Supply Wagon's

[BOSTON]

Gfran64 wrote:

I think in the carryover scenarios there will need to be an adjustment in the command structure when significant leaders are lost. If you loose a Army/Corp/Divisional commander, a Colonel would not take command but probably the ranking Corp/Division Commander would assume the new Corp command and his Division's command structure would fill in his position with the senior Brigade commander and so on down the line.

All command structures within that chain would take a hit due to the shuffle of Generals.

Regards,

Greg:)

How about if Lee/Meade had the ability to make field promotions during game play? I'm pretty sure they had no command buttons, other than for movement for themselves. It would be a way of having them more involved/interact with the game. From what I've read, that the South was more careful about choosing their leaders.

[ironsight]

dale Wrote: Some command structures would be improved by a commander's loss. Such examples are Lee for Johnston (1862)

And then around the fall of Atlanta, Hood for Jonhston where Hood eventually demoralized and left his Army in ruins. As it turned out, Hood's movement to Tennessee was a blunder.
Woulda been interesting what Johnston would have done if he was left in command. My geuss is he would have done what he did all along, delaying tactics to slow down Sherman's continued march into the Carolinas. Once Sherman left Georgia, Johnston was put back into command with any local troops he could scrounge up.
Too little, too late!

How about if Lee/Meade had the ability to make field promotions during game play?

Or how about if the player could make the field promotions? Don't know how this would work mechanically though as the process could get sticky and maybe too complicated.
Maybe a lookup table of the available commanders?

Hoistingman Wrote:capture more union wagons! problem solved with hard to get ammo IMO!

As it historically turned out during the war, the South never did capture enough cartridges to make those repeaters useful for prolonged useage.
I'm sure they tried like hell though!

[BOSTON]

Truthfully I don't lose a commander all that often in SP, and when so, it was from not concentrating enough and didn't see it coming. It would probablly be the case more often in MP, don't know till I test the waters in that play.

When I think about it, in RTS there is little time to spare (in SP) to micromanage everything on the screen without heavy pause key use, which would be futile in a MP game, if at all. Jim wrote something about that.

What I'm looking at would be; accumulation of VPs at the end of each step in a chain of carryovers to trigger automatic promotions or upgades (fair to average ect.) prior to the next scenerio and so and so on for both sides. Certainly gold bar standards to be set, that would'nt be easy to achieve.

Let's say you have a green commander or unit for instance that you would like to build up it's quality through experience for later use.

What do you think? :huh:

[JC Edwards]

Tell ya what I think.........

Way, way into the future.....many, many years from now and long after ironsight has gone the way of the DoDo.........in some NSD/MMG archive, there will be an entire section devoted to him and the "cotton-picken" Supply Wagon with the little green halo!:lol:

[dale]

I would increase the rating of a unit based on several factors. The first would be if it routed involuntarily it would not be eligible for promotion. Second, it would have to have been targeted for a certain number of volleys of fire. Third, it's own firing would have to have created some effect on an enemy unit whether it caused that unit to voluntarily or involuntarily to withdraw. The bar threshhold from green to fair can be lower than from regular to veteran. A green unit will likely rout at some point so the routing disqualifier could be thrown out.

Historically could a unit rise from green to regular in just two engagements? I think the rating of the commanding officer of that unit should affect that rise. Some officers (Cross for example) could train their regiment (5th New Hampshire) to a degree where it was on par with regular infantry by the first engagement. Some officers by contrast would always exert a negative influence on their unit. Such officers were often found to be drunks or cowards and completely shirked their duties during battle. More often than not they were political appointments who retained their command through politics.

In multiplayer should the actual historical performance of the colonels and generals have a major affect on the actual units or will the human players completely substitute their will on the troops, so that all troops have a standard ranking?

[ironsight]

JC, thanks for reminding me about the wagon thing, i forgot all about it!
:laugh:

Here's just one reference i found with supply wagons being blown up in:
'Cavalry Raids of the Civil War'
CSA Gen. Wheeler attacked a large Yankee train of 800 - 1000 wagons at Walden Ridge. He captured 800 mules and set fire to hundreds of wagons. The sounds of exploding ammunition and powder was said to be heard for miles. This raid was said to be the largest one of its kind which severely ruined Rosecrans day.

Also found accounts of Mosby and Morgan torching wagons causing explosions.

Still looking for a wagon to be blown up by direct enemy fire. The only account i found so far was in some 1600's Civil War somewhere in Europe. In that one a bullet set off a powder keg in a wagon.

Yeah, wagons were used to haul cotton too!!!:laugh:
When the Yankees encountered em, they got torched also!!!:laugh:

H'mm, in addition to adding a food wagon, how about adding a third cotton hauling wagon with say a purple halo? :dry: :laugh: