A. P. Hill

Historically, the battle did last several days. April 30th, to May 6th. So to make the game similar in a historical setting ... yeah it needs multiple days. The point being that on May 2nd Jackson's flanking move took so long to execute and align, (thanks to the woods,) that it never really got rolling until late afternoon, around 4 or 5 p.m. giving him only about 3 hours of fading daylight. Less actually while in the darkness of the thickets of the forests. So the flanking maneuver was called on account of no more daylight, the troops rested on their arms, during sporadic shooting all night, and by the time they got leaders in order, (Jackson, Hill, and several other competent leaders injured in the first night's attack,) a.k.a. J.E.B. Stuart, the battle was resumed. So yeah setting you back is more historical despite your ability to beat out the game. That said however, I've also seen battles such as Shiloh, 2nd Manassas to name a couple end a day early based on the player's achievements. Again the point is this is still early release, I have no idea how rushed the Devs might have been to get these other two battles out and haven't presented enough coding to over-rule game play based on player results.

Well .... You know, if you've seen one Johnston, you've seen them all.

^^^ THIS ^^^ Or at least limit numbers to historical limits.

I've said before, I'll say again, as a purist on all things ACW, I'd like to see every major battle provided.

Some great information here, I suggest you take some time and tour their site, you might find the maps (both static and animated,) as well as the mountains of other information to your liking. :) ENJOY!

I consider it historical, and not a factor. That said, I've said before, had the Union forces been led by more competent leaders, they could have beaten every Confederate force ever fielded.

At this stage of the war, the Army of Northern Virginia only had two Corps, (actually 1 1/3.) Longstreet had 2/3rd of his Corps in Tennessee.

I think this makes a lot of sense. I would only care to micro manage regiments in the camp ... at least that way you'll know who your officers and such could be. And once you get your regiments shuffled into acceptable brigades, you could form your divisions.

Thanks, and I wasn't especially dictating any change in game simplicity or mechanics. Just countering a comment about the game's numbers being too high. As for the dropbox. Yeah I tried several different ways but always got an error message. I guess at some point I need to convert it to a png or jpg instead of html. Thanks for the info though.

I wish I would have had my head together in my younger days playing at reenacting. I took the easy route and reenacted Infantry. Secretly I envied the guys reenacting artillery. But really, my interest in Artillery didn't really peak during that time. That said, however, I started an active study of the ACW at the tender age of 10, when my parents took the family to Gettysburg for summer vacation that year. Just being on that field at 10 years of age was overwhelming. However since then, I've studied every aspect of the ACW for the better part of 51 years now. So my knowledge may not be as "hands on" as yours. That said, I'd like to state that I find the information below, somewhat in error. While somewhat correct that every piece doesn't require 22 men to field a gun in actuality, and according to many existent Ordnance manuals and Artillery manuals of the time, and by those manuals, the definition of a gun crew borders on 19 - 22 men per single piece. According to those manuals you have 7 cannoneers, (privates,) and 1 gunner, (corporal,) and the Chief of the Piece, (sergeant.) There's 9 guys there. Per gun. And of course this is with a full crew on paper. In addition to these 9 guys, and the piece, you have as you mentioned the limber. The limber helps the piece become mobile, and to do that, depending on the gun, the number of horses and teamsters varied. Most small guns, (6lb and up to 10lb) tubes were mounted on a Number 1 carriage, and due to the smaller size of the ammunition, they required only one caisson to be attached to the piece. These guns and caissons were pulled by teams of four horses each, requiring 2 men per pair of horses. These teamsters need to be counted, because the 1860's artillery practice during the Civil War, teamsters and cannoneers were not cross trained in duties. So you have to add these guys to the 9 men already listed. Now if we're talking 12lb Napoleons, 24lb Howitzers, and a few other gun tubes, these required a heavier carriage known as a Number 2 carriage. (There is of course, the Number 3 carriage as well, carrying 32lb Howitzers, and the 20lb & 30lb Parrots.) Because of the size of the 12lb and up, ammunition, two caissons were assigned per piece. And because of the combined weight of these guns and limbers and ammunitions, the gun limber required six horses and 3 teamsters, while the caissons required only four horses still, but now the teams were doubled because of the two caissons as support, so now we're talking eight horses and four teamsters. And of course each of these vehicles, (limbers & caissons) required 3 - 4 men as you mentioned, so these men need to be added to the count. So now if we're dealing with a Number 1 carriage, there are approximately 15 men to support a piece. Caisson ammunition boxes were limited in quantity of ammunition so each platoon, (1 gun and it's associated caissons,) required at least one 6 mule quartermaster wagon to carry the extra rounds ... as the standard quantity of ammunition to be accompanied by any gun was in excess of 250 or 300 rounds. The quartermaster wagon required only 1 muleskinner to manage the team, so now we're up to 16 men per platoon. IF the platoon was a 12lb gun and associated caissons, that number would increase to approximately 20 men as a standard crew. That's a single gun. A battery is the artillery's equivalent to the infantry's company. On paper a fully company of infantry was to max out around 110 men under the command of a captain. In the artillery, a battery maxed out around 150 - 160 men depending, and included up to 6 pieces and their associated equipage. As, my friend Mr. Aagaard mentioned, there were other skills required to maintain a proper battery. Farriers, blacksmiths, were part, but there were also cartwrights, wheelwrights, and regular carpenters, as well as mechanics. Now some of these skills could be cross trained possibly reducing the number of men, but generally not. A standard Union Battery would have 3 wood skilled artisans, and 3 metal skilled artisans, as well as 2 horse skilled, (farriers,) men in the battery. Of course with the battery came other vehicles as well. Equipment known as Traveling Forges, and Battery Wagons each with their associated limbers, and horse teams and teamsters. And each of these units all came with associated non commissioned officers in charge. And like a regiment, there were special posts also attached to these. The quartermaster sergeants and ordnance officers 1 each per battery all led by a captain and his staff which at the time was sized by personal preference and not by any military standards. I have taken a bit of time to compose an organization chart of an 1862 Union 6 gun Light 12lb gun-howitzer battery. https://www.dropbox.com/home?preview=battery+components.htm

+1 I've requested they be white or light gray.

See, and this is the difference between the real battle and the ones everyone plays. When Hooker crossed the river and found himself at Chancellorsville, he made the tactical mistake of sending ALL of his cavalry, further to the west and down toward Richmond way, and pretty much left himself blind in the woods. The only cavalry he had was a couple companies as headquarters guard and not enough to do as you played. And as far as your details about Lee not attacking, that's pretty much true to history. Sure he made a few feints to help alleviate the pressure on Jackson, but for the most part, the whole of Jackson's Corps was massed on the right of Hooker's position and basically rolled him up. Lee applied enough pressure on his front to keep Hooker from being able to send his right any units from his front or left. As was true to history, the initial shock of Jackson's Corps busting out of the woods in the late afternoon, (around 3 or 4 p.m. if I recall correctly,) was eventually stymied by the Union troops coming together behind some luckily placed log barricades by Union Divisions. Of course what the game doesn't project realistically, is the panic and uncertainty of Hooker once he realized he was out maneuvered and flanked with nothing to really stop Jackson's onslaught. His panic caused a serious flaw in logical thinking and he couldn't direct units and they were pretty much left to their own to try to make their best defense(s). While some stuck it out and fought, (after regaining their composure,) others just cut and run, never to be seen until the retreat of the Army of the Potomac back towards Washington's defenses. The point being, until the Dev's can model in actual commander reactions and responses from real events into the game, the Union Army of the Potomac will always be superior enough to trounce the Confederates in any battle and really shouldn't be a surprise that they can. Players of this game, are not at fear of losing their lives, being captured and spending god only knows how long in a horrid Southern prisoner of war camp ... and with the commanding overview of the battlefield, can direct units as they're needed and where they're needed, whereas Hooker, (and all other commanders both North and South,) did not have that advantage and could not react to situations as quickly as we the player(s) can. I consistently play Southern army, and it's a really great feeling when I can, with my limited resources, send the yankees skedaddling off the map. (As a side note, and as someone already mentioned, Longstreet was in Tennessee with a good 2/3rds of his First Corps during this fight. So Lee took command of the remaining 1/3 of the Longstreet's corps, and of course Jackson was short Ewell's division, they were holding the rear at Fredericksburg.)

Yep, I experience this as well. Too many times lately, my artillery has limbered up and rode merrily into the waiting guns of enemy infantry only to be totally wiped out because the click for target acquisition didn't take and acted like a move location command. I've also lost brigades to this as well. Apparently the aperture for selecting is too small?

Attrition of Command is really felt in the CSA campaign. And during the war it was a very real thing. As much as many players would consider it too deep and too micromanaging, I would like to see the command structure to go to at least 2nd Lieutenant depth in the Camp, so that we can appoint successive command. Of course in order to go to that depth, we would have to bring the regiment structure into game.

Just played Shiloh as CSA on the new build in my campaign, I got the first attack, the second attack, the third, and the hornets nest, and as soon as I took the H.N. the battle ended in a draw?! I didn't get the whole map, nor the chance to roll up the right flank and end the game proper.

I think rifles should be restricted to actual times of appearance in history.

Frankly, and I've said this before, I'd like the troops at regimental level and allow us to build our armies from there.

My thoughts on "buildable fortifications" is this: It's rather hard and lots of math involved in deforming the terrain from implied shoveling. If left to the player, there is no telling where or how or in what shape fortifications could be dug, or trees cut and laid down. To have a subroutine sitting there assessing the topography of the map, and then to deform said map into whatever shape the player is attempting I think puts an tremendous strain on the program and the systems trying to run the game to the point that I think it would be almost impossible to get something like this to actually take place. I even doubt that if "buildable fortifications" were program controlled it would still be a massive undertaking to make it work. As much as I'd like to see something like this implemented, as well as the ability to engineer pontoon bridges and the like, I feel it's just flat out beyond doing.

The Wilderness move by Lee was to give the Southern forces an advantage over the numbers of the Union forces. Lee's lines were in the shape of an inverted V and if Grant hadn't realized eventually what was taking place, Lee's fortifications would have split the union forces. Once Grant understood what was happening he pulled back his right flank and had them march around the rear of the left flank and continue the sliding movement to the South and Southeast. It was a brilliant tactic by Lee, and if he would have had more forces, might have succeeded at breaking the Union forces in two and defeating each piecemeal.

Only have one thing to say about that ... Waaaaaaah! I still want every battle ever fought in game. PLEASE.

Actually, I'd prefer that the reinforcements walk a good distance onto the field so that their presence can be spotted on the mini map. IF not a bugle or drum call, at least a vocalization saying, "Xyz command has arrived on the field for your direction Sir!"

Frankly, the way I see it. Let them take their time and get it right as it goes out the door. Piss on this "give it to me now mentality". Take your time devs, I want perfection not some hurried p.o.s. that never works properly.

Bill, First, allow me to offer my apologies, I didn’t realize that the provision of actual historical data would be so unappreciated, but I see where that’s possible now. But before I make a promise to never post any more historically factual information that you might read, let me at least attempt again to enlighten your misconceptions with regard to the 12lb ‘Napoleon’, a.k.a., 12lb Light Gun-Howitzer. While we’re discussing this topic, might I ask if you know what the differences are between Howitzers and Guns? Aside from being a much shorter tube/bore length Howitzers had a smaller powder chamber in the breech of the tube, thus Howitzers tended to have lower muzzle velocities than Guns which had powder chambers the same size as the bore. Again, Howitzers primary purpose was to lob in high trajectory their shell or case rounds, in order to clear fortification walls and burst behind them, and as we all know, they can be used in Gun fashion to hurl canister. Guns on the other hand were used in what is called ‘Direct fire’, or low trajectory. The original design of the 12lb Gun-Howitzer, a.k.a. ‘The Napoleon’ Gun was conceived in France, not by Napoleon Bonaparte, but rather by his nephew Prince Charles Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, who became in later life, Emperor Napoleon III. But before then, Prince Charley, was an avid student of artillery and conceived this Gun to replace, or make obsolete, the mixed 6lb Gun / 12lb Howitzer batteries of the French artillery, reducing many things in the process. (Need for multiple ammunitions, multiple carriages, etc.) That being said, the official French name given this Gun by Prince Charley, was “Canon-Obusier de 12”. Now if you’re unfamiliar with French you may want to take that to an online translation program. This 12lb Gun-Howitzer, a.k.a., 12lb ‘Napoleon’ was adopted by both English and American militaries shortly after its appearance on the world scene, where upon both militaries called it the 12lb Light Gun-Howitzer. As mentioned Prince Charley’s intent was to outdate the 6lb Gun and the 12lb Howitzers, and the U.S. military conceded to this effort after the Mexican-American War. For confirmation of this, you might want to read some of the following references: U.S. War Department, Ordnance Department, Regulations for the Government of the Ordnance Department (1839,) page 7 John Gibbon, The Artillerist’s Manual, appendix, pages 27, & 41-42 The Field Manual for the use of the Officers on Ordnance Duty, (1862) prepared by the C.S.A. Ordnance Bureau, pages 55, 76, & 114-116 The Ordnance Manual for the use of the Officers of the United States Army, 3rd Edition, (1861,) pages 34, 384-386 The Ordnance Manual for the use of the Officers of the Confederate States Army, (1863,) pages 29, 367-369 For General Lee’s directive about recasting all the bronze 6lb Guns, 12lb Howitzers, as well as any other miscellaneous bronze tubes into CSA manufactured 12lb ‘‘Napoleon’’ Gun-Howitzers, please see The Official Records of The Rebellion, Series 1, volume 21, page 1046 One last question then I’m done. You said ... Seriously? … Where do you suppose the developers get their information to make sure that the Guns are as playable to the real thing if not from historical data of the type that I present here? I’m not saying I know for a certainty that the developers of UG-CW use this information, I’d like to think they do, but there are other developers of software who go to great lengths to collect this information to assure their products are as accurate and true to the real thing as they can be. I know you probably don’t care as it’s not related to the game play, but, I’ve studied the American Civil War as actual history for a very long time now, and long before I ever played any representation of it on a computer game. There is abundant documentation to be had about every aspect of this historical event. All you have to do is pick up a book and start reading.

Yep, I got him, he's leading my 1st Corps. Longstreet is leading my 2nd Corps. I got Jackson too but didn't realize it was him, he ended up at the head of a brigade and was killed in Cross Keys if I remember correctly.

Strangely, I had not discovered UG-G about 6 months ago. I so thoroughly enjoyed it that I was moved to send an email asking that the developers consider expanding that game into something that we now have. I did this unknowingly. I had no clue a sequel was in the making. And now here I find myself within months of asking for something like this in an email to actually enjoying it. Good Job!