AGEOD Forums

In connection with my battle losses testing, I'd like to know examples from the actual Americal Civil War (not from any of your AACW games) that you would consider to be either of:

* All Out Attack
* Hold at All Cost

For example, your response might be something like (the following are suggestive only, please use your own examples):

* All Out Attack
Southern attack, Shiloh (first day)
Southern attack, Gettysburg (third day)
Southern attack, Franklin

* Hold at All Cost
Southern defense, Antietam
Northern defense, Shiloh (first day)

Don't hesitate to cite smaller, less well-known engagements.

Also, if you think that in no Real War case did either side use All Out Attack or Hold at All Cost, please say so.

Thanks for any replies.

From wikipedia:


"The Battle of Fredericksburg, fought in and around Fredericksburg, Virginia, from December 11 to December 15, 1862, between General Robert E. Lee's Confederate Army of Northern Virginia and the Union Army of the Potomac, commanded by Maj. Gen. Ambrose E. Burnside, is remembered as one of the most one-sided battles of the American Civil War. The Union Army suffered terrible casualties in futile frontal assaults on December 13 against entrenched Confederate defenders on the heights behind the city, bringing to an early end their campaign against the Confederate capital of Richmond."



Also Grant used the "all out attack" option in the 'wilderness' and other campaigns. He had more success with it. In General he would take the field of battle but loose about 3-1, sometimes more. The South would run out of ammunition and have to retreat or surrender. Grants men would sow their names on their clothes before battle so their bodies could be properly sent home. They knew they weren't going to make it and Grant didn't even expect them to. Few were happy to be under Grant's command. In fact, the North began buying Lunatics from Europe and giving them wooden guns to act as bullet catchers. Grant is considered a great general. He was basically an alcoholic who ordered frontal charges and won because he never retreated. It worked I guess until they invented the machine gun by WWI.

Well at the army/corps level thats a bit a difficult to say. You always have a cautious commander somewhere in the command chain. On a regimental/brigade level you have alot more examples - the 20th Maine at Gettysburg for instance, of the 1st Minnesota which suffered even worse casualties holding off an entire Confederate brigade in the same battle. At the level of an entire battle, perhaps Fredericksburg? Or the later battles like Cold Harbor, Petersburg, etc. Unlike the earlier Union generals, Grant would press his attacks, even after suffering a tactical defeat. I'd also look at Stones River(Murfreesboro), had the highest % of casualties for both sides in a "major battle" in the ACW.

BreckInridge wrote:Also Grant ... was basically an alcoholic who ordered frontal charges and won because he never retreated.

Oh, dear. This is arguable, to say the least.

I'm hoping this thread won't degenerate into yet another quarrel about the merits/demerits of different commanders. I'm hoping for an objective, dispassionate survey of the All Out Attack/Hold at All Cost issue in the Real War.

Wilson's Creek: Confederate defense
Pea Ridge: Union defense
Shiloh: Union defense (Prentiss' division)
Malvern Hill: Union defense
Antietam: Confederate defense
Fredericksburg: Union attack (Sumner's corps)
Chickamauga: Union defense (Thomas' corps)
Vicksburg: Confederate defense
Port Hudson: Confederate defense
Gettysburg: Union defense (decision made by Hancock, not Meade)
The Wilderness: Confederate defense (AP Hill's corps)
Spotsylvania: Union attack, Confederate defense
Peachtree Creek: Union defense (Thomas again)
Allatoona: Union defense
Franklin: Confederate attack
Nashville: Union attack
Fort Fisher: Confederate defense

The Battle of Stones River (Murfreesboro): Confederate attack

Stones River had the highest percentage of casualties on both sides.

Honestly...in relation to how those orders actually play out in the game. (i.e. your army basically gets wiped out or routes.) I'd say there are VERY few historical examples.

All out defense:
Gettysburg maybe.

All out attack:
The battle of Franklin comes to mind. Hood's failed gambit to regain Nashville. That was certainly an all out attack.

Malvern Hill maybe.

I considered Stone's River. The only reason I left it out, the attack didn't succeed, and didn't keep on to total destruction. Thinking some more, considering berto's purpose here, I would say yes, include it.

Banks6060 wrote:Honestly...in relation to how those orders actually play out in the game. (i.e. your army basically gets wiped out or routes.) I'd say there are VERY few historical examples.

I think berto's point is to revise the system, so that all-out attack or defense will increase casualties but not always result in wipe out.

BreckInridge wrote:The Battle of Stones River (Murfreesboro): Confederate attack

Stones River had the highest percentage of casualties on both sides.

Okay.

But I'm looking more at intent, not outcomes.

I'm not under the impression that Bragg was especially zealous in ordering the Stones River attack. In fact, Bragg was known for his timidity, vacillation, and indecisiveness.

Interpret my question as you will. It's a complicated question, and I don't want to spin or prejudice your answers.

But again: I'm looking more at commander intent, not necessarily at actual outcomes.

This is a difficult one to answer really:

Gettysburg could be seen as a situation that saw an escalation from a probe to a pitched battle to a combined hold at all costs vs an all out attack - if you like a step through the various levels of battle commitment on the game settings. The mentality of the Union grew to have to hold and Lee towards attacking via Pickett's Charge etc despite all the reasons not to. As far as I see it the game does not really allow for Gettysburg (as an escalating battle over a small part of a 'turn' processing) to be ordered to happen as it did.

It's also hard to put such wordings into the minds of the generals - Grant atacked in the way he did because he knew that was how to win and that for him it was the only way to fight - not consciously to 'all out' attack but to just attack in the best way as he understood it.

For Lee at Gettysburg you could argue he did not see the third day as an all out attack because he thought the enemy would break and had faith in his men to see it through.

Sorry guess that doesn't really help much

berto wrote:In fact, Bragg was known for his timidity, vacillation, and indecisiveness.

Kind of turning that into a merit debate. Bragg had no problem ordering all out assaults. His hammering at the Hornet's Nest could be another example, or just another of his incompetence. He had no business ordering Breckenridge in on the second day at Stone's River, when the battle was already over. (1700 extra casualties)

His other negative characteristics only came into play once his corps commanders had completely messed up his schedule, which they did on a regular basis.

On the other side, Rosecrans had given orders after the first day for no fires that night. When he saw torches moving around to his rear (his own cavalry disobeying orders), he sent out the word "fight or die".

I have to repeat one of my earlier choices. The battle of Franklin in 1864. I think this is a perfect example of all out attack as it is currently applied in the game.

The Wilderness/Spotsylvania Campaign would be another.

This debate is mostly for the good. I'd like to see a growing consensus on what "all out attack" and "hold at all cost" mean in both Real War and game terms. But again, I caution that we not quarrel here (again!) about the pros and cons of particular commanders, or about the wisdom or stupidity of specific command decisions. There are other separate fora for that. I'm hoping that this remains a philosophical discussion about what "all out attack" and "hold at all cost" mean, both in-game and in the Real War.

This is not idle discussion, BTW. In my tests, I'm seeing quite interesting results relating to these issues.

Battle of Mobile Bay: "D*** the torpedoes, full speed ahead" must qualify as an all-out attack. Oh, wait--that was a naval battle. Never mind.

2 cents worth here boys and girls.

Shiloh. I would consider hold at all cost.

Gettysburg. I would say this one is a offensive and what ever the second orange box is. Feel this battle really spun out of control at the first day with neither side really want a fight there.

Sharpsburg would consider this a hold at all cost for the south. Union as assault.

Nashville all out red assault for the south.

Chancellorsville I would consider Union at offensive with a possible retreat after 2d round. South would be assault.

Seven Days. Assault by south. Defensive with a retreat at 2d round.

There were many "All Out Assults" that were executed, but still failed. Poorly lead troops, troops that just ran out of gas and more. I would include:

- the Union assult at First Bull Run.
- the many Union assults at Second Bull Run.
- the Rebel assult at Malvern Hill.
- the Rebel assult at Peachtree Creek - lead by Hood.
- the Union assult at Kennasaw Mountain.
- the Union assult at Missionary Ridge.
- the Rebel assult at Nashville.
- the Union assult at Wilson's Creek.
- Sherman's assult from the Yazoo River towards Vicksburg.
- Lee's counter-punch at Fort Stedman.
- the Battle of The Crater.
- etc.

The same is true for the "Hold at All Costs" defenses:

- the Rebel defense at Petersburg.
- any defense involving Patrick Clebourn (sp?).
- the Union defense at Nashville, which then turned into an All Out Assult.
- the Union defense of Harper's Ferry (more than once).

Holding at all costs doesn't necessarily mean that the defenders die to the man. The INTENT of the defense was to all die if necessary, but not if the position gets totally compromised.

Sgt_of_the_24th_MI wrote:Holding at all costs doesn't necessarily mean that the defenders die to the man. The INTENT of the defense was to all die if necessary, but not if the position gets totally compromised.

The sometime problem with the game engine is that it interprets "hold at all cost" to mean exactly that: *all cost*. So sometimes total to near total annihilation is possible and does in fact happen.

I think hold at all costs represents the battles of Ft Henry and Ft Donelson. They fought till there was no more ammunition nor supplies and could not get out. The battle of Sabine Pass, 25 Gunners stopped a fleet. Assault, the Battle of Ft Wagner, Petersburg, Battle of Selma one of the Last major battles of the war, Battle of Lookout Mountain, Gettys burg, the list grows as one sits and thinks. The question you have to ask is what are your acceptable losses and what is not.

Yes, in game terms, what does "Hold at All Cost" really mean? Maybe the strongest defensive posture--the red tab--needs to be called something else (and the game innards recalibrated accordingly).