Humbolt and Army Commanders (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Gary Grigsby's War Between the States



Message

orabera -> Humbolt and Army Commanders (11/28/2008 5:12:57 PM)

Bought the game and ran through a couple of runs to early '63 to learn the game, and this may just be the best computer game I've ever purchased.

Couple of comments:

1. Really don't like one area for Humbolt that allows the same set of Heavy Artillery to cover both the Mississippi (aka Island Number Ten) and the Tennessee/Cumberland Rivers, a distance over 60 miles. I've played against the AI and while it fortifies Fort Henry/Fort Donelson (Dickson area) it never actually places (or really needs to) any artillery or significant troops there with the Tennessee/Cumberland river access blocked upstream by the defenses at Island Number Ten (on the Mississippi).

Had to look it up to get my dates right, but Grant actually captured Fort Henry/Fort Donelson two weeks before the two month campaign to reduce Island Number Ten even began, a feat nearly impossible in the game.

I think for game play that breaking Humbolt in two, with the eastern half containing the railway and bordering the Tennessee/Cumberland (Humbolt) and the western half the Mississippi and the Island Number Ten defenses (Dyersburg?). This would force the Southern player to try and defend both areas simultaneously, which they did and ultimately failed.

2. Army Commanders, thought it was strange to have Pope beaten one month in Manassas (my Third Bull Run defeat) by Lee and then have Grant defeated by Lee the next month at Memphis. I really think during the Civil War Army commanders remained in a geographic area and remained with the same "Army" until relieved (pretty much every Army of the Potomac commander until Meade) or Killed/Wounded (AS Johnnson or Joe Johnston). Lee always fought in No. Va. and Grant in the west until winning what the game would probably consider offensive Strategic victories (Vicksburg and then Chattanooga).

Perhaps limiting Army commanders to Tactical movement only until they win an offensive strategic victory and then for that following turn (or set number of turns, 2-3) they would be free to relocate if so desired. Winning a defensive Strategic victory would mean the other side has the initiative and the successful commander would still be required in that region to defend the South.

Moving an Army Commander by Strategic movement would be allowed but incur a certain political point cost. This would allow movement when the player decides it's necessary but accepting that moving a successful commander like Lee to the west would probably mean an admission by the Confederacy that the situation in the West was dire and required drastic measures. Unless Lee wins at Gettysburg, defeating the eastern Union army and being free to turn his attention to Grant and the western Union army.

Just my 2 cents, great game.






PhilipB -> RE: Humbolt and Army Commanders (11/28/2008 9:40:42 PM)

Orabera,

In this game,like Elvis, Lee is everywhere.  that, and the Unions lack of initiative in ver 3,are among the problems I still have with the game.



Isoroku -> RE: Humbolt and Army Commanders (11/30/2008 6:14:39 PM)

I personally like Lee being everywhere



Erik Rutins -> RE: Humbolt and Army Commanders (11/30/2008 6:49:14 PM)

I'm glad you're enjoying the game, I agree it's a great one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: orabera
2. Army Commanders, thought it was strange to have Pope beaten one month in Manassas (my Third Bull Run defeat) by Lee and then have Grant defeated by Lee the next month at Memphis.


Are you sure it was immediately consecutive months? An AC needs to be with his army at the start of the turn to really help them, so it's possible that he reacted to you in Manassas, then immediately moved to Memphis to be ready to react again there, but he couldn't have gotten there during reaction, it would have had to involve advance planning to send Lee west before the next Reaction phase.

Regards,

- Erik



orabera -> RE: Humbolt and Army Commanders (11/30/2008 8:30:08 PM)

I've saved over the save files since then, but pretty sure it was consecutive turns.

The first turn the "Army of the Potomac" failed once again at Manassas against Lee while Grant was victorious at Humbolt. The following turn he was able to attempt an immediate followup against Memphis while Sheridan moved on Shiloh before the Rebs could recover and ran into Lee.







Treefrog -> RE: Humbolt and Army Commanders (12/1/2008 2:46:35 AM)

I think the game is truer to history with Lee in Virginia and Grant where he needs to win the war.

Basically, Grant pretty much won the Civil War didn't he. Shiloh then 9 months to capture Vicksburg. After Vicksburg he went east, returned to save Chatanooga so Sherman could get loose to attack, then pinned down the ANV from Wilderness through Appomattox. Grant was the man. Lee did very well with what he had.



Doc o War -> RE: Humbolt and Army Commanders (12/2/2008 6:05:03 AM)

[sm=character0267.gif]Treefrog- Grant was Injured after the fall of Vicksburg 1863 when a horse stumbled and either through him, or in some way injured him- something about mud and slipping I think- but Grant was incapacitaed for some time, he didnt go east and then come back west.- He returned to duty n the west in October/November 63 to take charge at Chattanogga after the disaster at Chickamauga in September had nearly destroyed an army. 

Grant was in overall command at Chattanogga that late fall early winter, though most of the real fighting and command actions were taken by the lower level ground commanders there- his hand was still on the official tiller, and he was well served at important moments by his team. Oddly Sherman was terrible at Chattanogga- one of his lesser battles. Certainly not his worst, but a disturbingly bad showing.

Yet Fighting Joe Hooker actually did very well as a Corps Commander at Lookout Mountain, restoring his shattered reputaion of 6 months earlier at Chancelorsville. Corps commander was a role he was much better suited for, than as an Army commander. The glorious/famous charge up Missionary ridge was not actually ordered by Grant or Thomas- it happened spontainiously and at the lowest levels, and was really a bloody crawl that should have failed but instead worked, more so the bad positioning of the rebels than brilliant tactics. It was fought at company and brigade level. The Army of the Cumberland retook the ridge and their honor that they had lost at Chickamauga earlier that fall, they would not loose a battle again for the rest of the war.

Grant got all the fame of the breaking of the Siege at Chattanogga and the taking of Lookout Mountain and Missionary Ridge. - he was already on a tidal wave of fame with Vicksburg, and what had preceeded that- and this was the capper. He was called to Washington after crushing the Conf Army of the Tennessee to receive the laurals, and left Sherman in overall command in the center while he went to Washington to accept the Supreme command of all the armies and the Third Star of Lt General- a rank only Washington and Scott had ever attained up til then. It made him a higher rank than all the other Major Generals.

The Highest rank officially held in the Civ War Union army was Major General at that time- with levels of command being the modifier- a Major General of Division, of Corps and of Army- Mead was just a major General- so was Sherman. They commanded other Major Generals. The size of the command gave weight to the rank. In modern times the rank structure has adjusted and now Lt Generals with 3 stars command Corps- and 4 star generals command armies. We have senior 4 stars who would command armies technically- or groups of armies. They are called the Joint Chiefs now. In times of peace we only have 4 stars as th ehighest rank.  In time of war the Congress allows a 5th star rank for commanders of armies and fleets- and the supreme commander of each of our wartime forces was a 5 star.  In WW2 there were several army and navy 5 stars and Marshall was Number 1.

The Military offically considers Washington, Winfield Scott, Grant and Pershing to have commanded armies and groups of armies in past wars, and to have been supreme commander in chief in the field- Pershing was who they had in mind for this 5th Star Law and they made him a 5 star General- and retroactively all the earlier ones were postumosly made 5 stars.

We have not had a 5 Star General in modern times since the 1950s- the army lost that right when MaCarthur disobeyed Truman in 1950/51 winter in Korea and nearly nuked the Chinese. After the meeting on Wake Island Truman fired Macarthur and said there will be no more super Generals- and we have not had 5 star Generals since.  Truman felt that having that much power was wrong and he wanted to reign in the military, and envoked his authority as the civilian head of government- certainly in the period 1945 to 1950 Macarthur ruled Japan like a king- often in direct confrontation with the President. 

There have been no 5 stars since in the US Military- even though we had several wars since 1950. ( In my mind if we were fair; Ridgeway in Korea, Westmoreland and Abrams in Vietnam, and Shwartzkopf in the 1st Gulf War all were commanders in Chief in the field, but wars are smaller now) - it is funny that even in this game in which we award 3 and 4 stars to our senior commanders in the Civ war- when there were not actual union ranks above major general- of div/corp/army,(and yah it is easier for us in modern times to see the rank structure.)  But we still dont award the 5th star to the supreme commander in this game. I once argued for adding a 5th star leader later in the war- an uber leader that would be like another army commander slot- that in a forum discussion, but it was never picked up on. It would add one extra army commander in the war- but that would be such a major change in the game mechanics of the late war that it was defered.

Sorry to go on,  but I wanted to correct the Grant timeline.



silber -> RE: Humbolt and Army Commanders (12/4/2008 6:24:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Doc o War

In modern times the rank structure has adjusted and now Lt Generals with 3 stars command Corps- and 4 star generals command armies. We have senior 4 stars who would command armies technically- or groups of armies. They are called the Joint Chiefs now. In times of peace we only have 4 stars as th ehighest rank.  


Not exactly.
list of 4 star officers

The service Chiefs of Staff do not command troops. They are responsible for running their service branches for training, procurement etc. Along with the Chairmand and Vice Chariman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, they are responsible for advisng the president. The actual chain of command runs from the President to the Secretary of Defense to the commanders of the Combat Commands.

The ten Unified (or Joint) Combat Commands are mostly geographically oriented, except for the Special Operations, Transportation, and Strategic commands, which are expected to be capable of projecting force globally. There are four other joint commands -- the National Guard Bureau, US Forces Korea, and theatre commands for both Iraq and Afghanistan. The later two are under the control of CENTCOM, and US Forces Korea under PACCOM.

Additionally, the Vice Chiefs of staff of each of the services is a 4-star rank, and, with the exception of the USMC, each service has one or more Army-level commands which fall under the regional joint command, as well as a couple of supporting commands. In the Army, for example, there are Army Forces Command (FORSCOM) which is responsible for training, mobilizing, deploying, and sustaining the force, Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), and the Army Material Command, which is reponsible for acquisitions and logistics.

In the current U.S. Army, Brigades (and Armored Cavalry Regiements, which are brigade sized) are commanded by Colonels. Divsions are commanded by Major Generals, with Brigadier Generals serving as assitant Division commanders.

Rank above Major General is determined by position, and lasts only as long as the appointment lasts. For example, the CIO/G6 of the Army is a 3-star position.



John Neal -> RE: Humbolt and Army Commanders (12/6/2008 5:06:59 AM)

orabera -


Your point #1 is very good. I'd like to see this game done with more resolution, and weekly turns!



Doc o War -> RE: Humbolt and Army Commanders (12/6/2008 7:14:01 AM)

Also have to sort of agree on point 1- why is Humbolt an area that effects in both river systems?- seems like it should be split. Though on the oppossite side- that would make it harder for the Confeds to defend...hmmm- I can see it as a yes and no.  

What do ya'all outthere think on this?



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.828125