Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Southern Victories on Northern Soil

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Gary Grigsby's War Between the States >> Southern Victories on Northern Soil Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Southern Victories on Northern Soil - 8/27/2008 7:49:58 PM   
tran505

 

Posts: 133
Joined: 11/11/2007
Status: offline 		Now that I have played a number of games from both sides, I have a suggestion that might shake up the flow of the game just a touch. The general issue is that there does not seem to be as much activity in the East, especially in '62, as was the case historically. After McClellan finally started moving, a lot was going on with many major battles.

In contrast, in many games I have seen, the South shores up his Western armies, keeping only what is absolutely needed in the East. Even Lee, Stonewall, and/or Longstreet make frequent visits West. The North, on the other hand, tends to not press the issue, and instead uses this time to launch as many amphibious invasions as he can, and aviod the penalties for taking strategic losses. Basically, the North cannot win the game in the East in '62, but they can lose it.

Now what would happen if we gave the South some incentive to visit the Yankees in the north. Jefferson Davis and Lee were convinced that a victory on Northern soil would have international repercussions, as well as sap Northern morale and bolster the South. While I agree that I do not want a Civil War game with Redcoats invading from Canada -- just too weird for me -- I think there is plenty that can be done, given the concepts that are already in the game.

How about this --

When the South wins its first Strategic Victory in any of the original Northern states or Maryland (not KY, MO, or WV) PRIOR to the EP being delared:
* Double the value of the Stategic Win/Loss
* Reduce blockade effectiveness by some percent maybe 25-50%
* Eliminate the supply penalty for building raiders after the EP is declared (EP is too little..., too late....)
* Subtract some amount, maybe 6, from the population needed to build Southern units from '63 onward.

If the South wins its first Strategic Victory on "northern soil" after the EP, the penalties should be lower, but you get the idea. You could also retain the "double value" for all subsequent strategic wins on Northern Soil. Lee capturing Baltimore plus most of Pensylvania (as I am doing against the AI currently) should pretty much end the war long before the election.

Now all of a sudden, the South has a lot of reason to fight hard in the East, and likewise the North has a lot of reason to push forward to prevent this from happening. Food for thought....

- P
Post #: 1
RE: Southern Victories on Northern Soil - 8/27/2008 9:24:35 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline 		Interesting idea, the specifics would need hashing out and balancing, but I like the general proposal.

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC



For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to tran505)
Post #: 2
RE: Southern Victories on Northern Soil - 8/27/2008 10:12:21 PM   
heroldje

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 6/29/2008
Status: offline 		i think the best method would be to give a large PP swing for every northern territory taken, plus a large per turn cost if not retaken.  this would not only encourage southern offensives, but it would replicate the reaction the north had to these invasions by forcing the north to retake those territories quickly.

this of course would exclude missouri, kentucky. and west virginia. 

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 3
RE: Southern Victories on Northern Soil - 8/28/2008 7:29:33 PM   
Capt Cliff


Posts: 1791
Joined: 5/22/2002
From: Northwest, USA
Status: offline 		This is a very good idea. Lee would have never left Virginia before 64 and the same for Jackson. I hope to see this incorporated.

_____________________________

Capt. Cliff

(in reply to heroldje)
Post #: 4
RE: Southern Victories on Northern Soil - 8/29/2008 3:32:40 AM   
wargamer123

 

Posts: 278
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline 		Clever idea, I have been reading, and this is the first time I've heard a genuine mention of value of a CSA offensive, Gettysburg was very FRIGHTENING for the North, psychologically. 

(in reply to tran505)
Post #: 5
RE: Southern Victories on Northern Soil - 8/29/2008 7:02:49 AM   
heroldje

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 6/29/2008
Status: offline 		i was thinking about this today...
2 things

1.  every major invasion the south undertook was with the aim of ending the war.  these offensives universally had the same effect-- boosting recruitment by phenomenal proportions and steeling the norths war resolve.  (the opposite of what the south intended) 

2.  the south never scored a major victory in the north... so its hard to say what effect that really would have had.  if gettysburg had been a southern victory... the north still had more men and material, the washington defenses were impregnable.. they would have been compelled to fall back sooner or later.   i just don't think they could have been successful.  of course thats just my opinion.

just something to think about

(in reply to wargamer123)
Post #: 6
RE: Southern Victories on Northern Soil - 8/29/2008 9:36:00 AM   
wargamer123

 

Posts: 278
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline 		herold, maybe... doesn't change the Manpower, Equipment, overall strategic pitfall of the South...

but I think we have to look beyond the dry impossible, depressing truth for the South. To be dirty and downright honest on the subject it may have hurt The South more to win a few peace meal victories, attrit half their men marching around PA, given the North a Boost to fight harder and whatever

Now on the other point... the POINT we must face! The North was Uber, but was no USSR of '41 Barbarossa and could not afford to give away everything and keep pumping out bodies. Enough death, carnage, loss of battles could have hurt enough to force at least in my mind a ceasefire. Not 1 battle perhaps, but several. War Weariness has always worn deep into American Hearts as well, a big factor we should consider!


just trying to imagine as the Civil War Battles are etched in the American psychy so deep. So meaningful, as they were fought here, between Americans!

(in reply to heroldje)
Post #: 7
RE: Southern Victories on Northern Soil - 8/29/2008 11:11:04 PM   
Doc o War


Posts: 345
Joined: 8/14/2008
From: Northern California
Status: offline 		Lee and JAckson had begun planning the Pennsyslvania Campaign before Chancellorsville in early 63-though it depended on surviving Hookers attack in the spring of 63- which was not a sure thing.  Jackson proposed taking Pittsburg with the intension of destroying the great cannon foundries there. The Penn Capital- Harrisburg's falling would have been a blow to the Pshche of the North- even if only symbolic. Rather than attacking Washington the confederates might have concidered swinging around and liberating Baltomore. Again to destroy factories and the naval yards there.
  
The Union was awash in blood- the war was far from over and the people of the North had had an endless string of major bloody defeats in the last year- especially in the East. Even the victories were bloody. There were many in the north who looked at the Emancipation Proclamation with distaste, and did not think the issue important enough to have their sons die for- not at that moment.

In Parlament in England debates raged from 62 into early 63- leading to a vote in June and again in August that were aimed at War with America- England had sent 50000 troops to Canada and Had increased the Atlantic and Carribean squadrons dramatically. The English Shipyards werer busy building Ironclads also. The post-ponement of the Vote in June was a lucky break for the Union as they won Gettysburg and Vickburg in early July and that turned the English sour to the idea- but if the South Had been luckier in May and June- who knows?
   
Jackson's death at Chancellorsville ruined everything- when Lee later moved north he went in a daze- no fire no lightning- - Stuart wandered off somewhere, no seeming control of the strategic march- He didnt even send troops towards Pittsburg as Jackson had passionately argued was the real key target. Without Jackson he seemed lost- Many have speculated his heart problems were accute then. Clearly something was missing.

I think it was F Scott Fitzgerald,  who premissed that every Southern boy born in the post Civ war era dreamed that they could have been the one to go to General Jackson that fateful night in May 1863, and tell General Jackson to not go out on that scouting mission.  To send Major Kidd or one of the other trusted staff officers-  To have said "General, rest a bit- there is work to do organizing the night assault."   Many have postulated that even in the condition the Southern Troops were in that night after the evening attack that broke the Union 11th Corps.- and with Stuart coming up at that moment as he was, then riding out around the far left flank to cut the Main Fords across the river behind the Union position- JAckson had at least a 50/50% chance of pushing in the weak Right flank Union force in front of him and cutting several corps off from the River by morning- perhaps crippling or maybe even destroying the bulk of the Army of the Potomac-  Surrounded forces in the 19th century tended to surrender- like the French Army at Sedan, or Lee at Appomattox- rather than do a Bastonge like defense.
   Night Attacks were so hard to do- but were usually very effective when done- and Jackson and Stuart working together with their superb staffs probably had a better chance of doing that then any other commanders at the time.
    If Only......

< Message edited by Doc o War -- 8/29/2008 11:14:54 PM >

_____________________________

Tell me the story of the common foot soldier, and I will tell you the story of all wars.
... Heroditus.

(in reply to wargamer123)
Post #: 8
RE: Southern Victories on Northern Soil - 8/30/2008 1:10:34 AM   
heroldje

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 6/29/2008
Status: offline 		Lee's supply lines were strained to the point of snapping in Pennsylvania.  They were also extremely vulnerable.  His army had one good fight in it and he knew it.  His hope was that a decisive victory could be followed up by a peace treaty, which I don't think would have been accepted.  Lincoln never showed any inclination whatsoever of "giving up".  If the war would have been lost it would have been in the elections.  If the war taught anything it was that victories were with VERY few exceptions as disruptive to the victor as the loser.  It is extremely probably that even a victory in the north would have ended in his withdrawl.  To think he could have captured pittsbrugh and swung around and captured baltimore is ludicrous.

We must be reading completely different books, Britain was never even close to entering war with America.  The closest it ever got was the Trent affair, after which the British turned even more spitefully away from the confederate cause.  Even the confederates themselves knew by then foreign intervention was not going to happen.  France considered it but Napolean was in too precarious of a positon on his own front to go off himself. 

Jackson 'planned' deep invasions of the north since the day he was given command of 3500 men in the valley.  He was never allowed to do it because of the obvious facts of untenable lines of supply and the fact that invading the north was like kicking a hornets nest. 

quote:

Jackson's death at Chancellorsville ruined everything- when Lee later moved north he went in a daze- no fire no lightning- - Stuart wandered off somewhere, no seeming control of the strategic march- He didnt even send troops towards Pittsburg as Jackson had passionately argued was the real key target. Without Jackson he seemed lost- Many have speculated his heart problems were accute then. Clearly something was missing.


I disagree with this entire thing. Jackson's absence surely had its effect, but you act like Lee was a blind bungling fool without him. Far from it. The campaign was performed brilliantly up until the unfortuante clash in gettysburgh which resulted from a lack of intelligence that had nothing to do with jackson.

< Message edited by heroldje -- 8/30/2008 1:15:03 AM >

(in reply to Doc o War)
Post #: 9
RE: Southern Victories on Northern Soil - 8/30/2008 7:11:58 AM   
Doc o War


Posts: 345
Joined: 8/14/2008
From: Northern California
Status: offline 		I dont know what different books we read, but it was posted in the daily London Times during the Period of early 1863- there were nasty and long serious debates in the British Parliment, that were published.  I have read excerpts. Men were arguing bitterly for and against intervention on the floor of Parliment the year before June of 1863- hardly was it off the table after the Trent affair.
  Some saw real advantages in a destroyed American mega economy- a peace treaty was what they wanted between both sides- a negotiated settlement, with Britian the peacemaker- the deal maker. Some southern victories at that moment might have tipped the debates to the south. Can you honestly say they wouldn't have??
Several good articles have been published over the last ten years in Civil War Illustrated regarding the Intervention issue. Perhaps the British would not have committed troops to a land war, depended on the Union's reaction.They were certainly sent to Canada in 1862. 
But a Naval Blockade could have been a real option. Lincoln knew that- and it was discussed at several points seriously in 63 in his cabinet. The Navy worried about it. To this day civilized nations throw naval blockades and imbargos to enforce negotiations, and the Brits concidered themselves very civilized- they wanted the war to end. For World Peace.

Yes you disagree with my entire last paragraph there- which is fine I suppose, you hav e aright  to your opinions. - but Gettyburg was not a "Brilliant battle" for Lee. Where do you get that idea??? Not Freeman- who loved Lee, but still, - nor Shelby Foote- who was more critical in general of the General.
  There are two schools on Lee- The early school- after the war, when Lee was revered, believing that he was always a genious and that everything negative that happened was some subordinates fault. And the more modern writers - who being more distant- take a harder look at him. Even Ken Burns mentioned that in the Civil War Film that Gettysburg was not Lee's Best battle.
 His Cavalry was poorly handled-so was his Artillery,  he attacked head on into fixed positions, flanking manuvers were not even contimplated, several advantages of position were lost with dithering about and delays. His new corps commanders were unsure of themselves. He was wasteful of of infantry. ( a standard Lee fault noted even by Lee Scholars.) He gave vauge orders- He was used to Jackson doing what needed to be done with Minimal supervison.  - but all three corps commanders failed at critical moments to act awaiting directions from Lee that didnt come in time to be enacted. Perhaps Longstreet was right- they should have let the Union come to them-
If JAckson had been there the First Day its likely they would have taken the Heights and the Union would have been making Picketts charge.
  It is all speculation- but the British were in play in 63 still- and the French would most likely have done something in the Gulf if the Brits acted. After the defeats in July that all ended with a crash. Then the Intervension Idea fades away- but not until July.

The Invasion of the North was not intended at any point to hold anything. Jackson had been very urgent that the Destruction of the Pittburg Mills happen- Pittsburg was very proud of its historic place as the Cannon and armor plate maker - also Boiler Maker for trains and rail maker- of the Nation during the Civil War. Those Coal fired plants belched like the Ruhr.
  The Southern Army had three missions- destuction of the important Military industry, the reaping of the rich Pennsylvania Harvest to feed his troops, and bringing the Union Army to battle and defeating it soundily on Union Soil- then falling back into N Virginia for the Winter and the November State Elections - there were many disaffected states in the North-People were sick of the death and destruction. There was very volitile Anti war sentiment at that point. The Indiana democrats were wobbly- and the Entire Northwest was looking like they might even pull out- Most of the Union Men in the frontier states had joined up and left- but remember many many men did not enlist- They did not want to fight. Many pro southern men were left behind in the Northwestern States. Th e63 elections were also a problem- but the Victories of July steeled everyones resolve.
  It was not the Unified country we think it was. There were strong Cooperhead movements - and the North was starting to draft. It lead to huge draft riots in some cities.
   Lee was doing a Winfield Scott inspired campaign/ Grant and Sherman tried those also/ - cutting himself off from his supply line up into Pennsylvania- but right at Harvest time- Jackson wanted to destroy Pittsburg which would knock a lot of production off the war effort. Time Lincoln didnt have. Lee had no doubt that if he fought the Army of The Potomac he would win- he had been very lucky so far.

Even with the real victories of Gettysburg and Vicksburg under his belt- Lincoln almost didnt get the nomination of his own party for his second term in the Summer of 64 a year later. Seems like they should have had more faith, but they nearly didnt- if the Union Had lost and been heavily damaged in the Summer of 63 in Pennsylvania who knows what the outcome might have been- Which was the point of my post.

you said__quote "The campaign was performed brilliantly up until the unfortuante clash in gettysburgh which resulted from a lack of intelligence that had nothing to do with jackson." 

AS you said earlier- I disagree with this entire thing.

One man's Brilliant is another man's Failure I guess- depending on point of view.


  

< Message edited by Doc o War -- 8/30/2008 7:12:56 AM >

_____________________________

Tell me the story of the common foot soldier, and I will tell you the story of all wars.
... Heroditus.

(in reply to heroldje)
Post #: 10
RE: Southern Victories on Northern Soil - 8/30/2008 9:21:04 PM   
Treefrog


Posts: 702
Joined: 4/7/2004
Status: offline 		Let me play devil's advocate here. This is not an invitation to flame.

What facts are there to draw on to suggest that a southron victory north of Maryland would have resulted in a boost to its political capital or a concomittant drop in northern resolve?

Northern military initiatives in the East were consistently thwarted, often with great embarassment, until Grant came to the East and oversaw operations. The pivotal moment in the history of the Eastern campaign was Grant ordering the AOP south after Spottsylvania in May of 1864. Until then, for three years, Federal forces on that front had succeeded in advancing a grand total of 50 miles from the One Mile Bridge to the bluffs overlooking Fredericksburg, an average of about 1 1/4 miles per month. Yet resolve of the Yankee states to continue the fight to preserve the Union had not abated, despite the horrendous casualties the AOP sustained (Meade lost more men in the 1864 campaign than Lee had when the campaign started).

Economically the blockade would be no less effective because of the political consequences of military events (on land). Cruisers prevent trade, that is one of their main functions. England was not going to interfere with the blockade because of southern victories. The loss of southern cotton caused the English to develop the crop in India, which allowed them to profit at both ends (and presumably allowed the Crown to tax at both ends). Good argument that English cotton growers and merchants ultimately won the Civi War. No incentive for England to help the South and thus no incentive to help equip privateers.

As armchair military historians, I'm confident we've all used the phrase "Those that do not learn history are doomed to repeat it." If you embrace this as true, why would you skew the game with special rules to force people to repeat moves which historically didn't work. It goes against my (admitted) prejudices to skew the rules to achieve a perceived historically accurate result. It doesn't particularly trouble me that Lee and Jackson may go West in the game (Longstreet was a Georgian so his presence in Tennessee shouldn't trouble anybody) if that is where they are needed. Jackson hated Yankees, pure and simple, and his stated object was to kill every one he found. Although Lee was a protector of Virginia, in the face of repeated, large scale invasions, who is to say what he would have done if the Union advanced to the Rappahannock in fall 1861 and hunkered down in the East while launching large scale invasions on multiple axises towards Atlanta, Vicksburg and the Selma arsenal simultaneously?

If certain leaders appearing where they historically didn't is a problem, add a rule (even a house rule) to prevent it. If 1/2 the troops of New England, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania operating west of the Applachians offends you, limit where those troops operate (remember that the Germans of the XI Corps and the XII Corps went West in 1864). This is an historically accurate fix to perceived problems. If Southern great leaders and Yankee troops remain in the East, I assure you There Will Be Blood (sorry, couldn't resist) in the East.



_____________________________

"L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace."

(in reply to tran505)
Post #: 11
RE: Southern Victories on Northern Soil - 8/30/2008 10:24:25 PM   
Duck Doc


Posts: 693
Joined: 6/9/2004
Status: offline 		Just lurking but I think Treefrog has it right. Both Confederate invasions into Northern territory were failures & the AoNV just barely escaped from the adventures intact.

The fighting in Virginia & the East in general were indeed stalemates & the War was won as a result of the campaigns in the West (mainly because of the control of the Mississippi) & the economic strangulation of the South.

Lee was forced into the invasions in order to provide for his army because northern Virginia couldn't support his army. Lee would have had to capture Washington, D.C. or another big city & hold it in order to hope for foreign intervention (which was a chimera in any case).

Certainly Grant had to decisively defeat Lee to end the War but it was effectively over before the Overland Campaign. McClellan's Peninsua Campaign could have broken the stalemate but fate prevented it.

If it ain't broke then don't fix it. Same goes for the Kentucky issue. Long sets of rules to patch up possible fundamental flaws aren't the answer. Fix the game first. Just make sure it is indeed broke before fixing. In this case I don't think it is broken. About Kentucky I am less sure.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Treefrog

Let me play devil's advocate here. This is not an invitation to flame.

What facts are there to draw on to suggest that a southron victory north of Maryland would have resulted in a boost to its political capital or a concomittant drop in northern resolve?

Northern military initiatives in the East were consistently thwarted, often with great embarassment, until Grant came to the East and oversaw operations.



(in reply to Treefrog)
Post #: 12
RE: Southern Victories on Northern Soil - 8/31/2008 8:20:55 AM   
Doc o War


Posts: 345
Joined: 8/14/2008
From: Northern California
Status: offline 		Am In the Midst of four games using Jamiam's Kentucky Invasion rules- also the Mississippi and Gulf squadron Rules and Limits on Neutral Region Overruns that Iron Will put out- all games doing well- the fast Union 1861 Blitzes are over, and 1861 settled down into the slow bumbling mess it was- without Initiative to overrun Regions it is much harder to move into Neutral turf. Once 61 is over both sides will tear into each other as per usual. It's rather fun seeing a force all stacked up and frozen due to lack of initiative, the Undefended region ripe to pluck but you cannot move in. - frustrating but rather historic in feel.

AS to the "Ain't Broke dont fix it" school sorry- it was broken- so we did fix it.
 
I do not know what Game reality you come from- but for over 40 years I have been involved in games design and playtesting and just plain playing, with individuals and in clubs and association, In all those years I have  seen NO games- board or computer- that did not need erratta or rules changes.  Or house rules or bugs de bugged, or something that took the players and folks interested in them involvement in a fix,  along the way.
  While these game designers are usually brilliant and talented, they are not perfect, they do not pretend to be; most welcome good fixes. - if the fix is agreeable and can be based on history or some game engine item then there is nothing wrong with trying to modify the game system if something isnt working right. In every one of the identified House Rule Threads I have seen in the last month there are real issues that are being discussed and hashed out by the player and designer community.

My main concern all along was not to have a WW2 style Blitzkrieg unleashed in 1861- and I think we have identified areas that needed tinkering with.

Perhaps someday a game will come out that will be perfect- I just have never seen that. 

Further, it is incumbent upon Historic war gamers to try to model the games after history- because with a computer it is so easy to add in fantasy- Why not some landship tanks- or Zepplins?- why not some dwarf space marines?   Nope- the main thing is to try to use the actual events of history and model things to match the capabilities and abilities of the time- this game system has this great randomness in the initiative zone with leaders- players who are used to gaming with Modern Technical militaries are not used to the lack of movement the initiative rules provide- but if done right the frustrations of being a 19th century military leader become easily appairent. 

_____________________________

Tell me the story of the common foot soldier, and I will tell you the story of all wars.
... Heroditus.

(in reply to Duck Doc)
Post #: 13
RE: Southern Victories on Northern Soil - 8/31/2008 8:29:38 AM   
wargamer123

 

Posts: 278
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline 		Doc, true, better games get rule changes, new programming, updates, on and on... Refinement is an art form.

Also true this isn't WW1 or WW2, although historically leaders and men could have marched right on through, they did not. Not just for lack of Motors, WW2 era soldiers relied very heavily on horses just the same and their equipment was larger. I think had the entire Union Army marched through Kentucky it would have been lost without supply, could have foraged. Though quickly would have turned into a bunch of disorganized rabble. As modern times have chain of command, wouldn't permit something that might have consequences back home.

Speed doesn't sound like the problem. The Union Army would have been in Richmond if it could win in a matter of months. It's the unexpected

(in reply to Doc o War)
Post #: 14
RE: Southern Victories on Northern Soil - 8/31/2008 5:27:29 PM   
Duck Doc


Posts: 693
Joined: 6/9/2004
Status: offline 		Perhaps the situation is different for gamers facing each other across a board where the focus might be more on the rules than the gameplay but for computer wargames where many play against the AI it is incumbent on the designers & testers to identify & fix issues before the game is released or to be responsive in patching the game promptly afterwards. Then if the game works leave it alone.

It wouldn't do me any good as a solo gamer to follow a set of add on rules when playing. The AI doesn't care about them. If the game is broken then it needs to be fixed. If it is not broken then it doesn't.

I do not appreciate an approach to game development where a game is released in partially developed form then beta tested by those buying the game. This was not the case for this game at all. It might be appropriate for developers who are just starting out with a game engine who don't have a lot of resources available to devote to testing but this game was exhaustively tested I can assure you.

There are almost as many opinions as there are gamers. There may be issues that are identified after a game's release which need to be fixed but I didn't think the game needed to be fixed in this instance.

There are things about this game I don't like but they are really insignificant when the quality of the game is taken into account. I need to respect the design & the designers. No game reproduces reality or even comes close. Besides this is a game & not a simulation; the distinction is crucial.

Just my opinion.

Obtw, are you a physician?





quote:

ORIGINAL: Doc o War

AS to the "Ain't Broke dont fix it" school sorry- it was broken- so we did fix it.
 
I do not know what Game reality you come from- but for over 40 years I have been involved in games design and playtesting and just plain playing, with individuals and in clubs and association, In all those years I have  seen NO games- board or computer- that did not need erratta or rules changes.  Or house rules or bugs de bugged, or something that took the players and folks interested in them involvement in a fix,  along the way.
  While these game designers are usually brilliant and talented, they are not perfect, they do not pretend to be; most welcome good fixes. - if the fix is agreeable and can be based on history or some game engine item then there is nothing wrong with trying to modify the game system if something isnt working right. In every one of the identified House Rule Threads I have seen in the last month there are real issues that are being discussed and hashed out by the player and designer community.



(in reply to Doc o War)
Post #: 15
RE: Southern Victories on Northern Soil - 9/1/2008 10:05:38 PM   
heroldje

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 6/29/2008
Status: offline
quote:

Some saw real advantages in a destroyed American mega economy- a peace treaty was what they wanted between both sides- a negotiated settlement, with Britian the peacemaker- the deal maker. Some southern victories at that moment might have tipped the debates to the south. Can you honestly say they wouldn't have??


britain would have loved to play peacemaker, but it wasn't prepared to use its own troops to do so.  plain and simple, they weren't going to support a slave nation.  In the words of the confederates charged with effecting their intervention: "britain will come to our aid when the war is all but over" (paraphrased)

In reply to the confederate ambassadors arrival following the Trent affair: "We sincerely hope that our countrymen will not give these fellows anything in the shape of an ovation.  The civility that is due to a foe in distress is all that they can claim.  The only reason for their presence in London is to draw us into their own quarrel.  The British public has no prejudice in favor of slavery, which these gentlemen represent.  What they and their secretaries are to do here passes our experience.  They are personally nothing to us.  They must not suppose, because we have gone to the verge of a great war to rescue them, that tehy are precious to our eyes."  followed by the foreign minister refusing to meet them in any official capacity.  In fact, Britain wasn't short of cotton, but grain, which it was buying loads of from the union.

quote:

Several good articles have been published over the last ten years in Civil War Illustrated regarding the Intervention issue. Perhaps the British would not have committed troops to a land war, depended on the Union's reaction.They were certainly sent to Canada in 1862. 
But a Naval Blockade could have been a real option. Lincoln knew that- and it was discussed at several points seriously in 63 in his cabinet. The Navy worried about it. To this day civilized nations throw naval blockades and imbargos to enforce negotiations, and the Brits concidered themselves very civilized- they wanted the war to end. For World Peace.


A blockade would have been an act of war. Are you implying that british warships would have entered US waters and peacefull nudged US warships out of the way?  It would have ended in war and they weren't prepared to do that.  In fact I would love for you to point out a modern day example of a peaceful naval blockade. (which by definition would sink any ships who tried to run it)

quote:


Yes you disagree with my entire last paragraph there- which is fine I suppose, you hav e aright  to your opinions. - but Gettyburg was not a "Brilliant battle" for Lee. Where do you get that idea??? Not Freeman- who loved Lee, but still, - nor Shelby Foote- who was more critical in general of the General.


I never said gettysburg was a brilliant battle.  I said it was a brilliant campaign leading up to the battle. 

quote:


There are two schools on Lee- The early school- after the war, when Lee was revered, believing that he was always a genious and that everything negative that happened was some subordinates fault. And the more modern writers - who being more distant- take a harder look at him. Even Ken Burns mentioned that in the Civil War Film that Gettysburg was not Lee's Best battle.
His Cavalry was poorly handled-so was his Artillery,  he attacked head on into fixed positions, flanking manuvers were not even contimplated, several advantages of position were lost with dithering about and delays. His new corps commanders were unsure of themselves. He was wasteful of of infantry. ( a standard Lee fault noted even by Lee Scholars.) He gave vauge orders- He was used to Jackson doing what needed to be done with Minimal supervison.  - but all three corps commanders failed at critical moments to act awaiting directions from Lee that didnt come in time to be enacted. Perhaps Longstreet was right- they should have let the Union come to them-
If JAckson had been there the First Day its likely they would have taken the Heights and the Union would have been making Picketts charge.


There are a lot more than 2 schools on Lee.  The ability of the confederates to take the heights has been teh subject of countless books, the sum of which is that it would have been possible at best, but certainly not probable.  The rest of this is arguing a point I never made. 

quote:


It is all speculation- but the British were in play in 63 still- and the French would most likely have done something in the Gulf if the Brits acted. After the defeats in July that all ended with a crash. Then the Intervension Idea fades away- but not until July.

Yes, the discussed it.  My point is that the Trent affair was the closest it ever came to war, and it had nothing to do with the Confederacy but the insult ot the British Navy.  Britain had no sympathy for the confederacy.  If anything they wanted to see America fail, split, and weakened, and their cotton secured.  That goal wasn't worth war.

quote:


The Invasion of the North was not intended at any point to hold anything. Jackson had been very urgent that the Destruction of the Pittburg Mills happen- Pittsburg was very proud of its historic place as the Cannon and armor plate maker - also Boiler Maker for trains and rail maker- of the Nation during the Civil War. Those Coal fired plants belched like the Ruhr.
The Southern Army had three missions- destuction of the important Military industry, the reaping of the rich Pennsylvania Harvest to feed his troops, and bringing the Union Army to battle and defeating it soundily on Union Soil- then falling back into N Virginia for the Winter and the November State Elections - there were many disaffected states in the North-People were sick of the death and destruction. There was very volitile Anti war sentiment at that point. The Indiana democrats were wobbly- and the Entire Northwest was looking like they might even pull out- Most of the Union Men in the frontier states had joined up and left- but remember many many men did not enlist- They did not want to fight. Many pro southern men were left behind in the Northwestern States. Th e63 elections were also a problem- but the Victories of July steeled everyones resolve.

This is all completely false.  The gettybsurg and antietem invasions goal was to crush the northern army completely and dictate peace terms.  This was a fairy tale taht never would have happened, desperate measures by desperate men.  The northwest was not pro-southern.  The elections were won when the men in the army were allowed to proxy vote.  Vallingdam was considered a traitor and McClellan lost most of his support by throwing his lot in with him.  Ransacking Pittsburgh would have done nothing to even the industrial odds.

quote:

Even with the real victories of Gettysburg and Vicksburg under his belt- Lincoln almost didnt get the nomination of his own party for his second term in the Summer of 64 a year later. Seems like they should have had more faith, but they nearly didnt- if the Union Had lost and been heavily damaged in the Summer of 63 in Pennsylvania who knows what the outcome might have been- Which was the point of my post.


It would have ended with the confederacy retreating into northern virginia as disorganized if it had lost, low on ammunition, and the return of status quo.  Its effect on the elections are purely speculative, but I doubt it would have been strong. 

(in reply to Duck Doc)
Post #: 16
RE: Southern Victories on Northern Soil - 9/2/2008 10:53:44 AM   
Doc o War


Posts: 345
Joined: 8/14/2008
From: Northern California
Status: offline 		Heroldje- I suppose as with all things Civil War- it becomes a matter of grand speculation and pet theories. There were so many possible options and directions the war could have gone. All we know are the actual events- we cannot but speculate on the what ifs?  Arguements for just about every side of the issues of the war abound. It was this or it was that.
 
I certainly didnt intend to get you so excited- you seem to take all this much too seriously. You keep saying things are "completely false"  that are actually various shades of grey.  You can be right if you think you are- HUzza for your opinion- but dont try to tell me my opinion is any less valid- or completely false- when its about a What If situation.  When iT comes to the world stage- outcomes can go wildly ascue - and often do- because humans don't always make logical choices.
 
Did you know the Russian Baltic Fleet came to New York HArbor and sat there for three months in Early 1862? They were given a heros welcome and fetted to balls and parties for weeks on end- the reason they came was their antomosity towards the British, they were opponents on the world stage so to speak.
  The Russians backed Lincoln play- and made a statement that said- here we sit in New York HArbor- dont try to raise the stakes in the Atlantic Britian. OR this could go HOt Internationally. - High Level Saber Rattling- or a grand gesture- or a silly waste of time?
  None the less it had a bearing in the real world thinking of the Brits of the Time- all part of the Famous Great Game the empires played in the Victorian age- Russia and England had fought a war just 8 years before.  They were constantly going after each other in India-and the Kyber. MOdern Afganistan- go figure.
  
Bottom line is would the Brits have backed The South?- I'd say probably 80/20 they would NOT have- but would they try to force both parties to come to the negotiation tables- that is much more a maybe so - war was bad for business.  Britian was a commercial empire and had large investments in our infrastructure- most of the railroads were beholding to British investment money.  
  
The mood of the American Voters also went back and forth - especially in the first year and a half of the war- The Northwset was not "Pro Southern" - but they were pro Northwestern- If the Southern States could Split off- perhaps they should also- that was the issue- and they had some serious debates about that early on. Many men were for that, for all kinds of reasons, not everyone thought the bigger Union was a good thing.
  There were states righters all over the country- and they had issues about local control that were just as important to them as the slavery issue was to the south.  In the end that all fell to the wayside as the war swung in favor of the North and Lincoln. But it was all in play early in the war.

Can you say that if Lee Had won a few more bloody victories in 63- after all he kicked ass at Chancelloersville- If he could have won at Gettysburg- would the North have taken a Morale hit?? - again- its the big what IF- maybe yes- maybe no- but to say it was completely one way or the other and that is that;; sort of flies in the face of a lot of sub data sets that are all there.

Let us simply agree to disagree with each other - and move on. It gains us all nothing to skwable over Civil War What ifs- there are too many of them.

_____________________________

Tell me the story of the common foot soldier, and I will tell you the story of all wars.
... Heroditus.

(in reply to heroldje)
Post #: 17
RE: Southern Victories on Northern Soil - 9/2/2008 9:41:55 PM   
tran505

 

Posts: 133
Joined: 11/11/2007
Status: offline
Of course we will never know what Britain would have done if the South won big in the North -- a STRATEGIC victory. The fact that this never happend is irrelevant as I see it, because it begs the question of what would have happend if it DID happen, and what should happen in the game if it actually DOES happen.

Consider -- Given that Mr. Lincoln wanted to issue the EP some months earlier than he did, but believed he COULD NOT untill the Union had some kind of victory in the East..., if Antietam was another crushing defeat for the North would the EP have even happened at all? He beleived that issuing the EP from a position of weakness would have nullified its political impact -- I think he was in a pretty good position to know.

General Lee and Jefferson Davis believed that a major (Strategic) victory on Northern soil would have had a profound effect on the political situation, both at home and abroad. It was in fact the primary reason the Gettysburg compaign happend at all. Indeed, the primary alternative plan was to ship troops west to bolster the armies there -- which unfortunately, is what most gamers do with the South for the whole game. It is precisely what Lee and Davis did NOT do (at least until later) due to the potential political blockbuster of a strategic Southern victory on Northern soil!

If such distinguished gentleman as Lincoln, Lee, and Davis thought that a strategic victory on Northern soil would be a major coup for the South, why not incorporate the concept into the game in some way and to some degree? Give the South an objective to shoot for (like the Union has the EP) to make him stretch to achieve a worthwhile goal. I just think the game has all the tools in it to encourage/reward more aggressive behavior from the South, and the result would be an even more exciting game for both sides, with even more strategic options in play.

- P

(in reply to Doc o War)
Post #: 18
RE: Southern Victories on Northern Soil - 9/3/2008 3:01:56 PM   
wargamer123

 

Posts: 278
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline 		tran, again I have to go with you here. It's a "what if," but major victories on Northern Soil should yield something to make the South less reactionary if he desires to be, and more action, but with the risk. Plus perhaps an alternative risk that it will yield nothing anyway?

(in reply to tran505)
Post #: 19
RE: Southern Victories on Northern Soil - 9/3/2008 8:35:28 PM   
tran505

 

Posts: 133
Joined: 11/11/2007
Status: offline
Wargamer --

I agree.., there should be no guarantee of any gain if the South moves North. They may lose. But I believe that there should be some gain to be had -- some benefit -- if they take the risk and WIN. At least that will change the calculus in the Southern player's mind a bit, and should lead to offensive action by your more aggressive Southern players. Furthermore, the best way to for the North to avoid the risk of Southern invasion is the same answer. Be more aggressive in the Eastern Theater! Push the South back a zone or two and keep them away from Northern Soil earlier in the game.

Who knows..., we may even get the running battles that actually occured in '62. To the gates of Richmond -- and then go tumbling back to Washington yet again! Now THAT would make for an exciting game in addition to the fun we already get in the West.

Good fun and good gaming!

- P

(in reply to wargamer123)
Post #: 20
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Gary Grigsby's War Between the States >> Southern Victories on Northern Soil Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.141