Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

The Frog

Ensign
  • Posts

    5
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by The Frog

  1. Nick, that would be an awesome distinction. Is it possible to program in an element of genius? For instance, both Oliver Howard and Win Hancock commanded the field for the North on the first day temporarily after Reynolds was killed. Howard failed spectacularly, leading to the collapse of the line and the near rout of the army, but Hancock took charge and seized the Seminary Ridge position, effectively setting the geography of the victory. Both had been spectacular brigade commanders, but one did not have what it took to command an army (at least in July 1864).
  2. The problem, though, is Jackson's battlefield tactics consisted solely of "attack straight ahead like an angry bull". That and you were likely to die on the march to battle with Jackson. Jackson was an operational genius, but a tactical lightweight, as evidenced in every battle he ever fought. For a better look at Lee as a strategic thinker along the lines of Sun Tzu, look at Chancellorsville ("Lee's Masterpiece") in which you'll find him avoiding strength, striking weakness, deceiving, and confusing. You're right that he doesn't deserve to be on the saint shelf, but he also deserves much better than the rube shelf.
  3. Nick, there's a pretty good book on this that even comes with a CD, here's the citation: http://openlibrary.org/works/OL8570022W/Mel_Bay_Presents_Infantry_Bugle_Calls_of_the_American_Civil_War
  4. Nick, a suggestion for historical realism: you're talking about highlighting skirmishes with about 2,500 per side, which is roughly large brigade size at Gettysburg. Because of the spring's warfare a large number of brigades were commanded by colonels already and even more took charge during the battle. The Union's First Corps, for example, had 3 of its 7 brigade commanders on the morning of the first day at the grade of colonel, and 5 of 7 by the conclusion of the battle. But more importantly than what name to put on the officers, I think it brings up something else awesome about your game. The computing power of modern technology means every game is designed with the false notion that the key to the battle is Major General George Meade or General Robert E. Lee. But in reality, Gettysburg was won as much by Colonel J. Lawrence Chamberlain and Lt. Col. Rufus Dawes at the regimental level. And reading their reports, it's evident that a whole host of unknown majors and captains and lieutenants made those decisions. With the limits of numbers leading to your decision to break up the battle into its individual tactical components, you're creating a product unlike any other--one that actually reflects the dynamic experience of warfare. And if you successfully create a way where success or failure then affects all future battles (i.e., achievement of the objective is not required for continuing the game), well, you've really got something, sir. So consider really focusing on colonels, and those individual moments!
  5. Agree very much on your points. As for the story of the battle start, since it's tangentially relevant, that was an old yarn made up after the war by Henry Heth about needing shoes that nonetheless was picked up by the Lost Cause advocates like Early and Fitz Lee. It's a very romantic notion that the Southerners wouldn't have fought there except that they were so gee-shucks down on their luck and almost whipped the Yanks anyway, shoot! In reality, it was a recon-in-force precipitated by the dearth of Southern cavalry that got out of hand when John Reynolds showed up with the Northern First and Eleventh Corps. Better example of shortage of supplies is during the third days' actions, when Longstreet ordered Pickett, et al., forward before he had confidence that the Union position was sufficiently weakened because he was told if he didn't there wouldn't be enough ammo for the artillery to cover the attack.
×
×
  • Create New...