Game Balance & Historical Accuracy

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: Steely Glint

ORIGINAL: chris0827
You overstate the south's advantage in leadership. Only in Virginia did the south have a significant edge in quality leaders. In the west the Union generals were at least the equal of their southern opponents.

Nonsense. Until Grant (and Sherman) showed up in the West the Union forces there were run by the usual collection of clowns. The only Union victories gathered there were the results of brute force and massive ignorance. Which is not to say that there weren't some clowns in gray, too...but they were the exceptions and not the rule.

And no Union general in the West (or anywhere else) could hold a candle to Nathan Bedford Forrest. Bryce's Crossroads will still be being taught in military academies when they are training officers for the Space Marines.

Grant was there from the beginning and Sherman came back from a nervous breakdown in feb, 1862.

[Steely Glint]

ORIGINAL: chris0827
Grant was there from the beginning and Sherman came back from a nervous breakdown in feb, 1862.

I am fully aware of the histories of both Grant and Sherman (in fact one of the biographies of Sherman is one of my favorite Civil War bios), but being present is not the same as being significant.

[Steely Glint]

ORIGINAL: jchastain
Second only to Captain Garth's achievements at Axanar. If I am not mistaken, I believe those lessons come immediate before the Kobayashi Maru scenario in the curriculum. [;)]

Yes, but while Garth wound up institutionalized on Elba II, Forrest went on to be the president of a railroad.

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: Steely Glint

ORIGINAL: chris0827
Grant was there from the beginning and Sherman came back from a nervous breakdown in feb, 1862.

I am fully aware of the histories of both Grant and Sherman (in fact one of the biographies of Sherman is one of my favorite Civil War bios), but being present is not the same as being significant.

How are Grant's victories insignificant?

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Steely Glint
I am fully aware of the histories of both Grant and Sherman (in fact one of the biographies of Sherman is one of my favorite Civil War bios), but being present is not the same as being significant.

Henry/Donaldson, Shiloh, Vicksburg and Chattanooga are hardly insignificant..., way over 50,000 Confederate Casualties (Killed, Wounded, and Captured).

[Steely Glint]

ORIGINAL: chris0827
How are Grant's victories insignificant?

What I wrote was "Until Grant (and Sherman) showed up in the West the Union forces there were run by the usual collection of clowns" by which I did not mean them not just being physically present there but being in major command. Sheesh. Yes, I know their records and backgounds and the politics of Grant's rise.

None of that has anything to do with the point, which was that the utterly overwhelming majority of Union leaders in the West before the rise of Grant and Sherman were clowns.

[Steely Glint]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
Henry/Donaldson, Shiloh, Vicksburg and Chattanooga are hardly insignificant..., way over 50,000 Confederate Casualties (Killed, Wounded, and Captured).

Straw man argument. See above.

[Mike Scholl]

"What I wrote was "Until Grant (and Sherman) showed up in the West the Union forces there were run by the usual collection of clowns" by which I did not mean them not just being physically present there but being in major command. Sheesh. Yes, I know their records and backgounds and the politics of Grant's rise."

ORIGINAL: Steely Glint

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
Henry/Donaldson, Shiloh, Vicksburg and Chattanooga are hardly insignificant..., way over 50,000 Confederate Casualties (Killed, Wounded, and Captured).

Straw man argument. See above.

Baloney! Just what "usual collection of clowns" were fighting in the West? First significant battles were Wilson's Creek and Ft. Donaldson in early 1862. And gee.., look who was in command at the larger one? Grant was there from the start at Belmont. And if Lyon hadn't gotten himself killed they would have had another solid commander available. The Army of the Ohio suffered with some slow-moving leaders..., though they managed to defeat Bragg more often than not, so they weren't that bad. Halleck and Pope werre not much good in the field, but both were gone by the Summer of 1862. The reason the Union was winning the War in the West was because they weren't saddled with a collection of clowns (Banks efforts are a noticable exception---but the South had Pemberton and Bragg to balance him out).

[Warfare1]

ORIGINAL: Steely Glint

My ancestor? I'll PM you a clue, but he is no one to be particularly proud of.

The Union had a bigger and better economy, better armaments, better logistics, more troops, and a far better railroad system. Despite this they could not manage to win the war until 1865, and the war could very well have ended in a draw. How could this have happened?

Leadership.

The South's leadership advantage over the North was immense. Whether it was Lee et al at the army level (leaving the abominable Braxton Bragg out of this), Jackson et al at the corps level, Mahone et al at the division level, or Forrest et al with the cavalry, the superb leadership of the South consistently enabled outnumbered, outarmed, and outsupplied men to not only hold their own against vastly superior forces time after time, but to defeat them over and over again. Until the advent of Grant, whose strengths lay in his refusal to quit and his willingness both to take risks and to engage in a war of attrition on a shocking scale, the Union never had a prayer.

I was wondering when someone would bring this issue up.

I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head with this post.

Lincoln was at his wits end trying to get his commanders to fight - and to win those fights - with the south. He replaced general after general.

Leadership, morale, and aggressiveness are the issues here.

[mlees]

Steely Glint, are you seeing your games end too fast, with a Union victory?

[Paper Tiger]

I think from what is being said it is an initiative issue, the early Union commanders just didn't move. Perhaps the game needs an initiative check for movement where the commander needs to pass the check to allow the move. So a Maclellan who would have a low initiative rating would mostly fail his check and just sit and wait, he may fight a reasonable defensive battle and may train his men well but he won't often make an aggressive move. That way until the Union gets some decent commanders his armies will effectively defend in place or move by Rail only.

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: Paper Tiger

I think from what is being said it is an initiative issue, the early Union commanders just didn't move. Perhaps the game needs an initiative check for movement where the commander needs to pass the check to allow the move. So a Maclellan who would have a low initiative rating would mostly fail his check and just sit and wait, he may fight a reasonable defensive battle and may train his men well but he won't often make an aggressive move. That way until the Union gets some decent commanders his armies will effectively defend in place or move by Rail only.

See page 101 of the manual. There already is an optional inititive check that can be used for movement.

[histgamer]

Just a note Lincoln in many cases was as much of a handicap on his generals as they were upon themselves.

The Union had several Great corps Commanders in the east, (well at least Hancock and Reynolds, Couch wasn’t bad either and Sykes was pretty good as well)(Hooker wasn’t that bad either he just suffered from the Lee mentality and scared himself to much so to attack and thus gave Lee the Initiative. )

The problem was the president was a handicap as well, I am sure many of you know Reynolds (probably the best union general that start out east with Hancock being a closer runner up) refused command of the army because Lincoln wouldn’t let him fight the war the way he saw fit. It wasn’t until Grant arrived that Lincoln finally realized he couldn’t micromanage the war and he would have to let his generals fight it.

McClellan was no great general either way but he did get worse as he became more paranoid and he became more paranoid as it became clear Lincoln would tell him one thing in person then go back to Washington and do something else (at least that’s how it looked from MACs perspective)

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: Steely Glint

ORIGINAL: chris0827
How are Grant's victories insignificant?

What I wrote was "Until Grant (and Sherman) showed up in the West the Union forces there were run by the usual collection of clowns" by which I did not mean them not just being physically present there but being in major command. Sheesh. Yes, I know their records and backgounds and the politics of Grant's rise.

None of that has anything to do with the point, which was that the utterly overwhelming majority of Union leaders in the West before the rise of Grant and Sherman were clowns.

You don't get it. The rise of Grant was early in the war. He was an army commander in early 1862. If the commanders before him were such idiots how did they drive the confederates out of Missouri and Kentucky?

[histgamer]

Chris he does get it, Grant was an army commander true but Hallack basiclly refused to allow to much success especially after Shiloh. Grant was an army commander but not at the top of command.

[histgamer]

Just a note Grant was no lee either. (and im a northerner at heart)

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

Chris he does get it, Grant was an army commander true but Hallack basiclly refused to allow to much success especially after Shiloh. Grant was an army commander but not at the top of command.

Halleck took personal command of the western armies after shiloh but got kicked upstairs to commander in chief of the union armies in july 1862. After that Grant was basically on his own.

I'm still waiting to hear how the union clowns kicked the confederates out of Kentucky and Missouri. Also I'd like to hear why the confederates only won one major battle in the west during the entire war and they needed reinforcements from virginia to win that one. I guess those union clowns were really lucky.

[histgamer]

The Union was not victorious at Perryville. The south withdrew because Bragg was a moron (none of his commanders liked the move)   P.S. The Union was on the whole massively outclassed by the rebels, there were some exceptions, Reynolds and Hancock in the east, Grant and Sherman in the west, oh yea don’t forget Thomas but he didn’t rise to prominence till later in the war.   That said on the whole the CSA generals were much better, Cleburne was better than anything the north was able to bring to bear, Forrest was the greatest cavalry commander of the war.   The South lost in the west because of several things 1 the north had every advantage outside of generals so if your at least competent you should be able to win. 2 the southern army commanders out west were not very good either.   An OK general with 30,000 men should beat and will beat almost every time an OK to slightly above Ok general with 20,000 men.

[chris0827]

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

The Union was not victorious at Perryville. The south withdrew because Bragg was a moron (none of his commanders liked the move)   P.S. The Union was on the whole massively outclassed by the rebels, there were some exceptions, Reynolds and Hancock in the east, Grant and Sherman in the west, oh yea don’t forget Thomas but he didn’t rise to prominence till later in the war.   That said on the whole the CSA generals were much better, Cleburne was better than anything the north was able to bring to bear, Forrest was the greatest cavalry commander of the war.   The South lost in the west because of several things 1 the north had every advantage outside of generals so if your at least competent you should be able to win. 2 the southern army commanders out west were not very good either.   An OK general with 30,000 men should beat and will beat almost every time an OK to slightly above Ok general with 20,000 men.

I never said the union won at Perryville but the south did retreat after the battle. I would call it a draw. The union outnumbered the south by even more in the east yet lost most battles. I guess those western union generals must've done something right. I'll repeat my earlier statement. Only in the east did the confederates have a significant advantage in leadership. In the west the union leaders were at least the equal of the southern ones. For exery bad union leader in the west you can name I can name a bad confederate one.

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

One can hardly deny that historic realities were thrown out the window for play balance here. All one has to do is compare the economies, the starting navies, the HUGE disaster that disease is on any army in an enemy province, the limits placed on raising troops ( for both sides)

This is incorrect: disease is no more likely to strike an army in enemy territory than friendly territory. The only difference would be that in enemy territory an army can't get the benefits of any of its hospitals and therefore will suffer worse from disease, but that's no different from being in a friendly province that lacks hospitals.

Maybe you got this impression by a few especially bad outbreaks when your armies were in enemy territory, but there's nothing in the code that would make this happen.