Major Grigg
-
Posts
76 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Major Grigg
-
-
12 minutes ago, Hodo said:
No offense but the Confederacy wasnt exactly sugar plums and candy canes. They would not have changed much over the next 150years since the Civil War ended. It would have been as extreme as some of the things said in the movie. But it would have been much the same. They would not have abolished slavery, they would not have aloud for the push of equal rights. They sure as hell would not have let women vote. There would have been segregation for all races not white.
It would have been an agricultural and rural society where the difference between rich and poor would have been astoundingly distant. Without the US, WWI and WWII would not have ended the way they went, odds are WWII would have ended with a Nazi victory, as the Confederacy would have most likely sided with them. And in WWI the lack of US industry, as the Confederacy was a rural based economy wouldnt have been able to come up to the challenge. For the most part I feel the CSS would have been little more than a 3rd world country in the 20th century, and would not have been able to curb the expansion of Fascism or Communism.
Some major world linchpins are pivotal moments based on the fact the United States being there.
I would like to think that if the Confederate states of America won and had slavery in 2017, that almost every western country would declare war.
I havent seen this "film", but it sounds a little much.
-
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).
-
Bravo, Col. Kelly. Rainy morning where I'm at, so I watched your performance at Shiloh. Excellent strategy and near flawless execution. IMO, that is what separates the good and great players. I just advance in one big line, similar to the history of the battle, and I almost never get to Pittsburgh Landing in time.
Great job. I will look with anxiety towards your future movements.
-
I always pay the price, and it probably not smart, but I love winning this battle just because of it significance.
-
1
-
-
Antietam for both sides, because, well.... it's Antietam!
-
McPherson has a book containing essays that address several issues discussed on this thread. "Drawn with the Sword". I read it while I was in college and I just started it again. I highly recommend it.
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, GAR_Arapharzon said:
Do not attack Oak ridge from the west, initially. It's a good defensive position with that large open field in front. Advance to Seminary Ridge as soon as possible. Hold off the union reinforcements. Wait for your own reinforcements, and then attack Oak from the south and west. Push those people north and bag'em. Then turn south and attack cemetery.
This is exactly what I do. Works every time.
-
1 hour ago, Albert Sidney Johnston said:
Alright, I knew this would happen eventually. I do my best to stay out of these sorts of arguments, but I suppose I shall finally make an exception. I shall hold myself to this single post, then unfollow the thread.
Fighting an entire war just to keep slavery.... riiiiiiiiiight...
The absurdity of this propaganda comes when you understand that between seventy to eighty percent of Confederate soldiers and sailors were not slave owners! In fact, even of the minority that were slave owners, only less then three percent of the southern population could be qualified as "aristocratic", meaning the rest had five or fewer slaves, and had to work alongside them in the fields to make a living.
Not only the common soldiers, but the majority of The South's most famous generals weren't slave owners. A partial list includes General Robert E Lee the southern high commander, General Joseph Johnston the famous commander of the western theater, the energetic young "Last Cavalier" General JEB Stuart, and the hero that saved the Southern army at Sharpsburg, General A.P. Hill.
Before we go any further, let's make sure we clearly understand the full extent of Southern sacrifice. To put it into a modern context, let's compare the casualties to those of World War II. During the Second World War, The United States of America lost over three hundred thousand military personnel, a devastating tragedy to our nation.
Here's the kicker. If America lost personnel in World War II at the same rate (per capata) as The Confederate States of America did during The War of Southern Independence, there wouldn't have been three hundred thousand casualties. There would have been six million.
Six million. Mull those numbers over for a few moments.
The War of Southern Independence was no walk in the park. It was one of the bloodiest, deadliest, most terrible conflicts in American history. These soldiers were going through hell.
So Southern soldiers and sailors, the vast majority of whom didn't even own slaves, overseen on both eastern and western theaters high commanders who hated slavery, marched against a numerically superior and better equipped force, and endured four long and deadly years of hardships... all in order for a few rich men to keep their slaves? Hmmmmmmmm... To quote Patrick Henry when he refused to come to the Constitutional Convention, "I smell a rat!"
No, somehow I don't think that the men of The South would have thrown away everything they'd ever owned and loved, and march away with The Army of Northern Virginia just to defend a luxury for a handful of aristocrats. So what was the south fighting for?
George Washington Bolton of the Twelfth Louisiana Volunteer Infantry CSA, sent this encouragement in a letter to his family back home:
"You seem to be in low spirits and fearful we will not gain our independence. So long as there is an arm to raise in defense of Southern liberties, there is still hope. We must prove ourselves worthy of establishing an independent Government."
Ah. Here I believe we have hit the nail on the head. This is just one of hundreds of letters home in which soldiers of The Confederacy explain exactly what it is they're fighting for. And despite what absurd victor's propaganda has told you, it wasn't some evil vendetta against blacks.
They fought for the very same principles their forefathers had championed over the green fields of Lexington and the far away highlands of Scotland - the right of self-government.
Good words.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, CSX4451 said:
I would love to see more battles added to the current game... possibly a dynamic campaign having you start as a Colonel and only having control over units you directly command by your rank and let the AI control the strategy / other units. As you promote, your control increases as do the number of troops you command ( Brigade, Division, Corps, General of the Army).
This, I like this.
-
8 hours ago, Gmoney7447 said:
I'm all for remembering our history but what I don't like is many southerners praising the CSA or thinking their actions were justified. Monuments are meant for praising someone. We should teach the civil war in the classroom not praise men who went against their own country, fought their own brothers for not a single good reason. But yes happy Fourth
This brings up a good point. If you were alive then, which side would you go with? It's something I've thought about before.
Something to remember is that the Union was still a new thing in some ways. A lot of people's parents grew up before the US gained its independence, so they may have viewed the country differently than we do.
I'm all in for a smaller federal government, so I can see why the South felt threatened by a group of people they had absolutely nothing in common with. Our fathers and grandfathers brought South Carolina into this Union, why can't we take it out? I can see the logic.
However, I would like to think that I would side with good of the country as a whole.
-
If you're gonna get pissy with pieces of history that saw the subjugation other humans, your view of world history must be pretty negative.
-
3
-
-
This time of year is always very special for me to reflect on our nation's independence and struggle for that independence over the past 241 years.
Today marks the 154th anniversary of the battle of Gettysburg. Today I'm reflecting on the courage and determination of Burford's cavalry troopers, the fighting and loss of Reynolds near McPherson Ridge, and Howard's XI Corps fighting north of the town trying to stop Ewell's Second Corps. Many men fought hard and died this day in history for many reason. Take a moment a remember these men.
God bless the United States of America, the greatest country in the world.
-
2
-
-
Run like hell as soon as your brigades get on the field. Don't slow down. I take control of south Seminary Ridge as soon as my first units get on the field.
-
Chancellorsville has to be fixed. I capture all victory points on the second second day and I still have to fight the 3rd day????? That makes no sense at all.
The game even says you could counter now, but it might be risky. Advance with caution. It should say wait until the very last phase of the battle to do anything
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Andre Bolkonsky said:
Cracking the code on Camp. Fixing all the little things like naming your own divisions / pick your own commander's portrait / be able to rename commanders coming out of the academy. Be able to split/combine brigades. Creating a way for units to drop their weapons and/or their leaders in order to better organize your troops. And, actually, drop all the brigades into a big bucket and allow the player to build his corps individually without being required to shuffle, shuffle, shuffle after every battle.
This is where I would begin. And none of this is happening either.
Doesn't mean the game is broken, just means its not perfect. But what is?
Naming divisions would be way nice. I agree with you there.
-
16 minutes ago, Andre Bolkonsky said:
I'm out of quarters and I don't care anymore.
I have given you the logical reasoning behind the decision as I understand it. Take it for what it's worth. You're arguing with the wrong guy; but if I had the power to start changing things in this game, that one would be WAAAAAY down the list.
What would be towards the top of your list?
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, Zagor said:
Hi, all. Compliments for everything you have done with the game so far. One suggestion about artillery. Artillery should surender to an overwhelming force that attacks it and cannons should became available to winning force at the field. Similar like the supply wagon. If that is not possible due to game mechanics, then artillery should surender to larger force exactly as infantry does. Situations where 200 artillery man fight with 2000 soldiers to the death is little ridiculos.
I like the idea of them being used by the force that captured them due to the fact that this actually happend.
-
2
-
-
I'm particular when it comes to divisions staying together and working together on the field. So I label them according to corps-division/weapon and general
ex: 1st corps 2nd division with 1855 rifle lead General Gibbon would be named
1-2/55 Gibbon
if if they aren't lead by a general, I don't put their name Down
-
4 hours ago, Gmoney7447 said:
Is it even worth it to continue the campaign?
I would say yes! Haha. Total destruction of the enemy is my goal, even if the order of battle is 100k to 10k.
-
11 minutes ago, Wright29 said:
Why make a literal cloud between the player and his troops?
I'm not saying put cumulonimbus on the field of battle, but some smoke from musket and cannon on the field.
8 minutes ago, The Soldier said:Dynamic blocking of line of sight of the troops. Would make for an interesting mechanic.
This is the goal I am thinking of. A handful of historians attribute this as a major dynamic to the style of fighting that took place.
-
Wow. Inflicting almost 80% casualties is cool!
-
I LOVE THIS GAME! Seriously one of the coolest games I've played. I'm just wondering about the future.
Will there ever be something like 2 vs 2 to 4 vs 4 battles? I'm sure this has been talked about, so if there is a thread can someone point me in the right direction?
Also, is more smoke on the field something worthy for this game? Is it even possible? Is it something people want?
Also (again), is there another game for this series?
Forgive me if these topics have already been discussed!
-
This battle is a little much. I think I get what they are trying to do, but in my case there is over 200k troops on the field on day two. Maybe a little too much there? Im not sure.
-
2
-
-
Do you ever get Joseph E. Johnston as the CSA?
Civil War History: 'What If' scenarios
in General Discussions
Posted
So what do you think this continent would look like today if the CSA had won?