750 killed and around 5,800 wounded. Among the Confederate deaths were six generals: Patrick Cleburne, John Adams, States Rights Gist, Otho Strahl, and Hiram Granbury. An additional eight were wounded or captured. Fighting behind earthworks, Union losses were a mere 189 killed, 1,033 wounded, 1,104 missing/captured. The majority of those Union troops that were captured were wounded and medical personnel who remained after Schofield departed Franklin. Many were liberated on December 18, when Union forces re-took Franklin after the Battle of Nashville. While Hood's men were dazed after their defeat at Franklin, they pressed on and clashed with Thomas and Schofield's forces at Nashville on December 15-16. Routed, Hood's army effectively ceased to exist after the battle.

The assault at Franklin is frequently known as the "Pickett's Charge of the West" in reference to the Confederate assault at Gettysburg. In reality, Hood's attack consisted of more men, 19,000 vs. 12,500, and advanced over a longer distance, 2 miles vs. .75 miles, then Lieutenant General James Longstreet's assault on July 3, 1863. Also, while Pickett's Charge lasted approximately 50 minutes, the assaults at Franklin were conducted over a span of five hours.

https://www.thoughtco.com/battle-of-franklin-2360910

[Col_Kelly]

I don't like to look down upon men who have faced challenges I'll never have to face. But in all honesty I can't help but think of Hood as a complete idiot. Great inspiration for the men as a brigade commander but a complete disaster as an army commander.

[Major Grigg]

7 minutes ago, Col_Kelly said:

I don't like to look down upon men who have faced challenges I'll never have to face. But in all honesty I can't help but think of Hood as a complete idiot. Great inspiration for the men as a brigade commander but a complete disaster as an army commander.

I agree, he seems like the Texans of today! (I'm an Okie).

[Albert Sidney Johnston]

28 minutes ago, Col_Kelly said:

I don't like to look down upon men who have faced challenges I'll never have to face. But in all honesty I can't help but think of Hood as a complete idiot. Great inspiration for the men as a brigade commander but a complete disaster as an army commander.

Exactly! He was promoted above his talent. As a brigade commander he was excellent, but in no way does doing a good job executing orders carry over into being a master strategist! 

I don't blame Hood for his failures at all. I blame Jefferson Davis, for appointing Hood to a job he simply wasn't good at.

Edited July 9, 2017 by Albert Sidney Johnston

[Col_Kelly]

24 minutes ago, Albert Sidney Johnston said:

Exactly! He was promoted above his talent. As a brigade commander he was excellent, but in no way does doing a good job executing orders carry over into being a master strategist! 

I don't blame Hood for his failures at all. I blame Jefferson Davis, for appointing Hood to a job he simply wasn't good at.

I guess Davis can be blamed for it as well but in the end the Nashville campaign is just... such a sad story. These battered veterans fighting a war that is already lost and sent far North into their doom to an unnecessary death. All of it to fulfill the dreams of a commander that had probably gone crazy by that time. Meanwhile, Sherman was free to make Georgia howl...

When you come to think of it it would make a great movie.

[A. P. Hill]

1 hour ago, Albert Sidney Johnston said:

Exactly! He was promoted above his talent. As a brigade commander he was excellent, but in no way does doing a good job executing orders carry over into being a master strategist! 

I don't blame Hood for his failures at all. I blame Jefferson Davis, for appointing Hood to a job he simply wasn't good at.

Agreed on your first point ...

Disagreed on your second point.  You can't blame President Davis for appointing him ... it was a simple thing of mathematics called officer attrition.  Davis had to appoint someone, situation was Hood was the only one available.   If you want to place blame, again blame attrition. 

[Col_Kelly]

56 minutes ago, A. P. Hill said:

Agreed on your first point ...

Disagreed on your second point.  You can't blame President Davis for appointing him ... it was a simple thing of mathematics called officer attrition.  Davis had to appoint someone, situation was Hood was the only one available.   If you want to place blame, again blame attrition. 

I also have to disagree on your second point . Truth is the Confederacy had at least one amazing general left in the person of DH Hill. This man foresaw the disaster that was Malven Hill but was also able to engage in agressive and decisive actions like he did at Gaine's Mill.

Problem is DH Hill had the terrible habit of speaking his mind : Lee didn't like him for it and thus sent him on the Western theater. There he openly slandered Bragg (Davis little 'protégé') and for that was left without a command after Chickamauga. Had he been recalled after Bragg's disgrace he would have done a much better job : he had proven himself several times and had the support of at least some of the officers in the army of the Tennessee. He certainly would not have won the war but many more brave soldiers would have had the chance to see their families again.

[Albert Sidney Johnston]

4 hours ago, Col_Kelly said:

He certainly would not have won the war but many more brave soldiers would have had the chance to see their families again.

And perhaps Georgia wouldn't have been utterly sacked and pillaged to the point that it never recovered.

Honestly, the Western Theatre in general was just one sad disaster after another.

 

If only Johnston had survived past Shiloh...

 

Edited July 10, 2017 by Albert Sidney Johnston

[Bigjku]

17 hours ago, Albert Sidney Johnston said:

And perhaps Georgia wouldn't have been utterly sacked and pillaged to the point that it never recovered.

Honestly, the Western Theatre in general was just one sad disaster after another.

 

If only Johnston had survived past Shiloh...

 

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.

[sigsaucy]

just won this as confed with 16k casualties to the unions 25k on medium difficulty (I'm pretty sure it's medium, is there anyway to check?)

Took the southern fort with a frontal assault, afterwards rested the assault fort on the eastern slopes of the fort to interdict any reinforcements headed to the northern fort.

Massed up my 2nd assault force at the southern tip of the Northern fort, and kept pushing until the rotten house fell apart.  It helped to have men in the forest west of it to draw fire and support.

Anytime I assaulted the forts I had 3 lines of men ready to rush in and fill any gaps, the first line typically charges in and takes the brunt of it initially.

I woulda inflicted more casualties on the Union but the battle ended right as I took the 2nd fort .  There's always next time.

Now for my first run through of Battle of Washington.  I'M SO SCARED

[Albert Sidney Johnston]

21 hours ago, Bigjku said:

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.

I agree with most of that, however I think Lee was more successful then you give him credit for. I think that Grant was a fair army commander (The Vicksburg Campaign was a work of sheer brilliance), he still simply received credit for beating an already depleted, hungry, under-supplied Army of Northern Virginia. Sure, he was a good commander, but I don't think he would have done better then Lee, had the roles been reversed.

But anyways, I do think Johnston would have been successful in the West. I'm a bit biased, (given my username :P), but I genuinely think Johnston would have done as well in the West as Lee had done in the East. 

Many people argue this saying that his service in the early Civil War before his death, wasn't enough to warrant such a prediction. I agree, that his Civil War record alone isn't enough, however the American Civil War was certainly not the beginning of his military career.

Read a book on him sometime! He's fascinating! He fought in the Texan War of Independence, starting as a private, and rising to the rank of senior brigadier general in just one year! After the war, he even became Secretary of War, and fought a lot of successful campaigns against the native americans that I don't have time to delve into.

After Texas joined the US, he served in the Spanish-American War, and the Utah War, rising to brigadier general in the US army as well! 

When he died, personally leading a successful charge against the entrenched Union position at The Hornet's Nest in Shiloh, Jefferson Davis said that he considered him the best general in the entire CSA army.

 

So, uh... yeah, I was kinda fanboying there. Sorry

 

[Col_Kelly]

Johnston is a fascinating character, a man born for war and an inspiring figure for the men. Had he been born in an aristocrat family during the middle-ages he would have been the most famous knight in History's pages.

Yet, though I don't know that much of the man, it appears to me when I read about Shiloh that he was simply too close to the frontline. This is not a job for an army commander whose death can shatter the morale of an entire army. Courriers weren't able to find him because he was moving all the time and the overall coordination of his army was impacted by that. Beauregard had to step-in that role and he just wasn't up to the task at all.

In the end I believe he was born at the wrong time : commanding an army in the victorian era requires planners, not heroes. Leading from the front became obsolete and that's exactly what the Texans reminded to R.E. Lee as he intended to lead an assault at the Wilderness : 'Go back General'!