Scourge of War Boards

Hello all. I'm a long time Civil War buff, but new to Scourge of War. Loving the game so far. Absolutely brilliant.

The only problem I have with it right now is a small detail regarding the 20th Maine. In the battle of the Little Round Top, I click on this legendary unit...only to find that they have been classified as level 2 (irregulars), the 2nd to worst rating in the game. I was truly baffled by this. Why would such a successful and notorious unit be rated so low? Does anyone have any insight as to why the designers did this?

Up until Gettysburg the unit had little to none combat experience.

Grabbed this from Wick...

Combat history

Prior to their notable actions at Gettysburg, the regiment was held in reserve at Antietam, was among those forced to remain overnight within sight of the Confederate lines at Fredericksburg, forcing the regiment's Lt. Col. Joshua Chamberlain to shield himself with a dead man. The unit was unable to participate in the battle of Chancellorsville due to a quarantine prompted by a tainted smallpox vaccine that had been issued to the unit's soldiers.[1] On May 20, 1863, Colonel Ames was promoted and was succeeded as colonel of the regiment by Joshua Chamberlain,[2] who had been offered and declined leadership of the unit at the time it was formed.

Yes, sometimes untested men unexpectedly achieve heroic deeds.

The opposite applies; at Waterloo the Hanoverian Cumberland Hussars withdrew in good order from the battlefield and made off towards Brussels without seeing any combat. Many wargamers rate them poorly because of this, but in fact they were not especially different from any other Hanoverian cavalry regiment at the battle, some of whom performed very well.

I think its important in game design to allocate unit ratings to troops based on their campaign history/experience up to the battle you are modelling, but not to let their performance in that battle affect the rating, or else you're creating a circular logic.

Yes, while contemplating the injustice done to my 20th Maine, as I quietly sobbed into my pillow last night, I figured the low rating had something to do with their experience level at the time. Personally, if I was a game designer, I would put priority on their overall success in the war, and the innate qualities of the unit, even if those qualities had yet to appear chronologically.

I mean, it's not a big deal, the game is unparalleled. I guess I'm just touchy on the issue because I'm a Union man, and it seems like the vast majority of Civil War buffs (game designers included) are Confederacy-inclined, and always rate the rebs super high and the blue-coats abysmally. Sid-Meier's games, for instance. At the battle of Crampton's Gap, click on the Union troops--they're the lowest rating. Click on the rebels--they're rated "ELITE." Oh noooo, the game's original max rating of "crack" troops was not high enough, they had to come up with a new, off-the-charts rating for these chums. They're JUST. THAT. GOOD. I mean, their success in that battle couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that they were entrenched on the high ground, with f***ing mountains protecting their flanks. No, definitely just mad skills. (/sarcasm)

Sorry. You can probably tell I have a chip on my shoulder. It really has nothing to do with Scourge of War. Like I said the game is unmatched and I'm obsessed with it at the moment. I just want accuracy, and I think the Union tends to get a bat rap, and the Confederacy ratings tend to be inflated. I haven't played the Confederacy scenarios yet, but I have a sneaky suspicion that they will predominantly have high ratings.

Yes, yes, I understand that up until Gettysburg, the Army of N. Virginia had spanked the Army of the Potomac in nearly every engagement, BUT, in regard to this fact, I have 2 things to say. #1: is that really the fault of the troops, or is it not more to do with idiot political generals like Sickles leading nighttime raids on his own troops, and other debacles of that nature? Secondly, though the Confederacy dominated in the East, the Union dominated in the West--yet none of the Civil War real-time-strategy games cover the Western theater. They all seem to assume that everyone idolizes R.E. Lee and Stonewall, but I don't my friends, I idolize Grant and Sherman, and I want to play their campaigns! (Don't get me wrong, mad props to R.E. Lee, etc.)

Thus, my friends, we reach the conclusions of my ramblings, and if you have indulged me to read this far, God bless you. I end with this question: are there any more Civil War games in the making for Scourge of War, or have the designers moved on completely to Napoleon and Waterloo? I mean, if you're determined to involve R.E. Lee, you could at least do the Overland Campaign, with the showdown between Grant and Lee. That would be EPIC.

PS-it's true the style of warfare in that year was a little different, with all the entrenchments....but, wouldn't it be cool to give the infantry an "Entrench" command? You can have that one for free, Norbsoft. Looking forward to playing the next Civil War expansion with entrenchments and Grant. See ya!

Oops, sorry. Double posted by accident.

OOBs are completely modable. I to disagree with the ratings of the 20th Maine. They have it wrong no matter your position. They proved on July 2 and for the rest of the war that they were a very good unit.

In fact I disagree with a number of the games rankings of regiments. I have created my own OOb to play from with these changes. You can also do the same.

Yes, sometimes untested men unexpectedly achieve heroic deeds.

Indeed, I'm reminded of a quip made by either Longstreet or Kershaw at Chickamauga as Gracie's brigade readied itself for the final push up Horseshoe Ridge. It went, to the effect: "Good thing most of these men have little to no combat experience. Otherwise, they'd know better what they were about to endure." I think it would apply to the 20th Maine as well.

One thing I like about SOW games is the uncertainty of any given situation. Your best unit might turn and run without warning, or a militia unit might save the day.

The Old Guard breaking at Waterloo for example. The most veteran, best equipped troops, with experienced leadership, still broke. Was it fighting uphill, was it withering fire, was it Wellington or the Prussians on the flank? Would an hour earlier have made the difference?

The 20th Maine at Gettysburg was without extensive experience. It did have tremendous advantage of terrain. The orders ( stance, hold to the last ) could result in either the troops losing faith, or as happened, filling both troops and their leaders with exceptional resolve, culminating in a bayonet charge. ( A rare but not unique situation. During the Wilderness Campaign the 5th Vermont was ordered to retreat but executed a bayonet charge instead, gaining the time for the rest of the Vermont brigade to retire in good order and stabilize the Union line. { the Union brigades with the most causalities for the entire war were the Iron Brigade, the Vermont Brigade and the Irish Brigade. })

Would the 20th Maine have performed as well at the railroad cut? Point being SOW games include so much more than simply a unit's rating. You get an inkling as to a units potential from it's rating, but you never know when an overambitious regimental commander will take that enemy position and then continue an un-ordered attack the results in the regiment being routed from the field, or an inexperienced unit saves your entire army.