American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

ACWGC Forums

* ACWGC    * Dpt. of Records (DoR)    *Club Recruiting Office     ACWGC Memorial

* CSA HQ    * VMI   * Join CSA    

* Union HQ   * UMA   * Join Union    

CSA Armies:   ANV   AoT

Union Armies:   AotP    AotT

Link Express

Club Forums:     NWC    CCC     Home Pages:     NWC    CCC    ACWGC
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 7:19 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: This Beautiful War!
PostPosted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 11:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 9:45 am
Posts: 414
Location: Ireland
Gentlemen!

The Title of this post makes a statement using two words that <i>should </i>- in any reasonable person’s mind - NEVER appear in the same sentence.

To whit - Beautiful and War.

I will explain in a second, what I mean - but, before I do, I would earnestly request that each and all of Ye that read this post, reply with Your personal view(s) regarding some/all of the Subject matter.

I’m ‘interested’/nosey!!! [:o)]

The American Civil War was possibly, nay - probably, the last ‘War of Manoeuvre’. In certain circumstances, Commanders decided for or against aggressive action, dependent on where the Enemy actually was in relation to their own Army. There are quite a few examples of large numbers of Men, marching for days on end while their Commander sought suitable ground upon which to stand and face the Enemy. Similarly, positions were taken up by Armies, which were eminently suitable to their Commanders’ wishes and Strategy, only to be abandoned, without a shot being fired, upon Scout Reports that the Enemy was elsewhere, positioning himself between the Commander and his source of Supplies/Reinforcement or other strategically important location.

When we in this Club, undertake a Battle/Campaign, we are presented with a general scenario which allows us a certain scope in manoeuvering Our Troops on the Battlefield, but compels us to achieve a particular goal. An Army can be placed at the beginning of a Battle, in a particularly strong defensive position, yet the Victory points are set up in such a way that in order for the defending Army to ‘win’ the Battle, one of two things must occur . . . .

Either:

1. The Defending Army ‘sits tight’ and the Attackers must attack vigorously, losing thousands of Men in a ‘Kill Ratio’, that enables the Defender to rack up the points to a Victory level.

OR:

2. The Defending Army comes out from behind their barricades and falls upon the Enemy, again slaughtering all around, until the Victory points are accumulated to a Victory Level.

There are of course other variations in Victory levels, designed to ‘encourage’ the Players to follow the Historical events depicted in the Scenario . . . .

My curiosity is piqued as follows:

Most Players appear to go all out for a Victory - the general exception being; - the Battle is part of a Campaign and thus, the overall result dictates to a degree, what is to be achieved during the Battle and what cost in Troops etc., is acceptable with the bigger picture overshadowing the individual Battle to some extent.

I have read on numerous occasions in the past, how the casualty levels in Our Battles far exceed the casualty rates of the Real Battles. This has been partly ascribed to the fact that we send ‘Cartoon’ Men to their Death, whereas Lee and Meade et al, sent their fellow Man to his potential doom . . . We don’t ascribe a ‘value’ to the lives of Our Brigades and know that should we lose every single trooper, we’ll start a new Battle tomorrow, with miraculously generated Thousands of Troops again at Our Command. Once one of Lee’s Men was dead . . Well . . . He was Dead and a replacement was not to be found growing on a nearby Tree!

So my question is this . . . .

Who/ how many of Ye hold back or alter Strategy mid-battle, as Your Enemy’s disposition becomes clear . . . ?

Or do Ye settle on a Strategy and carry it out in Full regardless of the evolution of the Battle - presuming of course that Your strategy is not costing you 1,000 Men per turn in casualties?

Who of Ye fight the Last War of Manoeuvre, by manouevering as much as by direct defence/assault?

My Thanks men!

Pat.

Patrick G.M.Carroll,
Lieutenant General.
Kilcullen Irregulars
II Corps
Army of Georgia Rtd.

" When My Country takes it's rightful place, amongst the Nations of the World, then and only then, let My Epitaph be written. "


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 12:15 pm 
Patrick,

You hust hit the nail on the head with half of what I was struggling to achieve in the "Fight The War" effort......The other half was an utter "Fog of War" experience. Some of the guys got it and some kept right on fighting to the death no matter what. As an administrator over that game, it was highly interesting to watch how certain people approached things....Some turned unto McClellan, some just slaughtered their troops.....Some got it right......



BG Hank Smith
Army of Georgia
Smith's Corp Commanding


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 1:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 1737
Location: USA
Most Scenarios, single battles, reflect the situation after the commanding Generals have made their Grand Tactical moves. These aren't true "Grand Tactical" moves but it is an easy way to catagorize it from the "Tactical" moves on the map. Most battles were won or lost on the Grand Tactical scale. By the time of the Civil War armies weren't capable of decisively defeating an opposing army unless they were first out manoeuvered on the Grand Tactical scale. Lee lost Gettysburg before he set foot on the battlefield.

However, we are placed in the scenario actually commanding at a lower level than Army. The decisions of Lee and Meade for example are already implemented by the way the troops arrive on the map. The Objective Hexes set by the designer reflect external objectives not real tactical objectives. Gettysburg has no real value. Baltimore, Harrisburg and Washington had real value. The objectives are there to reflect the decisions made by the commanding General before we, the player, arrives on the scene.

Into this situation the player is thrust and must make the most of it. Since it is a game, the objective is a Major Victory. How you get that victory depends on your ability to "read" your opponent and take away his initiative, neutralize his advantages while maximizing yours.

In battles like Gettysburg where one side has significant advantage over the other, I am always looking for the tactical mistake by my opponent. I try to maintain a flexibility in my deployment that when I see the mistake I can exploit it. If possible I try to cause my opponent to make that mistake. But to win it does require the Union player to make a mistake. As Lee found out about Meade.

As to our high casualties, it is because there is no penalty for not fighting that way. Fatigue tends to average out since it applies to both sides so it in itself isn't cause to stop attacking with regiments until they are all dead. Our virtual men never say enough is enough and just quit doing what we tell them too.

General Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
2/3/IV AoM (CSA)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 1:03 pm 
Interesting Question, sir.

I, personally, go into every battle with a plan in mind. Sometimes they work and sometimes they don't. But I will alter my plan if the situation changes drastically from what I expected. But I like to stick to the original tactical plan to avoid a very serious error we all make at times. If you change your original plan too often, or too radically, your enemy will quickly gain the initiative. While you are marching and countermarching they will be moving boldly while you are still trying to sort out your mess. Before your new plan can be executed you are caught in a battle you had not expected. When this happens the battle is usually as good as lost.

The finest game I played was actually an extended Fredericksburg scenario. It last for four days (we played three) and it became a giant game of maneuver and trickery. I played as the Yanks and found out quickly that crossing the river in the face of a large Rebel Army was nearly suicide. So instead I set up fake barrages of artillery, crossed numerous times in strength only to retreat, sent out cavalry and infantry to march in circles over hills... in short I tried to confuse my opponent. In the end it succeeded and I was able to cross unopposed and crush an entire Rebel division without a great fight. By the time reinforcements arrived I had already fallen back over the river with my VPs in place and my cannon protecting me. It was a fine game! For three days though it was a cat and mouse fight as I tried to cross at a dozen different points. If I had simply tried to force my way across at a single point and not adapted to my enemy's actions I likely would have met a similiar fate as Burnside.

Col. Blake L. Strickler
Army of the Mississippi
Chief of Staff
6th Bd/4th Div/IV Corps

Image


Top
  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 127 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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group