Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

David Fair

Civil War Tester
  • Content Count

    891
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

David Fair last won the day on July 26 2014

David Fair had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

413 Excellent

About David Fair

  • Rank
    Civil War Veteran

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

1,603 profile views
  1. Statistically what is the difference of calling casualties a "kill" or "wounded"? The point is that you have one less man on the firing line. Isn't this just semantics? I agree that on the final battlefield summary you could show the breakout. The algorithm to calculate the number of wounded vs. killed in the ACW is very simple. But during the game isn't "kills" succinct enough to represent what is going on? The suggestion would have battlefield relevance if you deducted men from the firing line that were removing the wounded. During the ACW men looking to get out of harms
  2. Nick, Diversity in the units makes the game more interesting. If you make the cavalry more powerful then they become more like the infantry and can stand in the line with the infantry. Not only did this not happen historically during the ACW - it homogenizes your units and makes the game less interesting. (I'll just toss this cavalry in the line as they fight just the same anyway.) Rather than make the cavalry more powerful I'd suggest that using the cavalry in their historical role on the flanks and rear of the armies will vastly improve the tactical aspects of your game.
  3. Great to hear you are addressing the flanking issues. This should really help the game.
  4. Hi Gael, If you haven't watched Steve Knott of the Army War College he is a Southerner, expert on the ACW, and a wonderful presenter. Among his topics of presentation is the CSA cavalry during the Gettysburg Campaign. He discusses at length the strategic rational for the campaign. Specifically, that: means X will = power of resistance Steve notes that when you are the weaker side attacking the "means" of a more powerful enemy it is "insane." You might enjoy the presentation and having a dyed in the wool Southerner offer his input on the strategic goals of the
  5. Hi Gael, For your consideration here are some of the facts regarding coal mining in West Virginia. Highlights: · Coal was used locally for the saltworks near :”Saltville” along the Kanawha River before and during the Civil War. · Coal was not mined extensively in West Virginia, nor were railroads used to transport coal out of the region until 1883. · Bituminous (soft coal) was used to fuel steamships. The first widespread use of West Virginia coal began when the saltworks along the Kanawha River expanded dramatically in the decades before the Civil War. Co
  6. Gael, You seems awfully sensitive about the burning of Southern homes but not at all concerned about the generations of slaves under the whips of white supremacists. There was no olive branch offered to the black population of America. I've always thought that the lives lost in that war were much more valuable than the property losses. If the South had been a bit less jubilant about starting a war none of their slaves would have been touched and none of their property burnt. I'd rather have my home burned one time than know my children, grandchildren, and all future generati
  7. Gale, Please explain the connection you believe Lee had with Solferino? You've gone silent on Pickett's Charge - Why? Why wouldn't the Union use non-anthracite coal to fuel the blockade? It is true that anthracite coal burns more cleanly which would be critical for blockade runners trying to keep a low profile - but softer coals were routinely used commercially and in the whaling fleet which operated globally. Note that the smoke from softer coals helped whalers identify their location for other ships. The goal of the blockade was to prevent ships entering the South - which t
  8. Comments from the civilwartalk.com on the topic of North With Lee and Jackson... In North With Lee and Jackson the author makes a case — based upon a plan worked out by Stonewall a year or so earlier — that Pennsylvania’s anthracite coal mines would have become an important Rebel objective had Meade’s army not caught up with Lee at Gettysburg. But, as members of civilwartalk.com point out Stonewall’s plan would have experienced tremendous difficulties in implementation: “The anthracite coal region was large, covering several counties, there were hundreds of individual mines and the
  9. Gael, It is not clear why you believe in the similarities between the Imperial Guard at Solferino and Gettysburg. My guess is you might have an agenda to somehow tie a winning result of the French Imperial Guard to the ANV and possibly Pickett's division in particular? I just don't understand the connection. It seems to me that Longstreet's Charge of July 3 was much more comparable with the forlorn hope of the Imperial Guard at Waterloo for these reasons: 1) both attacks failed, (Not so at Solferino) 2) both attacks were made by a smaller force on a larger force. (Not so at So
  10. Actually "Pickett's Charge" was never called "Pickett's Charge" in the ANV or outside of Virginia during the war. Longstreet, and much of the South, objected to "too much Virginia" and the credit Virginia claimed in the victories - particularly when Longstreet - not Picket was in command. Virginia newspapers celebrated Pickett because he was the only Virginian among the divisional leadership that made the charge (and a FFV member). Pickett's division was the "lead division" which means the other divisions aligned on Pickett for the charge - Picket never exercised command over the
  11. Gael, Waterloo was lost in 1815 with an attack of the French Imperial Guard under the preeminent commander of the horse and musket era. Pickett's Charge was not composed of the French Imperial Guard so I'm ot sure what the point is of comparing the battle of Solferino to Gettysburg. Sometimes attacks work/sometimes not. Longstreet's/Hill's troops were the best the South had remaining - but many of these troops had been fought to a frazzle on July 1. They were hardly a hand picked reserve of fresh troops for a final attack - comparable to the Imperial Guard. I've got fami
  12. Actually I'm more of a fan of the Napoleonic period as well. The tactics are more variable and the combined arms coordination much more difficult to orchestrate. 25mm-scale games on tabletops are visually wonderful - but the audience has been declining (at least in my area) in favor of the smaller scale figures. The trouble is you can't take a tabletop with you on an airplane. UGG right now would make a poor engine for a Napoleonic game - IMHO. There are simply too many limiting factors given the choice in favor of tablets that have constrained the design. We had a tremendous
  13. Lannes, Once again your logic seems illusive to me. The goal of a historical title is usually to simulate the battlefield as it existed at the time of the battle. The closer the game gets to giving the flavor of the challenges on that field, while providing an entertaining and enjoyable game experience is kind of the goal of the game isn't it? Why would getting the correct relationship between the combat arms be like, "playing with blocks of wood and pen and paper calculations?" I guess the question is do you want to play a game that simulates the ACW or something different? I
  14. Why would balancing the combat arms to reflect the correct apportionment of casualties to the correct combat arm be a, "numerical and temporal impossibility?" This argument is not at all logical. Time and casualties would still be compressed as they are now - but infantry would be more lethal and artillery less so. The two sides in the conflict would have less differentiation. After all both sides were using precisely the same weapons. In some circumstances ammunition was picked up from the field and returned to sender. The casualties inflicted had more to do with the advantages of
  15. WesleyBarras, Above you stated: "...Which is a slight problem that became major on the 3rd day. The CSA ran out of artillery ammunition. They couldn't support the army. When their fire slackened, the Union soldiers who were covering for dear life, stood up and went to the wall. Who knows how the battle would have been if the fire could have been maintained." This is simply not a correct statement. According to E.P. Alexander the CSA brought about 42,000 rounds of artillery ammunition with them on the Gettysburg Campaign. During the three day Battle of Gettysburg the CSA fired 22,000 ro
×
×
  • Create New...