ACWGC
* ACWGC     * Dpt. of Records       * CSA HQ    * VMI    * Join CSA    
   * Union HQ    * UMA    * Join Union     ACWGC Memorial
CSA Armies:    ANV    AotW
Union Armies:    AotT     AotC      AotP      AotS     Union Army Forums
     Link Express
American Civil War Books, Magazines and Games for sale (See other items)
Club Forums:     NWC    CCC     Home Pages:     NWC    CCC    ACWGC
It is currently Mon Oct 23, 2017 2:12 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2007 3:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 3:15 am
Posts: 180
Location: Canada
Ernie: I can't figure out why my signature is not showing. I will try going into the settings again.

G. Collins
Army of Alabama
III/I/2nd Brigade


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 809
Location: USA
Just a few more comments,

First, neither Vaughn's or Deas' Brigades were present on Rocky Face ridge during the Union assualt of 8 May .

Second, I stand by my unit placements for the Assualt. The battle was a limited probe by Union forces that later resulted in a Confederate withdrawal to Resaca.

Third, trying to focus on one abstract is a faulty way to establish true numbers. Our numbers are admittedly flawed, as are ALL numbers. But I'm confident that they represent a close truth. The reports and abstracts all differ in some form or fashion. The is no such thing as an absolute truth in numbers.

Forth, I don't like placing units that are not confimed participants, but the editor will allow for your placing of any and all units not already deployed.

As I mentioned, if you have specific information of units not placed properly, I'll be happy to make corrections.





Lt. Col. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 809
Location: USA
Just a few more comments,

First, neither Vaughn's or Deas' Brigades were present on Rocky Face ridge during the Union assualt of 8 May .

Second, I stand by my unit placements for the Assualt. The battle was a limited probe by Union forces that later resulted in a Confederate withdrawal to Resaca.

Third, trying to focus on one abstract is a faulty way to establish true numbers. Our numbers are admittedly flawed, as are ALL numbers. But I'm confident that they represent a close truth. The reports and abstracts all differ in some form or fashion. The is no such thing as an absolute truth in numbers.

Forth, I don't like placing units that are not confimed participants, but the editor will allow for your placing of any and all units not already deployed.

As I mentioned, if you have specific information of units not placed properly, I'll be happy to make corrections.





Lt. Col. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2007 1:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 3:15 am
Posts: 180
Location: Canada
Rich, I can't believe you are taking this line. I thought the whole point of playing these games was to explore historical alternatives. I did not say that Deas and Vaughan's brigades were deployed on top of Rocky Face Ridge. I also did not say that the missing battalions of Confederate artillery, which represents 104 guns, was deployed on Rocky Face either. I noted that General Johnston is not present either. Was he in the line at Rocky Face Ridge? No, he was not. But he was at his headquarters at the Huff House in Dalton during the battle and Dalton is on the map. So why shouldn't he be included?

As I mentioned, the whole point of playing these games is to explore historical alternatives isn't it? Now, if Thomas's Army of the Cumberland had crashed through Mill Creek Gap I'm pretty sure that nearby confederate units would have been utilized to stop him. Perhaps Deas and Vaughan? Or some of those missing Artillery units that were probably placed in reserve for that very reason.

Let me give an example where I felt the designer went too far the other way. This is the "Brandy Station" scenario on the "Gettysburg" disk. Doug Strickler designed a fine scenario of that battle but I felt that he went too far 'the other way'. As you know the Battle of Brandy Station was the largest Cavalry engagement fought on the North American Continent. Any scenario designed on that battle should, in my opinion, accent that fact. The trouble is that I have played that scenario a number of times and invariably it is often decided by the arrival of Confederate infantry.

In the actual battle no infantry was engaged, certainly no Confederate division arrived which often happens in the scenario. So here was a case where the designer, allowing for the fact that 'infantry was near by',skewed the results and emphasized the wrong things. ie: It was a Cavalry engagement and should have remained so.

Now for "Rocky Face Ridge", I fully understand that it was not a major engagement. But it could have been, and was a very important opening to the campaign. What if Sherman had decided to do a full frontal assault like Grant later did at Cold Harbour? He could have, but with the present scenario we can't explore that possibility because the Confederates do not have all the units that could have been used for a response.

I just can't see how a Corps like Hood's or Hardee's can have only 12 guns apiece for a defence against what amounts to three armies against them.

I know your response will be "then just play the open" campaign. But unfortunately that one has some serious errors too. Here I referr to the fact that there are no fortifications on Rocky Face Ridge at all. I can't see the logic of that at all. It is 'open' I will give it that. But it isn't based on anything like reality. In the set up Johnston's army is near and below Dalton with nobody on Rocky Face. Probably the best defensive position in the whole area. It doesn't make sense to have his army march north to try and defend a position that his army was already in possesion of for months.

I am surprised that you are not a little more open regarding the 'historical' scenario. I guess I will have to do my own rendition utilizing the editor.



http://magma.ca/~gcollins/burgoyne.jpg


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2007 4:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 809
Location: USA
Yes, your certainly correct about Johnston, I'll make that correction. As for the scenario offering a large battle alternative, I believe it does. Certainly the Union can attack at all points to cause a major engagment. Scn#9 does have both Dea's and Vaughan's brigades engaged at Rocky Face. As for the lack of fortifications on top of Rocky Face in the meeting engagements, I simply didn't feel the should be there with no troops manning them. The meeting scenarios are intended as "what-ifs," and Johnson didn't intend to fight there, but had second thoughts and sent his army to engage the advancing Yanks.

Sorry, if you think I taking a hard line, but I do appreciate your comments and will make several coorections as a result of our discussion.

Lt. Col. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2007 4:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 809
Location: USA
Yes, your certainly correct about Johnston, I'll make that correction. As for the scenario offering a large battle alternative, I believe it does. Certainly the Union can attack at all points to cause a major engagment. Scn#9 does have both Dea's and Vaughan's brigades engaged at Rocky Face. As for the lack of fortifications on top of Rocky Face in the meeting engagements, I simply didn't feel the should be there with no troops manning them. The meeting scenarios are intended as "what-ifs," and Johnson didn't intend to fight there, but had second thoughts and sent his army to engage the advancing Yanks.

Sorry, if you think I taking a hard line, but I do appreciate your comments and will make several coorections as a result of our discussion.

Lt. Col. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2007 5:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 3:15 am
Posts: 180
Location: Canada
Well, I guess when dealing with controversial issues like Orders of Battle and such things can get a bit heated. In all fairness, I think you have created a good scenario Rich, but I would like to make it even better!

I did find an interesting little source and it's available on the web. I will just quote one part here to support what I want to propose. The source is: Journal of the Atlanta Campaign, kept at headquarters of the Fourth Army Corps, by Lieut. Col. Joseph S. Fullerton, Assistant Adjutant General.
MAY 1-SEPTEMBER 8, 1864.--The Atlanta (Georgia) Campaign. APPENDIX. O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME XXXVIII/1 [S# 72

The quote is: <i>“Rebel soldier captured by Stanley's skirmishers says glad he was captured. Was an intelligent man, and gave a story that is partly corroborated by what is known. Further, he says, considerable artillery in the valley east of Rocky Face Ridge, northeast of Dalton; nearly the whole of Johnston's army there; Stewart's division on Rocky Face Ridge. The rebels are going to fight, and in good spirits.â€


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2007 6:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 809
Location: USA
A nice quote. I'll submit a new patch with changes sometime in June. The patch will also include the weather fix that was discussed on another thread.


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by gcollins</i>
<br />Well, I guess when dealing with controversial issues like Orders of Battle and such things can get a bit heated. In all fairness, I think you have created a good scenario Rich, but I would like to make it even better!

I did find an interesting little source and it's available on the web. I will just quote one part here to support what I want to propose. The source is: Journal of the Atlanta Campaign, kept at headquarters of the Fourth Army Corps, by Lieut. Col. Joseph S. Fullerton, Assistant Adjutant General.
MAY 1-SEPTEMBER 8, 1864.--The Atlanta (Georgia) Campaign. APPENDIX. O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME XXXVIII/1 [S# 72

The quote is: <i>“Rebel soldier captured by Stanley's skirmishers says glad he was captured. Was an intelligent man, and gave a story that is partly corroborated by what is known. Further, he says, considerable artillery in the valley east of Rocky Face Ridge, northeast of Dalton; nearly the whole of Johnston's army there; Stewart's division on Rocky Face Ridge. The rebels are going to fight, and in good spirits.â€


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2007 10:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 3:15 am
Posts: 180
Location: Canada
Yes, I thought that quote from the captured Confederate Soldier one of those 'little nuggets' of history that are so darn interesting and shed light on information that is lacking.

I couldn't help but think that what he saw might be our 'missing artillery'.

I think it would be great if you could incorporate those changes into a new Rocky Face Ridge scenario.

Many players that I have encountered in the past have said that they like the "Full Deck" scenario from the old Talonsoft "Antietam" disk. Now that disk had several different variants, but "Full Deck" offered the one with the most percentage chance of different corps being activated, and as a result was quite enjoyable, un-predictable and had a lot of "repeat" play.

I think the same could be done for "Rocky Face Ridge". With variables you never know what the devil is going to happen.

Bg. General Gilbert Collins
Army of Alabama
III/I/2nd Brigade


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2007 1:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 3:15 am
Posts: 180
Location: Canada
In the Resaca historical scenario there is another missing unit, and this one is rather curious. The unit in question is Corput's Cherokee Battery from Johnston's Artillery Battalion of Hood's Corps. The curiousity comes from the fact that this was the very battery that the Union troops captured on May 14th.

The plaque here at Resaca describes this event.

Image

Bg. General Gilbert Collins
Army of Alabama
III/I/2nd Brigade


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2007 5:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2002 11:44 pm
Posts: 19
Location:
An interesting discussion on design.

Re: Comment on Brandy Station. I beg to differ regarding the issue of the arrival of infantry. The fact that they ended up not being engaged in the actual battle does not negate the fact that they arrived on the scene - and well before nightfall. Had things not gone as well as they had for the Confederates, they very well could, and I think would, have been engaged. Hence their inclusion in the sceanrios.

Report of Lieut. Gen. Richard S. Ewell, C. S. Army, commanding Second Army Corps.
JUNE 3-AUGUST 1, 1863.--The Gettysburg Campaign.
O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME XXVII/2 [S# 44]

HDQRS. SECOND CORPS, ARMY OF NORTHERN VIRGINIA,
-------- ---, 1863.

……..

TO CULPEPER AND WINCHESTER.
Marching via Verdierville and Somerville Ford, the corps reached Culpeper on June 7.
On the 9th, the enemy being reported to have crossed the Rappahannock in force, I moved my corps, by direction of the general commanding, to General Stuart's support, but on reaching Brandy Station with General Rodes' division, found the enemy already retiring.
…….

Report of Maj. Gen. R. E. Rodes, CSA, commanding division.
JUNE 3-AUGUST 1, 1863.--The Gettysburg Campaign.
O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME XXVII/2 [S# 44]

HEADQUARTERS RODES' DIVISION,
Orange Court-House, -- --, 1863.

……..

On the 8th, finding that a long march was ahead of us, and that the supplies had to be closely looked to, I ordered all the baggage, tents, &c., that could be spared to be sent to the rear. By this means, each brigade was enabled to transport three days' rations in its train, in addition to an equal amount in the division commissary train, the men also carrying three days' rations each in his haversack; hence, when the division resumed its march, it was supplied with fully nine days' rations.
On the 9th, anticipating an order to do so, I moved the division toward Brandy Station, to the support of General Stuart's cavalry. Halting, under Lieutenant-General Ewell's orders, at Botts' place, I subsequently, under orders, advanced to Barbour's house, in advance of the station, but did not get in reach of the enemy, he having apparently been repulsed by the cavalry.

Doug


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2007 5:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 809
Location: USA
Actually the battery is present, hex (44,20). In fact, there are 3 scns named for the battery, 27,28,29.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by gcollins</i>
<br />In the Resaca historical scenario there is another missing unit, and this one is rather curious. The unit in question is Corput's Cherokee Battery from Johnston's Artillery Battalion of Hood's Corps. The curiousity comes from the fact that this was the very battery that the Union troops captured on May 14th.

The plaque here at Resaca describes this event.

Image

Bg. General Gilbert Collins
Army of Alabama
III/I/2nd Brigade
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Lt. Col. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2007 3:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 3:15 am
Posts: 180
Location: Canada
Ok, I caught the "Cherokee Battery". I had the VP hex icons on, and didn't notice it under the icon. Touche'

Bg. General Gilbert Collins
Army of Alabama
III/I/2nd Brigade


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 20, 2007 5:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 809
Location: USA
Fatique, LOL, I'm just getting started! [8D]

<i>Private thought,
Doug, HELP</i> [;)]


I find no reference to Deas' Brigade at Rocky Face. There is an indirect reference to Vaughan in Christopher Lossen's "Tennessee's Forgotten Warriors: Frank Cheatham and His Confederate Division". It appears Vaughan was sent to reinforce Cantey on May 9. "Soon Cantey was reinforced by Alfred J. Vaughan's brigade from Cheatham, and McPherson was unable to capture Resaca." (page 144)

It would appear that Johnston did not hesitate to hold brigades in reserve and use them in places outside of their divisional commander's control (as he did artillery batteries). The detached use of Maney at Resaca comes to mind or the use of Adams, Sears and Reynolds to guard positions away from the main army line on July 18.

I suspect both Deas and Vaughan were with the other brigades of their division held in reserve and neither were used at Rocky Face as Johnston had one eye on Resaca. Deas probably wasn't used anywhere, Vaughan was sent to Resaca ahead of the rest of Cheatham's division.

But I did redo the historical scn slightly to reflect their possible position NE of Dalton and gave them a limited chance to participate.

Lt. Col. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2007 10:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 3:15 am
Posts: 180
Location: Canada
Doug, as I mentioned I liked your scenario very much.

What troubles me is that every time I have played it the Confederate infantry DOES get engaged and the Rebs can now sort of 'count on it' and fall back towards it. That's a good 'game strategy', but given Stuart's personality and situation I think he wanted to win the battle without the support of infantry.

Now, that doesn't matter for a gamer, but the way the scenario is designed it always comes out that the largest Cavalry vs Cavalry action involves infantry units that were not engaged. As you and I have mentioned 'they could have been engaged' but in the scenario they always are.

Bg. General Gilbert Collins
Army of Alabama
III/I/2nd Brigade


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: