<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Drex</i>
<br />As I have both won and lost battles in the Gettysburg Campaign(chiefly the 3 day battle scenario, i can only attribute this to the quality of play between opponents rather than any inequity in the make-up of the armies. There are many Union players who consistently win on the Gettysburg field of battle and this has to be because they know how to play the game. I have consistently lost against some of my opponents because frankly they "outplay " me. I hate to admit it, but they are simply better players than me. If I have any complaint against the Gettysburg scenario, it is the position and value of some of the objectives which force the Union to deploy in unadvantagious locations which can be easily outflanked.
Maj.Gen. Drex Ringbloom,
AotS Chief-of -Staff,
2nd Division Cmdr, "Corcoran's Legion", VIII Corps
Army of the Shenandoah
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Well, if there are many Union players who consistently win on the 3 - day Gettysburg I don't doubt that it is entirely because they "know how" to "play the game". I'm willing to bet that most Union victories at Getty are achieved over Rebs who seriously mess up somehow or generally play poorly throughout. On the other hand, I insist that many Union players fight tooth aand nail for the full 3 days and still get beaten by the Reb ...simply 'cos of the quality of Reb Infantry creating an anomaly (call it what you will) in the gameplay. I'm a reasonably competent, experienced player but I get consistently taken apart on the field at Gettysburg in a manner that raises questions in my mind, because it does not happen in a similar manner on any of the other titles to such an extent.
The entire game engine is a combination of mathematical calculations that will reliably generate one of a limited number of results. Certainly there are members of this club, on both sides, who understand this expertly and know how best to exploit it to effect. I admire and salute their competence and intelligence in doing so. They are without doubt better "players" than I am. However, I didn't originally come here to "play games" ...I was hoping rather to "simulate tactics & strategy". I guess the bottom line is that it is simply not possible to do so adequately within the environment available? So it's "play-the-game" or nothing?
Being beaten, even heavily, is one thing ...and I come here fully expecting it to happen ...but I question the amount of "kudos" that be granted to an opponent in doing so when the playing field is skewed, if indeed it is so.
I'm willing to state here that I think the standard of most Rebel play is quite poor and they benefit from the single most weighted factor found in these games: Infantry quality. Most Reb play I find to be horribly simplistic and incredibly aggressive. Most Rebs above new recruit level often undertake offensive action regardless of the supposed tactical/operational situation simply because the quality of their Infantry allows them to ...and they do so in a manner just not reflecting the historical limitations of the troops involved.
I think that if some strange stroke of fortune transported us back to the days of the ACW, then most club Rebs would receive a rude awakening if they attempted to do for real what they accomplish with forces in game. I mean that quite seriously and sincerely.
So, whilst I find plenty of Rebs that are better "players" than myself, I'm not willing to agree that anywhere near so many are better "Generals".
Brigadier-General Jim Wilkes.
2nd Brigade, Cavalry Division, XX Corps.
AoC. U.S.A.