thomas aagaard

I did just that. 🙂 And it work. If the error message had been more clear about not being able to contact the log in server I might have figured this out faster. But I guess the log in part is provided by the company handling that? Next issue was that I had tried to reinstall the game... So needed to download the game again.. But changing back to my usual (much faster and with no limit on data) internet did work for that.

If I try to create a new account the website can't open with a error. DNS_PROBE_FINISHED_NXDOMAIN And a few minutes later my wife complained that she could not open two specific websites, but that others do work. And after looking at the website on my internet provider it appear that they have an issue atm. So I guess I can't reach the server handling the log in and that is what causing this issue.

When I try to sing in with email and password I get the following. Error Could not get your game access details. Please try again. It worked fine yesterday. No changes on my end.

If you want to read a great story about the war, that is mostly correct Foote is great. If you want to read something written by a historian and want to study the civil war, stick to Canton. The issue is the simple fact that Foote don't use footnotes and don't give us his sources for what he writes. This makes his books useless for any serious study of the war.

Suggest your read my post again. There was never a german doctrine called blitzkrieg. An army doctrine is something you will find in the army handbooks explaining how to fight. The army would have been training for that way of fighting for years. The army structure made to support that doctrine. Their plans made to support that way of fighting. Had it existed as a doctrine you would find references to is all over the German military handbooks of the period. And you don't. It simply don't exist. How the journalists in the west (true lack of understanding of German military traditions) invented an name have no influence on German doctrine... and is irrelevant to my post. The wiki page about this actually explain the issue rather well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzkrieg

Jomini and Sun Tzu are about strategy and maybe about the operational level. They are not about tactics. Two other things. There was never a German doctrine called Blitzkrieg. What they did was nothing more than old style Prussian military thinking with new toys. Tactics during the civil war had very very little to do with tactics of the Napoleonic wars. Had french infantry tactics from the start of the century been used on the 3rd of july 1863 Their infantry would have gone forward in columns covered by a thick screen of skirmishers (something like 25% of the attacking force) and they would have been followed by horse artillery going forward to provide support. During the civil war we rarely see 25-33% of a infantry force fighting deployed in front of the lines as skirmishers... something that was the norm when the french and british fought each other.

It is also not historical. The AoP had large numbers of Enfields in use. From the army perspective the 1855, 1861 and 1863 version of the Springfield was considered the exact same and what type one soldier was issued was not noted in the paperwork. And plenty of regiments used a mix. Having a mix of enfields and Springfield was also common. (both north and south) If the goal is to be historical many of the weapons should simply be one type... All the Springfields should be one weapon. Or allow the same brigade to use a number of different weapons.. and just giving the brigade the weighted average of the weapons.

I can't find the math I read a year or two ago... But just looking at it logical with the numbers from some of their main battles. (numbers from http://www.civilwar.org/) Most of grants early battles was smaller in size and he had fewer. He lost about 13k at Shiloh, 2,5k at Champions Hill 5k at Vicksburg 6k at Chattanooga... When he came east this naturally changed with 18,4k at Wilderness, 18k at Spotsylvania, 12,7K at Cold harbour... Lee in comparison fight more big battles and got a few very costly one. Starting out when he took over command of ANV on June 1st 1862. Bever Dam, Glendale, Malvern Hill and Gains Mill cost him 20k Second Manassas 8,3k Antietam 10k, Fredricskburg, 4,5k Chancellorsville 13k, Gettysburg with 28k, Wilderness 11k, spotsylvania 12k, Cold harbour 4,6K This is not in any way scientifically done. Some smaller fights not included, the Petersburg siege missing and so one... And note, Iam not blaming Lee in any way. But he simply fought more battles, and they often where bigger and he took serious loose during the 7days and at Gettysburg. So by the time Grant comes east Lee have lost a lot more men than Grant have. And even if Grant suffers way more during the overland campaign this simply don't make up for it. I don't think Lee was a butcher... He knew he had to go for the big win. But neither was Grant he did what he could with the force he had.

And what is your Evidence that he drugged himself during the time he was in command of Union troops? And if Grant was a butcher, then so was Lee. Lee lost more men over a shorter period of time than Grant did.

Yep, the attack forced Lincoln to call up the militia. And that made Virginia and the rest join the CSA. (as was expected) But in my opinion by April 1861 both Lincoln and Davis needed the war... the current situation could not have gone on. Lincoln would not have been able to call up the volunteers with out an act of war and with out it there was no way to force the south back into the Union... but he did hope that in time Union sentiment and calmer heads would get them to come back. Davis knew that the CSA needed the rest of the south. (especially Virginia) and they had already made it clear that they would not join atm, but also that they would side with the south in case of a war.

Just a quick commend to an old post... It was the CSA government that gave the order. Not Beauregard. And no that is not why. The simply reason is the idiotic US system where one president stay in power about 3 month after the election of a new president. Buchanan was a coward not willing to try solve the issue... and left the crises develop until Lincoln took office in march. He did nothing when the south was taking over federal property by force. Mints, postal offices, ships, forts, armories... and finally taking US soldiers as prisoners in Texas... that is why the war did not start until april. Because of a lame duck president with no spine.

Give me a source for just one regiment going into combat with its full strength... you can't. And no a battalion and a regiment is not the same. Regiment is a administrative organisation. Battalion is usually a tactical organisation, but sometimes also an administrative organisation. Company is both a tactical and administrative organisation. A battalion is two or more companies operation together as one battalion. An infantry regiments was usually 10 companies and did operate as one battalion. But the new regular army regiments was to have 3 battalion of 8 companies each. (but most only ended up having two battalions) There are plenty of cases where a regiment had one or more companies detached for guardduty or similar. There are plenty of cases of depleted regiments operating together as one battalion... or some companies from one regiment and some companies from another regiment operating as one battalion on the battlefield.(US regular army companies at 1st bull run...)

Please... try actually look a bit at the actual historical strength of the units during different battles. As I already mentioned as replies to some of your other posts. The regiments was never at full strength.. by the time they saw combat they had already lost a lot of men to sickness and other issues. At Gettysburg the average union regimental strength was just 375 men. This really should be very basic knowledge... And in the few cases where regiments was at 7-800 men.. then the game simply deploy them as a smaller "brigade" that is named for the regiment. In the end it is just a name... some units are small brigades... others are big regiments.

maybe simply let a unit that is not moving slowly improve their "cover"?

The regiments was never at full strength. around 4-500 men was more common.(with CSA regiments a bit larger than US regiments) At Gettysburg the union average regimental strength was just 375 men. And that is why this game is a brigade level game... and work fine as such. Allowing it in the camp - sure that could be fun. But not on the battlefield. that would change the game to a battalion level game and that is a totally different game.

And how many reenactment units include all the other personal in a battery? The blacksmiths, the teamsters and similar? The current numbers are not that fare off. They just include the men doing support roles behind the lines. The current brigade structure work fine. In the early battles many of the enemy units are in fact regiments if you look at their names. And they where never at full strength. Both sides did very bad jobs at keeping their units at full strength. (the csa better than the US, but still rather bad) At gettysburg the average strength of the union infantry regiments was just 375 men. Later in the campaign you are facing brigades. Historically late in the war some union heavy artillery regiments (fighting as infantry) was broken into battalions on the field, so the basic unit was still around 400men... This simply made much more sense than having one regiment the size of most brigades.

Or Napoleonic wars or the 7 year war... again depending on definitions and the focus. (technology? organisation of armies? of the states? of how involved the civilian society war or? The main point is that way, way to many american historians and most documentaries about the civil war fall for the usual american centered world view and lack of knowledge of military history in general. The civil war was the first modern war... (no - depending on definition earlier or later wars are better options) first total war... (no - depending on definition earlier or later wars are better options) the rifle musket was completely new weapons, (no it was not, it had been around since the mid 1840ties and by 1860 was the standard infantry firearm in most European armies) it caused the huge casualties, (no lack of military competence, the terrain and a number of other factors caused it) it saw the first use of railroads in war (no, they where used at least by 1848) it saw the first use of ironclads (no that was during the Crimean war, if not before.. .but the first ironclad on ironclad battle was during the civil war)

I agree with him, and have done so for years. ACW tactics was closer to the 7 year war,(in europe) than napoleonic warfare.

Currently if I got one 2000man brigade with 1861s and one 2000 mand brigade with M1842s and I would like them to change weapons I need 2000 guns more to do it. Similar if I want two officers to change position, I need an extra one with sufficient rank to do the change, So please add the option of removing both guns and officers from a unit. (naturally it should not be possible to send a unit unarmed into combat. One lacking officers would just have the stats as if he had been killed)

Nothing about your text is respectful.

Agreed. When I played the battle I held my original line and simply killed him. By the 2nd day when all my troops was teleported north he had 5-6000 men left.. and I just routed him with no problem.

I don't think we should get more port slots. But fully agree that we need more warehouse space.

When it come to upgrades I do think the different levels are relevant since when it give a penalty to some stand you might want to limit that. Personally I use Green extra planking with gold Copper plating so the ships is not made slower. And marines should be changed to a max number so you can decide how many you want. Maybe even make marines a type of crew so we got two types: sailors and marines

Having 30 minutes to gank someone don't make any sense when you don't have it to join PVP battles

Not only that. Everyone knew that the earth had the size it actually is ... and that is was too big to sail all the way to Japan and china going west. (and it was) Then men who tried to stop his trip was correct in their opposition to it. Columbus thought that he knew better and tried to sail to Asia.... He was just lucky that there was a continent in the way otherwise he would have been lost at sea with all hand an none of us would have remembered his name.