Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

something that makes me frown

 
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 >> something that makes me frown Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
something that makes me frown - 11/24/2008 10:15:00 PM   
spruce

 

Posts: 404
Joined: 9/23/2006
Status: offline
After capturing Lee in Tenessee - his army got double enveloped - it seems Lee is exchanged during some "prisoners exchange" deal and comes back to the board - in my case 9 months.

I like the idea about leaders get exchanged back and forth - however isn't that crazy that both Lee and Grant - one anothers (possible) Nemesis - are exchanged in a prisioner exchange deal ???

By the way - I captured about 10 leaders in Tenessee - one of them was Lee - I never got my troops encircled and captured - so this is quite disfavourable for the side actually capturing those guys because I got nothing in return.

< Message edited by spruce -- 11/24/2008 10:16:24 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: something that makes me frown - 11/25/2008 12:53:22 AM   
paullus99


Posts: 1985
Joined: 1/23/2002
Status: offline
That's what Grant said when he stopped the prisoner exchanges in 1864 - it was to the Union's benefit to heap more hungry mouths to feed on the Confederates (and the manpower ratio made it make even more sense).

Officers were routinely paroled or exchanged, even up till the end of the war. It was the gentlemanly thing to do.

_____________________________

Never Underestimate the Power of a Small Tactical Nuclear Weapon...

(in reply to spruce)
Post #: 2
RE: something that makes me frown - 11/25/2008 8:54:03 AM   
GShock


Posts: 1245
Joined: 12/9/2007
From: San Francisco, CA - USA
Status: offline
I understand gentleman's ideas but a corps commander would never be released. If the parole had to be kept, generals wouldn't go back to fight after being released in any case.

I asked many many times to change this. Let's hope for the future




_____________________________

How long will you pretend you can't do anything about it? Support www.animalsasia.org

(in reply to paullus99)
Post #: 3
RE: something that makes me frown - 11/25/2008 10:45:08 AM   
paullus99


Posts: 1985
Joined: 1/23/2002
Status: offline
Corps Commanders (and even an Army Commander - Pemberton after Vicksburg) were exchanged. Although I can see your point about a Lee or Grant being captured & not exchanged - it was a different time, with plenty of contact across the lines.

Of course, most Generals that were exchanged never served in anywhere near the same capacities that they did before they were captured. Call it stigma, but those individuals usually ended up in obscure postings or advisory roles.

_____________________________

Never Underestimate the Power of a Small Tactical Nuclear Weapon...

(in reply to GShock)
Post #: 4
RE: something that makes me frown - 11/25/2008 2:06:22 PM   
GShock


Posts: 1245
Joined: 12/9/2007
From: San Francisco, CA - USA
Status: offline
Nothing wrong with exchanging these prisoners in wbts but the problem is that they come back to fight while historically they didn't.



_____________________________

How long will you pretend you can't do anything about it? Support www.animalsasia.org

(in reply to paullus99)
Post #: 5
RE: something that makes me frown - 11/25/2008 8:44:06 PM   
spruce

 

Posts: 404
Joined: 9/23/2006
Status: offline
The point was that you don't send your Nemesis back to give him another chance at destroying you.

(in reply to GShock)
Post #: 6
RE: something that makes me frown - 11/26/2008 6:54:22 AM   
Doc o War


Posts: 345
Joined: 8/14/2008
From: Northern California
Status: offline
After the Winter of 63 they basically stopped exchanging prisoners- when Grant took command- the very very sick and wounded badly would be sent home- occassionally- by then again- not.

I think we are being a bit literal here- these commanders do not represent Just the named man per se- as they represent the Corps command staff- or whatever command staff existed for these commanders,  the ability to move feed and control larger bodies of troops.  The combat capabiities of these Corps HQs was not so much the function of just the man who did set the tone- as this represented the ability to command and command well-(or not) certain number of troops. THIS CAPABILTY WOULD EXIST AND WOULD RETURN TO FIGHT AGAIN.
 
If your man ends up dead the HQ dies as well- but if wounded- or not fully destroyed- they come back eventually and are fully restored. Many of the Top commanders in the war were wounded- sometimes several times- and almost all returned to service; some only to be killed later.

< Message edited by Doc o War -- 11/26/2008 6:55:51 AM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to spruce)
Post #: 7
RE: something that makes me frown - 11/26/2008 3:18:06 PM   
dakjck

 

Posts: 59
Joined: 10/22/2006
Status: offline
I do not think it is correct to say exchanged prisoners did not resume fighting. If I recall correctly, exchanged prisoners were under no such prohibition, only paroled prisoners. For example, General Tilghman was captured at Fort Henry, later exchanged and fought (and died) at Champion's Hill. Therefore, exchanged generals should be able to fight again with no restrictions. Of course, if one side had no generals to exchange, 46 privates would equal one general.

(in reply to GShock)
Post #: 8
RE: something that makes me frown - 11/26/2008 8:25:34 PM   
spruce

 

Posts: 404
Joined: 9/23/2006
Status: offline
And Lee is worth more then 46 privates in my humble opinion.

(in reply to dakjck)
Post #: 9
RE: something that makes me frown - 11/27/2008 6:07:46 AM   
Doc o War


Posts: 345
Joined: 8/14/2008
From: Northern California
Status: offline
I should think that anytime with Lee gone would be seriously bad for the south- long term- wow - double enveloped- that was daring.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to spruce)
Post #: 10
RE: something that makes me frown - 11/27/2008 8:00:16 AM   
GShock


Posts: 1245
Joined: 12/9/2007
From: San Francisco, CA - USA
Status: offline
The death or capture of a general should affect the PP loss imo. Still, captured generals should be considered dead even when exchanged. That's what the release on parole means. Say one of those generals goes back to fight, and then the North, as it actually happened would stop trading prisoners. I'm more for a prisoner exchange for regular troops rather than for generals at all.

_____________________________

How long will you pretend you can't do anything about it? Support www.animalsasia.org

(in reply to Doc o War)
Post #: 11
RE: something that makes me frown - 11/27/2008 7:53:56 PM   
spruce

 

Posts: 404
Joined: 9/23/2006
Status: offline
or Lee comes back only to be forbidden to act as AC nor TC. So only a corps commander at best,

(in reply to GShock)
Post #: 12
RE: something that makes me frown - 12/1/2008 4:37:30 PM   
dakjck

 

Posts: 59
Joined: 10/22/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GShock

The death or capture of a general should affect the PP loss imo. Still, captured generals should be considered dead even when exchanged. That's what the release on parole means. Say one of those generals goes back to fight, and then the North, as it actually happened would stop trading prisoners. I'm more for a prisoner exchange for regular troops rather than for generals at all.


Exchange and release on parole are two different things. In an exchange, soldires/leaders are swapped with no restriction on their resuming combat. A release on parole does not require an equivalent release on the other side. That is why the parole is mandated, requiring the freed soldire not to resume hostilities. Therefore, there was no restriction for an exchanged leader from resuming command, while a paroled officer should not resume command.

(in reply to GShock)
Post #: 13
RE: something that makes me frown - 12/2/2008 6:56:57 AM   
Doc o War


Posts: 345
Joined: 8/14/2008
From: Northern California
Status: offline
The concepts and legalities of the Exchanged and Paroled soldiers was debated and argued all during the war- the Conf troops captured at Fort Donalson were paroled, not exchanged- and were fighting again at Shiloh two months later, which much angered Grant - officers who had signed paroles were captured later- what was their legal status??- Due to that serious legal fault several were slapped in dungeon like prisons in Deleware for the duration for that crime- others were ignored- or even exchanged yet again. Both sides began to ship the prisoners to more permenant camps- first just the officers, then the troops.
  The Union took the lead in this it would seem- but the south would follow- when in late 63 Grant began to order the exchanges stopped- and eventually when he took supreme command in spring 64 he basically halted the process- and the south got stuck having to feed more mouths than it could afford.
  
Given the long incarceration times in this game- and seeing an occasional posting that a certain commander is located in an enemy city after capture, which I assume means where they are held while they are prisoners, the use of these leaders- especially the good ones- is a real loss in capabilities- and that combat modifier certainly is gone. When they return they will have been replaced for a long time in the command structure- but if they are better generals they will again command something.

I do think an arguement could be made that senior Generals- anyone over a 10 rank- would not have been returned, as their positions were also political, and there was a Civil War going on.  The senior generals were seen as traitors or evil madmen by their foes, and responsible for the war. They would not have been released.  They might have even been tried and hanged, if the War Congressmen had been more powerful. Both sides did occasionally publically hang prisoners- which brought about counter public hangings- usually that stopped the practice.  

There were fanatics on both sides. There was a strong movement alive in Congress in the North to deport all the rebel civilians in the captured territorries- women children man and boy- to somewhere else- Mexico- South America- even South Africa. And to repopulate the countryside with loyal Unionists.  Remember the Americans shipped thousands of Tory's out of the Original US territorries after the Revolutionary War- by force- that was only 80 years prior to the civ War. As the war went on attitudes hardened. Lincoln deflected and derailed many of the worst punitive plans presented during the war. The South doesnt realize to this day how much damage Lincoln stopped in the way of what could have been done to the south by a Vengence seeking North.

I do not think Lee would have been returned/exchanged- nor Grant,

_____________________________

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

(in reply to dakjck)
Post #: 14
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Gary Grigsby's War Between the States >> something that makes me frown 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

1.281