This is where we discuss anything multiplayer. From strategies, arranging games, to multiplayer related technical help. You will also find tournament and league information here.
The notion of having to "bleed" any unit does lend itself heavily to the General being cast as a butcher :ohmy: The ones at Cold Harbor didn't have much time to be carefully fed in, though.
The use of that term (and I'm not discounting you for using it, Willard, just noting the fact that it exists) would be so horrifying these days it's mind boggling. Different type of folks back then who might not've liked it, but could understand and accept it (especially the ones in the regiments being "bled".)
As for Parker being a Longstreet type?
Hmmm, interesting on that comparison.
I will contemplate that on the tree of woe.
I planted the tree of woe! You will revere me regardless!
Last edited by SouthernSteel on Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The time for compromises is past, and we are now determined to maintain our position and make all who oppose us smell Southern powder, feel Southern steel."
Jefferson Davis, 1861
I can't remember the book it was in but some guy tallied the numbers that Lee and Grant had under them in all their engagements at the start of the war and Lee out scored Grant buy I think 10,000 or more. These figures relate to men engaged regardless of win loss record. As far as the term "butcher" is concerned, it was coined by Swinton, a news paper reporter at the time of the Overland Campaign. He got kicked out by Meade or Sheridan and Grant went along with the decision. Swinton in retaliation wrote an article in the New York paper damning Grant and Lincoln and the whole war effort. Swinton also wrote a great book on the Army of the Potomac in 1866. The term butcher wasn't used against Grant in a big way until he got into politics and became the president.
Thought I was supposed to be similar in style to Jackson, which is why, completely unsolicited, everybody started calling me "Stonewall" Seal:laugh:
I agree Parker might be sort of like Longstreet because if he had his way he would never fight unless the enemy was attacking his entrenched troops on top of a hill.
No, Seal, that's when you call everyone your favorite term. No one asks for it, but you go on and inform them anyway, :laugh:
It's not at all true that I won't fight, my numbers bear that out plainly. I just care more about my troops and ground than some (perhaps most). Regardless, it is a comparison that I am quite glad to accept in all its facets.
"The time for compromises is past, and we are now determined to maintain our position and make all who oppose us smell Southern powder, feel Southern steel."
Jefferson Davis, 1861
Parker's tactics may be like Longstreet's tactics. The difference is that Longstreet favored those tactics because they worked in the "game" he was "playing". Happily in our games, (and without repeating the WW1 discussion), these tactics usually don't win. Who knows if Longstreet would have adapted to different tactics if the situation was different, or if he was stuck in his own ideas and just lucky.
Last edited by Garnier on Mon Mar 21, 2011 9:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Yes, jolly good thing real tactics don't work in this game, or Seal would have his record reversed :laugh: and I might actually be doing rather better. The thing is that the tactics fit a particular strategic mindset, a factor which is highly minimized in the current setup. Perhaps it may show better in the Shenandoah campaign, if that ever gets going again.
"The time for compromises is past, and we are now determined to maintain our position and make all who oppose us smell Southern powder, feel Southern steel."
Jefferson Davis, 1861
"Sit-on-the-hill" tactics (as in, ACW and WW1 realism) aren't hard to learn, but I wonder if Seal could change his style before he got bored and quit.
It's not so much the game engine that prohibits these tactics, it's our artificial objectives. Without them, we could sit there forever. I prefer having the game favor Jackson style tactics because I enjoy playing them more. To each his own of course.
Last edited by Garnier on Mon Mar 21, 2011 10:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
That statement says more about Seal than about that particular tactic. Seal has already informed us on more than one occasion about his opinion about the new objective system. If he had to sit and/or defend much more, he might well go mad.
And sitting on high ground oversimplifies the matter a bit, insofar as it's easy to learn but extremely difficult to master, and mastry is where the real value lies. That is to say, maintain the strategic offensive and the tactical defensive. Don't sit on your hill and watch the enemy march by, but actively maneuver in such a way as to draw the enemy into attacking you on superior ground.
In any case, I don't at all argue that my style is at all the best nor necessarily even close (or even that I execute it or whatever else very well). I do agree we need the objectives, we found that out the hard way. Now the trick will be to make it so that we can encourage engagements without the last-minute charges.
"The time for compromises is past, and we are now determined to maintain our position and make all who oppose us smell Southern powder, feel Southern steel."
Jefferson Davis, 1861
The thing is that the tactics fit a particular strategic mindset, a factor which is highly minimized in the current setup. Perhaps it may show better in the Shenandoah campaign, if that ever gets going again.
Parker waiting on you man. Check the shout box.
Join Us for are campaign its 1861 and your respectable side needs you.