How to build level 2 fort ?????? (Full Version)

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



Message

turbospeeder -> How to build level 2 fort ?????? (1/16/2009 6:54:35 PM)

How do you build a level 2 fort. I can buid level 1 all day long.
point to make: playing a South, Grant attacked near Memphis 90k to 70k guns about equal, Grant kicked *ss. Typically successful attacks generally need three to one. I think some think is wrong with battle calculations



Joel Billings -> RE: How to build level 2 fort (1/16/2009 7:19:21 PM)

The 3 to 1 rule was not true in the Civil War. Leadership is much more important than force ratios, and Grant is an excellent leader. Read about Grant's battles near Vicksburg and you'll see that you don't always need to have a lot more troops (it helps, but you don't have to have it to win decisively).

As for the fort 2, you can only build level 2 forts in a few designated areas. I'm pretty sure they are listed in the manual, but you can also see them in the rollover text for the region. It will say Fort 0 (2) and the number in parenthesis is the maximum fort level for the area. Look at Richmond as an example of an area that can be fort level 2. To build up to fort level 2, you simply build another fort in an area that is already fort level 1.



turbospeeder -> RE: How to build level 2 fort (1/16/2009 7:22:38 PM)

Thanks for quick responce! Still argue point of 3 to 1. Leader ship can make a huge difference, but physics, (a bunch of men verse a few), still applies. That is why the 3 to one rule has typically applied to warfare over the years.



Doc o War -> RE: How to build level 2 fort (1/16/2009 7:53:17 PM)

Remember these are one month turns- the battles we fight are campaigns- made up of several battles- over regions that are 50 or more miles across. Many troops do not commit to action - just because you move 75000 troops into a region doesnt mean they will all commit and engage- Leadership is in fact the key element in the combats- not boots on the ground.  During Seven Days Battle-and again at Second Manassass - Hoods Texas Brigade and Longstreets Corps rolled up much larger forces of Union troops but fielded lesser numbers- and having massive numerical advantage by the union did little as the troops failed to commit at critcal points.  
   We modern gamers are used to 20th century military history- in which trained armies followed orders and engaged in modern war. In the 19th century armies tended to sit around a lot.  Look at Grant in 1864 battling at Petersburg - while a whole army- the Army of the JAmes under Butler- sat in its lines and " Laid Siege"  it just sat there.  technicaly all in the same region.  There are many examples of this.



herwin -> RE: How to build level 2 fort (1/17/2009 8:05:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: turbospeeder

Thanks for quick responce! Still argue point of 3 to 1. Leader ship can make a huge difference, but physics, (a bunch of men verse a few), still applies. That is why the 3 to one rule has typically applied to warfare over the years.


The 3-1 rule reflected various tactical factors in the rolling country of Northern France:
1. The defensive firepower was dense enough that for the attack to advance, it had to gain fire superiority.
2. The defence was able to fire from two lines, not just one.
3. Entrenched defences were only about 20% as vulnerable to fire as the attackers moving in the open.
4. Logistical resupply was not a major issue.
5. You didn't want to put too many troops into the tactical zone because most weapons were area fire.

When you do the fire superiority analysis, you discover that you needed more than 2.3 to 1 superiority in units to hold fire superiority over the defence. 3-1 allowed about 20% of your troops to move at any given time. You needed 4-1 to do the same against fortifications. Tanks in support of infantry changed the dynamics quite a bit. A tank with co-operating infantry in sufficient strength (how much varied based on closeness of the terrain) could do the same thing as a 3-1 superiority, except advance twice as fast.

It wasn't physics.



Capt Cliff -> RE: How to build level 2 fort (1/20/2009 7:32:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: turbospeeder

Thanks for quick responce! Still argue point of 3 to 1. Leader ship can make a huge difference, but physics, (a bunch of men verse a few), still applies. That is why the 3 to one rule has typically applied to warfare over the years.


The Napoleonic Axiom of which is better an army of rabbits lead by a lion or an army of lions lead by a rabbit holds true. Also morale is 3:1 on a battlefield, another quote of Napoleon, and a good leader get's that morale bump. It is all leadership.



herwin -> RE: How to build level 2 fort (1/20/2009 10:57:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt Cliff


quote:

ORIGINAL: turbospeeder

Thanks for quick responce! Still argue point of 3 to 1. Leader ship can make a huge difference, but physics, (a bunch of men verse a few), still applies. That is why the 3 to one rule has typically applied to warfare over the years.


The Napoleonic Axiom of which is better an army of rabbits lead by a lion or an army of lions lead by a rabbit holds true. Also morale is 3:1 on a battlefield, another quote of Napoleon, and a good leader get's that morale bump. It is all leadership.



I generally agree, but the key ratio in the Napoleonic Wars was much smaller than 3-1. 3-1 in the First World War reflected the tactics and technology.



Capt Cliff -> RE: How to build level 2 fort (1/21/2009 6:59:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt Cliff


quote:

ORIGINAL: turbospeeder

Thanks for quick responce! Still argue point of 3 to 1. Leader ship can make a huge difference, but physics, (a bunch of men verse a few), still applies. That is why the 3 to one rule has typically applied to warfare over the years.


The Napoleonic Axiom of which is better an army of rabbits lead by a lion or an army of lions lead by a rabbit holds true. Also morale is 3:1 on a battlefield, another quote of Napoleon, and a good leader get's that morale bump. It is all leadership.



I generally agree, but the key ratio in the Napoleonic Wars was much smaller than 3-1. 3-1 in the First World War reflected the tactics and technology.


WWI can not be used for any comparison of anything past or present. It wasn't war it was a slaughter house ... simple murder. There was about as much tactical expertice used as a firing squad does.

The 3:1 ratio was something Bonaparte recongnized from his experience.



herwin -> RE: How to build level 2 fort (1/22/2009 9:05:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt Cliff


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt Cliff


quote:

ORIGINAL: turbospeeder

Thanks for quick responce! Still argue point of 3 to 1. Leader ship can make a huge difference, but physics, (a bunch of men verse a few), still applies. That is why the 3 to one rule has typically applied to warfare over the years.


The Napoleonic Axiom of which is better an army of rabbits lead by a lion or an army of lions lead by a rabbit holds true. Also morale is 3:1 on a battlefield, another quote of Napoleon, and a good leader get's that morale bump. It is all leadership.



I generally agree, but the key ratio in the Napoleonic Wars was much smaller than 3-1. 3-1 in the First World War reflected the tactics and technology.


WWI can not be used for any comparison of anything past or present. It wasn't war it was a slaughter house ... simple murder. There was about as much tactical expertice used as a firing squad does.

The 3:1 ratio was something Bonaparte recongnized from his experience.


Please provide a citation.



Erik Rutins -> RE: How to build level 2 fort (1/22/2009 1:08:54 PM)

Turbospeeder,

quote:

ORIGINAL: turbospeeder
Thanks for quick responce! Still argue point of 3 to 1. Leader ship can make a huge difference, but physics, (a bunch of men verse a few), still applies. That is why the 3 to one rule has typically applied to warfare over the years.


I have to agree with Joel, the Civil War provides many examples where leaders made the difference, taking fortifications with smaller forces at times, due to a good plan. In other cases, a heavy fortification couldn't be taken despite heavy odds in favor of the attacker, without good leadership.

Regards,

- Erik



Hoplosternum -> RE: How to build level 2 fort (1/22/2009 1:17:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt Cliff


WWI can not be used for any comparison of anything past or present. It wasn't war it was a slaughter house ... simple murder. There was about as much tactical expertice used as a firing squad does.

The 3:1 ratio was something Bonaparte recongnized from his experience.


Please provide a citation.


Or an example. Napoleon won many battles without coming close to this numeric superiority.

I have heard the 3:1 adage often. And certainly in modernish times with ranged rapid fire weapons the defence has an advantage. So I am not disputing it but I am interested in who it is attributed to and why they thought it and for what era?

I would be surprised if it is applicable to all eras. It seems most applicable to more modern warfare (late 19th/20th Century) on a local level where you would need to mass your people/firepower to overcome the defensive advantage that he is dug in and you expose yourself to close with him.

But in ancient/medieval times when melee weapons were used frequently (Hoplites/Pike squares etc.) relatively few of the participents can fight at one time and the rest are waiting to fill in the ranks of the fallen. You certainly don't need as many as 3:1 to get tactical overlaps and morale/leadership/positioning etc. would be much more crucial than the numbers.

In the era of Muskets with lines of missle troops numbers count more as nearly all participants can fire. But you wouldn't need 3:1 to have a decided advantage. But outside of attacking forts there were few battles at 3:1. It was hard to force a battle and few would risk a heavy defeat by actually fighting at such odds.

So when and where does this quote come from? When did Napoleon fight any battles (not numbers involved in the campaign) with a 3:1 advantage for or against? Who would fight on such terms until the period of total war in the 20th Century?



Capt Cliff -> RE: How to build level 2 fort (1/22/2009 7:15:20 PM)

I believe there is a book on Napoleonic axioms where "morale is 3 to 1 on the battlefield" comes from. I have to check my library. His meaning is higher morale troops are more effective. At Waterloo he commited a battalion of the Old Guard against the Prussian who were in Placenoit and they routed them. At the same time he sent the middle guard against the Brits, but they failed. Mainly I feel because Friant fell as he was directing the columns to converge on the "Thin Red Line". But that's my conjecture.

Also consider the low number of cowers a high morale unit has. So every man fights rather than squatting and peeing in his pants.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.7028809