Wilderness and Spotsylvania

[Ikmuzun]

I see that the battle of Cold Harbor will be implemented later, but Wilderness and Spotsylvania not.

There is a reason for that?

Playing at the Bloody Angle would be nice.

[Wright29]

Maybe to avoid repetition? Wilderness would be a lot like Chancellorsville and Spotsylvania will be pretty similar to Cold Harbor. Also having three straight tough battles for the Union would probably lead to some players getting frustrated. 

[Ikmuzun]

Or only Spotsylvania and cold Harbor? Like Gaines's Mill et Mavern Hill as CSA 

[Koro]

38 minutes ago, Wright29 said:

Maybe to avoid repetition? Wilderness would be a lot like Chancellorsville and Spotsylvania will be pretty similar to Cold Harbor. Also having three straight tough battles for the Union would probably lead to some players getting frustrated. 

They are close right? I am testing Chancellorsville right now and the orange plank road and orange turnpike or something like that are there which I am sure where the two roads that the fighting centered around at the wilderness. 

I don't see the wilderness working well but I would love to see Spotsylvania. 

[Col_Kelly]

I feel wilderness would be great ! Intense woodfighting, lots of cover but little vision : it would be unique.

[James Cornelius]

1 hour ago, Wright29 said:

Maybe to avoid repetition? Wilderness would be a lot like Chancellorsville and Spotsylvania will be pretty similar to Cold Harbor. Also having three straight tough battles for the Union would probably lead to some players getting frustrated. 

As opposed to, say, First Bull Run and Second Bull Run?

 

I don't see repetition of ground as a legitimate reason not to do a battle. Wilderness was a year after Chancellorsville and a lot changed in that time.

 

I think EVERY major battle should be included and the Wilderness and Spotsylvania certain count as such.

[A. P. Hill]

1 hour ago, Wright29 said:

... Also having three straight tough battles for the Union would probably lead to some players getting frustrated. 

Only have one thing to say about that ...

Waaaaaaah!    

 

I still want every battle ever fought in game.       PLEASE.

Edited January 10, 2017 by A. P. Hill

[CaptainKanundrum]

I am also very much in favor of including the Wilderness and Spotsylvania. It encompasses some of the desperate fighting towards the end of the war.

This desperation is something that I feel is also missing from some of the campaigns such as the Peninsula Campaign, since playing as the CSA, the war still goes on even if you lose every battle.  

[Wright29]

To me it's more regrettable that they don't have the battle of Chatanooga/ Missionary Ridge. Though that would be a tough battle in-game since the results of the real battle were so unexpected with the Union breaking what looked like an impenetrable defensive line. It was a victory credited to the soldiers and not towards good generalship of Grant or even Thomas. I guess that's not what UGCW is all about. 

[michaelsmithern]

22 hours ago, A. P. Hill said:

Only have one thing to say about that ...

Waaaaaaah!    

 

I still want every battle ever fought in game.       PLEASE.

gotta go with hill, no need to act like a baby for tough battles, because war isn't fair. and The American Civil War wasn't a Cakewalk for either side. so if it makes it hard for the Union, i'm all for it, if it makes it difficult for the Confederates, good. and besides you can pull off victories during these battles all the time, as the south i've won Shiloh and Antietam which were historical losses(and had devastating effects on the south) undermanned and out experienced by the union each time, yet i've still pulled through, Hell i pulled through at Fredericksburg and 2nd Manassas as the Union, took heavy losses during the Fredericksburg battles, but i'm not complaining, you gotta lose troops to win a battle.

[waldopbarnstormer]

Where did you hear that wilderness would not be included?

I would like to see all the battles of the overland campaign implemented. The wilderness map should be already in because it is the same area as chancellorsville, minor battles could be 2nd fredrickburg and north ana. Spotsylvania and cold harbour should also be available. Not sure if the cavalry battles between sheridan and Stuart/Hampton be included.

[Koro]

19 minutes ago, waldopbarnstormer said:

Where did you hear that wilderness would not be included?

I would like to see all the battles of the overland campaign implemented. The wilderness map should be already in because it is the same area as chancellorsville, minor battles could be 2nd fredrickburg and north ana. Spotsylvania and cold harbour should also be available. Not sure if the cavalry battles between sheridan and Stuart/Hampton be included.

There is a list of battle on the store page and it's not on there

[Mr. Mercanto]

On 10/01/2017 at 4:35 PM, Koro said:

They are close right? I am testing Chancellorsville right now and the orange plank road and orange turnpike or something like that are there which I am sure where the two roads that the fighting centered around at the wilderness. 

I don't see the wilderness working well but I would love to see Spotsylvania. 

The Wilderness and Chancellorsville were actually fought in effectively the same location. In fact, Longstreet was shot by his own men in very nearly the same place Jackson was one year less a day prior!

While the events of the fighting were somewhat similar (ie the Confederates essaying an initially successful assault that was eventually halted), the battles are certainly distinct.

[Mr. Mercanto]

On 10/01/2017 at 3:56 PM, Wright29 said:

Maybe to avoid repetition? Wilderness would be a lot like Chancellorsville and Spotsylvania will be pretty similar to Cold Harbor. Also having three straight tough battles for the Union would probably lead to some players getting frustrated. 

Yeah the planned battles are pretty rough for the Union as it is... With the obvious exception of Gettysburg, almost all the battles are near Union wins or outright Confederate victories...

Yes, A.P. Hill, WAAAHH!!  

[GeneralPITA]

The Battle of the Wilderness is more of a slugfest in the trees, not much tactical value to be had. Everettsville is a CSA side mission in a dense forest and it was a grind, not very enjoyable. I wouldn't want to play a grand battle in such conditions. Artillery movement penalties are severe, not to mention how overpowered cavalry are in cover. I didn't know this had been removed until just now, but I'm glad it was. 

[Koro]

5 hours ago, Mr. Mercanto said:

The Wilderness and Chancellorsville were actually fought in effectively the same location. In fact, Longstreet was shot by his own men in very nearly the same place Jackson was one year less a day prior!

While the events of the fighting were somewhat similar (ie the Confederates essaying an initially successful assault that was eventually halted), the battles are certainly distinct.

Interesting. I guess then it makes sense why Hooker could be surprised like that given the sense forests Lee was in.

 

[Wright29]

I've been to Chancellorsville. Can't see shit in those woods. They caught on fire during the battle of Wilderness because the underbrush was so dense. Burned a hell of a lot of wounded men. I feel like Chancellorsville had a lot of movement, so it's fun for us as gamers. But Wilderness would just be us watching our brigades slug it out in straight up woods fighting without room for maneuver. 

Edited January 12, 2017 by Wright29

[Koro]

Just now, Wright29 said:

I've been to Chancellorsville. Can't see shit in those woods. They caught on fire during the battle because the underbrush was so dense. Burned a hell of a lot of wounded men. I feel like Chancellorsville had a lot of movement, so it's fun for us as gamers. But Wilderness would just be us watching our brigades slug it out in straight up woods fighting without room for maneuver. 

Why is it the battles were so different given they took place on almost the same ground? I mean, the Wilderness is famous for it's lack of visibility and confining nature, limiting the fighting to a narrow front. Chancellorsville has huge movement of troops.

[Mr. Mercanto]

15 hours ago, Koro said:

Interesting. I guess then it makes sense why Hooker could be surprised like that given the sense forests Lee was in.

 

Partly, but despite the thick woods, Jackson's foot cavalry was actually were actually spotted by Federal pickets, and Sickles Corps actually engaged their rear guard at and around Catherine's Furnace. As I recall (and my memory is fuzzy) Sickles believed this was the whole corps, and so, Hooker believed Lee had attacked Sicles, been repusled as planned, and was retreating. Had Sickles been a more able commander, he would have known the danger was far from past. There were many other reasons why Hooker was surprised, and when they initial attack met with such great success. Hooker ordered Howard to entrench, he did not. Hooker ordered the 1st Corps to sidle the army and secure Howard's flank, this order did not reach Reynolds for over a day. Hooker expected Howard to shake out pickets, these pickets were only a few dozen yards ahead of the corps, Howards cavalry detachment did not detach pickets more then a a dozen or so yards either. Finally, Hooker was determined to believe the Rebels were on the retreat, despite their order of march indicating an attack. 

That being said, Hooker had initially intended to fight a defensive battle. Despite masterful maneouvering, he was denied it by some of the worst luck and worst Corps commander performance of the war (don't get my started on Uncle John Sedgewick in Fredricksburg lol).

[Mr. Mercanto]

17 hours ago, GeneralPITA said:

The Battle of the Wilderness is more of a slugfest in the trees, not much tactical value to be had. Everettsville is a CSA side mission in a dense forest and it was a grind, not very enjoyable. I wouldn't want to play a grand battle in such conditions. Artillery movement penalties are severe, not to mention how overpowered cavalry are in cover. I didn't know this had been removed until just now, but I'm glad it was. 

Agreed, while the Wilderness did have some tactical movements, it was very much a "soldier's battle." Would kind of suck for this game. 

[Mr. Mercanto]

7 hours ago, Koro said:

Why is it the battles were so different given they took place on almost the same ground? I mean, the Wilderness is famous for it's lack of visibility and confining nature, limiting the fighting to a narrow front. Chancellorsville has huge movement of troops.

Different factors really. For what its worth, The Wilderness did have lots of movement, it was just hard to co-ordinate. Key portions of the Chancellorsville battle were fought in clearings. Also, at Chancellorsville, the command was fractured, which led to a Federal withdrawal (long story lol). 

At Chancellorsville, Lee wanted to launch a series of vital knockout blows at federal weak points while the Federals were seperated. He then wanted to convert this to an all out attack. At the Wilderness, he wished to attack them in thick of the forest in order to use the environment to mitigate his lower numbers. 

[A. P. Hill]

The Wilderness move by Lee was to give the Southern forces an advantage over the numbers of the Union forces.   Lee's lines were in the shape of an inverted V and if Grant hadn't realized eventually what was taking place, Lee's fortifications would have split the union forces.  Once Grant understood what was happening he pulled back his right flank and had them march around the rear of the left flank and continue the sliding movement to the South and Southeast.

It was a brilliant tactic by Lee, and if he would have had more forces, might have succeeded at breaking the Union forces in two and defeating each piecemeal.

[Lillibullero]

Chattanuga (Missionary Ridge) and Spotsylvania would be very interesting. But Wilderness is just blood bath.

[RobWheat61]

On 10.1.2017 at 10:59 PM, Col_Kelly said:

I feel wilderness would be great ! Intense woodfighting, lots of cover but little vision : it would be unique.

I agree with you. But I can already see all the "broken, insane, too hard, too many casualties, ah and lets not forget complains about scaling-Threads in the forums too, if the dev would decide to include the battle.

But overall the battle would be a good example of Grants several attempts to vanquish the ANV by pure attrition.

[A. P. Hill]

I've said before, I'll say again, as a purist on all things ACW, I'd like to see every major battle provided.