Cavalry - is UGG an ACW game?

[David Fair]

Just finished a campaign and looked at the "statistics".

 

Of the top 5 most successful brigades 3 were cavalry.

 

1,173 men 42 losses with 3,285 casualties inflicted.

   932 men 94 losses with 1,264 casualties inflicted.

   624 men 54 losses with    734 casualties inflicted.

 

The top brigade inflicted twice as many casualties as any infantry brigade north or south.

These statistics are staggering for the ACW - because the cavalry didn't do much fighting at Gettysburg.

 

Buford lost just over 100 men - then was dispatched to Winchester, Maryland on July 2 to refit and resupply. 

 

I've had the CSA cavalry charging the I Corps and defeating the Iron Brigade (and supporting brigades) on heavy cover.

 

I've charged the with Videttes and destroyed 5 CSA batteries in a row.

 

The Union cavalry at Gettysburg had attained parity with the CSA by July, 1863.  

This was demonstrated at Brandy's Station and again East Cavalry Field.

 

Civil War cavalry could not stand up to the infantry armed with the rifled musket.

 

In UGG I'd trade all of my infantry for cavalry - because they are the most effective units in the game.

 

This is completely out of line with ACW cavalry.

 

The credibility of UGG as game representative of the ACW is in question with this level of anachronism in the role that cavalry is playing on the battlefield.

 

Is is possible to get a version of this game without the cavalry?

 

I'm interested in the ACW - and the cavalry implementation is very very far out of line with the ACW.

 

It is frustrating because you get a reasonable battle going then the "wonder cavalry" show up and turn the game into pure fantasy.  

 

[Harnis]

Yeah I've noticed this too, especially when you get to those 3rd day scenarios where you have Custer's units and Stuart's units on the field. It's brutal.

[CSA Watkins]

Just finished a campaign and looked at the "statistics".......snip

 

The credibility of UGG as game representative of the ACW is in question with this level of anachronism in the role that cavalry is playing on the battlefield.

 

Is is possible to get a version of this game without the cavalry?

 

I'm interested in the ACW - and the cavalry implementation is very very far out of line with the ACW.

 

It is frustrating because you get a reasonable battle going then the "wonder cavalry" show up and turn the game into pure fantasy.  

 

Totally agree with ur whole post D Fair.

These 4 lines I have Highlighted in Bold

says exactly how I feel. 

******

Besides the Cavalry my biggest beef are those 'Videttes'

The way they were used in Game, instead of there real role in the Civil War('Scouts/Mounted Pickets/Eyes for the Army').

 

The Videttes when in Game especially MP are used as Battery Busters.

(When the Armies Approach Gettysburg)

This causes an unfair advantage for the Union Player, and is totally out of the

realm of historical accuracy.

 

I am forced to keep My batteries as close to the main body as possible,

which in turn defeats the purpose of how Batteries were used in certain situations.

 

If not,

I have to dispatch a Line of skirmishers (Heth's) to protect them if kept together.

It is hard to protect if I want to seperate my Batteries to fire from different positions on the map.

With 1 unit of Skirmishers in the first part of the map/Game.

 

Also pulling Back troops to Protecting the 4 batteries that arrive later on from the SW 'alone' without any protection,

from the wondering Videttes, and so on n so forth...

 

*******

http://civilwartalk.com/threads/videttes-and-skirmishers.96805/

 

Skirmishers were more of a defensive tactic. You throw out a line of troops ahead of your main body to disrupt the enemy and defend against their actions.

A vidette was a mounted scout, usually alone or in a small group, and their duty was to find the enemy and report on their actions and not necessarily to take them under fire.

**

A vedette is a cavalry equivalent of an infantry picket. Pickets would have been out about 500 yards from the main body and,

with cavalry, individual vedettes out maybe another 500 yards from the pickets.

**

Videttes/vedettes would also be mounted when cavalry units are picketing a gap. The pickets would bed down by a fire at night, have a reserve in the rear,

while the videttes rode back and forth between the separate groups of pickets.

In this case, pickets is an appropriate term to describe both the dismounted and mounted groups/individuals if they are on watch.

[Subutai]

Yeah cavalry should not be able to oppose infantry brigades so effectively.... Even if this were Napoleon's time, I'm not sure if cavalry would be that powerful...

[R.E.B.Blunt]

Cavalry attacking single line brigades is actually historically proven to be devastating. That is why Infantry created the Square formation to defeat Cavalry. But since there is no Brigade formations in this game I think the only fair thing to do is scale back Cavalry. Now for the Fantasy what if's I think it is fun to have Cavalry battles but something a bit more fair not some un even Cavalry fiasco.

[David Fair]

Cavalry attacking single line brigades In the ACW?

 

Or are you talking about the Napoleonic Wars?

 

I'm aware of a few instances where infantry regiments formed squares - but I've never heard of a infantry brigade forming in square to fight off cavalry in the ACW.

 

Even where regiments formed squares it was usually a temporary measure when they were confronted by surprise with cavalry.  The infantry in square usually paused to reload then returned to linear tactics - placing their faith in the rifled musket over the size of target a man on a horse presented.

 

I'd be very interested in references to your sources.

[Subutai]

Perhaps he meant the brigade forming multiple squares by regiment? Not that it would be a very useful feature....

 

Yeah I would think by the time of the ACW, the infantry square is kind of vestigial. Cavalry simply cannot directly contend with infantry without an overwhelming advantage of some sort. Cavalry vs cavalry actions might resemble something Napoleonic but that's about it. If cavalry in the game had no combat abilities at all, that might actually be a more accurate simulation.

[Harnis]

Cavalry charging a line of infantry in any historical period was only devastating if the infantry broke from the charge. Even in the medieval times of heavily armored knights, throwing your 4 legged animal at a wall of armor and spiky things is not going to end well unless those spiky things start running away first. This is only exaggerated once firearms become more prominent.

 

Simply put, if infantry hold their ground and hold firm in the face of a cavalry charge, the cavalry have two choices, either break off and try again, or ride into a wall, which is suicidal for both sides. The issue is if the infantry can hold firm in the face of a wall of horses and yelling men charging at them. That's not an easy task.

 

Of course, none of this matters for the ACW, since cavalry weren't really used that way anyways.

[David Fair]

For the most part cavalry during the ACW fought on foot - the idea of a "devastating" cavalry charge against infantry during the ACW is not supported by any evidence I can find.

 

Torbert's Grand Charge at Third Winchester, September 19, 1864 was the largest cavalry charge of the war.  The charge involved 8,000 troopers attacking the flank and rear of Early's Army.  Sheridan's 40,000 man Army of the Shenandoah attacked Jubal Early's 12,000 man Army of the Valley.  

 

Union losses were over 5,000, CSA losses were about 3,600.  

 

But by this point in the war the CSA was so over matched in manpower that the Union was willing to trade lives to attempt to destroy the CSA's armies.

 

The net result was Early escaped to fight a series of battles to try to preserve the Shenandoah Valley for the CSA.