regiment disorganization

[NY Cavalry]

This is probably a good topic to discuss with the new expansion pack "Antietam" soon to be released.

This game is not very kind to small regiments. That is just the way it is. They will not hold up like large regiments. The problem is that at Antietam the rebel regiments were almost all very small. While the Union regiments were full size. If melee is allowed, like we see it now, the whole rebel army is just going to be swept away in melee.

Melee did happen, so I don't want to see it completely go away.

[born2see]

NY Cavalry wrote:

If melee is allowed, like we see it now, the whole rebel army is just going to be swept away in melee.

Let me assure you, the Antietam scenarios are extremely well researched and designed and melee will not carry the day for you.

B

[Garnier]

The drills.csv file – using the N and the R ….. Columns

The CantCharge thing is meaningless because there is zero delay in changing formation. You just run in column right up the enemy, and then click line and click charge immediately.

If MinEnemy could be changed to work even with TCed units, then the maneuver column charge is easy to fix. It wouldn't cause defending lines to retreat, all it would do is force attackers to deploy into column by divisions or line of battle before getting too close to the enemy. This is exactly what we've wanted.

There's still the issue of using small units to disrupt large bodies of marching enemy. But as MinEnemy is mod-able, if this becomes a problem it won't be something we couldn't undo.

[WriterJWA]

Challenge accepted.....

[WriterJWA]

NY Cavalry wrote:

If melee is allowed, like we see it now, the whole rebel army is just going to be swept away in melee.

Let me assure you, the Antietam scenarios are extremely well researched and designed and melee will not carry the day for you.

B

Challenge accepted.....

[Jim]

Just to play the devil's advocate. There were several instances of melee reported, especially in the earlier fighting at Fox's Gap. It did not happen a lot, but it did happen.

-Jim

[Little Powell]

The start of Barksdales charge into the Peach Orchard was basically one giant melee. There was also quite a bit of melee'ing going on at The Angle.

Like Jim said, it didn't happen a lot but it did happen.. In Barksdale's case, he had been waiting all day to join the fight. He had to sit there and watch Kershaw go into battle and get chewed up and there was nothing he could do. He was chomping at the bit and when he was finally released, his boys basically ran right over the Yankees, of course with lots of hand to hand fighting.

[william1993]

He was chomping at the bit and when he was finally released, his boys basically ran right over the Yankees, of course with lots of hand to hand fighting.

YEEHAW!! STOMP THEM, STOMP THEM!!!!!

[Marching Thru Georgia]

Little Powell wrote:

The start of Barksdales charge into the Peach Orchard was basically one giant melee. There was also quite a bit of melee'ing going on at The Angle.

Not according to the Official Records Chap 39. A search of them for actual hand to hand combat turns up very few recorded instances. They are:
7/1 149th PA pp341

7/2 Bat F&G 1st PA Art pp895
19th MA pp442
6th NC pp486
1st NY Art pp701
20 ME 1 company pp623 not the final bayonet charge.

7/3 19 VA pp386 No comparable report from union forces of this occurring.

There were many bayonet charges recorded, however virtually all resulted in one side or the other or both retreating. In fact actual contact was so rare that there were several reports by various units engaged of the bayoneting of two individuals, one union and one confederate.

[Davinci]

This is where I think that the majority of history writers misinterpret what actually happened in a lot of these battles.

For instance, just going by memory so some of this information may be in error, Picketts charge with roughly 12,000 men, General Armistead crosses the stone wall with roughly 200 men and several fights break out, probably mostly due to surrendering units not surrendering their colors’.

Now, a history writer will claim that there was a great deal of melee fighting going on at the stone-wall, when in fact there was probably only a few soldiers actually involved in hand to hand fighting.

General Armistead along with several hundred troops would have never crossed over the stone-wall and tried to hold that position unless they thought that a majority of troops were still behind them pushing forward.

At this time most of the confederate force was probably falling-back!

Now, even if the two-hundred men were engaged in hand to hand fighting which I strongly doubt, there were 12,000 soldiers at the start of the march, so that would still equal a very, very small amount of soldiers involved in melee.

Melee fighting should never account for more than one-percent of the battle casualties in this game.

I think that most of the history that we have read about is greatly distorted!

davinci