RE: Mogami's last attempt. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

moses -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/25/2005 7:17:54 PM)

Don't worry my offensive will come probably much sooner than you think.

Again I have to wonder what the point of the mod is. If the goal is a totally static front why not just put everyone in static mode and not allow anything to move unless they pay PP's. If you really do get the thing set up where Japan can do nothing (and it looks like you'll get that done) and after a year China can do very little (I have real doubts) then what have you achieved? A really boring theater which nontheless requires significant attention from the players.

It would seem that the only players who will want this are players who don't want to be bothered by China. These players would just be better off agreeing not to fight in China. Then they wouldn't have to waste time on the theater.



Mr.Frag -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/25/2005 7:39:21 PM)

You can't just ignore it because it becomes important much later in the war.

If you go down the house rules path, you get into a whole variety of other issues such as pulling troops out for other areas which leads to more house rules etc ... Japan has to at least defend what is there and prepare their wall to keep the bombers away from industry that they rely on to generate the supply to feed the boys.



mogami -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/25/2005 7:39:44 PM)

Hi, Moses your last post is very revealing.

It was exactly because that situation existed that the Pacific War was fought.

So any scenario that creates that situation has in fact done a great job.

Once again WITP is not about "The Great Land War in Asia"

But I think I will do a partial map mod first just to for that.

Once the patial map mod has Japanese players wishing they could cut off Chinese outside supply because they can't win the land war the "balance" will be right.

In this mod the Japanese will have full access to every unit in the Japanese OOB. He will have to pay PP to move units from Manchuria or Home Islands but everything in SAA will be put back into China Army. The entire IJAAF will be on hand as well as the bulk of the IJNAF.
Japan will get all the oil and resource it needs (it is still buying it)

Game will begin in June 1941. (The lines had not changed between then and Dec only Japan would ave had that much more time to conduct the first offensive since units would not be departing for the South)



moses -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/25/2005 8:03:04 PM)

I won't argue that its not accurate. I think you acknowledged in a previous post that the strentgh of the Chinese force is to an extent a designers decision. (I realize there are historical facts but we can interpet them differently).

I accept that your design decision is that Japan should not make any progress angianst a competant Chinese opponent. (Its your mod and you may well be correct in your historical assessment) Now I doubt that you can do this so that a Chinese player will not roll over Japan in late 42 and 43. Thats just based on my experience testing Chinea scenarios but again I may be wrong maybe you can do it.

I just commented that if you achieve this it's going to be a fairly non-eventful theater. Now again you may be correct that that was the historical situation and its your mod so OK. Still for players who want this they will have to do a lot of work each turn just to keep an eye on each other. And nothing much will happen for their effort.

Might just be easier to turn the thing off. Make everything static until someone pays PP's to move it.

Its your Mod. I would prefer something where Japan might make progress with a great plan, some luck and a willingness to pay in lives in a way which exceed what happened. In place of a static equilibrium I would prefer a more dynamic equilibrium where with two equal players you would expect a stalemate. But where it was possible for either side to do better.

The current scenario 15 is not that far from this point in my opinion which is why I have suggested changes which might move the scenario so that it was MORE difficult for Japan to make progress but not impossible.



Bradley7735 -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/25/2005 8:28:50 PM)

I tried to go on the offensive in China (as the allies). I moved 3 engineer units from India to China. I moved hundreds of heavy and medium bombers from India to China.

I attacked Canton (4 IJN divisions plus support) with 75% of the available chinese forces and all the bombers. (playing the AI, you don't have to worry about being outflanked).

I couldn't make a dent in the forts at Canton in months of trying. If I were playing a human, I'd have lost ground in Burma (no heavies to use), and I'd have lost all my northern cities in China.

I think you could add several chinese divisions to the game and it wouldn't make a difference as to whether a competent allied player could roll over a competent Japan player. (but, I may suck at the game so maybe I'm wrong)



mogami -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/25/2005 8:39:31 PM)

Hi, I really don't see where it is an improvement to change the improbable Japanese victory in China from taking a few months to taking 12 months and costing more.
I think the attempt should cost a lot and then fail. The reason I think that is because that is the result Japan had been getting for the last year in China and the result Japan got over the next 3 years in China.

Here is the situation in a nut shell. (I have to post often or my machine freezes and everyone know I am a terrible typist and need to edit everything a dozen times so hang in there)

I think it is very important that both sides understand what brought on the Pacific War that this game is about.
Please excuse me I don't mean to imply that I alone understand the correct way to design scenarios or games or interpet history.

IN 1930 China extended all the way to the in game Soviet border. The Japanese Army in Manchuria was there as a result of Japan having the rights to build and maintain a railway.
What we call China Army in the game was once a part of the Kwantung Army or Guandong Army. In the beginning it was just 1 regualar division and several Bn of Railroad guards.
This Army pretty much went "renagade" between 1928 and 1932. Taking over Manchuria and growing. It established it's own government in Manchuria.
As the Army grew in size it constantly occupied more area of China. The Chinese government and the international community never recognized the legality of any of Japan's expansion. The Japanese Army was out from under control of the Emperor and the civilian government in Japan.

Everyone is aware of the divided nature of China. The Soviet UNion was worried that Japan would attack their Far Eastern Area (and Japan did in 1938 and 1939 and was clobbered both times) So they began arming and training the Chinese to fight the Japanese to keep the Japanese occupied.
I'm not quite up on the politics that resulted un Germany training and equiping the Chinese but they did. Some 40 divisions and Chinese officers went to school in Germany. Chinese pilots were taught by the Luftwaffe. And the Chinese organized a Tank Bde along German lines (but with a strange assortment of vechicles)



Oliver Heindorf -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/25/2005 8:55:31 PM)

I wonder that in pac war china was not a problem at all ( or I missed something on it OK ) and here it is a problem. why not totally removing the cities, units and everything else and make a big hole of nothing there ? make an amount of supplies/fuel/resources/oil/HI/unit replacement pool/pilot and aircraft replacement pool drawn from the pools and all problems are gone. you simulate the china war as a monster eating up your supplies.

as human player, you can add supplies spended there, the game simualtes a progress in the war and gives you back political poiunts and victory points. more abstract but better useable. of course I have no idea which would be the right amout of what...just my idea how I would solve it if it would be my problem.



mogami -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/25/2005 8:58:15 PM)

Hi, China was a joke in Pacwar but both sides had to pay to activate units each turn.

Why not make a game that actually reflect reality. Whether you like the reality or not?


Now do you want Uncle Moggie to finish his story about how the war came to be?



Mr.Frag -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/25/2005 9:13:50 PM)

quote:

I couldn't make a dent in the forts at Canton in months of trying. If I were playing a human, I'd have lost ground in Burma (no heavies to use), and I'd have lost all my northern cities in China.


Did you go around Canton and block it's supply or were you just bashing your head on the wall hoping for them to run out?



mogami -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/25/2005 9:27:50 PM)

Hi, More important. Were your units in supply? Not were they out but were they showing red?



Kwik E Mart -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/25/2005 9:52:54 PM)

ramble on...

mogami,
i apologize if this has been posted elsewhere, but i am having trouble grasping the situation with the chinese theatre.

is there any concesus on how the japanese would do in china without stripping other theatres for units? would it model history? or is it necessary for japan to strip other theatres to achieve "spectacular" results. if so, there *should* be an allied grand strategy that counters this. counter attack in malaysia? invade indochina? i'm just throwing out thoughts here...haven't studied any of these. i guess what i'm getting at is that if japan can trounce china by using *only* troops that should be guarding the russian border, and russia cannot be activated to counter this, then the game appears to be broken, IMO. perhaps the strategy of dumping every available ground unit into china is an "unbeatable" japanese strategy...i just find it difficult to imagine that drastic steps would not have been taken historically if china was on the brink of elimination, steps that are not currently available to the allied player in the game "as is"...

ramble off...



mogami -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/25/2005 9:58:38 PM)

Hi, Well it depends on the Japanese player.
Is he the type that will send units from manchuria to China without paying the PP cost to change HQ?

The really crafty Japanese player does not attack China right off. He sends units from China to Manchuria and wipes out the Soviets. Just wipes them off the map. Now he can send the entire 9k Manchurian Army to China and with it wipe China off the map. Then both Armies now free from anything to do just diddy bop over through Burma and wipe India off the Map.
Now this brilliant Japanese player has a massive force to use against the remaining Allies and nothing to worry about on the mainland from India to Siberia.

By 1 jan 1943 he should have about 20-1 point ratio and be immune to Allied counter attacks.



moses -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/25/2005 10:00:42 PM)

quote:

Hi, I really don't see where it is an improvement to change the improbable Japanese victory in China from taking a few months to taking 12 months and costing more.
I think the attempt should cost a lot and then fail. The reason I think that is because that is the result Japan had been getting for the last year in China and the result Japan got over the next 3 years in China.


Agree almost completely. Except I think it should cost a lot and fail most of the time. I do think that if Japan takes risks, plays well, and is willing to take the losses there should be a chance of winning.



mogami -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/25/2005 10:07:23 PM)

HI, OK must be some new math I am missing here. 70million fight 1 billion in a war of attrition and win?

As long as China keeps getting outside supplies China will keep on fighting. Losing men does not impact the number the Chinese have in the field if they keep getting material to send more.

The Japanese did the math and said "We have to stop the Chinese resupply"

Their answer and actions brought on the general Pacific War that resulted in their defeat and removal from China. And that is exactly what China planned from 1937 on.



Bradley7735 -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/25/2005 10:09:33 PM)

quote:

Did you go around Canton and block it's supply or were you just bashing your head on the wall hoping for them to run out?


quote:

Hi, More important. Were your units in supply? Not were they out but were they showing red?


My units were in supply (not in the red). And, I was banging my head against a wall. I wasn't playing as I would vs a human. Even a moron would have out flanked me and taken most of my bases. I was just curious if it could be done. I eventually did take Canton, but it took a long time.

But, even though I'm not the best strategist, it would take a LOT of men to root out 4 Jap divisions behind 9 forts. I don't think a competent allied player could really roll over Japan if they were playing someone even half as competent. (in China)

I think giving China better defence in the early war would probably solve a lot of problems. It would require very skilled players to take land in China (Jap players), and I dont think the allied player would be able to roll over japan in the later part of the war.

bc



Hornblower -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/25/2005 10:19:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kwik E Mart

ramble on...

mogami,
i apologize if this has been posted elsewhere, but i am having trouble grasping the situation with the chinese theatre.

is there any concesus on how the japanese would do in china without stripping other theatres for units? would it model history? or is it necessary for japan to strip other theatres to achieve "spectacular" results. if so, there *should* be an allied grand strategy that counters this. counter attack in malaysia? invade indochina? i'm just throwing out thoughts here...haven't studied any of these. i guess what i'm getting at is that if japan can trounce china by using *only* troops that should be guarding the russian border, and russia cannot be activated to counter this, then the game appears to be broken, IMO. perhaps the strategy of dumping every available ground unit into china is an "unbeatable" japanese strategy...i just find it difficult to imagine that drastic steps would not have been taken historically if china was on the brink of elimination, steps that are not currently available to the allied player in the game "as is"...

ramble off...


Japanese player has to keep a certain level of assult points in Manchuko (sp?) or else the Soviets declare war..



Tophat -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/25/2005 10:53:59 PM)

I agree with moses on the flaw in just raising the Chinese OOB with alot of units will result in China doing a reverse rush on japan and roll them right out of China.
Mogami,yes there are alot of units not represented in the Chinese OOb,but alot were under local warlords and only nominally were under Nationalist control. Yes under various conditions these boys would fight the japs but the "warlord" would try and preserve his forces. The idea of "static forces',while being easier for the japanese to overcome would do 2 things. 1)Be more representative of what the Chinese were able to actually command in the field. 2) Provide an entrenched obstacle that would slowdown the japanese and make him work for it!
Mogami,you moses and most probably all the rest of us agree China is too easy as it stands now for the Japanese in scenario 15. We need to correct this and can do it so its both more historical but still playable.



mogami -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/25/2005 11:01:47 PM)

Hi, I'd like to have a few tests run before I draw any conclusions on the impact of changes to Chinese and Soviet OOB.
But it is my intent to make it more likely for China to run over Japan then for japan to run over the Chinese.
One was not done because the forces could not do it. The other was not done because the forces felt they had better things to do.

So what you need is when you play PBEM have a wild Japanese player out to conquer the world and an Allied player who just wants China to keep what it starts with.

Did I mention I'm removing all the VP for cities?
Did I mention I'm making all Chinese cities provide some supply?
Did I mention I'm redeploying Chinese units?
(other cities on map will also provide supply. The local rice harvest, fishing and stuff like that. Cities are not worth VP but they still might be important.
Did I mention that both sides begin dug in level 9? So if you move you lose a lot of defense that will take months to get back.



Tophat -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/25/2005 11:13:02 PM)

Did i mention <being respectful,i still wanna have that beer> that if you make all the chinese units fully mobile you throw historical right out the window!



moses -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/25/2005 11:14:27 PM)

quote:

HI, OK must be some new math I am missing here. 70million fight 1 billion in a war of attrition and win?


Lots of historical examples where large populations lose wars to smaller ones. I don't think I need to insult you by making a list.

But here's how I'm looking at it. Say you were making a game simulating the german/Russian war. Now some say its impossible for germany to win and some say if such and such had been done differently germany could have won. Now you can say that history show that Russia won and thats it. In your game russia is going to win no matter what.

But is that a very good game? I thinks its better in a game if a range of plausable possibilities can happen. I would not want to play war in russia game if victory is impossible. I would argue that it should be difficult but not imposible. Now you can come back and say well Russia won which proves it. And we go round and round.



mogami -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/25/2005 11:22:54 PM)

Hi, I'll buy that. But this is not a game about "The Great Land War in Asia"

I keep going back to where I began. Japan got into the larger war because it could not win in China.
As long as China was getting outside help it would never stop fighting.

But at the same time the Chinese were content to let the Japanese stay where they were at because in the time it took to throw them out they would be gone (they would lose the Pacific War)

Japan reached down deep into the forces in Manchuria and China and withdrew all they could spare.
12 Div and 6 Bde

I'm not syaing Japan cannot win in the new OBB scenario. But to do so they will have to cut the supply lines into CHina and then widdle away at the Chinese for a long period to make minor gains. As they get PP they can send units to China (but watch the garrison requirments)
And if the Chinese get too friskythey can get spanked. They are not that good. There is just alarge number of them. They are imoblie because they are tied to their supply.

Also cities are not VP but losing troops is VP. The Chinese will score more points defeating Japanese who advance onto them then they will score advancing into dug in Japanese positions. (That first turn you move into the enemy hex is going to be bad for the side not dug in.)



WiTP_Dude -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/25/2005 11:32:20 PM)

Do you what is the maximum assualt strength for a current Chinese Corps? I know it is well over 300 but not sure the exact number.



Tophat -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/25/2005 11:34:50 PM)

This is interesting,I actually agree with moses in his concept of how the game should represent the war in China. It should be possible for japan to win a military victory there. I also agree with Mogami on putting other Units that aren't represented now onto the map. The problem is the units mogami wants to add: 1)were not 100% loyal or committed to the nationalist cause. 2)Were in many cases not willing to leave certain geographic areas and if they did the commanders/warlords were very unwilling to suffer casulties to "THEIR" own forces!!
The War in china wasn't simply the Japs vs the nationalists and the communits........it was the Japs.....vs Large nationalist faction...committed communist faction.......dozen plus warlord factions<all out for themselves> and the chinese people who wanted to be left alone!
Right,we can go round and round saying the japs lost,allies won see? Well when last i looked the communists were running China and frankly they looked like a dead horse around this time!



Tanaka -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/25/2005 11:44:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

It's like I said before Mogami, we've had under-strength Chinese for so long, that people who enjoyed steamrollering them are unwilling to let that go. They're less interested in history and simply want the thrill of decimating China in 9 months to remain in the game. You'll never convince these guys, they don't WANT a tough fight in China.

They’ll simply keep making alarmist statements in hopes you decide not to modify things based purely on their speculative statements. I say go ahead and add the troops, I doubt China will be able to do squat against the Japanese due to their complete lack of sufficient engineers or modern artillery, but lets at least find out.

Then let some of these alarmists play test it as the Chinese and show us how the yellow steamroller can decimate the Japanese. They’ll soon start complaining about their inability to reduce Japanese forts and want more engineers. Not to mention the fact that all of China only starts with about 70k-80k of supply stockpiled and if they try to build forts and airfields in every base the supply begins to dwindle. So now they’ll want enough supply to build their B-17 bases and be able to launch massive offensives all at the same time. Sigh…

Sorry for the tongue in cheek sarcasm guys but common, China gets squashed flat in most any game where Japan is played competently. Adding the HISTORICAL troops won’t prevent successful Japanese moves, it’ll only make them harder and actually give the Chinese the possibility of a response which they utterly lack now.

Jim


Completely agree here! Nice post! Lets have a historical game guys!!!



Jim D Burns -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/26/2005 12:04:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tophat

Did i mention <being respectful,i still wanna have that beer> that if you make all the chinese units fully mobile you throw historical right out the window!


ROTFLMAO, and what we have now is historical? [8|] Give me a break. The Japanese had MAJOR problems trying to get supplies to the font due to partisan activity in their rear areas. Almost all Japanese units in China were constantly engaged in Policing duties and most offensives rarely could muster more than a full division let alone the 6-8 divisions players can easily mass together now.

If Japans units are mobile then the allied units need to be as well. If you're going to fix the Chinese in place then fix the Japanese as well. The game fails to model the realities of the problems faced by the Japanese on the ground, so far too many units are available to attack. Couple this with half strength Chinese OOB and you get what we have now, a complete blowout that breaks the game.

The whole point of the war in the pacific was because of Japans failed mission in China. A FAILED mission, not a massive offensive poised on the verge of conquering the entire country before the end of 1942.

You Japanese fan boys have to start thinking in terms of game balance here. No game will be played out beyond 1942 as it stands now because all of Asia gets rolled over in no time. House rules won't cut it, there has to be a reason to fight the pacific war other than mutual agreement by players. Fixing the Chinese OOB will go a long way to help balance the game, but The Russian and Indians need attention too. Not to mention the busted land combat routines.

Jim



mogami -> To be or not to be. (1/26/2005 12:14:20 AM)

Hi, I think modern wars are won or lost before they begin.
I think human beings often are unable to understand the events they are living through and make mistakes.
People do not always understand the FULL meaning of events. These misunderstandings remain and become history. Can anyone decide the truth of historical events? I don't know but I do know a certain amount of math is required. I know there are things that can off set math. Iron versus Bronze, Steel versus wicker, Bullets versus Dead Cats swung around the head on a short rope.

But.... when both sides are using the same gadgets numbers matter.
There are folks who hold that Germany could have defeated the Soviets. They are all over the place.
Ask one of them when the first Soviet counter attack wrecked the first German Panzer Div. The war was settled right then and there but it took a while for all involved to see it.
There are people who think the Southern Confederacy could have defeated the Northen States. They actually think RE Lee won battles that mattered. (Lee never destroyed a single enemy Army.... US Grant destroyed 3)

Wars stopped being decided by a single battle a very long time ago. If losng battles meant losing wars we would all refer to the great Carthagian Empire.


Modern Wars (by that I mean wars of production) are simple to understand the outcome.
The side with the most wins. No nation has ever lost it's "will" although it is often a target.
The mistake people make in saying Japan or Germany or the Confenderacy or Carthage might have won is they use the beginning of the war as a measure of what might have been. But if you use the starting point as proof they might have won you ignore that these countries at their apex could not defeat an enemy who had not yet mobilized.

Germany, Japan, The South, Carthage had all made their war preparations before the outbreak. It was in fact their belief that they could win "short" wars that led them to defeat. At a precise moment in time they counted their "assault" value and thought "I have more" They would all have been better off prior to the war to have built their war making potentional rather then war making machines. If they had asked "who can lose the most" they would have avoided the war.

Germany and Japan and the South and Carthage fought wars with what they could not afford to lose. They could not grow stronger because the structure to produce and maintain a larger force for a longer period did not exist.

So the real question is not could Germany or japan or the South or Carthage win a war but could they make single campaigns produce the total defeat of the enemy before that enemy gathered it's resources and counter attacked. (left out an o)

All these wars begin with the success of the side that lost in the end. But it was success directed against an inferiour force that produced no reduction in the abiltiy of the enemy to continue the war.
The humans alive at the time lived through the dark times and yes they often dispaired of victory. They saw the enemy at his high tide. But few of them saw beneath it all to what was to follow. What followed was not a result of the enemy becoming smarter or better. All forces in war become better. The winners become stronger.

When Rome lost 50k men in a single battle it appeared to many they had lost the war. The Carthagian figured that Rome would come and ask for peace. The next year when it was time to resume the fight the Romans fielded an army larger then the one they had lost the prior year.
Geography is often a target in war but never produces results. Taking a city but leaving the enemy intact is futile.
The germans took a lot of land and inflicted much damage to the Soviet Army. But the ratio was one the Soviets could and did absorb. The Germans never recovered from that first summer.
The Japanese never recovered from unexpected defeats in China. They tried a new approach that destroyed them. The South won it's way to defeat. (really what most people now refer to as Southern victories were in fact Northern Victories where the Northern Commander retreated ) And Carthage just plain wore its self out winning.
(And we have Karl XII, who won battles for over 10 years before he lost the war in a single day)
There are no examples of smaller forces defeating larger ones in battles where the smaller force did not have an edge. There are zero examples of a smaller force winning a war except where the smaller side was more advanced. (and few of these)

Japan was not more advanced. Germany was not more advanced, The South was not more advance and Carthage was not more advanced.
The Germans might have had Jets late in the war but they had horse drawn Arty all through the war. The south invented the submarine but it only sank one ship out of a fleet numbering over 600.

No I don't think any of these could have won the war they fought. They might win a game.
A game that does not require them to endure a war but allows them to win the game by winning a few battles. But all a battle is to me is when my forces provided by my production system do a little math.



Tophat -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/26/2005 12:22:54 AM)

Yes the japanese had partisan problems...somewhere in this tome of a thread i even mention that! Also the Chinese were heavily factionalized with nationalist,communist and a plethora of warlords. Yes they fought the japanese,but also when not fighting or not supporting eachother they were anything but co-operative. Corruption was rife with the nationalists,warlords were bought or bribed with arms,money,political positions etc......

Fixing the chinese OOB without taking what composes the Chinese Army is nothing but Allied fanboyism......play balance my foot.
Do not throwup the "Japanese didn't advance in China because they couldn't arguement",,,its old. The japanese never really understood or took the time to learn about the chinese and their internal divisions. Also committing mass atrocity did nothing to prove to any chinese leader that there was a political solution to japan's aggression. Japanese arrogance in discounting Chinese combat ability got the japanese into several devestating predicaments. What happens when an arrogant man is slapped down hard? He then makes an excuse for his defeat,so did the japanese. I'm sure a plethora of "ntelligent" staff officers said we can't possibly advance and win militarily in china.....lets go get into a much larger war and we'll cutoff the chinese supplies!

alot of these new chinese formations are not going to move or perform verywell.



WiTP_Dude -> RE: To be or not to be. (1/26/2005 12:25:48 AM)

Yes, Germany came close to defeating the Soviet Union. They made many mistakes and still came close to Moscow. Had they done things differently, who can really say what would have happened. The victory of the USSR was not an automatic.

The South however never came close to defeating the North on the battlefield. They invaded the North a couple of times but were pushed back with high losses. But if Lincoln lost the 1864 election, the South would probably have gotten some kind of deal. They get their own country with slaves if they wanted.

Japan can't defeat the United States in a long war. They have too many disadvantages when going up against them.



Tophat -> RE: To be or not to be. (1/26/2005 12:34:10 AM)

Interesting,
The south goes over to defensive Warfare and never suffers the gettysburg losses...they adopt Longstreets defensive warplan. What happens here....losses,more union losses.
Remember draft riots are going to occur in the North....what does the south have to do? Kill yankees in droves and offer a political solution to the North. Will it work? not sure,does it have a chance....yes.

Looking at the situation,Japan,China,Germany,then saying: Aha! Thats the inevitable way things would have workedout! History proves it so! This just begs the question of the events that led to that conclusion.



WiTP_Dude -> RE: To be or not to be. (1/26/2005 12:36:56 AM)

Lee had problems feeding his men and horses. So he couldn't stay in one place too long or his army would begin to starve and get smaller. See the Petersburg siege for an example of this. So during the summers of 1862 and 1863 he moves north to live off the land. He tries to win some battles but it doesn't work out.



Page: <<   < prev  6 7 8 [9] 10   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.84375