Show Posts

The thing about the American Civil War is that it is among a set of wars (Second War of Italian Independence, Second Schleswig War, Seven Weeks' War, Franco-Prussian War) that saw old tactics meeting new technology. Warfare is changing in the mid to late nineteenth century and the American Civil War exemplifies that shift, along with other wars.

The main problem is when certain individuals assert faulty information as true and attempt to use it to discredit the war as an interesting time to set a game. For example, Sven displays his ignorance by stating that "...these Americans can't even do a proper bayonet charge..." when there are examples in the American Civil War of such occurring, such as the Charge of the 20th Maine at Gettysburg. Our friend Sven continues to display his ignorance by failing to note just how costly and ineffective bayonet charges had become by this point, as increasingly accurate weapons were being created and utilized on the fields of battle.

The reason this period is so interesting is just this, though. This was a revolutionary period in warfare where the tactics of the past faced the technology of the present and failed. Despite the ignorant comments of several users on this forum, I for one look forward to BCoF, provided it isn't too expensive.

+1
And not to mention the confused generals with improved technology.

Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Tapatalk 2

40

General Discussion / Re: Why BCOF is a silly idea for a sequel to NW

« on: October 21, 2013, 05:33:04 pm »

Quote from: Archduke_Sven on October 21, 2013, 01:24:17 pm

Honestly the American Civil War is one of the most boring wars i have ever had the read about. No matter how much it is glorified or written about i still view it as a gang of dumb generals playing tug of war. I mean seriously, these Americans can't even do a proper bayonet charge, they just run away half way through. That war could have been over in a year if one side took the time to train professional soldiers.

This was way more than a tug of war with a bunch of dumb generals. If your country split in two tomorrow, who would you join? If your hometown was apart of the rebelling side, yet your beliefs are different from loyalists and parliament? (Sorry don't know what country you're in, on phone) Would you stay by your home or put down the rebellion? It's a tough internal question to answer.

As our expansionist policy, I can wholeheartedly agree that many political figures were too radical in seeing the USA as an empire, yet it was our belief of 'Manifest Destiny', where we thought we'd be full, free, and secure from the rest of the world by being protected on both side with not one, but THREE oceans and gulf, far from European superpowers.

Not to get off track.. but the South was eager to try and put down the North and they certainly could if time and more superior tactics was on Lee's side. It's very similar to a European war and very intriguing. It's like Napoleon taking his 600000 man army, crossing the river, burning Moscow, and then recrossing to France with less than 45000. In this case it's Lee being beaten by the Union due to one flaw when he sent Pickett's division forward to try and charge an entrenched position heavily man. Yet after the division is completely eradicated, he comes BACK over the river and accumulates enough to drag the war out for nearly five more years! Napoleon had to train them on the march.. George Meade had to as well. You may not like it, but I love it and the NA presence is rapidly growing in fse and even then more EU (Dutch, German, French, and Irish) are getting into NaS and BCoF.

Believe it or not, but the UK nearly entered the war on the side of the Confederates. Yet, Victoria refused and we indirectly fixed your economy due to cotton politics.

Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Tapatalk 2

41