Scourge of War Boards

There is obviously a morale check when they get into melee. The key would be to cut short the time they 'brawl' to where the unit with less morale loses quicker. If they have slightly less morale they withdraw right away. If they have a huge differential in morale they are captured practically instantly once contact is made. I'm basing this on the fact Powell said at the angle they surrendered fairly quickly. There was evidently very little of this fighting till the regiment was annihilated. Most of the annihilation was thanks to artillery and rifle fire. I agree that we also do need the 'halt' button to stop a regiment from charging to avoid gaminess by the player defending the charge. Also, the defending regiment shouldn't automatically counter charge unless contact is made or the defending commander orders it.

Yes. . . it was a mighty good feeling last night when I captured one of your regiments after melee.

:woohoo:

I was busy whipping the other wing of your army and capturing half of Seal's Division, so it was really AI. Musta sucked when that same brigade beat you to the objective to win the game though. :pinch:

It's not my fault you can't maintain control of your regiments.

And capturing one of your regiments is the equivalent of capturing all of Seal's division.

And I could have easily dispensed of that whipped brigade had not the rest of your army showed up too.

OK, for those that wishes to have the melee in the game that is fine with me!

But, I absolutely hate the melee aspect of the game, and I’m completely satisfied with the setting that Norb has placed in the drills file.

I’m sure that there were some fighting between the units at Gettysburg , but when you add up all of the soldiers that were there, and divide that amount with the actual bayonet wounds, I’m sure that that figure would be very small.

So, if there are any changes, please leave that setting in the game, for anyone (i.e... Me ), that strongly prefer to have the men shoot their way to victory.

davinci

I'm pretty sure I had posted about melee being overused months back, but I can't exactly remember...

The way the game portrays melee is very inaccurate. Melee is used as a "tactic" right now. Players intentionally close in on a target and hit the charge button to engage in melee. This happens in nearly every game as a means to quickly break a regiment. In reality, charges were ordered with far less frequency because the results were far different than what we see in the game.

First, hand to hand combat was rare. I know there have been about 10 (maybe less) specific examples provided for the Battle of Gettysburg. Considering that 200,000 men engaged in battle over 3 days there - that's a very small number. I know that you Civil War grognards will be able to pull out many more examples as well, but it simply doesn't match what we see in the game. For instance, the examples that I have seen so far are simply indicative of firefights that simply got very close. You had color bearers falling, momentum swinging back and forth and small groups of men rushing at each other. That was bound to happen and it often did on small scales. However, to have an entire regiment engage in hand to hand combat with another regiment was something that did not happen very often.

The first example that comes to mind is the 20th ME - Chamberlain having ordered his regiment to charge Oates's men and subsequently driving them back across the saddle between the Round Tops. However, there is also speculation that Chamberlain had embellished his story of the "charge" over the years and it was more a matter of the Alabama boys withdrawing from what was a stiff firefight - not a charge.

Another great example is Pickett's Charge. Everyone is quite familiar with the massed melee that occurred in and around the angle. However, what everyone isn't familiar with is that it wasn't simply massed melee in and around the angle. Yes, there was quite a bit of melee there (compared to other parts of the battlefield), but the battle at the angle was primarily a firefight at close range.

The main reason why hand to hand combat was rare has nothing to do with tactics or weaponry, it all revolves around the human psyche. In a "standard" infantry engagement of 100 yards, you have men firing at a line of different uniforms. In the haze, smoke and confusion of combat at the length of a football field, the engagement is impersonal. You are an automaton following orders with the soldiers to the left and right of you. You fire away as quickly as you can with a sense of duty to the unit and a strong sense of fear of the pain and suffering that could await you. It is extremely difficult to get men (even trained soldiers) to take the next step and engage the enemy in hand to hand combat. Combat moves from moving in formation and pulling triggers to actually committing murder. I know it's not murder on the battlefield, but when you are asked to kill a man by crushing his skull with the butt end of your rifle, it goes against EVERYTHING that you have ever learned since you were born. It's ugly, it's personal and it's a bloody freakin' mess. That is why large groups of units were usually unable to engage in hand to hand combat. Most melees revolved around a fallen flag or officer or beloved friend. They were small personal affairs involving hatred or immense personal pride.

I also don't believe that anyone would mistake a bayonet wound from a bullet wound. If you were to stick someone with a bayonet and pull the trigger, you would end up with a huge flash burn that would be instantly recognizable to a medical expert. I think they would quickly recognize and categorize the wound as a melee injury, especially if this were common practice. I don't doubt that it happened, but it surely would be noted by the examiners if it were a common occurrence.

I also remember hearing from a group or reenactors that most Civil War soldiers had discarded their bayonets (as well as other various gear) to lighten the load. My image of Civil War hand to hand combat revolves around men swinging rifles like clubs. Kerflumoxed, you wouldn't happen to have any references regarding the discarding of bayonets would you?

I have references referring to bayonets being used as candle-holders, tent pegs, and for roasting "meat on a spit" as well as various other tasks. But, as to discarding bayonets, I suspect it was uncommon simply because muskets were kept in stacks which traditionally required bayonets to be "fixed", although ramrods could accomplish the same task. I also suspect that any First Shirt (Sergeant) worth his salt would have severely frowned on throwing away the bayonet and the unlucky "thrower" would have undoubtedly ended up in his Orderly Report...a nasty place to be!

J

I can't imagine a Sergeant doing anything "nasty" to an enlisted man

So that seems to settle that, the men did carry their bayonets. Although I still insist that melee on a regimental scale rarely happened.

I just read about discarding bayonets last night in fact, while going through "The Blue and the Gray." It's at the end of this piece:

http://www.civilwarhome.com/minutiae1.htm

The infantry found out that bayonets were not of much use, and did not hesitate to throw them, with the scabbard, away. - McCarthy

Who knows how broadly the content of one writing can apply, but I thought I'd mention it.

Having done some long marches myself, I definitely can see why they would want to throw away bayonets. Battle itself doesn't happen often, and the encumbrance of carrying a bayonet all day every day would not feel worth it, except for use as a tool as Baylor mentions. That article is about the rebs, where the infantry pretty much threw everything (or rather, what little they had) away due to the constant marching.

I've read a lot of first hand accounts of battle (mainly what got me interested in the civil war), and have yet to read anyone describe actual melee, except Chamberlain. Close range fighting seems as Rich described, everyone firing as rapidly as possible into the smoke.

I can't imagine a Sergeant doing anything "nasty" to an enlisted man

So that seems to settle that, the men did carry their bayonets. Although I still insist that melee on a regimental scale rarely happened.

And I concur in general principle with your melee conclusion, although I learned many years ago to "never say never." In some cases, at least, the very thought of being on the receiving end of the bayonet caused several to reconsider holding their ground! It would take a brave man to stand up to a charging line of fixed bayonets. OUCH!

J

I agree that the game has a tendency to overly use the melee, but it was still a tactic used (very ineffective).
I rarely melee, but I do use it. It is best when you see that the enemy is faltering and you give them that push that collapses them. By then the morale is so week they just run away. I have in battles (not at all very often) use it to capture a stone wall etc. If your opponent has a stone wall or some other advantage it is useless to try and engage them with rifles only. They have the advantage and it is a matter of time and you are done. I will engage with rifles and then hit the advance button to get closer and then rush the wall hopping for a melee. In this way it is an essential tactic, the other option is to fall back and then nothing......

Jumping the Melee Topic !

Hey, is there any way that the Patch can contain an Option to have the supply wagons only move a certain radius.

Sort of like an input valve of 500, 1000, 1500, 2000 yards , from their starting value.

Why – well, the only thing that the single player game really doesn’t do very well is create any type of lulls in the battles. If the supply wagons were placed well behind the battle lines, the units that had to re-supply would be forced to fall back.

Once they re-armed, they would move back towards the battle-line, this would change the field of battle, depending on reserves , and can the player hold this position while moving various brigades back and forth.

This option could also be used to re-organize – the brigades after re-arming them.

The input valve would be used to allow the player the option of dictating how far they wished to travel too re-arm their units, since everybody plays the game slightly different.

davinci