So What was the final word on MARCH Column use in MPLAY ??

[Garnier]

We don't need to be like this. This MP community is small and oughtn't be divided. Doesn't mean we can't disagree, but we must not attack each other when we're away from the field. I think we all want the same thing: for people to use tactics we think are historical, and for these tactics to work best. That goal will take time, but we don't need to beat each other up along the way.

Everyone has a different idea of how the game ought to be played, but unless it was agreed on before the battle that certain clearly defined actions are not allowed, there should never be any accusation. If people lacking tactical competence win consistently without breaking rules, there's a problem with the game that won't last forever. Patience.

In my humble experience, the most long-lasting and most friendly game communities have been those that, aside from clearly defined rules, let people play how they want and do not foster personal accusations. If the game is no fun when people play to how they want, the game has problems, but such problems can be fixed with time, so have hope.

As Don Quixote says, "In spite of all, I beseech you to keep up your courage, for experience will prove to you how great mine is." That didn't make too much sense, but if it made someone chuckle it was worth it. :silly:

Another pearl of wisdom: "If you can't beat them, join them." The best way to prove to someone that the tactic they use is overpowered, is to use it on them, and let them learn it first hand. Actions speak louder than words as they say. We are all too proud and stubborn to let someone convince us that their point of view is superior to ours. We have to learn for ourselves.

[Willard]

http://johnsmilitaryhistory.com/cwarmy.html

Despite all this, many historians still believe that artillery wasn't important during the war. Casualties caused by artillery fire were negligible - or so they say. A frequently cited example is the Wilderness, where artillery was said to account for only about 6% of all casualties. Paddy Griffith points out that many casualties attributed to small arms fire may in fact have been caused by artillery, specifically by the small round balls in Shrapnel rounds. Griffith suggests that the percentage of casualties caused by artillery in this battle were probably in proportion to the percentage of artillerymen in the armies. Because of the terrain, this battle, and this result, represent an extreme case. Lee knew that he was deficient in artillery, and he fought in the Wilderness in order to negate the Union advantage. The relative ineffectiveness of artillery in this battle is clearly an aberration. Chancellorsville was also fought in the Wilderness. In this battle, perhaps only the Confederate guns at Hazel Grove allowed Lee to capture Fairview Heights and defeat the Union army. Look at Spotsylvania a year later, also fought in the Wilderness. The massive Union attack on the Mule Shoe broke through because Lee had withdrawn his artillery the night before. Several days later, a Union attack on the base of the salient failed quickly and decisively due to Confederate artillery fire. And we must remember that most ground was NOT as unfavorable as the Wilderness. Take a look at Malvern Hill, Antietam, Fredericksburg, and Gettysburg and the importance of artillery is obvious. Clearly artillery was important or army commanders wouldn't have eagerly added to their stocks of guns up until the last year of the war. In fact, Paddy Griffith suggests that in some battles, artillery accounted for 20 to 50% of casualties. Those who over-estimate the advantages of the rifled musket say that it threatened to make the artilleryman obsolete, but perhaps the opposite was more true. Although many historians do not stress this point, or even acknowledge it, advances in the artillery arm had made Napoleonic combined arms tactics difficult to impossible.

[Willard]

http://www.civilwarhome.com/tacticscivilwar.htm

The "column" referred to in this quote is not the column we have in game. The column formation in the game is a road formation column not a Napoleonic era attack column similar to what is described below...

Tactics is the military art of maneuvering troops on the field of battle to achieve victory in combat. 'Offensive tactics" seek success through attacking; "defensive tactics" aim at defeating enemy attacks.

In Civil War tactics, the principal combat arm was infantry. Its most common deployment was a long "line of battle," 2 ranks deep. More massed was the "column," varying from 1 to 10 or more companies wide and from 8 to 20 or more ranks deep. Less compact than column or line was "open-order" deployment: a strung-out, irregular single line.

Battle lines delivered the most firepower defensively and offensively. Offensive firepower alone would not ensure success. Attackers had to charge, and massed columns, with their greater depth, were often preferable to battle lines for making frontal assaults. Better yet were flank attacks, to "roll up" thin battle lines lengthwise. Offensive tacticians sought opportunity for such effective flank attacks; defensive tacticians countered by "refusing" these flanks on impassable barriers. In either posture, tacticians attempted to coordinate all their troops to deliver maximum force and firepower and to avoid being beaten "in detail" (piecemeal). Throughout, they relied on open-order deployment to cover their front and flanks with skirmishers, who developed the enemy position and screened their own troops.

Open order, moreover, was best suited for moving through the wooded countryside of America. That wooded terrain, so different from Europe's open fields, for which tactical doctrine was aimed, also affected tactical control. Army commanders, even corps commanders, could not control large, far-flung forces. Instead, army commanders concentrated on strategy. And corps commanders handled "grand tactics": the medium for translating theater strategy into battlefield tactics, the art of maneuvering large forces just outside the battlefield and bringing them onto that field. Once on the field, corps commanders provided overall tactical direction, but their largest practical units of tactical maneuver were divisions. More often, brigades, even regiments, formed those maneuver elements. Essentially, brigades did the fighting in the Civil War.

Besides affecting organization, difficult terrain helped relegate cavalry and artillery to lesser tactical roles. More influential there was the widespread use of long-range rifled shoulder arms. As recently as the Mexican War, when most infantry fired smoothbore muskets, cavalry and artillery had been key attacking arms. Attempting to continue such tactics in the Civil War proved disastrous, as infantry rifle power soon drove horsemen virtually off the battlefield and relegated artillery to defensive support. Rifle power devastated offensive infantry assaults, too, but senior commanders, who were so quick to understand its. impact on cannon and cavalry, rarely grasped its effect on infantry. By 1864, infantry customarily did erect light field fortifications to strengthen its defensive battlefield positions and protect itself from enemy rifle power; but when attacking, whether against battle lines or fortifications, infantry continued suffering heavy casualties through clinging to tactical formations outmoded by technology.

But if infantry was slow to learn, other arms swiftly found new tactical roles. The new mission of the artillery was to bolster the defensive, sometimes with 1 battery assigned to each infantry brigade, but more often with I battalion assigned to a Confederate infantry division and 1 brigade to a Federal infantry corps. With long-range shells and close-in canister, artillery became crucial in repulsing enemy attacks. But long-range shelling to support ones own attack had minimal effect, and artillery assaults were soon abandoned as suicidal. Throughout, artillery depended almost entirely on direct fire against visible targets.

[NY Cavalry]

I've been playing MP games now for at least 2.5 or 3 months. Every game has been a good game. Some I've lost some I've won. I think this is a great game. Even if I lose I enjoy the game. I am sure the MP community will continue to grow putting a few marriages at risk.
Playing the game is a little like chess. All different pieces all in different positions. To become good, players need to develop skill. It is not just a shoot them up game. There is a lot more to this game.
Last week Seal we all played in a game where your side was victorious. You should ask yourself why? The artillery was run by Willard and he did a good job, but we still lost. There is more to this game than just artillery.
I like the historical aspect of this game. Sid Miers Gettysburg a lot of people like. It was a very popular game. I never liked it. I played it very little, that was my preference. This game is a challenge anyway you look at it.
In the civil war the confederates were often frustrated by the Union artillery. They could not match it. The game reflects this. The union artillery arm is like an equalizer. Without its strong presence the union would have no chance. Games would become the rebs always over running the Union. The damage inflicted by the artillery is all fine with me. I hope there are no changes to this.
See you in the lobby Seal.

NY Cavalry

[X Navy Seal]

Harmon:

Appreciate your comments. Will not be in lobby for few days as I have some serious cramming/studying to do.


Willard:

You need to stop seeing the world in black n white terms and need to learn to admit when you are wrong.

Best,

XNS

[Willard]

X Navy Seal wrote:

Harmon:

Appreciate your comments. Will not be in lobby for few days as I have some serious cramming/studying to do.


Willard:

You need to stop seeing the world in black n white terms and need to learn to admit when you are wrong.

Best,

XNS

Harmon and I are saying the same thing. You appreciate his comments but I need to "admit when I am wrong." Sorry dude, you are out of line and you know it. Save your "best" for the virtual battlefield. You need it.

[JMayer]

Willard if you think you are all that and a bag of chips with cannons why not join us on SoA league. When you play from start without Level 5 experiance you might not be such a Braggard on the forums . Come join us we could use your talants.

I think you all are making a big deal of the line charging and just let it work itself out when the patch comes out. Cannons will not be so mighty then either I believe.

JMayer

[Willard]

JMayer wrote:

Willard if you think you are all that and a bag of chips with cannons why not join us on SoA league. When you play from start without Level 5 experiance you might not be such a Braggard on the forums . Come join us we could use your talants.

I think you all are making a big deal of the line charging and just let it work itself out when the patch comes out. Cannons will not be so mighty then either I believe.

JMayer

JMayer AKA JJ Gordon:

#1 - I am in your league, I am AKA Capt.Willard
#2 - No one is complaining about line charging, the issue is gamey column and skirmish charging.

Regards,

Willard AKA CaptWillard

[AP514]

Also the Gamey use of RETREAT button on ARTY..a line or attack col (the formations I use to hit arty) can be right on top of an arty Battery and will stop dead in their tracks as soon as the retreat button is hit.This lets the arty fire cannister right up until they are to be over run and then lets them retreat away almost scot free. This also needs to be TWEEKED.

AP514


P.S. I just got to the MPLAY section of the forum and I see my last post is mute point.
Thanks Norb

[Michael Slaunwhite]

Hi.

I agree with Garnier.

Make your rules before hand. If there are no rules set up before the game starts, then all is fair in love, and war.

To tell you the truth, having these league's are great, but all too often I have seen it all go wrong, and ending with bad results.

I for one won't be playing multi-player if I ever get highspeed. I would be too intimidated, and I wouldn't find any enjoyment in playing the game because I'd be more worried if I'm doing something that my commanding officer would later on in public curse me over.

I use to play multiplayer years ago, and it always got out of hand with those people who think that they should be in total control on how the game should be played.

It's a game, it's meant for you to enjoy, not to make you shut down your computer in disgust, or even in some cases make you wish you ever bought the game. In some sever cases I have seen people actually turn away from gaming all together because of the way some people have mercilessly hammered on other players.

I'm not saying that the people who are playing this game are like that, but I can see the same old cracks beginning to appear.

If I ever do play the game in multiplayer, the rules I offer are: there are no rules, you are to enjoy yourself, and have fun...which is the point of owning any game. Let the game, and co-operation of it's players develop naturally as it should.

Just my humble opinion.