Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Mr. Mercanto

Civil War Tester
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    684

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Mr. Mercanto

  1. Mr. Mercanto
    Sadly, my little brain can only handle Easy. I can play Historical battle on higher difficulties, and prefer Normal for them. For Campaign, I find anything higher then Easy oppressively difficult.
  2. Mr. Mercanto
    Damnit Texas and Tolkien! Stop stealing our best stuff! We've still got beavers...
  3. Mr. Mercanto
    I will not countenance the besmirchment of my nation's great national treasure! My Moose Cavalry stand ready. Beavers have constructed our abatis. You stand no chance, sir.
  4. Mr. Mercanto
    Lol tbh, all jokes aside, I could never get into Arby's myself. I tried it once, just didn't scour I suppose.
  5. Mr. Mercanto
    Man, you guys are overstocked for great food in the USA. I haven't even heard of half the restaurants you folks have! No fair...
  6. Mr. Mercanto
    More root beer and Uncle Burgers for the Federals! It truly is a Perfect Union...
  7. Mr. Mercanto
    Unionists clearly prefer A&W
  8. Mr. Mercanto
    I can confirm, its a rough ride. I'm barely getting through on Colonel lol. Its actually rather impressive how the game reflects this aspect of the Overland Campaign.
  9. Mr. Mercanto
    Thank Darth Shawarma! The men will eat well tonight.
  10. Mr. Mercanto
    Hmmmm....not bad. ;P
  11. Mr. Mercanto
    Some of these quotes aren't exact as I am doing them from memory: "30 minutes of shelling is nothing to 30 seconds of rifle fire." James A. Wright, Sgt Company F, 1st Minnesota "I feel that I have partly avenged my brother's death." Henry Taylor [after the 1st Minnesota aided in the repulse of Armistead's brigade on July 3rd, 1863), Sgt, Company E, 1st Minnesota "No useless coffin enclosed his breast,/Nor in sheet nor in shroud we bound him,/But he lay like a warrior taking his rest,/With his shelter tent around him." Inscription on the grave of Issac Taylor, Lieutenant, Company E, 1st Minnesota, July 3rd, 1863. Inscription written by his brother, Henry. "We heard stories that the entire regiment had been destroyed...surely it could not have been as bad as that." James A. Wright, Sgt Company F, 1st Minnesota "We advanced down the slope till we neared the ravine, and "Charge" rung along the line, and with a rush and a yell we went. Bullets whistled past us; shells screached over us; canister and grape fell about us; comrade after comrade dropped from the ranks; but on the line went. No one took a second look at his fallen companion. "We had no time to weep." Corporal Alfred Carpenter describing the charge of the regiment on the second day of Gettysburg, Company E, 1st Minnesota. Letter dated July 30, 1863. "If I do re-enlist, I will join the artillery. I am tired of carrying a pack." For the life of me I can't remember the name of this private, I think it was James Knight, but he was in the 1st Minnesota. Also, he ended up deciding to work on the railroad instead of re-enlisting, because back packs can shove it. "September 17, 1862: Fought the Battle of Antietam." Amos Berry, 1st Minnesota Infantry in the most boring Civil War diary I have ever read. (This was the entire entry)
  12. Mr. Mercanto
    Well I'm just going to go ahead and say that I want the next Ultimate General game to stick with the Civil War. It doesn't come up much, but I have a small interest in the period...
  13. Mr. Mercanto
    This has been discussed at length in the Tester forum. Basically, almost no one played the multiplayer for UG:G, we're talking like 5%. While the single player was a huge hit, the multiplayer just didn't have the same staying power. The numbers rapidly dwindled, and UG:G essentially became an awesome single player game. For UG:CW, implementation of a multiplayer system would be extremely taxing for the developers, eat up months of time and resources, and necessitate the allocation of time and resources necessary to finishing and refining the game. All of this for a service which, objectively, over 90% of players did not even try once in the previous game. This really is a case of making the single player the best possible experience it can be in service to the overwhelming majority of the user base. UG:CW can only be as big as it is, and improved over its predecessor as it is, by allocating all resources to the Single Player features. Its great for me, since I now have an excuse to avoid getting whipped online by the pros lolol. Also, @Nick Thomadis, I hope this is all stuff I'm allowed to say...please don't Force choke me...
  14. Mr. Mercanto
    Its coming, but it'll be a bit longer. It'll be good, you will like.
  15. Mr. Mercanto
    I always name mine after friends Or, if I've had just a little to much rum, I give them more...creative names... ...those screenshots don't make it to the tester forums...
  16. Mr. Mercanto
    Truly, we've all made a great thread together
  17. Mr. Mercanto
    I'm not sure if I'm the professor or Slathium is ;P This is basically a better answer then what I was going to give :P, as I had no direct examples. I would like to add some scattered thoughts: As far as I know, much of the cavalry on both sides fought dismounted by mid war. So far as I recall, Forrest's men were particularly noted for fighting this way and taking casualties similar to infantry. This suggests that while some cavalry did suffer similarly to infantry, enough did not so as to warrant the grisly plaudit. Although, it is important to note that while cavalry generally suffered lower casualties, in instances where cavalry charged infantry unsupported, this was not the case. Needless to say, riding a horse in the era of the rifle head on was ill-advised. So far as I know, lower cavalry combat casualties had more to do with their more reserved deployment on the battlefield, and their preferential assignment to non-linera combat duties, such as attacking enemy lines of communication, defending lines of communication, screening the army, scouting, et cetera
  18. Mr. Mercanto
    This is a cool idea! Although, there is a problem that most of the battles in this game are not ones in which the USCT participated. The USCT were usually relegated to "backwater" departments, and were only given the honour of fighting in the Virginia department at the end of the war. I do believe they were with the AoP from Spotslyvannia through to the Petersburg Campaign. As they were with the IX Corps, the USCT portion of the AoP was moved to a different department after the Crater. The USCT division of the Army of the James would rejoin the AoP for Appomattox.
  19. Mr. Mercanto
    You may also have a strong desire for oysters and dislike of the Appomattox river....
  20. Mr. Mercanto
    Interesting, however I cannot say I agree. Stephen W. Sears spends a great deal of time in consideration of the Lost Order in "Antietam: A Landscape Turned Red." In the narrative, Sears explains that Lee only became aware of the Federals having any intelligence concerning the disposition of the ANV when a "Maryland Gentleman" present when McClellan received the intelligence, informed him. In truth, Lee did not know the exact nature of the intelligence leak, only that it had excited McClellan greatly, and the Young Napoleon now intended to attack. Given the disparity in numbers, this alone was enough for Lee to concentrate his forces in and around the town of Sharpsburg, Maryland. In "The Mighty Scourge: Perspectives on the Civil War" by James M. McPherson, McPherson dedicates an essay to Lee's decision to invade Pennsylvania in 1863. According to McPherson, Lee only became aware of the intelligence leak in 1863 when, in a hearing before the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War, Major-General McClellan disclosed of the intelligence leak in his deposition concerning the Maryland campaign. This information actually contributed greatly to Lee's movement into Pennsylvania, as he became convinced his defeat in 1862 was merely a case of hard luck. So, we can conclude that Lee had no idea that any orders were lost by the close of the Maryland campaign. As a final note, Lee would not have intentionally risked the leaking of his Orders 191 to simply catch a traitor. The loss of these orders was the most tremendous military leak in American history. Had a more effective man commanded the Army of the Potomac, the capture of these documents by the United States might have ended the war in two weeks. Lee would be history's greatest fool to risk so much to gain so little. The loss of those orders were not worth the killing of ten thousand spies. All that having been said, I do love the "Turn: McClellan's Spies" vibe .
  21. Mr. Mercanto
    I agree with the several methods of historiographical approach, but in the Civil War Era I am stressing that caution must be used. I'm not sure how posted you are in Civil War historiography. As a professional historian, I'm sure you'll agree that while there are universal elements to the broader study of historiography, individual historical periods also enjoy unique historiographical trends, problems, et cetera. As for the Special session, Congress did authorise Lincoln's actions, though perhaps I've mis-cited the particular event, though it was in the wake of the Special Session. Damnable in a grad seminar, but to be fair, I'm doing this off the cuff. Regardless, it is my opinion that the retro-active legalisation settled what little legal discrepancy that already existed. The fact remains that the Federal government had the power to suspend these rights in a time of crisis and had done so in the past, (Whiskey Rebellion and Hartford Convention to name a few). If anything, I think Lincoln's blockade of Southern ports is a more legalistically problematic act. With respect to Q&A, I recognise that debate is inevitable, I am simply trying to keep it brief and to the point. To allow each party to make a few points, and then allow the readers to decide. Otherwise it becomes a quagmire. I also invite other answers, indeed, if you peruse the thread, you'll find there are instances where I do not participate in answering at all. I only entered the conversation here because you specifically addressed me in your comment. I suggested we let our debate end because, while I take issue with some of your conclusions and suppositions, your arguments have the strong foundation of someone professionally trained in history, thus, I wanted to let readers come to their own conclusions and let the thread move on. I felt we both made effective arguments, and further discussion would move from Q&A to outright debate. The question is, between our perspectives, answered I think. And no, I'm sure as hell not going for the PhD, I've suffered enough lol. Thanks though I do feel the need to state that I am very familiar with the arguments from the other side, a fact evidenced somewhat by my familiarity with your arguments. I simply do not agree with them.
  22. Mr. Mercanto
    I can't say I can add much to that
  23. Mr. Mercanto
    I'm not sure I am following you. Are you familiar with the Dunning and Randall schools of post-Civil War historiography? I ask because the Civil War has a rather unique and complex historiography which may differ a great deal from Prussian military historiography.
  24. Mr. Mercanto
    Actually Article I makes no such specification. While most of the powers in said Article refer to Congress, Articles are not explicitly ordered as such in the Constitution. Whether or not Article I is actually only in reference to Congress is still hotly debated by Constitutional scholars to this day. Regardless, Congress, who unimpeachablely do have this power, retroactively authorised all of the President's actions with respect to Article I Section 8 during their Special Session on July 4, 1861. Thus, making the question, in a phrase Lincoln would have used, "a pernicious abstraction." As I said, I specialise in this field Remember that the Constitution was written in the wake of the Shay's Rebellion, and was designed to avoid future such crisis. Both Adams and Washington would suspend the Writ before Lincoln, though on a much smaller scale. Anyway, I think this is getting tiresome for everyone. I set this forum up as a question/answer forum, not a debate forum. I'll warrant that one is easy to become the other, but since we have both outlined our cases, let us allow the readers to decide :). I want to open the forum up to more questions.
  25. Mr. Mercanto
    Apologies accepted, I know you are not the type to be malicious. I do think that your summation of my views was a bit more unfair then amusing though. Perhaps I'm just being a bit testy lol. One of those days...
×
×
  • Create New...