American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Gettysburg wasn't the turning point just the last chance for the South to win the war through a major victory in the field. Atlanta was the turning point. It got Lincoln re-elected and with it any chance of the South not losing the war went down the tube. After that it didn't matter if Lee won a victory on the battlefield or managed to retreat from Richmond. Lincoln and Grant wouldn't quit and had no political group that could force them to quit. The fall of Atlanta destroyed the South's ability to wage war. There was no infrastructure left to support field armies.

_________________
General Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
AoT II/1/3 (CSA)

Steven Newton's book (which I started re-reading last night due to this thread) covers this. His hypothesis is that the South did an excellent job numbers-wise of recovering from the 1863 disasters by the time the spring campaigns started. They also did a good job maintaining strength in their armies through the appalling casualties of 1864, except in the Army of Tennessee. This one hard luck army hemorrhaged men at a rate greater than the Confederacy could afford in the latter half of 1864. He too points to Atlanta as the turning point, just for slightly different, though connected, reasons.

_________________
Brett S.
-------
Siege of Petersburg Online

TOCWOC: A Civil War Blog

Just as I felt compelled to proclaim my admiration for the Northern soldier, so also do I feel thay I should state my opinion of General U S Grant. Grant and I share a trait, which is a pathological aversion to turning around and going back the way we came. He talks about it in his memoirs that he missed a turn while traveling in Mexico, and rather than going back to it, he plunged into the brush to go cross country to take up the road again. I am the same way, but that is where the comparison ends.
First, his Vicksburg Campaign tells us that he was a great strategist, far more than just "competent."
He's called a "butcher." I referred to him as such, but if you compare his casualties to those suffered by his predecessors, he comes out looking pretty good. Now, these are just off the top of my head, so don't nobody sharpshoot me, but: Seven Days--20,000, 2nd Bull Run--12,000, Antietam--12,000, Fredericksburg--12,000, Chancellorsville--17,000, Gettysburg--20,000 make a total of 93,000 casualties suffered by McClellan, Pope, Burnside, Hooker and Meade with nothing to show for the sacrifice. In one month, at a little more than half that cost, Grant had Lee up against the ropes with the end just a matter of time. Any one of his predecessors could have done it if they had been a little more determined and a little less squeamish.
So you might say the turning point was when Grant pinned three stars on his shoulders. Without Grant, Atlanta may have never happened, and you may be sure that if Meade had been in sole command at the Wilderness, that he would have retreated and some other schmuck would have been put in charge of the AoP And the war would have gone on, and the south would have had another opportunity to win a major victory in the field. It might have been called the Battle of the Wilderness.
Respectfully submitted
J Ferry
2lt 2/20th Corps

I am glad to see you write this because I happen to believe it also. It might not be a popular opinion, but Atlanta would not have fallen when and the way it did without Grant.

Before Grant you had a loose collection of Armys doing things in all different directions. After Grant you had a united Headquarters of the Armies with an overall plan and direction. Not everything Grant planned occured the way it should have, read Ben Butler et al, but enough of his plan was able to be implemented to crush the life out of the Confederacy in 11 months.

I believe the turning point of the war, the point after which the South could not win in any regard, was the promotion of US Grant to Lt. Gen.

Two cents, ya'll.

Deano

_________________
Lt. General David Martin
First Brigade, First Division, First Corps, Army of the Potomac

Brig. Gen. David "Deano" Martin, I must believe the your surgeon has cleared you for your increased activity within these forums, for you are obviously indulging yourself in a much more active manner...AREN'T YOU?!!!

_________________
General Jos. C. Meyer, ACWGC
Union Army Chief of Staff
Commander, Army of the Shenandoah
Commander, Army of the Tennessee
(2011-2014 UA CoA/GinC)

yes sir

_________________
Lt. General David Martin
First Brigade, First Division, First Corps, Army of the Potomac

Right, if you are going to moan (and I seem to be a lone voice of complaint here) then try to support your opinions with evidence: The Union Command Reports are pretty abysmal. My worst game ever? no ...not by a long shot. But I get the feeling that any "command" by me is basically so much wasted effort. I can win (probably) but not by fighting a battle ...only by playing the game.

Small pic's of the overall situation as it's developed over the last few turns:

Union position (in my opinion a fairly strong one. Assailed on 3 sides by Rebel forces. I don't believe the Reb has amassed significant weight of numbers anywhere (his Artillery is well placed in close support in commanding positions. Mine in contrast is disperded with reinforcement arrivals and having to relocate on a defensive fall back).

Command Reports 1 - 5 correspond to situation images 1 -5. Union forces beaten back pretty much everywhere.

Diminishing returns. Routs & Disruptions weaken the defensive fire each turn ...but Union is still able to make significant hits causing casualties.

Stay or Go? Fight a hopeless situation and lose the lot or save something. If that routed unit on the bridge is prevented from moving North by automatic rule restrictions then the game is probably over.

...and I should have added some captions to the above as it's difficult to determine details, but in the last two pictures I've bought up a 3 battalion "D" quality regiment from reserve to counterattack the Reb advance on the right. In the space of 20 minutes the 3 have gone disrupted, low-ammo or routed (routing the "wrong" way towards the Rebs!) ...this against "A" quality units that have been advancing for hours basically impervious to interference 'cos of their "A" rating.

Now, sour grapes? Possibly. Read the Union command Reports: Pretty bad situation deteriorating over the last half dozen turns to a critical point. Right, ok.
Now where are the Reb command & control problems? Hard to give a definitive answer from one side only but it seems to me that HPS messed up by elevating the rank-and-file to Elite status. "Just reflecting the Veteran status of Reb troops by 1864".
From playing I get the feeling that the Reb player can direct his "A" units pretty much as he likes. He can lose the game by attrition, sure. But these are tactical games and as I see it the Reb troops basically operate free of any command & control problems = Advance, Fire, Melee, Repeat.
I can kill them, in fact it's the only option I have, eliminate them individually to fighting strength zero and still win the game. But on the way there an Army full of "A's" is gonna do exactly what they want like drug fuelled zombies. No troops in the history of warfare have ever behaved the way HPS has modelled Reb Infantry here. That's why this might be my last game, certainly on Overland and possibly on these games generally.
Union troops were historically this bad? Maybe they were. Were Reb troops this good? No, in my opinion not. HPS have tweaked the balance to make the bigger picture bearable. So I don't mind losing a battle to a well co-ordinated flank or rear attack, I'll happily congratulate my opponent on his prowess. But when I see little counters that are meant to portray men behave like automatons until I've eliminated them then I have to wonder why exactly I'm bothering?
With respect and in all seriousness.

_________________
Brigadier-General Jim Wilkes.
2nd Brigade, Cavalry Division, XX Corps.
AoC. U.S.A.

I personnally like overland and find the results so far in my spotsylvania game to be fairly historical. as to your situation in your screenshots it looks like you only have yourself to blame. You sent your army across a river with a single bridge as an egress? it looks to me, even if the rebs weren't rated A you would be in trouble.Maybe you need to get in touch with that great general you have inside of you that you keep mentioning and fight back a little.Your big mistake was sending so many troops into the woods with clear terrain on either flank, are you really that surprised that the rebs tried to surround you?

regards

_________________

Jim, out of curiosity, in what mode (turn- or phase-based) are you playing this contest and with what optional rules? If you are in a turn-based mode, do you have the Optional Melee Resolution activated?

_________________
General Jos. C. Meyer, ACWGC
Union Army Chief of Staff
Commander, Army of the Shenandoah
Commander, Army of the Tennessee
(2011-2014 UA CoA/GinC)

So, Jim, what scenario are you playing? It looks like Chancellorsville '63. I must say, your opponent is pretty awesome!

Maybe a more relevant question would have been which optional rules were selected -as some of those can lead to mass routs (in all of the grand tactical scale series).

_________________
~Retired~

Er, steady on. I don't think I've once made any claim about being a "great general" ...let alone mentioning it repeatedly. And for that matter I hope I'm always pretty careful not to insult the ability or integrity of my opponents. That being said, if I feel something "odd" is happening then surely this forum is the best place to discuss it openly?
As for fighting back? For goodness sake! I've been fighting to the best of my ability all day long and I've seen the cohesiveness of my Army absolutely wrecked. I've inflicted casualties on my opponent that I don't believe he can afford but my point is that the "A's" (too many, too high in my opinion) are basically operating immune to any kind of command & control problems.
As for:
Bridges. There aren't many over this river. If I want more behind me then the nearest are about 2 (airline) miles to the North-West and 3 miles to the East. I have no pontoon bridges under this system so if I want more crossings then my bridgehead is gonna have a much larger perimeter (arguable depending on your mindset whether that's a good or bad thing).
Woods. I didn't send too many troops blindly into woods. Rather they've been forced out of one position by frontal assault and had to withdraw through wooded terrain by necessity.
Postions. The Rebs have to gamble on big risks to achieve results? OK, that seems right. Looking at the screenshot I'm not convinced that I was ever occupying an inherently "bad" position. I'm certainly not surrounded with a river bridge crossing to my rear, inadequate as it may be.
To my mind having everyone within command range and good interior lines (I'm on the inside of what was a horseshoe) well served by a lateral road seemed like reasonable plus points.

The Reb has won every single tactical engagement. His "A's" have caused routs anywhere and everywhere we have tried to fight it out. The only thing going for the Union player is that he has a numerical superiority (historical fact). The only place I have won the advantage is where I've been able to overwhelm what's in front of me with greater numbers. Leadership, timing, terrain = Doesn't appear to matter.
Read a civil war book describing combat. The Union were never this bad ...the Rebs were never that good.

_________________
Brigadier-General Jim Wilkes.
2nd Brigade, Cavalry Division, XX Corps.
AoC. U.S.A.

Well to answer my own question, you must be playing one of the versions of "To Cold Harbor" but correct me if I am wrong. I'm curious to know what happened to the other bridgehead, at Hanovertown, and if you pressed forward and then got pushed back to the cul-de-sac? I would be pleased to play this scenario as the union against any adversary. Not saying I'd win--probably just lose in a different fashion.
By the way, HPS or JTSW did not come up with those rebel "supermen". I did it all by myself.
And if you never said you were a great general, you generally give that impression of your opinion of yourself.

This is a Turn based game. Either mode favours offence(?) and turn based favours it heavily. OK. But if I insist on phased play only I'm probably gonna be waiting a long time for Reb opponents who (in my experience) favour turn based if they have any offensive action planned.

All optional rules are selected EXCEPT:
No optional fire or melee results.
No artillery capture.
No artillery ammo by cannon (surprised as this favours the Union and my Reb opponent selected the optionals?).

We do have the optional (separate) melee resolution activated.

_________________
Brigadier-General Jim Wilkes.
2nd Brigade, Cavalry Division, XX Corps.
AoC. U.S.A.

Pretty much all options except those listed above. Painful if any game has ever been won or lost because of an optional rule being selected. There are no optional rules I have any particular dislike for.

_________________
Brigadier-General Jim Wilkes.
2nd Brigade, Cavalry Division, XX Corps.
AoC. U.S.A.