Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Confederates Still Hugely Overpowered


Recommended Posts

Instead of Set VP's it would be nice if there was a Random generator that picks different spots within the map to set the VP as. Would give the game more replay ability. As of right now there is only so much you can do before you do everything.

 

The easy answer for this (and I hope its coming) is a random battle generator like many CW games in the past have had.  A random spot on the map with random VPs and random forces from each side.  You choose how large of a fight you want and you get something fun to play every time.  It's crucial to have this for MP as well.

 

It was the best feature in SMG and in all the games in that series actually (Antietam, Waterloo).  The key here will be to create actual randomness.  In SMG they were "random" battles but they were preconstructed and once you played long enough you knew who was what, when, and where in every one of those scenarios

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This site hates IE11, so I can't quote or even cut-paste.  So this is in reply to the "unless you consider the French, Prussians and English" assertion above. 

 

I did consider that.  Exactly what other army-sized assemblage are you putting forth as better?  The French in 1863? I hope that's an attempt at humor. Read about the Battle of Sedan a few years later to see why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

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....

 

 

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

67th Tigers, perhaps Lee was both frustrated and tactful at Chancellorsville?

Lee's quote to a Prussian observer seems to kill both birds with one stone.

I'm not sure I follow your cause and effect logic for Napoleon III's wife and the defeat at Sedan. Napoleon III got encircled because he was not Napoleon I. We don't know if Napoleon III and his generals would have lost 3 "more realistic flexible actions" to the Prussians with the same result. B)

I have no idea how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. Nor do I know how the Prussian Army would have performed with or without General Lee in the ACW. Finally, war has a way of proving that assumptions about armies are rarely correct.

The longbow proved to be superior to knights at Crecy and confirmed at Agincourt. The American rabble defeated the "finest army on earth" in 1781. I know all of the blood spilled in the ACW could not be cleaned up with and pocket handkerchief and I know the Germans beat the French in the Franco-Prussian war.

Where are you guys buying your best army crystal balls?

You really can't compare the artillery of the ACW with the Franco-Prussian War. The invention of the percussion fuze (with the direct action firing pin) in 1870 was a revolutionary step toward modern artillery. We do know that artillery in the Napoleonic Wars inflicted 12% casualties in battle vs. about 8% in the ACW. But keep in mind this is not a comparison of artillery - it is a comparison of battlefield systems and the inter-relationship of combat arms in each era.

The rifled musket was a game changer for the infantry. The ACW tactics changed - abandoning Napoleon's "column of attack" and "mixed order".

We also know why the artillery performance dropped in the ACW - primarily the introduction of pointed projectiles with timed fuzes vs. solid shot ammunition. This is the reason that the the Union had 142 smoothbores at Gettysburg - had they converted entirely to rifled guns and abandoned solid shot completely the artillery performance would have dropped to unacceptable characteristics for full-spectrum artillery duty.

Given the time and technology comparisons I guess it is good to have FIFA World Cup matches. Hopefully Football will determine if the French are better than the Germans tomorrow. Soccer seems like a reasonable way to resolve the conundrums of history.

Cheers...It was fun to read your various perspectives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

67th Tigers, perhaps Lee was both frustrated and tactful at Chancellorsville?

Lee's quote to a Prussian observer seems to kill both birds with one stone.

I'm not sure I follow your cause and effect logic for Napoleon III's wife and the defeat at Sedan. Napoleon III got encircled because he was not Napoleon I. We don't know if Napoleon III and his generals would have lost 3 "more realistic flexible actions" to the Prussians with the same result. B)

I have no idea how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. Nor do I know how the Prussian Army would have performed with or without General Lee in the ACW. Finally, war has a way of proving that assumptions about armies are rarely correct.

The longbow proved to be superior to knights at Crecy and confirmed at Agincourt. The American rabble defeated the "finest army on earth" in 1781. I know all of the blood spilled in the ACW could not be cleaned up with and pocket handkerchief and I know the Germans beat the French in the Franco-Prussian war.

Where are you guys buying your best army crystal balls?

You really can't compare the artillery of the ACW with the Franco-Prussian War. The invention of the percussion fuze (with the direct action firing pin) in 1870 was a revolutionary step toward modern artillery. We do know that artillery in the Napoleonic Wars inflicted 12% casualties in battle vs. about 8% in the ACW. But keep in mind this is not a comparison of artillery - it is a comparison of battlefield systems and the inter-relationship of combat arms in each era.

The rifled musket was a game changer for the infantry. The ACW tactics changed - abandoning Napoleon's "column of attack" and "mixed order".

We also know why the artillery performance dropped in the ACW - primarily the introduction of pointed projectiles with timed fuzes vs. solid shot ammunition. This is the reason that the the Union had 142 smoothbores at Gettysburg - had they converted entirely to rifled guns and abandoned solid shot completely the artillery performance would have dropped to unacceptable characteristics for full-spectrum artillery duty.

Given the time and technology comparisons I guess it is good to have FIFA World Cup matches. Hopefully Football will determine if the French are better than the Germans tomorrow. Soccer seems like a reasonable way to resolve the conundrums of history.

Cheers...It was fun to read your various perspectives.

European armies were better due to being more experienced in all ways, and having little never equipment. (during ACW many European armies already used breechloaders, but due to lack of weapons Americans had to take what they could, excellent example being Confederacy. No European army had that little/bad equipment.

But as you said, and many many many times shown, it is leaders who won the battles, not the armies. Hell even Volkstrum would be useful if used properly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roman Ruler, where were the European armies gaining this experience? After 1815 my history books suggest Europe was reasonable peaceful. The Crimean War had ended in 1856 - before the introduction of the model 1857 12 pound Napoleon. If Europeans had all of this battlefield experience why were European officers flocking to the U.S. to observe the ACW?

I'm dubious of your statements because some of the most experienced soldiers on the planet in 1815, that had just defeated Napoleon, were shot to bits in New Orleans. Andrew Jackson was not experienced at high-level command. It was not Andrew Jackson's leadership that won the battle. British arrogance/disdain for the American rabble and the marksmanship of American rifles decapitated the British force. Forgetting to bring the ladders to scale the works at New Orleans didn't help either. What a fiasco.

While leadership plays an essential role in war there are many examples where technology and determination of the men were significantly more important than the leadership. The entire WWI experience demonstrated that technology had outpaced leadership's ability to innovate and overcome weaponry. It took 2 years of WWI to invent and deploy the tank and 20 years to perfect the machines and tactics to exploit the tank.

In my mind the technology of the rifled musket in the ACW had already outpaced leadership. Chancellorsville is the single example of brilliant leadership in the east during the entire ACW. All of the other battles were slugfests resulting in attrition. Even Chancellorsville devolved in to a slugfest with slightly uneven casualties (1.3 to 1 ratio). Note that the casualty relationship of about 2.5 to 1 occurs with staggering frequency in the ACW. Fredericksburg, Malvern Hill, Cold Harbor, and the results of the Lee's debacle at Gettysburg (misnamed "Pickett's Charge") are all examples. When Generals on both sides over 4 years of war have consistent results it is a good indication of technology overtaking leadership. WWI demonstrates this case tragically.

Lee never accomplished, nor could he given the technology, the kind of victories that Napoleon achieved. Lee's Seven Day's Battles, Sherman's campaign for Atlanta, and Grant's Wilderness campaign confirm that you could flank and army out of position but eventually had to fight head to head if you were facing competent leadership.

But for the almost 2:1 German advantage in men (200,000 vs. 120,000) and 50% more guns coupled with the incompetence of Napoleon III the Franco-Prussian war had the potential to be a war of attrition.

The military maxim for the Franco-Prussian war is that gross leadership incompetence has the potential to trump technology.

There is not one answer to history - which is what makes it interesting.

P.S. By 1863 I'd suggest the AoP had fairly comparable equipment to the Europeans. And the AoP had its hands full with the ANV. Also your history timeline is a bit distorted. I'd suggest you take a closer look at the history of breechloaders...

England:

Armstrong screw-breech guns were initially adopted by the British Army and Royal Navy, but concerns about limited armour penetration of the shells due to limited maximum velocity, safety concerns with the breech blocks blowing out of guns, and higher skill levels demanded of gunners led the British Government to revert to rifled muzzle-loaders from 1865 to 1880, when Britain finally deployed reliable screw breech mechanisms.

France:

The Lahitolle 95 mm cannon of 1875 was introduced and partially solved the obturation problem of breechloaders (projectile flaring from heat and pressure that expands the projectile into the rifling - making breechloaders dangerous).

The de Bange system introduced in 1877 solved the obturation problem with an asbestos pad impregnated with grease which expanded and sealed the breech on firing. The de Bange system formed the obturation system for all subsequent screw breeches to the present day. Britain adopted the de Bange breech when it returned to breechloaders in the early 1880s after some initial experiments with the inferior "Armstrong cup" obturation system

Germany:

Krupp, unable to sell his steel cannon, gave the prototype to the King of Prussia, who used it as a decorative piece. The king's brother Wilhelm, however, realized the significance of the innovation. After he became regent in 1859, Prussia bought its first 312 steel cannon from Krupp, which became the main arms manufacturer for the Prussian military.

The French high command refused to purchase Krupp guns despite Napoleon III's support. The Franco-Prussian war (1870-1871 - AFTER the ACW) was in part a contest of "Kruppstahl" versus bronze cannon. The success of German artillery spurred the first international arms race, against Schneider in France and Armstrong in England. Krupp was able to sell, alternately, improved artillery and improved steel shielding to countries from Russia to Chile to Siam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is other kind of experience besides fighting battles,  Europe had fought 2 000 years, they knew how to get soldiers into army, how to feed them and equip them, they had traditions, how to mobilise them cuickly. They had officer schools where they learned from generals like Napoleon I more than elsewhere perhaps. Etc. Their countries had shaped during thousands of years of fighting, while for example USA was just formed almost from scratch, copied from Europeans (English to be precise). One good example of this is Prussian infantry in Napoleonic wars, they were obsolete, trained after model of Frederic the Great, yet they could easily match and beat French infantry sent against them. Rest of the army however, was also shaped after Frederic the great, resulting in huge losses. But like i said, their infantry was still formidable foe, not to be taken lightly. Unless you want to use word "lightly" literally, becouse French light infantry played great role in defeating them. 

If you look at famous formations, you notice that 11th Airbone division was good division during WW2, and it still is today, desbite being jsut regular unit, it is still slightly better than average unit. Why? Becouse teachers have learned what they teach from their teachers, who learned from their teachers... etc....who learned from Julius Caesar.(same applies to kids learning from parents) French were aggressive already during Napoleonic wars, and today their infantry still has that aggressive Elan. But again, Americans started almost from scratch, they had to build their army and entire nation in period of few hundred years as opposed to thousands of years, foreign advicors can do just that, advice, but nothing more, becouse each nation is different. 

It is same troughout history, Byzantine Empire`s greatest weapon in medieval era was their cavalry, yet, they relied on infantry, like their ancient Roman ancestors 2 000 years ago.  

And Swiss have always been ultra-loyal mercenaries, as long as they got paid. 

Etc, which is btw one my most used words so i don`t have to write history book from year 1 000BC to 2014.

 

It is fascinating how humans don`t change even when everything else changes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the leadership of the Confederate States of America and men would whoop the European armies in my opinion even though we've been a for not too long lol

They had R.E. Lee, Europeans had Helmuth von Moltke. Moltke was one of greatest generals of all times, Lee was "only" great. And later Europe had Ludendorff, Erwin Rommel, Hitler (bad leader of nation, but he was good military leader), Erich von Manstein, Konstantin Rokosovsky and.  Georgy Zhukov (+ hundreds of others, i only listed best, it is impossible to list all great German commanders of WW2, just way too many of them). America had Geoge Patton.  And before we had Napoleon while you had George Washington. So Europe clearly wins.

+All officer schools which America did not have

 

Bismarck must also be mentioned, but he was more politician than soldier and not genius like others

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RomanRuler, staff training and logistics is certainly critical in war. But, I'm not certain how to reconcile your statement that, "Prussian infantry in Napoleonic wars, they were obsolete, trained after model of Frederic the Great, yet they could easily match and beat French infantry sent against them" with the reality of the magnitude of the Jena and Auerstedt debacle for the Prussian army and the Prussian State.

Davout had 27,000 men at Auerstedt vs. 60,000 Prussians.

Napoleon had 40,000 men at Jean vs. 60,000 Prussians.

From Wikipedia:

"The battle proved most influential in demonstrating the need for liberal reforms in what was then still a very much feudal Prussian state and army. Important Prussian reformers like Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and Clausewitz served at the battle. Their reforms, together with civilian reforms instituted over the following years, began Prussia's transformation into a modern state..."

Humans do change and adapt. It is our primary evolutionary skill. Personally I'd consider tradition as a poor stepchild compared to the troika of tactical innovation, technology, and leadership in war. But that's just my opinion and worth very little in the grand scheme of things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is other kind of experience besides fighting battles,  Europe had fought 2 000 years, they knew how to get soldiers into army, how to feed them and equip them, they had traditions, how to mobilise them cuickly. They had officer schools where they learned from generals like Napoleon I more than elsewhere perhaps. Etc. Their countries had shaped during thousands of years of fighting, while for example USA was just formed almost from scratch, copied from Europeans (English to be precise). One good example of this is Prussian infantry in Napoleonic wars, they were obsolete, trained after model of Frederic the Great, yet they could easily match and beat French infantry sent against them. Rest of the army however, was also shaped after Frederic the great, resulting in huge losses. But like i said, their infantry was still formidable foe, not to be taken lightly. Unless you want to use word "lightly" literally, becouse French light infantry played great role in defeating them. 

If you look at famous formations, you notice that 11th Airbone division was good division during WW2, and it still is today, desbite being jsut regular unit, it is still slightly better than average unit. Why? Becouse teachers have learned what they teach from their teachers, who learned from their teachers... etc....who learned from Julius Caesar.(same applies to kids learning from parents) French were aggressive already during Napoleonic wars, and today their infantry still has that aggressive Elan. But again, Americans started almost from scratch, they had to build their army and entire nation in period of few hundred years as opposed to thousands of years, foreign advicors can do just that, advice, but nothing more, becouse each nation is different. 

It is same troughout history, Byzantine Empire`s greatest weapon in medieval era was their cavalry, yet, they relied on infantry, like their ancient Roman ancestors 2 000 years ago.  

And Swiss have always been ultra-loyal mercenaries, as long as they got paid. 

Etc, which is btw one my most used words so i don`t have to write history book from year 1 000BC to 2014.

 

It is fascinating how humans don`t change even when everything else changes. 

You are mistaken on where the American military copied its military manuals. We did not copy the Brits, the US Army manuals from Scott's all the way through Hardee's manuals were almost entirely copied from the French. I also think you sell the US a little short on logistics. The CS had definite issues but that was mainly due to the naval blockade and the fact that the south used rivers more than rail for transportation of goods. The union gunboats took away alot of that. In Europe, the logistic supply lines would be considerably shorter than they were in America simply due to the size comparison between Europe and America.

 

The US also had several high quality military leadership schools. Maybe you have heard of a few? West Point, Virginia Military Institute, The Citadel? The war in the US was also unlike any the Europeans would have been familiar with when you consider that the landscape was mostly undeveloped wilderness whereas the armies in Europe would have been operating in more developed landscapes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Corrections: Auerstadt, Jena. Twin battles. Napoleon won the first and Davout the other. There were also Saxons and Brunswickers involved. Generally speaking, the Prussians were never a match for Napoleon's troops for the whole of the Napoleonic Wars, cavalry or infantry or artillery. Even as late as Waterloo, two battalions of Old Guard routed 14 Prussian battalions at Plancenoit. The ascent of the Prusso-German army began after 1815 and occurred as a result of being on the winning side. Later, their needle-rifles defeated the Austro-Hungarians in 1866, and their Krupp artillery the French in 1870.

In my view, Napoleon was arguably the greatest European general of all time (even though he lost some battles), although Alexander the Great is certainly a contender for that title, and with Frederick the Great in third place. Someone like Robert E. Lee is not even the equal of Wellington who had a near-perfect record. Wellington himself said that 'Napoleon's hat' was worth 40,000 men on the field--as was proven at Waterloo, where only the intervention of 40,000 Prussians saved Welligton's bacon, and even then it was a near-run thing. I doubt that Lee would even come up to Davout's standard. Maybe, Lee could be regarded as good as some of Napoleon's other Marshals, (but not Lannes).

As to the quality of the men, well, men fight better under good leaders and with good equipment and training. At about the same time, Garibaldi's Italians defeated other Italians under the Bourbon flag. Italians were defeated in the Western Desert in 1940, only to become the bulk of Rommel's forces and to defeat the British and Empire troops in 1941 to late 1942. These are examples of how leadership makes a great difference. The needle-gun and the Krupp cannon are examples of technology making the salient difference. (The Gulf Wars, too, were won because of overwhelming technological advantage.)

If ACW Americans were trained and led in the European style, they would have performed commensurably. The argument that Europe is older and therefore battle-wiser because of some ancestral line is spurious: European Americans were European. Also, there is no direct line back to the Romans. The barbarian invasions intervened giving the whole of Europe and half of North Africa a new genetic mix, which continues to our times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Corrections: Auerstadt, Jena. Twin battles. Napoleon won the first and Davout the other. There were also Saxons and Brunswickers involved. Generally speaking, the Prussians were never a match for Napoleon's troops for the whole of the Napoleonic Wars, cavalry or infantry or artillery. Even as late as Waterloo, two battalions of Old Guard routed 14 Prussian battalions at Plancenoit. The ascent of the Prusso-German army began after 1815 and occurred as a result of being on the winning side. Later, their needle-rifles defeated the Austro-Hungarians in 1866, and their Krupp artillery the French in 1870.

In my view, Napoleon was arguably the greatest European general of all time (even though he lost some battles), although Alexander the Great is certainly a contender for that title, and with Frederick the Great in third place. Someone like Robert E. Lee is not even the equal of Wellington who had a near-perfect record. Wellington himself said that 'Napoleon's hat' was worth 40,000 men on the field--as was proven at Waterloo, where only the intervention of 40,000 Prussians saved Welligton's bacon, and even then it was a near-run thing. I doubt that Lee would even come up to Davout's standard. Maybe, Lee could be regarded as good as some of Napoleon's other Marshals, (but not Lannes).

As to the quality of the men, well, men fight better under good leaders and with good equipment and training. At about the same time, Garibaldi's Italians defeated other Italians under the Bourbon flag. Italians were defeated in the Western Desert in 1940, only to become the bulk of Rommel's forces and to defeat the British and Empire troops in 1941 to late 1942.

If ACW Americans were trained and led in the European style, they would have performed commensurably. The argument that Europe is older and therefore battle-wiser because of some ancestral line is spurious: European Americans were European.

Lee defeated the Union army at Chacellorsville of approximately 120,000 with an army half that size. He did the same thing at Wilderness and Spotsylvania. I think you sell the man a little short.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lee defeated the Union army at Chacellorsville of approximately 120,000 with an army half that size. He did the same thing at Wilderness and Spotsylvania. I think you sell the man a little short.

Lee was certainly a very good general. (Don't you think that Napoleon's Marshals were good generals? Only Bernadotte was questionable. They had all risen through the ranks.) The book I'm looking at, Randall & Donald 1969: The Civil War and Reconstruction (a university text for Modern History, one of my majors) gives the strengths at Chancellorsville as 130,000 versus 60,000.  Lee seemed to think, correctly given the outcome, that he could divide his force and beat Hooker who also had divided his. Hooker was a timid general, afraid of losing. Lee was a bold general, focussed on victory and not afraid to take risks, relying on the excellence of many of his troops, on his own qualities of command and those of generals like Stonewall Jackson. Both the Wilderness and Spotsylvania battles were deemed 'inconclusive', I believe. At Gettysburg, a Union victory, the forces were 90,000 to 70,000, casualties were 23,000 each, a real bloodbath.

On another score, I'm surprised at the small sizes of Brigades, Divisions and Corps. Napoleonic formations were twice the ACW size and similarly larger were formations of the same mid-century period in Europe in the Second War of Italian Liberation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hitler was a good military leader? Wow - I'm checking out now.

Yes. Like i said, bad leader of his people, but he knew how to lead his armies. However he did not have full control of military matters until late war, when he already was badly sick, and later even mad. It was his generals who drew plans for operation barbarossa, differently from what Hitler wanted. But it was Hitler who selected location for last German offensive (battle of bulge), which came very close to outflanking entire allied army, but Germans run out of fuel and heroic allied resistance took care of the rest. Unlike you might think, allied peoples no longer wanted to carry on fighting, so their manpower definetly was not even higher than Germany`s, in fact many divisions were at 50% strengh. Successive offensive on the west would have caused a lot of allied forces to surrender, perhaps even make peace. People don`t understand how little people in USA for example wanted to fight Germany now that we have heard 70 years after the war propaganda (propaganda can also be true, it just means making your enemy look bad and yourself good) about WW2. 
Please don`t be stupid enough to think we know everything, or even most, of what happened in WW2. 

 

RomanRuler, staff training and logistics is certainly critical in war. But, I'm not certain how to reconcile your statement that, "Prussian infantry in Napoleonic wars, they were obsolete, trained after model of Frederic the Great, yet they could easily match and beat French infantry sent against them" with the reality of the magnitude of the Jena and Auerstedt debacle for the Prussian army and the Prussian State.

Davout had 27,000 men at Auerstedt vs. 60,000 Prussians.

Napoleon had 40,000 men at Jean vs. 60,000 Prussians.

From Wikipedia:

"The battle proved most influential in demonstrating the need for liberal reforms in what was then still a very much feudal Prussian state and army. Important Prussian reformers like Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and Clausewitz served at the battle. Their reforms, together with civilian reforms instituted over the following years, began Prussia's transformation into a modern state..."

Humans do change and adapt. It is our primary evolutionary skill. Personally I'd consider tradition as a poor stepchild compared to the troika of tactical innovation, technology, and leadership in war. But that's just my opinion and worth very little in the grand scheme of things.

 

Like i said, Prussian infantry was better, but rest of the army was not. Without support good infantry turns into bad one, causing such losses. French army was good in anything, Prussians only had good infantry, nothing more. 

And of course, Napoleon was genius, and has defeated many as good armies as his. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RomanRuler, just because I have a different perspective I can assure you I'm not "stupid".

You are welcome to your own perspective on Hitler, etc...

Please continue your baseless raving and absurd arguments.

Every post you make discredits your comprehension of historical fact across the spectrum of time.

Please identify any division, brigade, corps, army, army group that Hitler personally commanded.

Hitler was a political hack with no experience in military command at any level. Hitler was an armchair general who knew how to organize military parades and motivate his population through hate and myth. He preyed upon European nations who would do anything to avoid another European cataclysm after WWI. Politically he motivated his master race into an abyss of catastrophic and barbaric destruction. Militarily his orders to hold to the last man cost him hundreds of thousands of men and vast material resources during the war. His own generals opposed him and eventually tried to assassinate him.

Do you even know anything about the ACW?

If you do you might consider focusing your thoughts on the topic of the game, this forum, and contributing less incendiary comments.

Please do me the courtesy of not including my name in any future posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on my extensive reading on the battle, had Lee or his subordinates acted more decisively, they would have won this battle decisively.  The fact that they came close at all - despite a plethora of large mistakes - is mute testimony to this assessment.

 

For instance, in the game, if Ewell's corps has a chance to secure a strategic hill with zero opposition, you would instantly seize this gift, correct? 

 

Well, that's exactly what Ewell didn't do IRL.  Had he done so, the entire Union defense plan would have been untenable.  All the confederates really needed was a hill with a flat top, overlooking the union position.  This is exactly why they fought so hard for Little Round Top.  Had the confederates been able to park a Napoleonic-style "grand battery" up there, the union troops could not have remained in their entrenched positions for long, and any assault against them would go in with massive artillery support.

 

As it was, Lee never did secure the key high ground, and Hancock made brilliant use of interior lines to shuttle troops to threatened sectors.  Pickett's Charge was Lee's final throw of the dice, and it failed for the same reasons that all the other assaults had - lack of proper artillery support, insufficient numbers for the task, and the sheer folly of frontally assaulting unsuppressed (note this also refers to the poor artillery support) entrenched defenders in an era filled with massively greater firepower than Napoleon's tactical system ever had to cope with.

 

Getting back to the point now - after knowing these facts, do you still find the Army of Northern Virginia "overpowered"?  Because they had never lost a battle up to that point and weren't even that badly damaged by this "defeat" at Gettysburg, although the South's chances of winning were all but extinguished on July 3rd, 1863.  In contrast, all the Union had to do was "not lose" in order to win.  Time was on their side in a massive way.  But this isn't a strategic wargame. It's about a single battle, and in that battle, the Army of Northern Virginia was probably the finest field army on the planet as of July 1st. 

 

To be accurate, the game *must* reflect this.  And your tactics as the Union player must deal with it.  Don't blame the game just because your opponent doesn't make the same mistakes as Lee, Heth and Ewell did.  Or if you are unable to assemble a defensible position and use interior lines to keep it firm, as Hancock did.

 

To the devs, please consider these points before Nerfing the Confederates any more than has already (unfortunately) been done.

Well the problem here is you pre-suppose that I agree with those facts and had not already heard such things before. I must take issue with the condescension of your response. You seem to assume I know nothing of the Civil War. Perhaps I can disabuse you of that notion. Lets start with the statement, "[The Army of Northern Virignia] never lost a battle up to that point."

That Army of Northern Virginia was defeated at White Oaks Swamp, Malvern Hill, Antietam, Beaver Dam Creek, South Mountain, and The Second Battle of Fredricksburg (an often overlooked battle that occurred a day before Chancellorsville)  just to name a few, before Gettysburg. It strikes me that you might buy into Lee's invincibility a little to much. He was an exceptional general, but far from perfect. The defeat at Antietam cost the Army the entire Maryland campaign and any chance of British recognition of the Confederacy. That's quite a heavy loss. 

Also, I would argue that if Ewell had seized Culp's Hill on Day One, the Federals would have abandoned Gettysburg to the Rebels as Hancock would imediatley recognize the untenable position of his and Howard's Corps. They would have then concentrated at the prepared position at Pipe Creek, where Meade originally wanted to defend. Lee would have pursued them, but without cavalry he would have been unable to adequately track their movements in time to strike a blow. Once Lee could pursue, his blood would be up and he would face the Federal army, now completely concentrated behind the superior defenses of Pipe Creek. Lee would have been even more over-confident, and even more aggressive. What likely would have followed would have been even bloodier defeat for the Rebellion. Gettysburg would have been the South Mountain to Pipe Creek. The result of the campaign would likely have been even worse for Lee.

Also. I doubt that a "Grand Battery" on Little Round Top would have sufficed. As you may or may not know, 1/3rd of the Rebel shells burned about 200 meters to late. This was because the shells made in South Carolina had been improperly manufactured. Lee learned this about ten days after the battle. This is why Lee's proto-Box Barrage preceding Longstreet's assault on the Third Day was so ineffective. 

FYI, if there was a chance for Rebel victory at Gettysburg, perhaps it was when Mahone nearly broke into the rear of the Federals on Cemetery Ridge on the Second Day. Had he been supported before the 1st Minnesota plugged the breach, perhaps things may have been different. Regardless, Lee's army was too damaged and exhausted at that point to exploit any such victory. This can be seen in the behavior of the brigades outside of Pickett's during the charge on the Third Day. The Rebels didn't have a third fight in them. 

I also would not call the Army of Northern Virginia the finest field army in the world at the time, The Army of the Tennessee and the Army of the Cumberland were better equipped and could match them in Esprit de Corps. Furthermore, unlike the Grand Army of the Potomac and the Army of the Tennessee, the Army of Northern Virginia never captured or destroyed an enemy army. 

As to the Union having the advantage in this battle. Yes they did. Due in large part to the magnificent success of Buford and the I, XI, and II Corps on the First Day, who held the Southern Ridges against the odds. I'd say though that in the grand scheme of things the Rebels generally had the defensive advantage, but that discussion is a large digression. 

As for the game reflecting this, I was frustrated because I felt that the Rebel's ability to carry the offensive was overpowered. Malvern Hill, Glendale, Beaver Dam Creek, etc proved that one Reb could not in face lick ten Yankees, as your argument almost implies. I felt that the game did not compensate for the high ground for example. Having played the game more extensively, I feel I was wrong about this. Though the Rebs are a bit to strong, since they are compelled to attack I think it is fair. 

I may not be as experienced or skilled a gamer as you are, but please don't lecture me on the Civil War unless you really, really, really know your stuff lol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I finished only once on each side, with balanced and random AI respectively, so my experience might change with different AIs.

But historical arguments aside, I think that for balance purposes the strength of both sides is in good position. Confederates are really powerful and perform better than Union troops in the early stages of the battle, but after that numerical superiority of Union troops kicks in. Perhaps some Confederate units are a little too strong (for example 2nd Corps 3 stars infantry brigades with 100% morale), but like Mr. Mercanto said - they need to attack, so it balances things out. So far it looks like for Confederates you need to attack as quickly as you can, and kill or route as many Union brigades as you are able, in order to have a good chance in later days, when more Union Corps come to join the fray.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...