A. P. Hill

Now there's a informed statement. Not sure where you get your opinion that 12lb howitzers under perform? Howitzers were designed to be a short range with an arching trajectory. When not used as designed and used as big ass shotguns, 12lb howitzers do a fine job. As for the 24lb howitzers, same function as 12lb but with a heavier round and a slightly larger powder charge. Thus their range when used as big assed shotguns tend to send canister a bit farther so yeah, they might do more damage. Also for the record, the Napoleons are 12lb guns. In the time they were called many things. They were designed to basically take the place of the standard Model 1841 12lb gun. This gun was 85 inches long with a 4.62 bore, (smooth,) and a weight of around 1600 - 1800 pounds depending on tube material. The Napoleon, as it came to be called, is officially the Model 1857 Light 12lb Gun - Howitzer. (Essentially trying to fill two roles.) The Napoleon was 72.5 inches long with a 4.62 bore, (smooth,) and a weight of approx. 1220 pounds. The Model 1841 12lb came to be called the Model 1841 12lb Heavy, while the Model 1857 came to be called the Model 1857 12lb Light Gun - Howitzer. Where the Model 1841 12lb Howitzer was 58.5 inches long with a 4.62 bore, (smooth,) and a weight of around 695 - 796 pounds depending on tube material. (Materials were Bronze, or Cast Iron for all three tubes.) The federal government did not use 6lb guns after 1st Manassas/Bull Run. The Federal Military called them obsolete. With the manufacturing capabilities they had they started mass producing the bronze Model 1857 12lb Light Gun Howitzer, and it superseded the 6. The Confederacy on the other hand were hard up for weaponry and used a variety of tubes, and the 6lb gun was in abundance in their batteries during the early war. Most all the 6lb guns made from bronze however were eventually all shipped to Tredegar in Richmond, VA where the Confederate government dictated that they all be recast into Model 1862 CSA style 12lb Light Gun - Howitzers. The difference between the three guns, 12lb Heavy Model 1841, 12lb Light Gun - Howitzer Model 1857, and the 12lb Howitzer were obvious based on powder charges. The Model 1841 12lb Howitzer used at maximum a 1 pound charge. The Model 1857 12lb Gun-Howitzer used a maximum 2.5 pound charge, and the Model 1841 12lb Heavy also used a 2.5 pound charge. With those charges, and a 1 degree elevation to the tube, each gun could fire a shell 539 yards, 615 yards, and 662 yards respectively down range. For my comparison of the 12lb Howitzer vs the 24lb Howitzer, see my comment in the 24 Pound Howitzer Thread.

I especially hate when enemy brigades rout behind my lines and it takes 3 or 4 of my brigades to chase it down and wear their asses out trying to catch an enemy that never seems to become exhausted at the same rate as my men.

I know names are regurgitated between sides. I play CSA and I've had a couple commanders with union names ... I currently have a brigade commander named Ulysses Grant.

I've experienced the above, where when you assign a unit to attack an opponent, that when that opponent falls back the unit I assigned to attack it will follow it. And then of course, after telling them to quit fucking around and get back in line, they become rear flanked when returning to their assigned spot in the line. The rear flanked crap isn't all that great for their moral. And while I'm on the subject of flanking, If I have a unit that is surrounded on all sides by units from my side, how is it when you order the unit to maneuver so as to lend it's weight of fire into an attacking opponent and it's now positioned obliquely in line that it gets flanked when clearly it's not capable of being such.

This may be the root cause. After all, the program has to look somewhere to make a determination as to how big it's got to be, so rather than take time calculating from the battle selection menu pre battle, it examines your whole army database and calculates 1.5 percent or whatever the ratio is difference then throws that number into the fray. I personally would rather the program looks at the battle you're fighting and then determines that historically, the opposing armies has X number of men in the battle and then limits the provision of men and material to those actual historical limits. I also wish that the programming would take into account historical personality traits. For example even though McClellan had superior force at Antietam, (hell any battle where he was a part of,) he husbanded his forces because he did not want to destroy the object of his creation. Therefore in given battles where McClellan would have been known to be in overall command the AI should react accordingly, thereby sparing troops instead of sending every possible unit it possess into the battle. But that's just me and my "Purist" attitude.

I don't use "Skirmishers" as an organization that can be created obviously in the camp. But I have gotten in the habit of once on the field, of clicking units and then splitting skirmishers from them on the field.

I agree with you up to this point. In the actual militaries that we're trying to represent in this game, during real life, the only organizations that comprised of mixed arms were the physical armies. Regiments, Brigades, and Divisions did not mix arms within any of the afore mentioned units. If you had a regiment of cavalry, it was all cavalry. If you had a regiment of Artillery, it was all artillery, and etc. Even with Brigades and Divisions. That's not to say that those Divisions and Brigades did not have separate brigades of other arms, as they did. Any order of battle that you can find on the ACW ... you will not find any of these organizations sub army level composed of mixed arms. That said, yes, I realize that there is a level of organization missing in game that I'd like to see as I mentioned above two posts ago. And in the very beginning of the ACW, it's true there were organizations called Legions, but these were local militia and once they were attached to the official provincial armies, they were split up and each branch was relocated with other arms of that same type. And early on both armies had Brigades that had artillery and cavalry attached to infantry, but later around 1862 after experimenting with that organization both militaries determined it would be better to reorganize where artillery and cavalry were attached to Divisions and not Brigades.

Welp, so much for playing historically where Jackson's troops held the railroad embankment against odds.

Geeze, as CSA, I just had my ass handed to me and lost my campaign at this point. I'll have to try the fancy moved above mentioned next go round.

Yep, it would be nice if we could also send existing commanders of corps back to the reserve if we're not using them. Same with the Major General spots, if you have no troops to fill the slots.

Somehow, I'd rather start at the regiment level and then venture up from there. So what you now see as "Divisions" in game, I prefer to think of as Brigades with each of the units shown under the brigade as actual regiments of said brigade. In essence, we need one more level to group. If we apply my approach, we are missing what is supposedly depicted as division level now.

Not only that, BUT should the Devs decide to go way deep into this Civil War thing ... this being just the Eastern Theater, you can now envision the enormity of the task to create even half of the conflicts shown on that map.

Okay here's an update. I just played the Manassas Junction Raid and am sadly disappointed. Not even the first railroad track on that map!

You are not the only one my friend. I think all of us have experienced this. Not sure if it can be programed that If a unit is about to rout it should always make certain of the return to its origination point instead of the area of least resistance from the enemy.

Speaking of the amount of battles ... Eastern Theater 1861 - 1865. Hope this works.

I asked for something similar and got poo poo'd on the site. Knowing that a complete artillery unit consists of a team of horses, (depending on the gun, anywhere from 4 to 8,) a limber with the Number 1 Ammo Chest, a caisson with two more ammo chests, it's limber and ammo chest. In some cases depending on the gun, a pair of limbered caissons were teamed with the gun. I would like to at least see the correct sprites with artillery. I'd love to see the Number 6 man running between ammo box and gun barrel delivering the round. But from everything I've heard, that's far too much for some players. Also as long as we're on the topic of various animations of vehicles of the time, supply wagons were teamed by 6 mule teams ... and of course of all vehicles, so far there is an absence of ambulances, (4 and 2 horse varieties,) and we have railroad tracks, how about some rolling stock? (NOTE! I haven't played the Manassas raid yet so I don't know if the last request is fulfilled yet or not.)

No. If anything they tried hard to refrain from using canister in rifles. It bungs up the grooves, making the gun essentially useless. Not only that reports from the field where they did fire canister from rifles, it put a wicked twist the blast sending it in the direction of the exit grooves, there was really no telling where it would go. But, no, rifling had no effect on canister.

I don't think it means what you think it means!

Strangely I just tried this a few moments ago. You can swap brigades around in divisions, and Corps, (as long as a slot is available, but you can't fill a brigade to capacity by doing this. I agree, it would be a great feature to have.

BUT! I had 10 opponents left on the field and the game timed out! I couldn't kill all of them!

Yep, I've taken several opposing general squads out and there is no mention of the loss.

When you go to bed at night, and as soon as you close your eyes, you see little armies of men squirming behind your eye lids.

As I said, it was disliked universally by both armies for the same reasons you state. So, with that said, perhaps the gun is modeled correctly .. and it really is worthless.

With regard to the 20lb comments, I have read somewhere, can't recall where, but it was stated that even in real life the 20lb was an almost worthless gun for the field armies. It was disliked universally by both sides.

I got an idea! Instead of modding this fine work, why not ask for an entirely new series? After they get the ACW right and finished.