User avatar
BattleVonWar
Major
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 3:22 am

Thu May 21, 2015 11:01 pm

That's why we train... "initiative," in that if the head of the Army gets killed the rest of the Army can still operate and function. At Pickett's Charge how many of the men were still rushing enemy positions without leadership? Maybe without even a Sgt. (of course they mostly died and flipped) Men don't follow orders anymore when they go into shell shock or flip out.

There is a reason the CSA for instance didn't issue medals. They were all heroes... (that or a lack of metal :P )


EVERYTHING has a practical reason, even if it's seems outdated and stupid to us. To them or to whoever at that time they knew what they were doing or at least they thought they did. Things have evolved some. Though we've been fighting for tens of thousands of years. War is an art form, especially among the industrialized Western Nations in the past couple centuries. Men are in lined up in little boxes for a reason(they don't lose their guts and run so easy plus you can order them better) Little tight formations were terrible as artillery targets. Though I guess someone in their infinite wisdom thought it wiser than loose independent teams(like platoon units, very irregular and versatile) like you see in later years and with even more training are more effective than tight formations(of course they wouldn't survive MG fire or the highly accurate modern artillery fire) on and on and on. Everyone has accurate points.

Wonderful Conversation

minipol wrote:In regards to command. Image that the commander is at the center, and indeed 200 yards from a soldier in his line as GF says.
If that soldier doesn't hear the command, he will actually see what the command is by watching the soldier next to him or the unit commander.
If you visualize it: a command to kneel is shouted, he doesn't hear it, but he sees the men starting to kneel. What is he going to do? Right, kneel.
The command will go through the line like a domino effect, just like a route would.
The first soldier in the line who hasn't heard the signal will look at the soldier next to him who has heard it, and will act accordingly. Or as I said
to the commander. So yes, it is possible, but will resemble a domino effect.

That's where the game actually models artillery in a very good way. The unit's cohesion is affected by the cannons.
These units don't fight as well portraying the shell exploding, lines being broken, dead, wounded, in short, gaps in the line and thus communication.
Even fighting in woods which would seriously affect this command and communication is modeled because of the cohesion hits difference to walk and fight in certain areas.
For every Southern boy fourteen years old, not once but whenever he wants it, there is the instant when it's still not yet two o'clock on that July afternoon in 1863 ~~~

pb783
Lieutenant
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 10:32 pm
Location: Coming out of the attic-- I've finally beaten Athena

Fri May 22, 2015 11:49 pm

Getting back to the original idea of repeating rifles, the New York Times carried this piece as part of its commemoration of the war: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/23/the-unions-newfangled-gimcracks/

I'll do some selective quotes. The NYT wants you to visit its page to read the entire piece ;)

The Union’s ‘Newfangled Gimcracks’
By PHIL LEIGH
The New York Times; Opinionator; Disunion
JANUARY 23, 2012

"In late December 1861 Abraham Lincoln issued a directive that, had it been vigorously pursued, might have brought the Civil War to a rapid end: An order, via Gen. James Ripley, the Army’s ordnance chief, for 10,000 Spencer repeating rifles.
"Many, including President Lincoln, immediately saw the importance of upgrading to repeaters and breechloaders. A small order for 700 Spencers was placed by the Navy only two months after Sumter. Lincoln personally tested the Spencer and Henry in the summer of 1861, possibly as early as June, and he was responsible for prompting all breechloader orders placed by the Ordnance Department that year. He wasn’t alone: a three-man military board that included the soon-to-be general in chief, George McClellan, recommended quick adoption of the Spencer.
"The problem was General Ripley, the Army’s ordnance chief. By then 67 years old, Ripley was hostile to all breechloaders, which he considered “newfangled gimcracks.” But he had a special complaint about repeaters. Astoundingly, he concluded that the weapons would encourage soldiers to waste ammunition.
" Ripley dragged his feet: despite having autocratic control over the Springfield Armory in Massachusetts and other weapons-making facilities, he refused to help Spencer develop a process for volume production of the rifle.
"Spencer was an inventor, not a production engineer, and deliveries quickly fell behind schedule. The first shipment did not arrive until the end of 1862, and they weren’t supplied for general use until early 1863. Ripley’s unwillingness to lend production assistance also led to delays in shipments for single-shot breechloaders like the Sharps. By the end of the war Spencer had delivered fewer than 60,000 repeaters, and Henry fewer than 13,000. In contrast, the number of muzzleloaders, like the Springfield and Enfield, used by Union troops alone totaled more than two million.
"Nevertheless, where new rifles were employed, they played a decisive role: Gen. John Buford’s Sharps-equipped cavalry was able to hold off a larger number of Confederate infantry during the opening phase of Gettysburg in July 1863. The most impressive example of repeaters’ effectiveness came two months after Gettysburg, at the Battle of Chickamauga.
"During the first day of the two-day fight, a gap opened in the eastward-facing Union line. Confederate Gen. John Bell Hood soon began pouring through it, gradually turning, and then threatening to unravel, the northern flank of the Union Army’s southern branch. Panicked Yankees rallied briefly in a shallow ditch on the Viniard farm with a single reserve brigade behind them.
"But it was no ordinary brigade. Its commander, Col. John T. Wilder, had equipped his soldiers with 1,400 Spencer repeating rifles, purchased at their own expense. Nearly everyone else had muzzleloaders. Before the Confederates could get across the farm, Wilder’s concealed brigade opened fire. Almost immediately, the Confederates became the ones desperately crowding for cover.
"Such concentrated and rapid rifle fire was unprecedented.
"Could widespread adoption of repeating rifles have shortened the war? Leaders on both sides seemed to think so.
"Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Robert Bruce concluded: 'If a large part of the Union Army had been given breech-loaders by the end of 1862, Gettysburg would certainly have ended the war. More likely, Chancellorsville, or even Fredericksburg would have done it.'”

My bottom line: give it to the Union as an RGD, but create more ammunition issues (EAW has ammunition supplies built-in. Why not CWIII?)

User avatar
BattleVonWar
Major
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 3:22 am

Sat May 23, 2015 1:55 am

PB,

I remember as a 14 year old boy reading about the inadequate way in which the Confederacy supplied it's troops. While boys were fighting in Virginia freezing to death, in Alabama I think there was an entire storeroom filled with winter jackets. Such policies of State's Rights would lead to the downfall of the Confederacy ultimately.

Meanwhile you bring up the use of advanced weapons for the Union. I played the game pretty extensively. With the way in which a clever Player can construct a unit. Purely infantry Divisions(elites possibly in quite a few if you consider say tons of Marines and individual well trained units) some of this is already reflected in the way the game is constructed. Though you don't have to build the units this way it is the most ideal and powerful method. Historically I would doubt it was done just as such but I'm not sure about historical Divisional Construction of the Civil War.

Kick in the Union Artillery advantage and at the very very best the South can at the moment hope to hold off the Union through 1863 or maybe if he is very clever 1864 the optimization you're talking about by changing over to superior firearms would cut that down to 1862 at best...

Even on a limited basis it would only reflect some of the actual war. Which I have no problem with, "a limited basis." For game play such an idea requires an answer to balance the game. So why not the true effect of the massive riots in the North. Total chaos (was it New York or Long Island that wanted to leave the Union, just as possible as every soldier using Repeaters or Breach Loaders?)
For every Southern boy fourteen years old, not once but whenever he wants it, there is the instant when it's still not yet two o'clock on that July afternoon in 1863 ~~~

User avatar
Gray Fox
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1520
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:48 pm
Location: Englewood, OH

Tue May 26, 2015 2:31 pm

If this were to become an option, then I would add some game design points for discussion.

1. First about the ammo requirement. Union cavalry already have these rifles in the game and no additional ammo requirement exists for these units. Buford's cavalry engaged Lee's forces at Gettysburg for several hours alone on the first day and to my knowledge never ran out of ammunition. If an infantryman carried 64 Minie balls or 64 rifle bullets, his unit's command and control should keep him out of trouble ammo wise. The only statement to the effect that soldiers would run out of ammo comes from this General Ripley, who seems to reflect the general incompetence of the military leadership of the Civil War.

2. Of course, the major plus of these weapons is force protection. A soldier can fire just as fast prone as he can standing up. So perhaps a point or two of protection in the unit stats for rifle armed troops.

3. The Union was not the only country that had breechloading rifles. The German needlegun had been around for 20 years. So the CSA player could also equip some units with imported rifles from blockade runners. Perhaps captured war supply could be tweaked to reflect the addition of Union rifles.
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!

pb783
Lieutenant
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 10:32 pm
Location: Coming out of the attic-- I've finally beaten Athena

Sat May 30, 2015 5:12 am

BattleVonWar wrote:PB,

I remember as a 14 year old boy reading about the inadequate way in which the Confederacy supplied it's troops. While boys were fighting in Virginia freezing to death, in Alabama I think there was an entire storeroom filled with winter jackets. Such policies of State's Rights would lead to the downfall of the Confederacy ultimately.

Meanwhile you bring up the use of advanced weapons for the Union. I played the game pretty extensively. With the way in which a clever Player can construct a unit. Purely infantry Divisions(elites possibly in quite a few if you consider say tons of Marines and individual well trained units) some of this is already reflected in the way the game is constructed. Though you don't have to build the units this way it is the most ideal and powerful method. Historically I would doubt it was done just as such but I'm not sure about historical Divisional Construction of the Civil War.

Kick in the Union Artillery advantage and at the very very best the South can at the moment hope to hold off the Union through 1863 or maybe if he is very clever 1864 the optimization you're talking about by changing over to superior firearms would cut that down to 1862 at best...

Even on a limited basis it would only reflect some of the actual war. Which I have no problem with, "a limited basis." For game play such an idea requires an answer to balance the game. So why not the true effect of the massive riots in the North. Total chaos (was it New York or Long Island that wanted to leave the Union, just as possible as every soldier using Repeaters or Breach Loaders?)


I'm saying it is an alternate history and that there could be costs to implement this. Alternative histories could also reduce the focus of the South on States Rights, allowing more control from the Central Government (maybe allowing the CSA to strip all those towns of militias?)

I'd also point out that just prior to the war the administration of James Buchanan actively created conditions to encourage the secessionist military: e.g., shipping weapons to Southern arsenals; not supporting federal facilities under attack in the winter of 1861 prior to the Lincoln Administration taking over and so on.

I understand what you are saying. It shouldn't be standard. I agree. Perhaps allow it only to certain elite units such as Marines, cavalry and so on, at a cost in WS.

Finally, many of us here want to PBEM, where the challenge is higher in any case. I can't say, like Gray Fox (or is it Capt. Orso) that as the CSA I've surprised my Union foe with a march on Washington in 1861, ending the war, in every game. But then again, I'm generally not looking for a short PBEM game. In fact, in general I can say that my units have suffered some indignity under my confused leadership ;)

Pb

* New York City voted to secede from the Union before the war. It would have stripped the federal government of much of its tax revenue.

minipol
General
Posts: 560
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 1:24 pm

Sat May 30, 2015 4:57 pm

Sounds to me like this feature is more something for CWIII

Return to “Civil War II”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests