Scourge of War Boards

While I agree that a Fredericksburg game would be cool, I agree with the above that the general public would more widely recognize Antietam. Besides, what tactical opportunities does Fredericksburg offer Union players? It wasn't much of a battle on the grand strategy stage. More of just a massive turkey shoot.

the only thing that would come to my mind is the attempt to flank Jackson in the south...this might be the only interesting move at Fredericksburg - unless someone wants to see a huge frontal assault over impossible terrain of course :laugh: ...but we should see something familiar in the upcoming game anyway :woohoo:

as to Antietam....a very well known battle...but isn't it rather unfair for the Confederates when it comes to numbers of men involved?...as far as I remember, the Union troops had a huge numerical advantage - however it's been a while since I looked at the stats of this battle - so please correct me if I'm wrong :laugh:

I would strongly support a campaign type of direction, I mean individual battles are nice, but a campaign would teach, and \ or encourage the player to act with more intelligence.

Now, I understand that this may not work well with the multiplayer crowd, unless there was some type of a way of saving the games; but for the single players, this would be welcome news!

Back-on-topic :
I'm not really into the volley fire command structure; I don’t see how it could have been possible, with all of the noise from the battlefield, but I would like the units to take a few moments and aim their weapons, instead of raising the musket and firing without a pause.

davinci

Davinci wrote:

Back-on-topic :
I'm not really into the volley fire command structure; I don’t see how it could have been possible, with all of the noise from the battlefield, but I would like the units to take a few moments and aim their weapons, instead of raising the musket and firing without a pause.

davinci

this is why I mentioned ealier that usually only the first shot fired was a volley ordered by the commanding officer...if the situation even required the first shot to be fired AS a volley...otherwise the regiments just tried to keep up a steady fire...
even in Napoleonic times...within all the smoke and chaos only the best units were able to continue firing in organized volleys until ordered to proceed otherwise...(usually only Elite, highly trained, or Guard units - but that's obvious anyway :laugh: )

I've always thought the Seven Days would be a good halfway step between a single battle and a campaign.

DrMike1997 wrote:

I've always thought the Seven Days would be a good halfway step between a single battle and a campaign.

For a campaign game, when you're ready to do battle do you only fight on a generic map? For example, if you do battle around Frederick MD would the town and correct terrain be available. Seems impossible to produce a campaign map of several states with accurate terrain and towns for the whole area like SOWGB does for a few square miles.

Amish John wrote:

DrMike1997 wrote:

I've always thought the Seven Days would be a good halfway step between a single battle and a campaign.

For a campaign game, when you're ready to do battle do you only fight on a generic map? For example, if you do battle around Frederick MD would the town and correct terrain be available. Seems impossible to produce a campaign map of several states with accurate terrain and towns for the whole area like SOWGB does for a few square miles.

I totally agree...I think a battle for several days would be entirely sufficient...just as it is now...If I remember correctly in TC2M there were several maps available...around 5 or 6? don't remember the exact number...how many will there be in SOW?...I never got tired of TC2M anyway :woohoo:

The numbers weren't equal at Chancellorsville either.

Well a campaign game can be a series of maps that combines generic battlefields with the authentic battlefields.

The southern army would try to push the union army back towards Washington, while the union army would try to take Virginia.

So, it could start somewhere in the center of both of them with the prevailing army moving closer to their objective.

Reinforcements would arrive at intervals, so any untimely all out attack would have dire consequences if someone decided to risk an all or nothing assault.

I’m not that into the actual facts surrounding the civil war, but isn’t there about one hundred miles between Washington, and Virginia, so there has to be a lot of land that was never fought on.

So, the battles could be linked together that has a mixture of generic maps and the actual battlefields depending on the winning army moving forward, or the losing army moving backwards.

I’m not telling you anything that you don’t already know, but a battle is sort of like checkers, where-as a campaign would be like chess!

What good does it do to win a battle, by sacrificing your whole army, when that action prevents you from winning the war!

This is a remarkable game, but reading some of these after-action-reports with loses of fifty thousand men on one side is not the proper way of conducting a battle, campaigns would teach players to be a lot better with this task!

Also, the game could be adjustable to add in \ link other maps that became available later!

davinci

Armchair General wrote:

While I agree that a Fredericksburg game would be cool, I agree with the above that the general public would more widely recognize Antietam. Besides, what tactical opportunities does Fredericksburg offer Union players? It wasn't much of a battle on the grand strategy stage. More of just a massive turkey shoot.

I agree with that -- though the Union might get points for seeing how much of that damned hill it could cover with bodies.

Steve