James Cornelius

I've got some others as well but they're scattered on other bookshelves. Those are the largest group together.

I have not seen those books before but they look very useful - exactly the sort of thing I'm always buying. I have the US ONI WWII recognition books but nothing like that. Yes, I would be happy to join the closed group and contribute what I can.

Hello, I have degrees in naval architecture and marine engineering and have always been extremely fascinated with the steel warship era, particularly the dreadnought era. I'd certainly like to help contribute. I also have a significant library with not only general volumes but technical treatises on interwar ships (I know you said until 1939 but most of my information/knowledge goes through 1945). As an example, here is part of my library. How can I assist?

The first step is to keep your casualties low in battles. Keep in cover and seize any opportunities that present themselves to flank or shatter an enemy brigade that is exposed, isolated, or cut off. Eliminating an enemy brigade early on can have big dividends in a long battle. Do not be too eager to expose your troops in needless charges. When you have two brigades engaging one enemy, try to maneuver one of them so that it is attacking the enemy flank. Protect your own flanks! If you are about to be flanked, better to fall back than take those volleys! I generally don't put much into organization early on - just enough to get the minimum of corps needed. You need two corps for the Union by Shiloh, but only one for the Confederates. In my most recent Union playthrough I did not put in organization points to get four divisions per corps until the attack on Richmond (though in hindsight I probably should have for Cold Harbor). Don't feel the need to have every reinforcement go straight into the line - in that campaign I still had 50,000 men in reserve even after going to 4 divisions x 3 corps. With 4 brigades per division, I prefer a balanced army of 3 infantry brigades and 1 artillery battery per division but some prefer all infantry with one divisions as just artillery. Many players even after maximizing organization still prefer 2000 man brigades to 2500. If you want recon, choose a career path that gives you most of it in the beginning and then focus on politics first since that will maximize the amount of reward you get. After that, I like medicine as it has a twofold benefit - you don't have to replace veterans, and you also don't have to replace their weapons making it quite cost effective over the course of the campaign. Watch some of the videos other guys have posted and watch how they position their troops - that might help you with your own positioning. Good luck!

Indeed, Liquicity would be an excellent choice.

I think you meant Bruce Catton. But go with neither. Stephen Sears is better in my opinion.

That didn't end with the Confederate Army in the Civil War. Being "mentioned in dispatches" remained an honor well into the 20th Century.

I disagree about McDowell being an acceptable choice. While Bull Run can be excused, 2nd Bull Run cannot. His complete lack of control, coordination, communication, and reconnaissance (aided and abetted by all the same lackings by Pope) were the major contributors to the Union debacle. Ironically it was Fitz John Porter, who was courtmartialed for the battle (due to his disagreements with McDowell and Pope) who prevented it from being worse than it was by his delayed attack (though J.F. Reynolds was the real hero by holding Henry Hill with his division to cover the rest of the retreat). Read anything by Sears. I am currently a third of the way through "Lincoln's Lieutenants" (which is fantastic) and it paints a terrible picture of McDowell all from first hand sources.

I guess I should clarify. Medals existed but were not issued the way we think of it now. They weren't worn on uniforms until after the war. Most Medal of Honor issuances, for example, did not occur until decades after the war. For example, most Civil War scholars know that Joshua Chamberlain received the Medal of Honor for his actions at Little Round Top. What you may not know is that he did not receive this until 1893. Another example was Arthur MacArthur, who received his MoH in 1890. Note from the site above, it likewise indicates that even the Southern medals were awarded years later by various organizations - not by the Confederate government. The only real record of award system in use at the time, more so on the Union side as the Confederates never used them in practice and which has since become completely obsolete is the brevet rank system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brevet_(military) http://www.civilwarhome.com/brevetrank.html

McDowell could have attacked the day prior. He held off, at least partly, because of the lack of control over his subordinates movements and the fact that several of them only loosely obeyed his marching orders, at best. An attack one day earlier means Johnston's reinforcements aren't there. I think it likely Scott would have been able to get it right the first time.

I agree. This is now, in my opinion, by far the best Civil War game on the market - perhaps the best ever.

I did not notice this prior, but I will take your word for it. Thanks.

Yes but this only showed up well after other cargo had been loaded and unloaded.

First off, I want to say to Nick and his team what an amazing job they have done and how magnificent this game is. When I was young I played Robert E. Lee: Civil War General and Civil War Generals 2 and found in many ways this game is a spiritual successor, but superior in almost every meaningful way. Now that the game has been released, I wanted to make some suggestions for what I think would be improvements - some quality of life, some additional features, and some to set the groundwork for more replayability. When beginning your game, after making the choices to define your starting stats, have a final choice after which side where you choose your portrait from a selection. I really don't like being forced into the same portrait each side, each time. Please allow us to change it. Provide some mechanism for division commanders to be visible on the battlefield. I am not talking about another headquarters unit, because that will lead to more micromanagement in later battles, but perhaps something akin to what CWG and CWG2 did with a gold star on the brigade that had the division commander attached. Putting another star on the brigades in UG:CW is not the answer because it will confuse with veterancy stars, but a flag or a banner would work, and clicking on that unit would give the division commander in addition to the brigade commander. It would also be good for that brigade to almost act like a mini-HQ unit and give a small bonus to nearby brigades that are only of the same division. This suggestion also relates with item 6 below. Greater flexibility in custom missions. Allow custom placement of troops before the battle to increase the "what if" factor, allow custom generals to be added (custom names, etc). This is a hard one, I think: the maps you have are beautiful and due to being hand drawn were no doubt labor intensive. However, creating and releasing some maps for alternate areas which were only the site of small battles, or where a battle might have happened but didn't, etc to allow for use a more custom missions. Special traits that apply to historical generals. Don't get me wrong, I like having the ability to use the prestige purchasing to have generals like Reynolds, Hancock, Sedgewick, etc in my army but apart from the historical value they are no different than a general you can buy from the barracks and to be honest, by mid game I am using my prestige for resources and even then only sparingly, to keep it up for the morale bonus. There should be a benefit to employing historical generals - especially the good ones - such as custom traits that make their use very desirable. The ability to rename divisions. While the Union relied on numbered divisions at least in part, the Confederacy named their divisions the same way brigades tend to be, by naming them after the commander. So, I think on the battlefield map it would be a nice touch to have a show the division name under the brigade name. So, under "Armistead" it might say "Pickett's Division". Thank you!

I managed to beat it last night. Final casualties were 2:1 in my favor, but I was also outnumbered about 2:1. I did not really alter my strategy, I think I just got luckier in the first phase. For the second phase, I retreated into the town and through a huge amount of micro managed to hold the rebels at bay just long enough to get my reinforcements in place. In the past on BG level I also focused on the armored train immediately to get it out of there - this time I ignored it and focused my artillery on enemy infantry instead. Then, I went to the Supply Depot mission. Due to the fact that all my reinforcements went to simply restoring my decimated units from the first mission (I had about 100-200 in each brigade I carried over) I was unable to build a larger force for the Depot and was overrun there (I did save at one point when I could finish the mission with a draw - I might go back to that if I continue to be unable to beat it).

I've also noticed a frequent bug where the hold is empty but shows weight. I've f11ed it several times.

...and down again.

Gentlemen, I consider myself to be better than average at the game. On Brigadier General difficulty I have played through the Union campaign without losing a single battle. On the Confederate side, I've played as far as Chancellorsville (haven't had time to play further) and not lost a battle there. So I decided I wanted to try Major General difficulty. Now, I cannot beat the very first mission! Despite inflicting considerably more casualties, I was not able to take Phillipi the first attempt and in the second attempt, while I got troops across the river I was annihilated shortly thereafter. Being outnumbered initially is bad enough, but there are reinforcements that show up (that I don't recall arriving on BG level), to say nothing of trying to withstand the counter attack in phase 2 if I ever made it that far. What am I doing wrong? My normal strategy is to put a skirmisher on the heights as soon as the battle begins while taking my brigade and other skirmisher into the woods on the right to drive those rebels away. Once the reinforcements show up I would swing around to cut off the retreat of the rebel skirmishers on the heights, then swing north to surround and capture the rebel brigade holding the town closest to my troops. Then, with infantry and artillery wear down the enemy forces holding the bridges with my troops in cover and once they run rush across the bridges to drive the rebels out of Philippi proper. None of that works now. The initial rebel skirmishers run as soon as my other troops show up, and once a volley or two is fired at the rebels in the closer town they too retreat. Once I was finally able to soften up the rebels holding the bridges, just as I cross (and with my brigades now at like 1/2 strength, despite using cover) I am immediately counter attacked by fresh rebel brigades. Here is my final screenshot: https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/854972554290936591/ED592132D233E229F6117CA798264FABDBD2B84A/ Any advice? Like I said, I thought I was pretty good, but I now know how McClellan felt when he thought he was up against 200,000 Confederates.

Bear in mind though this wasn't working in a vacuum. Let's say that Johnston continues his defensive strategy and McClellan's advance is no faster than it was in OTL. The wild card becomes Pope's army coming from the north - without the aggressive nature of the Seven Days battles does McClellan start to turn tail? If so, Johnston can theoretically race north to stop Pope, though whether he does so with Lee's alacrity is debatable. Nonetheless, Johnston was NOT a bad general, so he very well might have recognized the threat for what it was. But let's say at worst all he does is halt Pope's advance rather than the spectacular victory Lee achieves at Second Mannanas. Or, on the other hand, what if McClellan succeeds? Does he run for President in 1864 in this scenario, but this time as the general who won the war? What does THAT do to events if the war is ended in 1862 - prior to the Emancipation Proclamation - and a President who is a conservative Democrat (by standards of then, not now of course) is elected (and likely for two terms). As an aside, if that had happened, McClellan would have been the youngest man ever elected, even to this day.

Another great what if in my mind is: What if Winfield Scott was just a little healthier in 1861 and able to take the field at First Bull Run? Considering McDowell's plan was actually quite sound but he lacked the ability to properly coordinate even a small (by later standards) army, would a stronger hand directing affairs have allowed for a Union victory? What, if anything would that have changed?

First off, I'd argue against Lee being distraught at the loss of his "best friend" Jackson. They worked well together, but weren't particularly close. If anything, Lee was much closer to Longstreet. In my view the most significant effect the presence of Jackson would have had at Gettysburg was that he would have pressed forward to take Culp's Hill since Lee's order said "if practicable" which Jackson surely would have found it. But there is too much that otherwise might have changed prior to that. Bear in mind that the battle was initiated on the Confederate side by units of Hill's Third Corps. Had Jackson not died, Hill's Corps likely never would have existed: the reorganization of the ANV into three corps from two was due in large part to the fact that while Lee had enough confidence in Ewell and Hill to give them each a corps, neither one was worthy to be the sole opposite of Longstreet. Even if a reorganization had taken place (as admittedly three corps was a more flexible arrangement than two, despite the fact that no other officer in the ANV was the equal of Longstreet and/or Jackson) who is to say Hill would have been the third corps commander? It might have been Ewell. Therefore, the opening dispositions of the arrival at Gettysburg might have been completely different making the rest of the battle too different to accurately gauge. But, if we posit that everything else remains constant, then Jackson's drive to advance and take the heights on the first day of the battle, rather than Ewell's reluctance, would have dramatically changed the outcome and likely made Longstreet's (correct) assertion to flank the AoP instead of assault it a moot point. The other four alternative scenarios that have often intrigued me are 1) What if Johnston had not been wounded at Seven Pines and remained in command? Would McClellan have been able to crawl his way to Richmond? 2) What if McClellan had coordinated his army better at Antietam? Specifically, what if the two reserve corps had been committed? 3) What if Hooker had not lost his nerve at Chancellorsville? Much like McClellan at Antietam, he had two untouched and fresh corps and still drastically outmanned Lee. Could he have counter-attacked and utilized his manpower advantage? 4) During Longstreet's time in the west (Chickamauga) he was part of the group that sought to have Bragg replaced. Many seemed to think that Longstreet was the natural replacement as the senior lieutenant general in the CSA. However, records indicate Longstreet tried to get Lee to take the western command (which Longstreet admittedly thought was more strategically vital than the campaign in Virginia, further evidence in my opinion of Longstreet's superior strategic understanding compared to his peers including Lee and Jackson) and for he (Longstreet) to succeed Lee in command in Virginia. So what if a) that had happened and Lee had gone west, rather than Grant going east? And b ) if Longstreet had simply accepted the western command prior to the Chattanooga campaign and thus Grant would have faced him rather than the inept Bragg? It was the success at Chattanooga, perhaps even more so than Vicksburg, that propelled Grant to the general in chief position, after all.

Medals were not issued during the Civil War. Their inclusion is nice but completely ahistorical.

I agree with Willis' suggestion. Sailing similar ships should give *some* knowledge to get maybe three slots on ships like it. For upgrade slots 4 and 5 you should need specific ship knowledge.

All your guides look well done. A great service to the community. Well done, sir.

@admin I was wondering if you could explain the reasoning behind a few of the decisions in the new patch, and suggest an alternative for you to consider for some of them. 1) The removal of coordinates and grid system. I know what some people will say: "There was no GPS in the early 1800s". This is true. There was, however, a very thorough understanding of celestial navigation. As you are no doubt aware, good captains prided themselves on their mathematical (and therefore navigational) ability. The Caribbean and Atlantic coasts were not the same as the Indian Ocean and Pacific when it came to the possibility of getting lost. Even in those far more desolate areas, there was still a very good idea of where all the major landmarks were and no good captain was ever forced to rely on dead reckoning except in certain extreme circumstances. All ship captains, sailing masters, and typically watch officers (including midshipman) had their own sextant from which to utilize to find their position. It is therefore completely unrealistic for a warship of the time to navigate solely by dead reckoning. For those arguing for "total realism" and suggesting that giving the latitude and longitude of your ship somehow breaks this, I would respectfully suggest that the developers institute one of the following changes in the next patch: 1A ) The inclusion of a sextant mini-game to satisfy the requirements of the most zealous of "realism" junkies. If you have time, perhaps you could include formulating a watch bill, a tracker for the consumption of grog by your seamen, and Thursday laundry. (Please note that I am being completely sarcastic about all this). 1B ) The return of the grid from previous versions, and a position for your vessel given at noon each day that your ship is in clear weather. Thus, if absolute realism is the goal, this would simulate the ability of the captain and the master to take a noon observation and mark the ship's position provided weather cooperated accordingly. It is the perfect compromise, because it is in fact perfectly realistic. 2) My second question is concerning the removal of AI ships from Fleet Missions. I think I understand what you might have wanted to do, but I would ask if you considered that there are probably many people (I have spoken to quite a few in GB PVP-EU nation chat) who found them very useful when either there was little PVP to be found, or sometimes when you just didn't have time to go on a long cruise looking for PVP, but wanted a little fleet battle. Again, I understand the desire for a realistic MMO, but please also consider that it is a game and there is a certain element to it that people enjoy and are now no longer able to utilize. I can see no reason to eliminate this feature - it did not hurt anything and if hostility generation was the problem, that has been reworked anyway. Could you please explain why you changed this? 3) Why were the servers simply renamed? I think many players, including myself, either misunderstood or felt misled by what we thought was happening when a "full asset wipe" was announced - that there would be a new choice of server based upon whether a player was in the EU, and therefore wanted timers limited to their normal hours, or wanted to truly play globally with people from around the world and accept and understand that the game was ongoing and attacks, port battles, etc would happen as people played throughout the day: i.e. there would always be activity no matter what time you logged on. However, since the global server is merely a renamed PVP2 US (which was already rather depopulated compared to the EU server), it so far seems that its population relative to the EU server has remained unchanged. If one subscribes to the view that Naval Action is a true MMO yet also hard core sailing simulation, then one must also accept that - just like real sailing war - action takes place at all hours of the day across many time zones. Could you please explain a little of your reasoning here? Finally, I do not wish to seem that I do not like the new patch or I am complaining without cause. I have put over 1000 hours into the game, which I know is less than some, but for me is still a substantial investment of time. I have put far, far more time into Naval Action than I have games from blockbuster developers and that says something about what you have taken on here. But, I think I am not alone when I wonder about why certain decisions were made when it seems that it sets the game backwards compared to what it was in previous versions. I would just appreciate it - and I am sure others would as well - if you could explain some of these decisions so that I can at least understand why you made them. Thank you very much for your time.