Union or Confederates?

[Comtedemeighan]

I'm playing the Union for the first time now. The crisp, blue uniforms are nice. My soldiers have shoes too which is good. Johnny Reb is probably in trouble because everybody fights like Grant in my army.

Probably better food as well

[Reiryc]

I play the south.

I do it because I prefer the state's rights beliefs that they espoused even though I'm from illinois.

[tagwyn]

Does that include the support of slavery? You and John Wilkes Booth? t

[Meagher]

tagwyn,

That is an unfair attack. There is a strong states' rights tradition in this country that has nothing to do with slavery. One could find merit in the Southern cause of states' rights while also rejecting slavery. Just as one can sympathize with the American revolutionaries without condoning aggressive expansion into Native American lands west of the Appalachian Mts.

As to the question, I have played mainly the South because I expect it to be more challenging.

[Colonel Dreux]

Does that include the support of slavery? You and John Wilkes Booth? t

Yeah, plenty of Confederates didn't support slavery per se. Although the consequence of a Southern victory would have meant a continuation of slavery. My guess is this would have changed internally, however, as people realized that slavery drove wages down for non-slave labor.

[caranorn]

When I first got the game I consistently played the south (states rights and interesting generals). After a while I occasionally played the Union. These days I almost exclusively play the Union as it's easier to get back into a game, but also because the Union has the strategic initiative. I still occasionaly play the confederates to have a little challenge...

[Lew]

I have a mild preference for the Union.

RL beliefs have something to do with this, but I can normally remember that I'm playing a game, not enacting Union or States Rights. *ehems at certain OT posters*.

The biggest reason I like the Union is that it lets me mess about in boats. I like messing about in boats.

Having so many resources compared to the Confederacy is a problem, sure, but it's a problem some home-made events can solve. Things get much more interesting if the rebs get +1200 conscripts and foreign intervention.

Union generals start off fairly poor, especially at corps-level and above, which does slow things down, but the arrival of Grant, Thomas, and Sherman goes a long way to redressing the balance, and when Hancock, Meade, and crew start arriving, I personally think the in-game Union generals after that point have the Confederates beat. I'm not sure if that's historically accurate...

[MrT]

tip 1: kill grant before he has 3 stars lol.

[Colonel Dreux]

tip 1: kill grant before he has 3 stars lol.

I did this recently. He was in a stack with either Halleck or Buell in charge. Got stuck in the Memphis region besieging the city and the entire force was destroyed with Grant KIA. Bad Athena, bad.

[gchristie]

Dorothy: Now which way do we go?
Scarecrow: Pardon me, this way is a very nice way.
Dorothy: Who said that?
[Toto barks at scarecrow]
Dorothy: Don't be silly, Toto. Scarecrows don't talk.
Scarecrow: [points other way] It's pleasant down that way, too.
Dorothy: That's funny. Wasn't he pointing the other way?
Scarecrow: [points both ways] Of course, some people do go both ways.

That's me in a nutshell. Which ever side suits my mood, though I do prefer role playing as Lincoln over Jefferson as I admire the former's temperament and character over the latter's.

[RELee]

Dorothy: Now which way do we go?
Scarecrow: Pardon me, this way is a very nice way.
Dorothy: Who said that?
[Toto barks at scarecrow]
Dorothy: Don't be silly, Toto. Scarecrows don't talk.
Scarecrow: [points other way] It's pleasant down that way, too.
Dorothy: That's funny. Wasn't he pointing the other way?
Scarecrow: [points both ways] Of course, some people do go both ways.

That's me in a nutshell. Which ever side suits my mood, though I do prefer role playing as Lincoln over Jefferson as I admire the former's temperament and character over the latter's.

Sooo, you're saying you bark at your computer while playing?

That's just really weird.

[Cromagnonman]

I prefer the Union due to family ties, upbringing, and belief in the righteousness of the cause. While the South went into the war with a stronger military tradition, the North definitely came out having built its own tradition. In many ways it's a roleplaying experience, one which I've sought out through various games; hopefully it will tide me over until I can get in reenacting in a few years.


And, of course, playing as the North and having to invade the South is harder. Just ask Clausewitz.

[colonel hurst]

confederates. I like playing as the underdog, especially trying to make a different ending out west.

[Carrington]

Probably better food as well

Heh... I think that's a very relative point: "some food, most of the time" likely characterizes the Union logistic effort.

Even with the North's fairly sophisticated logistical effort, the war profiteers were fairly skilled at procuring rotten meat and weevily bread for the boys in blue.

[CheerfullyInsane]

South.
For the simple reason (as has been stated earlier in the thread) that there's less chance of being overwhelmed with opportunities.
Fewer troops, not much of a navy to worry about, and you can usually rely on the leaders doing what you ask them to.

No doubt it is harder to *win*, but it's also easier to figure out *why* you're losing.
Errr.... If that makes any sense.

CheerfullyInsane

[TheDoctorKing]

I have a mild preference for the Union.

RL beliefs have something to do with this, but I can normally remember that I'm playing a game, not enacting Union or States Rights. *ehems at certain OT posters*.

Thanks! Yes, this is a game. You can be convinced that the Confederate cause was entirely unjustified and still have fun playing them. Or vice versa. Hell, I even play the SS guys in Advanced Squad Leader - though I do draw the line on using the (un)cool black SS counters that MMP put out five years or so back.

[halfmanhalfsquidman]

hello all,

I am very new to the game and have only played as the Confederacy so far. Mostly because I was raised in Virginia and driving through Chancellorsville, Wilderness and Fredricksburg is pretty common for me on my way to and from school. Also I've been taking a Class on the history of the American south, getting very detailed into the motivations and events of the war. The fact that James Longstreet is a distant relative also plays a part why I prefer to play the South to the North.

[Peissner]

You can be convinced that the Confederate cause was entirely unjustified and still have fun playing them. Or vice versa.

Don't people get tired of playing the same side all the time? I usually alternate.

Also, if you are enomored with one side, by playing the other, you follow the principle of "know thy enemy."


“Know thy self, know thy enemy. A thousand battles, a thousand victories.” -Sun Tzu

[razorbackjac]

The South because I live in the south(Arkansas).

[dublish]

Against the AI, I prefer playing as the Union. You're forced to actually move if you want to win as the north, whereas the uncoordinated Union AI means you can sit tight where you start as the South and win simply by killing whatever attacks you. The management issues the Union player faces are just far more interesting.

[Farseer]

Sounds like a boring tactic to use as the south against the AI. I'd try to take Washington at least. =)

[Aurelin]

I could come up with many reasons as to why I perfer the North.

But the simple, no nonsense answer is this:

It fits my play style.

[tyler11]

south because of my heritage. I have played both sides though. I just dont like invading my home..lol..even in a game

[Montana Brigade]

North just started tho

[TheDoctorKing]

hello all,

The fact that James Longstreet is a distant relative also plays a part why I prefer to play the South to the North.

Let's not forget that after the war Longstreet supported civil rights for blacks and fought against the "Redemption" White League terrorists in Louisiana. He was shot, wounded and captured by Confederate veterans who defeated the pro-Union state militia and metropolitan police in a pitched battle in the streets of New Orleans in 1874. He remained a loyal Republican for the rest of his life and served in several government positions (back when Republicans were for a strong federal government to ensure racial justice).

[tyler11]

Let's not forget that after the war Longstreet supported civil rights for blacks and fought against the "Redemption" White League terrorists in Louisiana. He was shot, wounded and captured by Confederate veterans who defeated the pro-Union state militia and metropolitan police in a pitched battle in the streets of New Orleans in 1874. He remained a loyal Republican for the rest of his life and served in several government positions (back when Republicans were for a strong federal government to ensure racial justice).

Yes and he was also labeled a traitor in the south for a very long time. He was mostly blamed with the loss at Gettysburg and the diesaterous Picketts charge. It wasnt until more recently that it was revealed how much it was actaully Lees fault and not Longstreets that the battle was lost. That was the start of Longstreet problems right there. That along with the stuff you just listed made Longstreet be looked at as a traitor until recentally with more accurate books on his life and movies such as Gettysburg where his name was more or less cleared of most the slander that had fallen on it through the years

[youkali]

Lee did better at Gettysburg than Napoleon did at Borodino. Napoleon didn't throw in the Guard and instead, let the Russian Army leave the field in order. At the critical moment, he failed to realize how weather, geography and logistics made his position desperate. He needed a decisive victory and didn't go for it.

Lee realized that if he didn't clear the field of Federals, he was standing at the high water mark of the Confederacy, so he took the gamble. Longstreet knew it was a bad bet. Both men were right.

[Citizen X]

Lee did better at Gettysburg than Napoleon did at Borodino. Napoleon didn't throw in the Guard and instead, let the Russian Army leave the field in order. At the critical moment, he failed to realize how weather, geography and logistics made his position desperate. He needed a decisive victory and didn't go for it.

Lee realized that if he didn't clear the field of Federals, he was standing at the high water mark of the Confederacy, so he took the gamble. Longstreet knew it was a bad bet. Both men were right.

From a strategic perspective all three of them were failures. Neither of the three (just as some modern leaders) understood that you cant have a cake and it eat it. Meaning that you can't do both maintain a threat with an army and then fight a battle with it. Armies tend to wear down whence being used. Same applies to the opponent's fear to war.
In the case of Lee and Longstreet it was even worse, because they both knew beforehand, that they wouldnt be able to win the war, at least not after the union wouldnt fold after Antietam and Fredericksburg. New Orleans was taken at that moment, as was Memphis.

South should've cashed in as much as possible just after Bull Run.

Gamble, btw. is a neat term for having nearly 5000 of your subordinates killed and 13000 wounded

[tyler11]

. Same applies to the opponent's fear to war.
In the case of Lee and Longstreet it was even worse, because they both knew beforehand, that they wouldnt be able to win the war, at least not after the union wouldnt fold after Antietam and Fredericksburg. New Orleans was taken at that moment, as was Memphis.

South should've cashed in as much as possible just after Bull Run.

Gamble, btw. is a neat term for having nearly 5000 of your subordinates killed and 13000 wounded

With all due respect i must disagree with you on this. The south actaully had a chance to win through out the entire war. Maybe not through an all out military victory but it was possible. All the South was really trying to do was outlast the Union until they would just let them leave in peace. I mean all through out the war there were tons of times that the South almost pulled off a victory that would have spelled an end to the war. I mean up North there was alot of antiwar attituded and if a battle would have gone just a little differently then peace could have happened. So really i think Longstreet and Lee did think they had a chance at winning. It may have been slim but i still think they thought they did

[kingtaso01]

North, simply because trying to win with McClellan is quite the task. And I know that he sucks, but then, that's the reason why I use him. More challenging if the Army of the Potomac is commanded by him than Grant.