New beta?

[David Fair]

kc87,

Great article on the Confederate Press during the Civil War:

http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Newspapers_in_Virginia_During_the_Civil_War_Confederate#start_entry

While the press was technically "free" it was increasingly "biased" and prone to propaganda.

For example in Virginia prior to the War there were 120 papers.

By 1863 only 17 papers were still publishing.

By 1864 the number was reduced to about 5.

[Grognard_JC]

David,

 

I'm not trying to lure you into a semantic argument or something.

 

Accurate figures of battle or campaign casualties are a very modern, and almost contemporary concept. It's only historians since the late 19th century that started working on it seriously.

 

Historians do tend to make rules out of examples. You take a series of fact, seeing they repeat themselves under apparently the same circumstances, you then draw "rules". Ofc, this always a bit arbitrory. Even you, in your points about artillery in the ACW are using this process. You've gathered facts to make a series of "rules" (which, in this case I agree with), which could be used, here, in video game.

 

However, sometimes, you can't draw such "rules" when there are two few evidences, or when there are obvious counter examples. That's why I disagreed ond the casualties report - manpower shortage "rules". Napoleon, has you pointed out, was hiding hos losses, while he had all the ressources, even the biggest manopwer ressources in Europe.

 

What's more, there might be a confusing point in this dicussion. About propaganda. Propganda in the free press is relatively young phenomenon. It has to deal with faith, ideology or "great causes" (Independance War), while Propaganda, not in the free press, but as a tool of the ruling elites, can certainly dated back to the Antiquity. Caesar used it in its Gallic Wars, quoting numbers as well. From this, I suspect from the above post you are talking about propaganda in the free press. Well, we should ask ourselves when the press started to be free at all ? Certainly, you can't date it back to the middle ages, and it has to be born a minima with the Humanists.

 

Alright, that was certainly not the bulk of the discussion though, and I'm watching closely you current research on the casualties of the ACW. I'm curious to know wether figures were made out of propaganda or out of amateurism, or a combination of both. I can't make an opinion of what you've already brought on the table.

[kc87]

Grognard_JC,

As requested - you've been corrected.

"To lie like a bulletin" distorted fact frequently including the reported casualty figures on both sides. This cliche predates the Russian invasion. Examples are numerous and include the casualty figures from Eylau in 1807 and Napoleon's Spanish Ulcer. In addition to major battles events such as the Tyrolean uprising/revolt were masked from the French public. Dupont's surrender of 17,600 men at Bailen in 1808 was misrepresented in the French press.

These bulletins often closed with a note that the Emperor's health has never been better; regardless of the previous content/distortion.

kc87,

Military personnel are representatives of the government and take an oath to that effect. Officers sending these reports were acting in their official government capacity.

Scoops often came directly from army officers; which were often "tempered" for public consumption. There is a vast difference between reporting casualty lists by town/county and rolling up all of the casualty figures and reporting these to the press in aggregate.

Friendly reporters had greater access to information/misinformation that they published which was then copied and propagated.

For example:

Shiloh was represented in the Richmond press as a CSA victory.

Davis did not retract or correct the exultant message he sent to Congress after the first day of the battle.

Subsequent articles covered the death of A.S. Johnston and the public on both sides were shocked by the casualty lists at the local level.

 

Whether Shiloh was a victory in the eyes of some of the Confederacy at the time is subjective. While some Southern papers were touting victory, Northern papers were bashing on Grant accusing him of being a drunk who got 3000 of his troops captured and a large amount of his command killed. Having a free press means bias and misinformation alot of the time. The free press could be dangerous to an army on campaign. Example during the Chancellorsville campaign General Hooker wouldn't discuss any future plans or orders to his Corps commanders out of fear of them leaking it to the press for publicity. 

 

 

 

"If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast." - William T. Sherman

[David Fair]

Grognard_JC,

I think you're selling man's military legacy for counting way too short.

There is some very interesting research with infants. Even before infants can talk they understand the concept of numbers. This is demonstrated by putting pictures of dots in front of infants and teaching them to touch which picture includes more dots. They are stunningly capable of identifying which image has more dots - even into the thousands. Infants have also demonstrate mathematical aptitude for multiplication/division. But for now let's focus on counting.

Human brain stems seem to be hardwired with an inherent understanding of numbers.

We know from clay tablets that people have been counting for a long, long time. While we have clay tablets with the things they were counting; but, we don't know what the numbers represent. I'd suspect that armies have been tabulating troop strengths for a long time as well. I can't prove this is true, but human nature is to tally things and to understand that if I have more than someone else I may have an advantage. It is likely that wax tablets were used in this capacity at some point in the past.

Human nature is risk adverse; particularly when it comes to mortal decisions.

I'd be astounded to discover proof that ancient armies did not track their strength and casualties.

Absence of proof is not proof that commanders were not counting their men or casualties.

Brain stem knowledge is deeply embedded by thousands of years of critical concept requirements.

There is a tendency to sell the ancients short on their innovations. Yet we have proof of the Antikythera Mechanism, the Roman Mile marker technology, etc...

Otzi the Iceman pushed back our knowledge of the weapons and textile technologies available to early man.

Troy tested the boundary of myth and history.

The numbers of ships tested the envelope regarding the strength of the armies in the Iliad.

Even if the numbers aren't correct in the Iliad - it demonstrates that commanders were counting/recording military numbers.

In my mind there is compelling evidence that men have been aware of, and using numbers throughout military history.

When I refer to "The 300" you know what I'm talking about.

How do we know that there were 300?

Why do we know that Xerxes had 10,000 Immortals?

Somebody was counting both the living and the casualties to bring the 10,000 back to full strength.

Herodotus, Diodorus Siculus, and many other ancient authors provide both troop strengths and casualty figures.

Additionally, we don't really need to specifically count casualties.

The number can be derived from tracking troop strengths over time.

``````````````````````````

I agree free press is a modern concept.

But freedom of expression has a long history as well.

In Egypt there is graffiti showing a giraffe coupled with Queen Hatshepsut's in a most unflattering position.

Freedom of thought is not freedom of the press.

But clearly a persons right to make a statement is not necessarily exclusively tied to the printing press.

People did communicate, and communicate broadly, without the press.

In the ACW the slaves knew a substantial amount about the progress of the Union forces - even though Southerners tried to keep both reading and newspapers beyond their access.

```````````````````````

Amateurism, incompetence, lost documentation, deaths in officers, differences in methods of counting and sometimes intentional misrepresentation are all factors in the Civil War casualty figures.

But these same factors were also true in estimating enemy troop strengths. McClellan is famous for overestimating CSA forces - sometimes because he believed them and sometimes because inflated numbers served his personal or political goals.

Intentionally minimizing the number of casualties reported is simply the flip side of the equation again with personal or political goals.

[David Fair]

Hi Grognard_GC,

My recollection is that Napoleon was trying to hold his empire together.

Propaganda/misrepresentation was essential to try to maintain the status quo.

Napoleon knew that many of his allies were "fair weather friends" at best; subjugated enemies waiting for revenge much more likely.

During the Russian Campaign he knew that even the appearance of his stumbling could result in the loss of, or worse changing sides of, the Prussians, Austrians, Bavarians, etc...

While Napoleon's manpower reserves within his empire and allies were vast his ability to hold his empire and allies together was very fragile.

The only men he could rely on through thick and thin were French (exclusive of the royalist element and counter-revolutionaries), Polish, and possibly the Saxons.

There was substantial rancor within France for his overthrow.

IMHO Napoleon's propaganda was targeted to ensure he prevented being at a manpower disadvantage when his "allies" switched sides/abandoned him.

Every soldier in a Prussian, Austrian, Bavarian, etc... uniform was both a blessing and a curse.

Napoleon knew or suspected by 1812 that his allies and empire was a paper tiger - if not he learned this by the attempted coup and subsequent events.

[akd]

oh look, it says tester under my name.  Can I get access to latest beta?

[Nick Thomadis]

Hi all,

 

I would like to update the final changelog of the upcoming patch v1.5

 

v1.5 

 

Single Player

• Radical gameplay improvements to make the game more realistic. Combat actions will have a "clear loop" meaning that each one of your decisions, to charge, assault an area will have devastating results with one clear winner.... melee and volley shots lethality as well as condition's better balance will not allow the very frequent fall back, charges and rapid change of decisions to correct your tactical mistakes. You will now be able to organise "Pickett's charge" style of attacks but beware, the cost shall be heavy, if you decide wrongly.
• AI optimizations. AI should be more effective in attack and defend overall and is more active (mobilizes units to reinforce areas promptly).
• AI improvement to concentrate more the forces in important areas.
• AI deploys artillery more efficiently, and tries to keep it safe.
• AI will protect flanks better.
• AI will not choose hazardous maneuver paths as before.
• AI will now make better continuous lines.
• AI will decide to charge much more efficiently. 
• AI personalities are now more diverse and distinct. It is more evident in bigger battles in which tactics can differ much according to offensive or defensive nature of the AI opponent.
• AI now withdraws and awaits for organised attacks if necessary much more carefully.
• Melee fixes to inflict more casualties. Previously the damage was too low.
• Artillery damage tuned better. Previously it could be too powerful. Now artillery does modest, more sensible damage from long and medium range and is devastating as it should be from close range.
• Artillery more vulnerable to projectile fire. Now you will think twice to risk your arty on the frontline,
• Several balances to Union and CSA combat effectiveness.
• Slight rebalance of CSA/USA infantry rifle accuracy (previously it was favouring too much the Union).
• Pettigrew and Brockenbrough and Pender Division will delay less to arrive so that Union is pressed more in defense at the first stages of the battle.
• Improved how unit auto-react and make lines (snap to each other).
• Improved retreat direction of units. Now the only case that a unit will seek to head towards your lines is when it has no escape rout and so it heads to the army rally points.
• Balances in some Multiplayer/Custom Battles:
  • "Chance to change history" map got VP increase of Cemetery Hill and Culp's Hill so it is possible for the Union player to win after a successful delaying tactic. 
  • In "Battle of McPherson Ridge" the CSA get precious cavalry support.
  • In "Meeting at Cemetery Ridge" starting positions have been balanced so CSA can arrive faster to the ridges while 2nd Division of Sickles army has been removed, because Union had too many troops.
  • Vincent, Reserve artillery, Slocum and Stannard arrive sooner at "Battle of Devil's Den".
  • In "What if Buford had not held McPherson" the CSA get more reinforcements but tired. In the same scene it was fixed bug that did not show event message when Union arty arrived.
  • In "Union attack's Benner hill;" the objective's value is balanced to force Union for more offensive actions. Additionally Union receives more reinforcements and CSA cavalry will always arrive as reinforcements. (previously it could not arrive at all).
  • "Fight for two hills" central objective placed in the center for more equal battle. New objective added on Benner's Hill to balance the tactics needed for both sides.
• Fix of melee collisions issues after loading a save.
• Fix of invisible units after loading a save.
• Fix of units stuck at edges of map.
• Fix of "eternal" melee collision bug that was especially frequent in multiplayer.
• Fix of units not firing to nearby enemies (or it can be now a very rare bug)
• Fix of melee mechanics problems showing soldiers fighting too frequently without an opponent. Now melee should look much smoother.
• Fix of unit collision issues that affected negatively the shape of units on the battlefield, melee mechanics, LoS visibility, targeting and AI.
• Other minor fixes in scenarios.

Multiplayer

• All the Single Player improvements.
• Melee balance is better so as to inflict casualties but will not be overpowered.
• Fix of artillery limbering animation that was not visible for opponent.
• The Multiplayer maps balances mentioned above.
• New Multiplayer maps that are also available in Single Player version as custom battles:
  • Union on the offensive: "The Confederates are entrenched along Cemetery Hill heights and the Union assembles with superior forces to attack. Stuart's cavalry rushes to aid the defense!" 
  • Defensive line along Warfield Ridge: "The Union has fortified a long line of defense across Warfield ridge. The Confederates need to find a breach and take Cemetery ridge which is lightly defended!" 
  • Night battle on the Round Tops: "The two armies are facing each other at Devil's Den area and night approaches. The Confederates assemble for a large scale assault to take the ridges from the Yankees!"  
  • Corner your opponent: "In this battle there are no objectives. Inflict 350 more casualties than your opponent to claim victory!"   

PS.
Current testers have helped enormously to be a much improved game. The patch is going to be released this week. Thanks to everybody that wanted to participate as tester but we have not replied to you yet. We can accept more testers at a later stage.

Edited June 11, 2015 by Nick Thomadis
Version changed to 1.5

[Hister]

Awesome, thank you Nick and team.