hanny1
Captain
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:57 am

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:26 am

Gray Fox wrote:Hanny, you were the one that mistakenly assumed that mules were pack animals in the CW. I'm sure that massive run on posts with even the simplest words misspelled and no concept of official, expert references to back up your claims passes for actual knowledge where you reside. However, I see now that your rants are just trolling. Good day to you, sir!
no you made a referenc to total number of mules, I showed that is incorrect, since they were standard pack animals in the conflict, aop regulation called for over a thousand for ammo distrribution in 63, while every howitzer was moved by mules and assembled where required, see moving mountains a study in civil war logistics, we can add that factoid to the massive list of things your incorrect about, you then referenced the mules came with wagons, which merely made your first statement twice as incorrect. Aparantly you are to stupid to have read anything about the wbts as your post show not even a basic knowledge of events. Knowledge that no army starved when away from a railroad is not a secret, its in the memoirs of both Sherman and grant, along with their qm reports. Knowledge that no army was supplied from base in the conflict is also commonplace, that is a 20th century logistical feat that was beyond the means of the 19th century armies, Lee spent 41 days away from a railhead when invading pa in 63, he went with 75000 troops, 35000 horses and mules, 3000 wagons, 400 tons of munitions,, his daily forward lift from his wagons was 6750000lbs, with a daily consumption of 4100000, without any weight asigned for baggage which would be 5/7ths of the total foward lift by the regulation,yet he managed to live of the land and had one resupply of munitions after returning to va as the only supply from va during the period. I know enough, you otoh know very little because your unwilling to learn, preferring to make up crap you go along. aop with 10400 wagons was better off, but still had to live of the land, its no wonder states that saw armies roam over them lost 30 to 40%of their livestock between 1860 and 1870 census, yes people went hungry, the civilians.

User avatar
DrPostman
Posts: 2997
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:39 pm
Location: Memphis, TN
Contact: Website Facebook Twitter YouTube

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Wed Apr 19, 2017 3:44 am

You've never run across the old adage "You catch more flies with honey than you do with
vinegar", have you?
:papy:
"Ludus non nisi sanguineus"

Image

User avatar
pgr
General of the Army
Posts: 609
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:33 pm
Location: Paris France (by way of Wyoming)

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Thu Apr 20, 2017 6:27 pm

Man...I forgot how the subject of logistics could bring out the trolling...
Grey Fox and others are absolutely correct in stressing the logistical challenges of providing feed for an army's worth of combat and draft animals, and the limits it placed on wagon trains in particular, something that really seems to hit a nerve with Hanny.

Could armies live off the land and supplement their supplies? Of course, but only if they stayed on the move and made scarifies in concentration to do it. You also can't do it in close proximity to the enemy. Living off the land could facilitate a maneuver or raid, but not a long term offensive effort.

Sure Lee was able maneuver for a month away from a rail head in the Gettysburg Campaign, but his Corps were widely dispersed and moving to fresh forging areas for most of the time, which compromised his operational security. (Jeb Stewart being off a-raiding at the critical moment being the most famous). When the AoP closed and forced him to concentrate all his Corps in one space he could only sustain himself in one place for 4 days before he had to move off. Had Meade blocked and fixed him, it would have been a bad day for the ANV.

Grant's Vicksburg campaign proved you could live off the land long enough for a two week maneuver from one base of supply to another. His bet payed off because he moved fast and prevented Pemberton and Johnston from combining and blocking him. (Which if they had stopped him somewhere short of Vicksburg, he would have been in trouble.)

Sherman's March to the Sea proves only that when there is no enemy around you can spread an army 100 miles wide and have and have a grand old harvest time stroll through the state of Georgia. When Sherman was moving ON Atlanta with the AoT opposing him, he was most certainly dependent on that rail line.

And while the men could do pretty well living off the land, a whole lot of horses and mules starved to death because of the inability to sustain them.

To get back to the thread, I agree with those who think the game is too generous with a unit's ability to carry supplies (two turns or 30 days) which tends to hurt the CSA because a Union stack with enough supply wagons can be logistically independent for months before having to forage (aka live of the land).

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:02 am

The amount of supply units carry now corresponds to 2 turns. For cavalry that means one turn to go out and cause trouble, and one turn to return to base.

If we had 1 week turns, I'd see the possibility to reduce the amount of supplies carried, and still maintain the function of the cavalry. Without it, although it's kind of fudged, it does kind of work.

hanny1
Captain
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:57 am

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Fri Apr 21, 2017 5:57 pm

DrPostman wrote:You've never run across the old adage "You catch more flies with honey than you do with
vinegar", have you?
:papy:

I have, it works better with those who disagree over what the evidence means, but those ignorant if the evidence and prefer there own made up crap, vinegar is all they can expect, he can go back to posting about his mil service, while posting he does not know the difference between conditional, peremptory orders, or not knowing black powdered shells lack the ballistic property to destroy gun tubes or confusing guns taken in combat with those destroyed.
Last edited by hanny1 on Fri Apr 21, 2017 7:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

hanny1
Captain
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:57 am

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Fri Apr 21, 2017 7:24 pm

pgr wrote:Man...I forgot how the subject of logistics could bring out the trolling...
Grey Fox and others are absolutely correct in stressing the logistical challenges of providing feed for an army's worth of combat and draft animals, and the limits it placed on wagon trains in particular, something that really seems to hit a nerve with Hunny
due to the fox being mathematical incompetent, factually unaware of the most basic events, it hits nerve. Since it's how all bodies of troops behaved, it's no wonder he has no idea of what happened as he does not understand what is possible or not in logistical means.
Could armies live off the land and supplement their supplies? Of course, but only if they stayed on the move and made scarifies in concentration to do it. You also can't do it in close proximity to the enemy. Living off the land could facilitate a maneuver or raid, but not a long term offensive effort.
all armies live of the land, its hoe all of them operated,. Cs started that way running up a massive debt to its population it could never repay,and us adopted the same methods as part of the hard war concept, to make the people feel the burden of war directly, beginning with Hallecks 1863 orders to qm departement of standard 20 wagons to 000 men as the basis of supply in the field. Of those 7 are devoted to food and water, the rest to munitions baggage medical etc. This gives a forward lift capacity of 7@2250 which is 15750lbs lift, and a daily consumption, for the 000 men at 3 lbs, food, 3 lbs water, a requirement of 6000 a day, so the concept is a 3 day capacity from asserts assigned, day 1 goes forward 15 miles, and replaces water for free, so only food is reduced. So from inception the operation has limit of 15750/3000 which is 5 days to exhaust all supply of food. But campaigns last longer than that, we know there is no rolling magazine of wagons to replace daily consumption, because 5 days forward means 4 points behind each with a wagon, i.e. The number of wagons required doubles every 5 days. What does happen is that the 15 miles forward has also covered 5 miles to either flank, so the sq miles covered is 75, depending on pop levels, and 20 is a fairly typical number for the states campaigned over, means at subsistence level, 2 crops a year, there is in that area, 82,ooo lbs in barns of cereal crops, which feeds the 1500 people in that 75 sq miles till next harvest. The first day will empty 2 wagons, which on day 2 then are used to acquire by requisition this, 5 hours to go forward 15, leaves 3 hours to cover 5 miles to a flank and back.If the 000 stay in the region, there is enough to supply them and the civilians for 2500@3 7500 for 11 days before consuming all stocks. So as long as the move continues, its ability to supply itself from the land, is suffiecent to maintain itself.An army otoh introduces a scapular problem, corps of 20 to 25k, occupy move through in a days march 300 sq miles, while an army gathered for engagement and concentrate in the presence of the enemy, occupies a deployment of 2 sq miles, and draws supplies from 100 sq miles around its deployment by virtue of half a days travail for wagons to draw in supplies. So Lee 75000consumes 225000 but can only draw from a 102 sq miles, and a third or so of that is also in the influence of the enemy who is also seeking to do the same from the 114000 stored there, so the cs is consuming twice what exists, even if the us prescience does not reduce its ability to gather, the us armies being larger, despite larger wagons allocation, the number varied with season and object, Sherman at Atlanta had 20, in march to savvanaa twice, that, and up the carolinas, up again by 50%, so quite a variety based on circumstances, but hallecks general rule is the base level. So while the prescience of the enemy is a factor, it's the size of the force that determines the rate the qm canr replace consumption. all armies followed the above in the field, note I used only human food water consumption, animal requirements make the amounts required larger, but the example is good enough to illustrate the concept of how armies supplied themselves from the land for everything except munitions. the only time right became important was to create dumps for extended non movement, usually winter. Like last time, if you read any book on logistics, it will explain this to you as how armies operated in the wbts, it's a century later when munitions, pol become 90% of daily requirements, not food fodder, that armies have to be supplied from base, even in ww2 in the east Germany abandoned that and lived of the land for food and fodder.
[
Sure Lee was able maneuver for a month away from a rail head in the Gettysburg Campaign, but his Corps were widely dispersed and moving to fresh forging areas for most of the time, which compromised his operational security. (Jeb Stewart being off a-raiding at the critical moment being the most famous). When the AoP closed and forced him to concentrate all his Corps in one space he could only sustain himself in one place for 4 days before he had to move off. Had Meade blocked and fixed him, it would have been a bad day for the ANV.
kinda, if you have yet to read the retreatfrom Gettysburg, logistics of the Gettysburg campaign, the author lkent master ton, ooks at the campaign to determine if it was a giant raid first, an opourtunity to defeat the app only if opourtunity to do so second, as proposed by street so he for instance has a comprehensive account of what Lee came back with, 90000sheep, enough beeves to feed the anv till winter and so on, so it's not a certainty that logistics forced Lee to move, but that's a possible explanation i grant, we do know he had thing about holding the battlefield to show his opponent he had won, it being the accepted way of winning, along with asking for a ceasefire to collect wia bury dead.
Grant's Vicksburg campaign proved you could live off the land long enough for a two week maneuver from one base of supply to another. His bet payed off because he moved fast and prevented Pemberton and Johnston from combining and blocking him. (Which if they had stopped him somewhere short of Vicksburg, he would have been in trouble.)
nope, there was no resupply from base, he received munitions, and hardtack twice, he still had the hard tack after Vicksburg fell. If you read his own words, he resupplied himself after Forrest burnt his base of supply, by confiscating a 30 mile radius from the civilians, leaving them2months supply, and taking the rest, he goes on to say it was enough to sustain his army for 2 months, let alone the 2 weeks, and he learnt an important lesson for the future, being amazed at the abundance of the south agriculture, and its ability to sustain armies moving through it. The 2 weeks reference is a planned limit, of supplies, not a real life number. Page 258, he explains your completely wrong, freely available online, from a search on I was amazed at the quantity of supplies.
Sherman's March to the Sea proves only that when there is no enemy around you can spread an army 100 miles wide and have and have a grand old harvest time stroll through the state of Georgia. When Sherman was moving ON Atlanta with the AoT opposing him, he was most certainly dependent on that rail line.
first is an example of living of the land, Sherman wrote he cut loose from a base of supply and relied on living of the land, he would do so again for longer going north to Carolina, second is incorrect, as Forrest et all removed supply lines forcing him to live of the land, which he found he rather liked doing as it allowed more freedom of manover

And while the men could do pretty well living off the land, a whole lot of horses and mules starved to death because of the inability to sustain them.
nope, equips require only grass to survive, this is a repeat of the last time you thought this, if you look at m v crevelds supplying war, logistics from wAllenstein to Patton, which explains a lot of what I posted above, explains an acre of green fodder can supply 50 equips with all they need, so an army of 40000 equines needs 800 acres to graze on, when moving, they only need to use under a percent of the available green fodder, spit only becomes an issue when static, sieges, so it's almost certain it's other factors that explain the loss, not lack of fodder.
To get back to the thread,
regions need a pop level, that gives your attrition rate for the size of the force, say 5 leaves of pop, and 4 force sizes, small can live for ever, Huge will always suffer attrition, each and every turn it hits you.
Last edited by hanny1 on Sat Apr 22, 2017 11:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
DrPostman
Posts: 2997
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:39 pm
Location: Memphis, TN
Contact: Website Facebook Twitter YouTube

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Sat Apr 22, 2017 4:11 am

hanny1 wrote:
DrPostman wrote:You've never run across the old adage "You catch more flies with honey than you do with
vinegar", have you?
:papy:

I have, it works better with those who disagree over what the evidence means, but those ignorant if the evidence and prefer there own made up crap, vinegar is all they can expect, he can go back to posting about his mil service, while posting he does not know the difference between conditional, peremptory orders, or not knowing black powdered shells lack the ballistic property to destroy gun tubes or confusing guns taken in combat with those destroyed.

I was attempting to appeal to you to be more civil. I can see that was a total failure.

Image
"Ludus non nisi sanguineus"

Image

User avatar
Ace
Posts: 3498
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:33 pm
Location: Croatia

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Sat Apr 22, 2017 7:29 am

Let's go back to the logistics. Does game logistics system minorizes living off the land and overemphasizes the ability to carry supplies with wagons?

hanny1
Captain
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:57 am

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Sat Apr 22, 2017 9:33 am

DrPostman wrote:
hanny1 wrote:
DrPostman wrote:You've never run across the old adage "You catch more flies with honey than you do with
vinegar", have you?
:papy:

I have, it works better with those who disagree over what the evidence means, but those ignorant if the evidence and prefer there own made up crap, vinegar is all they can expect, he can go back to posting about his mil service, while posting he does not know the difference between conditional, peremptory orders, or not knowing black powdered shells lack the ballistic property to destroy gun tubes or confusing guns taken in combat with those destroyed.

I was attempting to appeal to you to be more civil. I can see that was a total failure.

Image

Civility is only required when common ground exists, and disputing arises from the evidence, with those whose views are based on nothing more than their I want this to be the case, there is neither common ground to argue about, or a need to be civil. Children are told not to do x w etc, as they mature they understand why not to x w, some never actually mature. Net is full of the later, and civility is a waste of effort on them.

hanny1
Captain
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:57 am

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Sat Apr 22, 2017 9:35 am

Ace wrote:Let's go back to the logistics. Does game logistics system minorizes living off the land and overemphasizes the ability to carry supplies with wagons?

As a game it functions quite well, my personal pref is to reduce the amount of wagon units by half for the side played while leaving the ai with full allocation, as a simulation,not so much, as it simulates armies living of supplies they cannot carry, ( divide length of campaign by 7 wagons of food water and you see armies cannot sustain themselves from wagons for any meaningful time period)instead of reality on armies moving onto supplies that allow them to continue on.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Sat Apr 22, 2017 4:59 pm

hanny1 wrote:Civility is only required when common ground exists, and disputing arises from the evidence, with those whose views are based on nothing more than their I want this to be the case, there is neither common ground to argue about, or a need to be civil. Children are told not to do x w etc, as they mature they understand why not to x w, some never actually mature. Net is full of the later, and civility is a waste of effort on them.


Civility is always your decision. Its requirement depends on your goal. If your goal is to convince your opponent in an argument, nee to bring your opponent to publicly concede to your point of view, you have already lost if you break into a caustic rant, for to win, under those circumstance, your opponent must only disagree, whether he is correct or not.

With regards to raising children--and I have some experience here, as I've raised 3--, one can always exercise authority (I decide, because I have the power over you) and ignore the explanation of any reasoning. And at times, that is the only good option, especially if the consequences of your child making a bad decision are high. For example, if your child is playing carelessly too close to where he or she could fall and seriously injure themselves. At very young ages, children often don't realize the consequences of their actions, which is where parents must step in and take control, whether the child understands or not. But as children grow, they slowly start to gain the ability to reason and understand the points of view of others, like their parents. This does not mean they will necessarily accept them, because they have their own point of view and interests. But the conversation then changes from, 'what I want' vs 'what you want' with the solution of 'who ever has the most power wins' (see the 'terrible-twos' and tantrums), to 'I have reasons' and 'you have reasons' and 'we can learn to compromise and find a solution', sometimes my interests win, and sometimes your do. If your child wants to play with their hand-held video game at the dinner table, but you would like to have dinner without distractions and where your children take part in the experience of dining together, at a certain age, your child can understand this, and if you give them the opportunity to enjoy the experience of dining together and to play with their game afterwards, they will learn they social norm and generally to accept it for what it is, and not because 'I said so'.

But it is not your place here to "raise" any of the other members of this forum, nor my place to "raise" you. I can only represent my point of view the best that I can, and hope that it finds some understanding, and perhaps betters the tone of conversation here. You have without a doubt gathered a vast amount of knowledge on the subject of the Civil War, and I often enjoy reading the points of view you bring to the table, but your caustic statements very often overtone everything you present, which derails the conversation and changes the subject of the discussion to that, which is very unfortunate indeed.

It would also be nice if you proof read what you have written, as your typing errors are sometimes astounding ;)

hanny1
Captain
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:57 am

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Sat Apr 22, 2017 6:35 pm

Capt or so, always interesting content in your posts, you are a rare example of a net user able to modify their understanding by exposure to new points of views, unfamiliar evidence or logic used in argument, sadly this is not the norm, many refuse to modify an opinion once expressed regardless of any argument or logic , pgr and the fox both refuse to modify their opinions, per is exrpressing the same incorrect views as he did in last year in the feed conundrum, promting an absurd mod to wagon supply giving armies the ability to maintain themselves from the contents of the wagon for 15 days, which is mathematically impossible btw, and the fox repeats the same method of attacking how an arguments is presented after finding he cannot attack the evidence. So not really interested in posters of that ilk, but am interested in bitch slapping them somewhat while presenting for readers something of value, yes I sometimes cringe when I look back, but I'm rarely at a keyboard with time to spare, I have had injury to nerves from a bomb blast which results in poor motor control, and piss poor typing, as I'm not used to looking back as my mind has moved on before the fingers have caught up, Recent carpal tunnel op has not helped matters, but will bear in mind your sensible request. Your post earlier about 2 turns, while it kinda feels right in game mechanics, it's way out of whack in reflecting what was logistically feasible, which in game terms means people undertaking a strategy that was not logistically feasible, ( I have seen vast numbers chasing across the plains out west, trying to bring a small force to battle) or in general the game does not follow avenues of where it is feasible to conduct large scale manover it, but allows it almost enywhere.example grants overland of 150k men, 56k mules horses with 5000 wagons, at 2250 lbs per wagon, 1750 dedicated by the qm ratio of food to medical,baggage ordinance,( 20 per 000 men at 7 being for food fodder) gives the army a forward lift, of 4 million lbs, and a daily consumption, with fodder for free, water for free as the daily rate of advance being so slow, allow this to be aquiver each night, but with the 10lbs a day grain requirement, consumes 1.5 million lbs a day. Every day 660 wagons become empty. Once the army moves forward 40 miles, the wagons cannot return with payload, so there is one in motion for resupplied forwards, backwards for each 20 miles, ( 5 @ 660 are locked up in transit to get a days suppy deliverd) and the one arriving, so more wagons than are available once 40 miles forward movement has occurred. Or time, the 40 days, required 40 million lbs at 2250 a trip that's -17750 round trips, 440 a day taking 8 hours to do it, i.e. There is not enough time or wagons to supply the required amount when the army is within a 20 mile reach of infinite resources. Combine both time and space and the problem gets ever worse, grant moved 100 ish miles southwards in the 40 days. Wagons do not, cannot propel armies forward from a base of supply as they do in game. Ps snap at 3 offspring each, I'm always reminded of twains quote about how at 18 he thought his father stupid, and was amazed how much he had learnt when returning home 3 years later.

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

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Sun Apr 23, 2017 12:25 am

Christopher Gabel, Professor of Military History at the U.S. Commanding General Staff College:

"The Civil War as we know it, could not have been waged with muscle power. It could not have been done with mules."

https://www.c-span.org/video/?320456-1/ ... -civil-war

"An army or 100,000 needs 800 tons of supplies per day."

Good luck foraging that for any length of time.

User avatar
ArmChairGeneral
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 992
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:00 am
Location: Austin, TX, USA

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Sun Apr 23, 2017 6:01 am

hanny1,

Being neither an historian nor a military logistician, I cannot comment on your assertions of fact, nor of anyone else's in this thread.

However I can say that you are being extremely rude to people who I respect and have been friends with for several years despite heated differences of opinion among us. Thinking you have the right to "bitch slap" people who you have failed to convince through the quality of your arguments is the definition of boorish. This type of behavior would be unacceptable in person, I do not see why you think it is ok here.

hanny1
Captain
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:57 am

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Sun Apr 23, 2017 9:37 am

Gray Fox wrote:Christopher Gabel, Professor of Military History at the U.S. Commanding General Staff College:

"The Civil War as we know it, could not have been waged with muscle power. It could not have been done with mules."

https://www.c-span.org/video/?320456-1/ ... -civil-war

"An army or 100,000 needs 800 tons of supplies per day."

Good luck foraging that for any length of time.
you are unaware I have been using his works in my posts, in your link he is referring to his latest book on railroads, in which he compares wagon and rail efficiency in operational bounds, a wagon has a 1.5 ton to 333 miles operational range at 1 ton cost to do so, while a rail line achieved 150 for the same 1 ton consumed. I have been using his staff rides, in which he writes, armies used forage to supply food and fodder, because all his written books assert that living of the land was the only way armies could sustain themselves in the campaign season. In winter only rr could maintain large bodies of troops concentrated as the region was no longer capable of providing fodder, as a result the cs from declined faster than the us whhich increased through the summer, and thus it was this that won the war.The quote you use is an example of his written books , which I referenced in this thread, that muscle power could not supply forces from base of supply, mules as your quote refers cannot do it. So it's an insult to keep posting when you don't have a clue. He writes"obviously a railroad train could carry more tons of cargo than a mule wagon train, but this alone confers no logistical advantage as one can simply add more mules and wagons" of 100.000 requirement of 800 tons a day, as I pointed out earlier, 20 per 000 wagons, 7 of which are used for food and fodder, gives that army 2250 tons held in wagons, the same 3 days general supply I have been referencing, just converting lbs to tons. Average pop per square mile was 20, 20@3@365=11 tons cerial crops, to find 800 tons an army needs to forage over 72 square miles, va is 110000 sq miles, after 3 years of armies campaigning over it it could no longer meet logistical demands, and grant could bring it in by rr and Lee could not. any army moving for a day, covering 15 miles forward, covers around 250 square miles, which is 2750 tons of food passed by, so luck has little to do with it. Gables principle point is that a single rail line can supply quicker than muscle power, it can deliver men and supplies in a timely manner regardless of season, but the larger the force, becomes tied to the means of which it takes its supplies, the railnet, as its size precludes living of the land by muscle power alone. 15000 men can go almost anywhere and live in perpetuity of the stored crops they pass through. Large armies once used to rr supply became limited in strategic options to follow rail lines, being able to move in mass only 3 to 5 days from a rail depot, more from Gabel, the amount of food and fodder availed is in proportion to the population density, he cities in this book of his, he is charting the us adopteion of 12 wagons per 000 men in 1860 rising to 20 as a union standard in 63, as the pop density of Europe and the us was different and they started from European manuals., he uses mobility and stragedy by j more to show how living of the land, was dependent on the know pop levels of every county, along with the census data of total cereal crops, livestock present in the 1860 census, so that no luck was required in knowing how much supply was available in general. This work says armies under 1500o can live by forage alone anywhere in the south indefinitely, armies of 20/30k were restricted to richer regions, and over 50k need access to a local rail line. Cs by end of war, had unpaid for requitioned food and fodder to the value of 180 million dollars, from its citizens.
Last edited by hanny1 on Sun Apr 23, 2017 11:17 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
ArmChairGeneral
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 992
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:00 am
Location: Austin, TX, USA

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Sun Apr 23, 2017 10:38 am

hanny1 said,

So it's an insult to keep posting when you don't have a clue.


Seriously, dude, this is what I am talking about. Your arguments are a little hard to follow, but this kind of thing makes me not want to bother following them. Unless you actually have Tourette's syndrome and you are asking for your reader's understanding of a disorder that causes a barrier to communication, you make it very difficult for your audience to accept the legitimacy of your other points at face value when you include statements like this.

hanny1
Captain
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:57 am

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Sun Apr 23, 2017 10:49 am

ArmChairGeneral wrote:hanny1,

Being neither an historian nor a military logistician, I cannot comment on your assertions of fact, nor of anyone else's in this thread.
ok. Nothing to contribute, you don't know if Sherman was starving or not for instance, and don't want to follow contribute the maths of logistics to find out an answer.
However I can say that you are being extremely rude to people who I respect and have been friends with for several years despite heated differences of opinion among us. Thinking you have the right to "bitch slap" people who you have failed to convince through the quality of your arguments is the definition of boorish. This type of behavior would be unacceptable in person, I do not see why you think it is ok here.
because I not you determine my mode of reply when insulted. I have already answered this question btw. Btw there is no argument as the fox presents no facts he understands the meaning of, his last post he uses the same author I have used to express an explanation of how wagons supplied the armies in the field, a level of incompetence rarely seen in real life, but not uncommon on the net.

hanny1
Captain
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:57 am

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Sun Apr 23, 2017 11:22 am

ArmChairGeneral wrote:hanny1 said,

So it's an insult to keep posting when you don't have a clue.


Seriously, dude, this is what I am talking about. Your arguments are a little hard to follow, but this kind of thing makes me not want to bother following them. Unless you actually have Tourette's syndrome and you are asking for your reader's understanding of a disorder that causes a barrier to communication, you make it very difficult for your audience to accept the legitimacy of your other points at face value when you include statements like this.
seriously, this is what I'm talking about, he is posting back my argument as if it agrees with his. Is that simple enough for you follow.

User avatar
loki100
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 2358
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 4:15 pm
Location: Caithness
Contact: Website Twitter

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Sun Apr 23, 2017 11:56 am

hanny1 wrote:....
Civility is only required when common ground exists, and disputing arises from the evidence, with those whose views are based on nothing more than their I want this to be the case, there is neither common ground to argue about, or a need to be civil. Children are told not to do x w etc, as they mature they understand why not to x w, some never actually mature. Net is full of the later, and civility is a waste of effort on them.


Hanny, the AGEOD forums have been marked by a great degree of respect between posters, even when discussing either contentious issues (see the RuS forum), not easily understood rules or the contentious issues of play balance. Very few posters in my experience breach this basic expectation of acceptable behaviour.

The expectation of civility is a given - its not a matter of something that only applies if or when you feel the debate is about small nuances or if it is about radically different interpretations.

I'd suggest that if you really want to influence people then discussing with civility is a pre-condition. And learning how to break up long posts into paragraphs etc will ease the task of anyone who might be interested in what you have to say.
AJE The Hero, The Traitor and The Barbarian
PoN Manufacturing Italy; A clear bright sun
RoP The Mightiest Empires Fall
WIA Burning down the Houses; Wars in America; The Tea Wars

hanny1
Captain
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:57 am

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Sun Apr 23, 2017 12:54 pm

Luck is not a factor in Lo gistics.
Every qm department records for the us exist, they show in fiscal year 62 to 63, the us government through its qm departments issued 320,000 tons of food to its armies, 120,000 tons of munitions. They also procured and issued for service 197000 horses, 120000 mules. 18000 army wagons, 4000 ambulances, the size of the armed forces was 918000.
918000@3@365=1005210000 lbs, or 502605 tons
Field requirements were met by supply from issue to 60% of requirement, 40% have therefore to be acquired locally from the region the force found itself in.
All from the annual report of the army qm report for year 1863.

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

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Sun Apr 23, 2017 3:25 pm

Hanny, I referenced Gabel's work directly with a link. You post that you were referencing him with your figures, I suppose secretly...except for the line where he totally refutes your entire theme, absolutely. You are not only clueless but dishonest, inarticulate and apparently unable to use a spell-checker. This may be the style model for trolls the world over, but is not an effective discussion style here. I don't mind your comments directed at me. I spent 21 years in the Army, so I can identify the noise a loser makes. However, I don't appreciate any comments directed at my friends. I recommend that none of us continue to read any of your posts that don't begin with "I apologize". Once again, good day to you, sir.

User avatar
lodilefty
Posts: 7576
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: Finger Lakes, NY GMT -5 US Eastern

Re: Game still to unbalanced for CSA

Sun Apr 23, 2017 3:31 pm

Enough. Stay on topic, or stay away.

I suggest twitter if you want to exchange insults or debate "civility". Not here.

...and yes. The admins are the Supreme Court here. No appeal.

Return to “Civil War II”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests