In defense of McClellan at Antietam: A contrarian view

Let's talk about Gettysburg! Put your questions and comments here.
Willard
Reactions:
Posts: 278
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:34 am

Re: In defense of McClellan at Antietam: A contrarian view

Post by Willard »

Willard
Thanks for the comments. I was actually thinking more along the lines of based upon NSD's research, are Thorp's numbers accurate? Meaning if Thorp's analysis is correct, the "gaming" of Antietam whether it be NSD or Sid Meier or HPS is off. Obviously I agree that when you tweak the numbers there will be an impact on gameplay if the engine has been designed to "compensate" for factors to create a historical gameplay.

For example, it is my understanding that the movement speed on the Antietam map is different to not enable the Union player to committ all his forces at once and overwhelm the Rebs. IF Thorp's numbers are to be trusted, then the addition of 15,000 men really does make a difference in the OOB, strategy and how the game can play out.

Hope this explains what I was trying to get at.

The second question is that in the event that Thorp's numbers are accurate or more accurate, does that mean NSD will look at the OOB?
You mean I said all that for nothing...just funnin' :P
I had the impossible task of scripting the full battle, Union Side, The Bloodiest Day, scenario. Thank goodness I had to keep it historical, or it would have been an embarrassingly easy slaughter. Does that answer your immediate question?

In addition, Antietam as designed is set in stone, it will never be patched, just like Jesus will never be married. :whistle:

That being said, it can always be modded, and I'm sure that this could happen along the way as more facts and acceptable new data is introduced. In fact, this would be a really interesting group project to undertake in the future. And on a really positive note, it sure would make for a much more interesting battle, the sides being more equal that is. Being able to unleash all the Union forces at once, and still presenting a challenge, would be really cool.

Edit: Oops, overlooked your main question and point about movement speeds. Nope, movement speeds are not tweaked at all for this design. Adherence to historical occurrences is strictly done by unlocking units and making them available for movement and action.
Reb -

Thanks for the info and your original response was much appreciated. I am going to track down Thorp's email on the WP to see if I can solicit a response on his version of OOB numbers if he got down that far in granularity. If I get a response, I may pick your brain on how I could work an alternate scenario for fun.

Good to know about lock/unlock vice movement changes. I also agree with your assessment which makes, IMO, Thorp's viewpoint all the more interesting.

Regards,

Willard
Hancock the Superb
Reactions:
Posts: 1436
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:06 am

Re: In defense of McClellan at Antietam: A contrarian view

Post by Hancock the Superb »

I created a scenario of the first half of the day at Antietam (before Bloody Lane) for TC2M (used to teach at school as a matter of fact). I used the numbers Brett Schultz (I think that is how his name is spelled) of TOCWOC found in his research on 2nd Manassas, dated September 2nd.

Not suprisingly, with minimal movement orders, the battle plays out almost exactly the same as it is thought to have played out. Hooker's assault against Jackson does well until all of Ricketts, Doubleday, Jones and Lawton are completely fought out. Hood's larger two brigades arrive to carry the day, until Meade comes and stops him. The Twelfth Corps can get a foothold in the West Woods, but no more.

Of course, I would like to see significant evidence backing up this new theory, for there is a lot of support in writing for Lee having just a handful of men (I think it would be hard to change all those documents). But the straggling uncertainty in N. Virginia does bring up an excellent question.
Hancock the Superb
IronBMike
Reactions:
Posts: 313
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 10:34 am

Re: In defense of McClellan at Antietam: A contrarian view

Post by IronBMike »

I created a scenario of the first half of the day at Antietam (before Bloody Lane) for TC2M (used to teach at school as a matter of fact). I used the numbers Brett Schultz (I think that is how his name is spelled) of TOCWOC found in his research on 2nd Manassas, dated September 2nd.

Not suprisingly, with minimal movement orders, the battle plays out almost exactly the same as it is thought to have played out. Hooker's assault against Jackson does well until all of Ricketts, Doubleday, Jones and Lawton are completely fought out. Hood's larger two brigades arrive to carry the day, until Meade comes and stops him. The Twelfth Corps can get a foothold in the West Woods, but no more.

Of course, I would like to see significant evidence backing up this new theory, for there is a lot of support in writing for Lee having just a handful of men (I think it would be hard to change all those documents). But the straggling uncertainty in N. Virginia does bring up an excellent question.
Would you happen to have this OOB laying around? It's always hard to play Antietam because of the overwhelming Union numbers from incorrect OOBs. I've also always wanted to play a September 18th scenario.
CWGII -> SMG -> SMA -> WNLB -> ANGV -> TC -> TC2M -> SOW
Post Reply