[Wandering "commando" brigades]

Another option, one that I use on tabletop, is available.

 

Don't allow "out of command" units to move at all, but only to react. One obvious reaction should be the brigadier deciding to rejoin his commander, and march to the sound of the guns.

 

That of course introduces a real use for generals.

[Confederates Still Hugely Overpowered]

I don`t think he did it to impress his wife, i don`t remember ATM what real reason was tough.

And ironically they had completely wrong doctorines, instead of high quality artillery like Napoleon I, they had high quality infantry and older artillery, Prussians had worse infantry rifle, but much better artillery, which is what mattered at the time. 

 

They had well rehearsed plans to field 3 numbered armies under MacMahon, Bazaine and Canrobert and fight a much more realistic flexible action, but then Napoleon's wife said he should command it all in the field, and so he did - and got the lot encircled.

[Lets talk about leaders]

67th Tigers - what's keeping you from playing the way you think is "right"?

Hold your generals in static positions and the problem is solved.

I'm not disagreeing with you just wondering why you are advocating a historical restriction on Corps HQ's when there are so many fundamental deviations from history in the UGG implementation. Videttes, Skirmishers, Cavalry, and Artillery are all primary examples of dramatic game deviations from historical performance characteristics.

 

The flip answer obvious is the game mechanics, which are essentially those of SMG.

 

The real life problem of how you commanded large bodies of men is quite a major one. It tends to be abstracted because the player wants to be in control. What I'm suggesting is actually giving a use to a corps commander, rather than a generic morale boost.

[Lets talk about leaders]

The Corps HQ was generally a static location (as was army HQ) because couriers etc. need to know where it is to find it. For further reading see: http://civilwarlibrarian.blogspot.be/2007/10/exercising-command-longstreet-better.html

 

I find the current "command radius" unrealistic, and I'd rather do away with it. A Corps Commander unit would perhaps work best as a set rally point, and when clicked on would have a number of commands like "general retreat" (all corps brigades withdraw back to the CC), "gather artillery" (artillery units gather in and form a gunline on the CC) etc.

[Confederates Still Hugely Overpowered]

Yes, unless you count European armies like Prussian/German, French, and altough too small, British. 

 

"Just give me Prussian formations and Prussian discipline along with it - you'd see things turn out differently here" - RE Lee, lamenting the poor performance of his infantry at Chancellorsville to a Prussian observer.

 

The British of this era would be a mincing machine. They were the only army trained in proper rifle use, and their fire, man for man, was an *order of magnitude* more lethal than either side in the ACW or the Prussians of the FPW.

 

The French did tactically extremely well in the FPW BTW. However the Emperor managed to get them bottled up because he was trying to impress his wife! At least he didn't get killed by the Zulus, like his son....

[Never Surrender and Nerfed Confederates]

I agree units shouldn't be allowed to retreat "through" well ordered enemy brigades.

 

If I may suggest a mechanic, that would be the constant loss of men related to the current "condition". If you throw men around the field with abandon large numbers will drop out of the ranks. Most will rejoin in a day or two, but they're gone for the time being. This would make constant pauses in movement to reorder even more critical.

 

When a unit routs it should also lose men, and trying to rout "through" the enemy would cause them to surrender.

 

If you study Pickett's charge for example, quite a lot of the Confederates got to the wall, and after a brief fight simply surrendered.

[Is ammo needed?]

 

  I would think quite opposite. Since from firing, any gun get hot. So usually you try to cool it ?

 

So what was the normal  load Inf man would carry?  I see from you link what they would use on average or  was given on average , or I misunderstood it?

"In perspective, this is a fairly high ammunition expenditure. 20 rounds per man was the expectation of a typical battle at the time."

But what would be normal load man carry with him ? 20?

 

When gunpowder ignites a lot of it isn't completely burnt, and the "carbon" (more like charcoal, but we always called it carbon in the army - happens with modern cordite weapons too) deposits on the barrel. The heat of the barrel actually bakes it on after a while. Cold water doesn't shift it, only hot water and a scour.

 

Because of this the barrel is constantly getting "tighter" and with every round the ramming becomes more difficult until ultimately the gun completely clogs. At that point it's a armourers repair. The weapon could become foul in fairly few rounds, and there are certainly accounts of Springfields fouling after as few as 5 rounds to the point of unusability.

 

Hall discusses this page 328-89: http://www.amazon.com/The-Stand-U-S-Army-Gettysburg/dp/0253342589

 

Troops had space in their cartridge pouches for 40 rounds. They were issued in packs of 10 and one of the rounds was a "cleaner" with a zinc washer, but these were so dangerous the troops threw them away and so usually had 36 rounds. Extra wraps were issued before marching, but these were invariably discarded.

 

The best coverage of this specific to Gettysburg is Bilby, but it's been give years since I read it: http://www.amazon.com/Small-Arms-Gettysburg-Infantry-Americas/dp/1594160546

[Is ammo needed?]

There is no need for ammunition counts for infantry. It was essentially impossible to fire off the assigned ammunition before the musket became unusable. The average Confederate or Union soldier engaged only fired about 20-30 rounds in the whole battle. See: http://67thtigers.blogspot.be/2010/12/small-arms-ammunition-expenditure-at.html for my attempt to pin numbers down.

 

Condition almost certainly covers it. When troops got a break they'd scour their muskets, and if time permitted pour boiling water down them (which is why units carried kettles into combat).

 

Also, most casualties were caused by the first volley (unless the firefight is very prolonged), as the troops have had time to load their (clean) muskets properly, and have a clear sight picture due to the lack of smoke. This is why the defenders of the ridgeline held their fire against Pickett until he was only about 80 yards off. Arguably this is also modelled by condition?

[Confederates Still Hugely Overpowered]

Yeah, upon reflection I was overreacting due to frustration. Though I still maintain that the Union soldiers in the game are unfairly presented. The Grand Army of the Potomac gets a bad reputation due to the ineptitude of its commanders before Meade, but the army itself and the soldiers it was composed of were of the best in the war. No other army in the Union inflicted and withstood casualties in the proportions that the Potomac Army did. Also, as I said before I quite like Adelbert Ames he definetly should have at least 2 stars lol. 

Granted, the same can be said of the Army of Northern Virginia in relation to its Confederate counter parts, and the brigades mentioned by Johnny Jingles certainly demonstrate that. I just think that the Union infantry are being a bit unfairly represented. 

 

It sounds like you got seduced by a "magic hill" (a reference to the Telamon episode of Time Commanders:

).

 

High ground in (real) combat is good only for extending the range of artillery. Infantry should probably be positioned at the base of the hill, with the supports and artillery up it.