AGEOD Forums

I had gen Beauragard (Sp?) leading the Army of the Shanendoah. He was placed outside of Winchester with 3 full divisions. By the time McDowell attacked out of Harper's ferry, Old Bory was dug into level 5 fortifications. I had him set on defend and then "normal defense". I didn't want "defend at all costs" because I didnt want to lose an army over Wincester.

Anyway, McDowell attacks and is thrown back with 12,500 losses to his 60,000 man force. I have 25,000 (roughly) and suffered only 3700 casualties.

Only one of my divisions was really beat up so I replaced it with a division out of a nearby area and removed the old one. Next two-week period, McDowell attacks again and is thrown back with 3000 losses to my 600.

I am now in full supply with little cohesion loss as I have numerous replacements and am in a large enough town to get them.

Finally, next turn, I make sure Bory is still set to defend...he is. McDowell comes again and Bory inflicts 2500 casualties to 600, but this time, Bory retreats south and takes his entrenched army with him.

Why would a general retreat with full supply, about 85-90% cohesion and level 5 entrenchments? No way McDowell could have pushed me out..could he?

Why not? 60,000 men is alot of troops. Even McDowell can get lucky with the die rolls :P

Much stranger things happened on the real ACW war
Of course, the real reason for this is that you had bad luck on a series of "die rolls" in this last battle. But i think this kind of "shit happens" situations greatly simulate the real war situations and add variety to teh gameplay.
Shit and stupid moves and crazy ideas and suicidal attacks and incredible lucky results happened on the real ACW on regular basis.
That this can happen also on AACW is good IMHO.
Regards

Oh! I'm not complaining at all. I was just curious as to what had happened. The luck explains it though. Mcdowell is advancing too fast anyway as I withdraw in front. I have a division hidden in the mountains behind him just waiting to "cut the cord"

Tactical decision on Beauregard's part. Not all attacks are the same, so not all defenses will be the same. Perhaps McDowell flanked his entrenchment and he needed to skedaddle out of there or get crushed.

arsan wrote:Shit and stupid moves and crazy ideas and suicidal attacks and incredible lucky results happened on the real ACW on regular basis.

Much more often than the opposite in fact.

Colonel Dreux wrote:Tactical decision on Beauregard's part. Not all attacks are the same, so not all defenses will be the same. Perhaps McDowell flanked his entrenchment and he needed to skedaddle out of there or get crushed.

MCDOWELL flanked his entrenchments!! hahahahahah ....oh...*cough* *cough*...you were serious.

Its likely that Bory didnt think he could hold against another attack. I'm factoring in the almost 20,000 casualties I inflicted but forgetting that McDowell is in supply and could have simply replaced his losses. Great thing about the game is that if I had wanted him to stay, I could have set him to "hold at all costs"....that aint gonna happen in July 1862 in Wincester VA let me tell ya.

mjw wrote:MCDOWELL flanked his entrenchments!! hahahahahah ....oh...*cough* *cough*...you were serious.

Hey! that's precisely what he planned at 1º Manassas! And he managed to put his army on Bory's flank
Of course then things didn't developed as they should but...

Not sure how much of anything was actually planned at 1st manassas. Really a cluster f*

Just like a battle should be!
Embrace the "friction"...isn't that what Clauswitz says?

mjw wrote:Not sure how much of anything was actually planned at 1st manassas. Really a cluster f*

There was a plan alright. It just went awry, as most plans do, especially with green generals and green troops.

Embrace the "friction"...isn't that what Claus[e]witz says?

Hm. He does say that friction is what makes apparently easy things difficult; that it's the difference being paper war and real war; that being aware of its existence is what constitutes the celebrated experience of war found in good generals. But he also says "ein mächtiger eiserner Wille überwindet diese Friktion", a powerful iron will overcomes the friction. (That's first book, seventh chapter. Translations from the German are my own; I don't have the Paret edition at home.)

McDowall flanking - ahem!!!!!

This looks like a flanking attack to me...



It didn't work, that's for sure... but at least he tried to... Lets give credit for this to poor McDowell!

And he would have gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for those meddling --er, generals, "Shanks" Evans and Cocke.
BTW, how's this for weird generals? 13 McCooks served in the war; there was a Union general named Paul St. George Cooke and a Confederate named Paul St. George Cocke; there were 2 Union Thomas Crittendens: Thomas Leonidas and Thomas Turpin; similarly, there were 2 Henry Sibleys: Henry Hastings Sibley for the Union and Henry Hopkins Sibley for the CSA.

I guess what I was trying to say was that any flanking that occured at 1st manassas was purely a local affair and not the results of a high command decision.(I think). No fault of mcdowell as I doubt any general could have maintained control of a 60,000 man mob with little help from inexperienced officers.

Anyway thx for the replies, I'm more comfortable with virtual-bory's decision.

...And I thought it was clauswitz that encouraged generals to avoid trying to eliminate friction...but to learn how to operate in it and use it. I don't know, maybe a discussion for another forum.

Thanks guys.

mjw wrote:MCDOWELL flanked his entrenchments!! hahahahahah ....oh...*cough* *cough*...you were serious.

Its likely that Bory didnt think he could hold against another attack. I'm factoring in the almost 20,000 casualties I inflicted but forgetting that McDowell is in supply and could have simply replaced his losses. Great thing about the game is that if I had wanted him to stay, I could have set him to "hold at all costs"....that aint gonna happen in July 1862 in Wincester VA let me tell ya.

He outflanked the Little Creole in the real deal (see map above), so I imagine he could can do it in AACW. Old Bory got lucky the first time. A well trained Union army would have smashed him to pieces if they would have been on the battlefield. They weren't though. We'd all think McDowell was something else now, if it had been.

First Manassas was a mess of a battle but McDowell got his tactics right, and totally fooled Beauregard. The problem was Mcdowell led from the battlefield and failed to spread his flanking forces out farther and instead hit the Confederates on Henry Hill with single brigades instead of a whole division all at once. So the truth is, McDowell was not that bad of general, but because his army was untrained and he did make some mistakes, Bull Run turned into a route when it just about was a great victory.

To Beauregard's credit, he chose to defend against the attack on his left flank and called off his planned offensive. He and Johnston also did a really good job of regrouping the defense on Henry Hill, moving troops into the line, and leading from the front at times.

mjw wrote:I guess what I was trying to say was that any flanking that occured at 1st manassas was purely a local affair and not the results of a high command decision.(I think). No fault of mcdowell as I doubt any general could have maintained control of a 60,000 man mob with little help from inexperienced officers.

Anyway thx for the replies, I'm more comfortable with virtual-bory's decision.

...And I thought it was clauswitz that encouraged generals to avoid trying to eliminate friction...but to learn how to operate in it and use it. I don't know, maybe a discussion for another forum.

Thanks guys.

Actually McDowell's plan was to flank Beauregard's left and he did it, it just didn't work out in the end once Beauregard and Johnston re-stabilized their line on Henry House Hill and Chinn Ridge.

So the friction of the battle which had been intelligently designed by McDowell ended up being better used by Beauregard and Johnston... it might be said.

enf91 wrote:And he would have gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for those meddling --er, generals, "Shanks" Evans and Cocke.
BTW, how's this for weird generals? 13 McCooks served in the war; there was a Union general named Paul St. George Cooke and a Confederate named Paul St. George Cocke; there were 2 Union Thomas Crittendens: Thomas Leonidas and Thomas Turpin; similarly, there were 2 Henry Sibleys: Henry Hastings Sibley for the Union and Henry Hopkins Sibley for the CSA.

There was also a Union general named Jefferson Davis, but since he's in the game, most everyone here probably knows that already.

KevinStorm wrote:There was also a Union general named Jefferson Davis, but since he's in the game, most everyone here probably knows that already.

And he murdered another Union general outright and in public view, and nothing came of it. That man must have put the fear of God in his subordinates and soldiers. He looked mean as anything too.

deleted

Gray_Lensman wrote:Wrong.

Try reading some real Civil War history books instead of Civil War condensed short story books. McDowell planned the flanking movement prior to the Union army moving out of Centreville on the 21st of July 1861. Since he was the commander of the army I think that pretty much qualifies as a High Command decision. He didn't really want to attack with such an inexperienced army but at least he had a plan that he hoped would give the "green" army a chance to win the battle. His bad luck was Patterson's failure to distract Johnston and keep Johnston's army facing Patterson in the Shenandoah area. Had that occured 'Bory would have been pretty much whipped.

Go gentle Gray, go gentle.

Gray_Lensman wrote:Wrong.

Try reading some real Civil War history books instead of Civil War condensed short story books. McDowell planned the flanking movement prior to the Union army moving out of Centreville on the 21st of July 1861. Since he was the commander of the army I think that pretty much qualifies as a High Command decision. He didn't really want to attack with such an inexperienced army but at least he had a plan that he hoped would give the "green" army a chance to win the battle. His bad luck was Patterson's failure to distract Johnston and keep Johnston's army facing Patterson in the Shenandoah area. Had that occured 'Bory would have been pretty much whipped.

I believe I've also read that both Beauregard and McDowell planned flanking attacks to turn each other's right flank, but, shockingly enough, McDowell starting his attack first.

deleted

Gray_Lensman wrote:Yes... If they had gone off simultaneously they would have wheeled around each other. By the way, this happened several times in the war

Battle of Murfreesboro comes to mind.


But yes, McDowell's plan at Manassas is generally regarded as having been "solid" if not somewhat uninspired. The problem was coordination between the disparate parts, a problem which would remain to varying degrees in the Army of the Potomac until Grant.

Gray_Lensman wrote:Wrong.

Try reading some real Civil War history books instead of Civil War condensed short story books. McDowell planned the flanking movement prior to the Union army moving out of Centreville on the 21st of July 1861. Since he was the commander of the army I think that pretty much qualifies as a High Command decision. He didn't really want to attack with such an inexperienced army but at least he had a plan that he hoped would give the "green" army a chance to win the battle. His bad luck was Patterson's failure to distract Johnston and keep Johnston's army facing Patterson in the Shenandoah area. Had that occured 'Bory would have been pretty much whipped.

Look, I'm not trying to get into a pissing match with anyone, I am just giving you my OPINION. It is my OPINION bsed on what I have read which includes Foote's narrative, Catton's series as well as numerous other books and artices throughout my life. I don't claim to be an expert. It is simply my opinion that any movements that occured on the battlefield were the results of the decisions of the regimental and brigade commanders and the flow of battle...not any orders from up top. This is based on the fact that couriers went to the wrong regiments, regiments fired on friendly regiments, poor training, amatuer "civilian" volunteer generals who had no military education etc. based on what I have read, basically, I think McDowell got lucky that his forces ended up on the flank...coincindence if you will. Lots of generals "planned" to hit the flank because they all read "Jomini's" works on Napoleonice maneuver, mcDowells occured not because he ordered it, but because the currents of the battlefield encouraged it. I'm probably wrong, i don't know, just dont see alot of evidence of battlefeld command and control in this fight.

**edit** ok, I know when I'm licked. Brother -in-law just gave me an except discussing the orders for battle. Looks like it unfolded as planned so I will raise the white flag. Had never actually read the details of the orders.

Having said that Gray, you have always been helpful answering questions so I am not sure why you saw fit to insult me simply because my opinion was different from yours. Right or wrong

Thanks for the input on my other issues everyone.

mjw wrote:I am just giving you my OPINION.

It is my OPINION

I am not sure why you saw fit to insult me simply because my opinion was different from yours.

This issue was that it was not a matter of opinion, but of verifiable historical fact. You were wrong. You didn't have a "different opinion", you were simply wrong. Evading that point is what's made this consistently worse. Put in game terms, you set yourself to all-out defense when you should have simply retreated the first couple of rounds.

Maybe that's why you feel "insulted" when he really didn't say anything that bad. You got routed and it stings. But you only have yourself to blame for that.

*deletes big long post he just wrote for the last 15 minutes*

Your right, i was wrong. no doubt. Whether it was an insult or not (likely not) its accurate in so far as I am not as well read as many other here...it certainly didn't "sting" as that would require some degree of over confidence in the subject of the argument. I am not as knowledgeable about the civil war as a lot of others but simply want to take part in the discussions, and be wrong, without being told to pound sand.

No harm/no foul and i was wrong on the facts....thanks for the answers though on the mechanics. I can't say I have it figured out but at least I know when this type of retreat might happen

deleted

Gray_Lensman wrote:mjw:

It was no pissing match and no insult. It was a response to your apparently wrong conception of what occured at Bull Run. Something that you kept repeating thru more than one post. If you took exception to the short story comment, then it might help you to understand that I myself have read short story condensed Civil War history books that really did not give the details so much of Bull Run and left the reader with the opinion that is was an armed mob out for a frolic with no real design or purpose other than to "go over there and whip the rebels". I quite quickly moved on to more reliable history sources.

Well, the only one I have finished altogether was foote's narrative. Not condensed but not particularly focused either. But yeah, thats the impression that I had of the battle....which apparently, is wrong.

deleted

Gray_Lensman wrote:Actually Foote's narrative is better detailed than most.

Vol. I "Fort Sumter to Perryville", pages 73 to 84 gives a damned good description of events as they unfolded at Bull Run.

Its been about 2 years.(since I finished vol 1)..I'll take a look. truth be told, I don't particularly find 1st manassas very interesting so I probably wasnt paying much attention.