Importance of opening the Mississippi

[Mickey3D]

[...]Finally, Grant took Richmond. Within months, the war ended. [...]

Did the war finish only because Grant took Richmond or because the loss of Richmond was the final nail into the coffin of CSA after all the other losses ?

You are thinking that the loss of Richmond by itself would have ended the war. This is a huge what-if I'm unable to answer.

When you re-fight a historical simulation you don't have to repeat the historical mistakes.

The question of khbynum was not related to the game strategy but historical events.

P.S.: By the way, I'm open to a PBEM with you to test your strategy as it is always interesting to test new ways of playing.

[RebelYell]

Seven days was more important than any other battle in keeping the CSA alive.
In game the Union player can bring Grant to this party when it can easily result to the loss of Richmond.
One way to balance this is the correction of historical CSA ** generals in the West and giving more NM value to regions in MO, KY and TN.

[GraniteStater]

GS-In WW II, carriers that could have secured the convoy lanes to Europe were in the Pacific fighting Japan. Troops that could have opposed Japanese aggression were being stationed in the U.K. The reason Japan attacked European colonies in Asia was because the Allies were occupied in Europe and would not be able to respond to a second front. Fighting on two fronts was a bad idea that cost the Allies thousands of extra lives. It was forced on us by two aggressors. We did not willfully chose that situation.

* There were carriers in the Atlantic, eventually - escort carriers. The sea lanes were essentially secured by May, 1943; Doenitz withdrew the boats from the Atlantic. IOW, the US presence, a change in ASW tactics & strategy, and new developments, like the escort carrier, ensured that the Allies could build up Britain for Overlord - all in eighteen months.

* A 'bad idea'? Whose? FDR's? King's? Marshall's? Churchill's? Doesn't really matter if it were forced on the US & the Allies or not - the facts are that the US prosecuted a two front war across the entire globe and won it, while supporting an allied combination at the same time. Pretty good for a 'bad idea', if you ask me.

If one wishes to discuss military history, an understanding of principles of strategy and tactics is useful. Conflicts take place in given times and spaces and circumstances, however, and commanders make decisions with the information they have and the resources available.

In the business world, we call it project management. You draw up your plans, the project plan, the communications plan, the risk management plan, the work plan, the schedule, the budget & several others - including a change management plan. We try to manage change, because change is inevitable. One is always prepared to dump the whole thing, even, if other alternatives present themselves.

Life is lived in the real world, not on paper. Good managers and good commanders know this and are prepared to throw every guideline out the window if that's what's called for. We (well, at least, I) study history to learn how people made decisions and how to make good decisions, to acquire good and effective mental habits and frames of thought. One of the hallmarks of a good leader is flexibility.

[Mickey3D]

When you re-fight a historical simulation you don't have to repeat the historical mistakes.

It's what I'm trying to do when playing the Union by avoiding, as much as possible, bloody "Grant the butcher" assaults on prepared position and prefering maneuver (but I don't have enough PBEM experience to know if it is a viable strategy against all CSA styles of play).

It seems I don't see historical mistakes at the same place you do oke: (I'm teasing you... I think Grant had little choice but to beat Lee through attrition).

[Gray Fox]

@Mickey3D-When I take Richmond the CSA is crushed and the war ends. Since no one has complained that this part of the game is ahistorical, then I assumed it was not. Taking Richmond was much more symbolic than clearing the Mississippi. A headshot always works.

School's out next week. I think that my summer should be very interesting!

@RebelYell-Union loyalists were eventually taken to collection points in MO where the army could protect them. This was the only solution. This also should have been done for loyalists in KY and TN. In my strategy, the safe collection point would be Louisville. The Union did not have to occupy these three slave states to protect the threatened populations.

@GS-Find me one military instructor anywhere on the internet, anywhere on the planet or anywhere in history who advocates fighting a war on two fronts. Ball's in your court.

[Mickey3D]

@Mickey3D-When I take Richmond the CSA is crushed and the war ends

[INDENT]In game's term you are right but I was thinking to the question raised by khbynum :

[...]I'm not asking about [...] game strategy [...] but rather the historical question.

[/INDENT]

Since no one has complained that this part of the game is ahistorical, then I assumed it was not.

Well, it's an assumption I would not make : the game has to give high value to some objectives to force the player to have the same constraints as historical leaders.

[GraniteStater]

However, if it makes no military sense to clear this waterway

It made immense sense to cut communications between Texas, Arkansas and Louisiana to the rest of the CSA. Denial of supplies, particularly beef from Texas, and reinforcements, were good objects.

Read Grant's Memoirs - he explains the reasoning quite well, I think.

[Gray Fox]

@Mickey3D-It might be nice if he produced links to that evidence. The Erie canal was not the Panama Canal from lake Erie to NYC. In 1825, it was a man-made waterway 7 feet wide and 4 feet deep. A team of oxen pulled each barge from point A to B at less than the pace of a walking man. The canal was drained for 6 months every winter. This hardly sounds like serious competition for a major port.

@GS-Of course he thinks his campaign was important. I'm sure that Clausewitz has a whole chapter in On War that was devoted to beef sales.

[Mickey3D]

I think your reply is intended to GraniteStater, not me.

Please do not confuse us : I enjoy reading messages of this "old piece of fur" but I'm the snowman .

[Gray Fox]

Nope, you quoted the OP aluding to reports about the Erie canal and RR but he doesn't give a link. You said he wanted historical evidence, but gives none for his claim.

[Mickey3D]

Nope, you quoted the OP aluding to reports about the Erie canal and RR but he doesn't give a link. You said he wanted historical evidence, but gives none for his claim.

Ok, now I understand. I was quoting khbynum to emphasize the fact he was asking for an historical analysis and you were answering in game terms, it was not related to his claims on Erie canal.

[GraniteStater]

@Mickey3D-It might be nice if he produced links to that evidence. The Erie canal was not the Panama Canal from lake Erie to NYC. In 1825, it was a man-made waterway 7 feet wide and 4 feet deep. A team of oxen pulled each barge from point A to B at less than the pace of a walking man. The canal was drained for 6 months every winter. This hardly sounds like serious competition for a major port.

@GS-Of course he thinks his campaign was important. I'm sure that Clausewitz has a whole chapter in On War that was devoted to beef sales.

You're really not reading the posts. Canal traffic was secondary, with a decade or so. The Erie canal, and other canals, pointed the way. RR traffic became the primary mover. The map showing RR growth from 1850-60 provided so kindly above, is a testament in itself.

Once reliable and affordable shipping was available between the Midwest and the Eastern ports, the primary axis of US commerce ran along those lines - the Mississippi, while still very important, ceased to be the primary axis of commerce. I believe I have said this a few times now. I do not think I am entirely incorrect in this view.

It wasn't "his campaign", just as, when I'm writing a manual or other documentation, it's not 'my manual'. It's the client's manual, it's their documentation, not mine. Grant accomplished the task he was given. He then went on to relieve Chattanooga and was promoted to Lt. General & Commander of all Union armies everywhere. This was in March, 1864. Twelve months later, the CSA was finished, irrevocably. Coincidence? Methinks not.

One should really read his Memoirs for an essential component of the history of the times. I just happened to pick them up the other day and started re-reading them again - for the fifth time, now. I think I'm finally starting to understand the man and his thinking. A very clear sighted and practical man, who understood his profession thoroughly. He accomplished every assignment he was given.

Of particular note is his observations about what might have been accomplished in the spring of 1862 in the western theater, if there had been a unified command.

[GraniteStater]

...@GS-Find me one military instructor anywhere on the internet, anywhere on the planet or anywhere in history who advocates fighting a war on two fronts. Ball's in your court.

I don't believe anyone here has advocated the same. I know I haven't. As a matter of fact, I wish humans would stop warring altogether.

Still, approaching from more than one axis can be a useful strategem. When axes cease to be axes and become fronts, is another discussion. There are always counterexamples - for instance, using interior lines to deflect approaches from more than one direction - the CSA, in game, can do this very well in VA, as I know from being the one trying to approach from two places at once.

I think you tend to get a tad inflexible in your analyses - there are No Solutions that Work Everytime, Everywhere. There are only certain principles that are useful to help clarify our thinking and understanding of circumstances.

[khbynum]

I feel I'm being chastised for a sin I didn't commit. I was not taking an historical position for which I felt I had to provide proof, but rather trying to start an historical discussion. It worked, even if it has been sidetracked into discussions of two-front strategy and specific game strategy. I did not intend the Erie Canal as the sole example for an alternate outlet that allowed Midwestern produce to bypass New Orleans. I think the maps tripax posted, showing the huge increase in railroad mileage between 1850 and 1860 make the point clearly. I do not have historical data on the actual volume of Midwest commercial traffic that was rerouted from the Mississippi to the railroads, but if I may be allowed a generalization I don't recall reading of any major disruption caused by the CSA closing the river. I think Allan Nevins had a cogent discussion in his multi-volume history, so I'll go back and read that again.

I've also learned my lesson about arguing on the Internet, so I'm not going to.

[GraniteStater]

You are entirely correct in the matter, IMHO, sir. I thought you raised some interesting questions. I, for one, am stimulated to perhaps crack a book or two on the matter. Please feel free to raise any historical questions you would like.

[Mickey3D]

I feel I'm being chastised for a sin I didn't commit.
[...]
I've also learned my lesson about arguing on the Internet, so I'm not going to.

Don't feel guilty or punished, you raised an interesting question which bring some exchanges (and sidetracks) as always on the "ACW History Club" forum. As long as people keep courteous it is always interesting and often gives access to a wealth of documents and sources.

And kudos to GrayFox who had to defend his point of view against so many detractors.

[tripax]

I've also learned my lesson about arguing on the Internet, so I'm not going to.

Don't say that, it is a lot of fun for me to read and take part in these conversations.

[GraniteStater]

Don't feel guilty or punished, you raised an interesting question which bring some exchanges (and sidetracks) as always on the "ACW History Club" forum. As long as people keep courteous it is always interesting and often gives access to a wealth of documents and sources.

And kudos to GrayFox who had to defend his point of view against so many detractors.

I would like to say I do not disagree strenuously with Gray Fox - if I have appeared that way, my humble apologies. I have been only trying to put due weight, as far as I can see it, on the history of US commerce. I could well be mistaken, though do not believe so. It is more a matter of emphasis, I believe, than anything else.

[khbynum]

Don't say that, it is a lot of fun for me to read and take part in these conversations.

OK, tripax, you asked for it.

In anything but a strictly tactical fight, or the martial arts, I think the "keep one point" doctrine is nonsense. I don't care what Clausewitz wrote; Albert Einstein said, “In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.” No one has ever done it that way except in the very simplest of strategic situations. You always want to spread out your enemy's effort by opening different lines of advance with the idea of getting him to commit a greater proportion of his resources to that line than you commit to get him to do so. Call it a feint, distraction or whatever. Unless you know you have a sure win, with overwhelming force (Allies vs. Iraq), you always go for the distraction. Rather than ask for a general or theorist who advocated 2-front wars, gray fox, perhaps you could name someone famous and successful who didn't fight that way.

Grant, the strategic master who finished the CSA, ordered simultaneous advances on no less than five separate fronts; Sherman in Georgia, Banks against Mobile, Sigel in the Valley, Butler on the Peninsula and Meade in northern Virginia.

Does a single front work in CW 2? Please demonstrate it. I mean no disrespect. I don't have the skill to take you on, but there seem to be several other volunteers.

[tripax]

Hear, hear!

[anjou]

An event could be written, called The Anaconda Plan that, if selected, would check every month whether a specified number of cities (NO,Vicksburg, Memphis, Helena on the Mississippi are in Union hands. The reward could a large bonus of NM, severe NM loss and economic penalties for the CSA

Of course, I believe there should be severe penalties to the Union if this is not achieved within a certain timeframe.

[khbynum]

Since the thread has gone off in several directions, I'll go with the flow.

Such a rule would have the effect of forcing the player to try to duplicate the way the Civil War actually happened. I am very much against that approach and think the game should simulate the conditions under which the war was fought, not the war itself.

I don't think the game should be changed to reflect a blockade by the South of Midwestern river ports, because I don't think the Southern occupation of the Mississippi achieved anything like that. There are good reasons in the game for the Union to capture New Orleans to enhance the blockade and deny the South the resources of the city. There are good strategic reasons for the Union to open the river, namely freedom of naval movement and cutting off troop movements from the trans-Mississippi. Whether any front other than Richmond is wise...well "Richmond is a hard road to travel I believe." (traditional, based a on a song by Daniel Emmett. Sorry, best I could do for a citation).

[tripax]

For what it is worth, here is a map of cotton production in 1860:

The attachment CottonProduction.jpg is no longer available

Union control of the Mississippi meant the end of the blockade and control over cotton markets, allowing the sale of American Cotton (superior to that of any other country) to Europe. Trade on the Mississippi was declared "free of military restrictions" in September 1863, well after the Emancipation Proclamation shut the door to foreign intervention. In game, this is modeled by control over plantation counties.

[anjou]

Since the thread has gone off in several directions, I'll go with the flow.

Such a rule would have the effect of forcing the player to try to duplicate the way the Civil War actually happened. I am very much against that approach and think the game should simulate the conditions under which the war was fought, not the war itself.

The game wouldn't be changed, though. Merely giving some consequence as to actually completing it. As a decision, it would be up to the player to pursue it and suffer the consequences if it fails.

[GraniteStater]

Since the thread has gone off in several directions, I'll go with the flow.

Such a rule would have the effect of forcing the player to try to duplicate the way the Civil War actually happened. I am very much against that approach and think the game should simulate the conditions under which the war was fought, not the war itself.

I don't think the game should be changed to reflect a blockade by the South of Midwestern river ports, because I don't think the Southern occupation of the Mississippi achieved anything like that. There are good reasons in the game for the Union to capture New Orleans to enhance the blockade and deny the South the resources of the city. There are good strategic reasons for the Union to open the river, namely freedom of naval movement and cutting off troop movements from the trans-Mississippi. Whether any front other than Richmond is wise...well "Richmond is a hard road to travel I believe." (traditional, based a on a song by Daniel Emmett. Sorry, best I could do for a citation).

I agree with the bolded. I embrace this philosophy of game design.

It's a fine balance, sometimes. It's not the easiest balance to strike when designing a game based on history.

Here's an exercise, which I've brought up before: let's say an AI start in April 1861. Play the Union. Try, by late June, 1862, to possess

* New Orleans
* Memphis
* Nashville
* Island #10
* Forts H&D

I tried to do this more than a few times in AACW - haven't bothered in CW2. I never even came close. It is possible to say that the Union enjoyed some good fortune in reality - perhaps they did. All I know, it was three steps from impossible in AACW.

Maybe it was my lack of skill as a player. Could be. I have raised this before, once in these forums and in the AACW forums, too. I don't think I ever encountered a poster saying he had done it.

The game, as it is designed, is somewhat ahistorical. It almost has to be, to be a good game. There are chances for both sides - it is possible to say the CSA is somewhat overpowered in the game. I don't begrudge that (except for one tiny point, perhaps, and the projected 1.04 seems like it may mitigate my grouse on it to a large degree).

It's still an interesting game and very fun.

If anything, from what I've seen in two PbeMs, the CSA player might have a gripe or two. It's mid-64 against RebelYell and I am now ahead on VPs and the net gain/Turn is +30 or so in my favor - and I really haven't taken that much. I can see CSA players grumbling about, "Hey! I lose Tennessee and the VPs start to swing that much?" I do have a couple of other places, but still, overall, not that much.

All the above at the risk of a serious thread derailment. If we want to explore game design, why don't we open up a new thread? Just wanted to throw some crumbs for thought out there.

[Mickey3D]

I think the game should simulate the conditions under which the war was fought, not the war itself.

+1

[Gray Fox]

Don't you all ever sleep?

Once again to re-cap, I said elsewhere that no economic reason exists to clear the Mississippi. You have all proven this and I thank you. As a courtesy, I had opined that a game event to create such an economic reason might be possible. This does not seem popular, so I once again thank you all for condemning any economic requirement for a Western Campaign to oblivion.

I don't believe that terms like the 'Art of War' or 'Military Science' are oxymorons. These may not have something like E=mC^2, but axioms like 'don't fight a war on two fronts' just make incredibly good sense. Even a crude understanding of these ideas makes the difference between a group of hairless apes beating each other with blunt sticks and a tactical masterpiece like Cannae. The reason we study war of course, is that people die. People die every day for the most useless reasons, but when you are an officer and you tell a group of your soldiers to take a hill, then people die because of what you decided, or failed to correctly decide. When the First World War armistice was signed and the time for the end of hostilities was agreed, one British General decided that his men would perform one last senseless assault on the line of German machine guns opposite them on the last day of the conflict. I'm sure that in his memoirs he elaborated on how symbolically important this was. It was 'the last nail in the coffin'.

It is said that for many years the Union was too strong to lose, but too stupid to win. This is not a style of play to which I aspire.

[RebelYell]

As it was war between states, the states had their own interests, electorates, press and lobbies, these can be modeled like the Richmond events.
Some object but this is giving the true setting for the war in the West.

[Gray Fox]

You might want to start a thread examining what historical events made the Western Campaign necessary. Use these to lobby for a game mechanic to tie the hands of a Union player like myself.

[RebelYell]

You might want to start a thread examining what historical events made the Western Campaign necessary. Use these to lobby for a game mechanic to tie the hands of a Union player like myself.

Sure, I can find some and suggest.
There was a strong lobby for East Tennessee that had the backing of Lincoln so will start with that.
Anyone that has sources please post.