War of Northern Agression and CM engine.....

[Greg Scurlock]

As I fly above the terrain of VT I couldn't help but notice how much it resembles land north of Atlanta or even in the Shenandoah Valley or Gettysburg. Noone has ever really gotten the Civil War right in gaming. I wonder what the tallent at Big Time Software could do with that genre. I can see Gen. Thomas Jackson now, with his troops "standing on that ridge like a stone wall." Wow.

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Greg Scurlock:

I can see Gen. Thomas Jackson now, with his troops "standing on that ridge like a stone wall." Wow.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wouldn't the MG42s make a mess of them, deployed like that?

[Guest Ol' Blood & Guts]

"War of Northern Agression???"

Com'on dude, get over it. The Union kicked their ass and it was over 130 years ago. Get over it.

Besides, it was a war to "preserve" the union and to eliminate an evil to society called slavery.

[maxm2]

Concerning the War to Protect the Right to Own Slaves Masquerading as a States Rights War (heh-heh):

As a long-time American Civil War gamer (anyone else here part of the ACW Club?--wonderful gaming/role-playing club for people playing the Battleground series of Talon ACW games), I've thought about using the CM approach to the ACW, but I'm not sure how much fun it would be. The big battles had tens of thousands of troops and hundreds of arty pieces. The small battles...well, they don't sound very dramatic from the descriptions.

Remember, we're talking about "get in a line and fire as fast as you can at the other line" type infantry tactics, except for the cav, so there isn't a lot of need to swing your "camera" around behind a unit of 50, 100, 500 troops to enjoy the "quick action" that follows when they're spotted by an enemy unit of 50 to 1000 troops. Small unit tactics simply weren't used much except in special cases.

Having said all that arguable stuff, I would still love to have a 3D Gettysburg or Antietam battlefield with most of the troops represented. And right after I get my 20gighz processor and 1 gig video card computer, I'm going to buy that game.....

: )

[Greg Scurlock]

Anyway I just felt like CM is so far beyond anything ever made to simulate WWII, that perhaps the same thing could be done for other eras. CM should be a shining example for all to all talented programers that wargaming is not dead and that an excellent product can be rewarded financially. Also, I'm interested in the Civil War and happen to be a born and raised southener. Didn't mean to hurt anyones feelings.

[Mark IV]

(sigh)

More misplaced political discussion. I'm outta here.

[maxm2]

Interesting how it's difficult to avoid political issues when discussing war and games about it. You'd think that war had something to do with politics!

(Altho, I thought I addressed several war game type issues about the use of the CM engine to make an ACW game)

[Zamo]

Without trying to stomp on anyone's toes, you all are educated enough in terms of history to realize that slavery was NOT the principle reason the Southern states seceeded, nor why the Northern states invaded the South. It was much more about the division of governmental control via state government versus federal government. Along with the tantemount differences between the agrarian South and the newly industrialized North.

The abolishonist movement was essentually a fringe group of extremists until midway through the war when Lincoln used it as a noble means of bolstering support for the great costs (in terms of both men and materials) that the North was incuring.

Despite the fact that the North won, and slavery was rightly abolished, I can certainly see why some people call it the "War of Northern Aggression". In reality it certainly was. At that point in time the nation was not nearly so federalized as it is now. Now states are little more than big counties, not independant nations working together as originally envisioned. What real "right" did the northern federalists have to enforce themselves on the south? Slavery not withstanding. Americans have long loved forcing our morality on those who see things differently. I have long wondered what Messrs. Jefferson, Franklin, Washington and the rest would have thought of the origins of the Civil war...and the reinforced federalized nation that emerged from it.

Just my two cents...Not trying to piss anyone off, or condone the morality of the South, just trying to maintain an unbiased, neutral perspective on a very fascinating aspect of history.

Zamo

whose BA in history dates from the late precambrian

[maxm2]

Can't let that Zamo's comment stand, but won't add any more to this now off-topic discussion. I know a lot about the ACW and don't agree, Zamo. Although I agree with you about how people perceived what they were fighting for, in terms of root causes, would there have been a Civil War if there had been no slavery and no slavery issue in terms of new states coming in slave or free, etc.? I don't think so. I can't imagine you would either.

[Joe Shaw]

I tend to agree with Mxm2, while the ostensible reason for the war was one of states rights and the right of secession from the Union, the root cause of it all was slavery. While the North certainly invaded the South, and while that was the prime motivation for many of the Southerns fighting, the invasion wouldn't have taken place had it not been for slavery.

Regarding using the CM engine for an ACW game, Sid Meirer (sp?) did a very good job with his Gettysburg game, which is a real time game. Firaxis then did a follow on about Antietam but it wasn't as well received. IMHO, about all you could use from CM would be the terrain, the engine would have to be totally reworked in almost every area to be useful.

Joe

------------------

"Son," says I to him, "you're a Dragon. And a Dragon ACTS like a Dragon or he doesn't act at all."

Smrgol, Dragon

[Zamo]

Yeah, I do agree that the new state slave issue was a major bone of contention and a true root cause. I must admit I overlooked that point, and that was one they were debating hard for many years prior to the war wasn't it? I must be getting old. My main point was that the war did not begin with the North screaming "Abolish Slavery or else!", as much as it began with the South saying "Stick your Yankee federalistic dogma up your Northern Arses and let us do what we want!"

[Zamo]

PS:

I'm not a big civil war fan, but I do think that the CM engine would be great for it if the scale could be done correctly. Bringing this back on topic, I have been having a lot of fun leading bayonet charges over the hils in VoT.

So let's imagine a similar wargame, say, five or so years in the future, buliding on what BTS has done here, with the extrapolited power of tomorrows computers to handle the larger scale...WOW! Then maybe we will see some great ACW and WWI wargames. Let's hope CM is just the start of a trend!

Sorry to lead the topic off with the last couple of posts...

Zamo

[maxm2]

Actually, one point I tried to make above was that it's probably impossible not to get into political issues or historical issues with current social issue overtones, because we're talking about (in at least some cases) issues that people decided to kill each other over. When those issues still echo today, I think it's almost impossible not to stray into social/political territory in some discussions.

So I don't think you did anything, Zamo, that many of us haven't done. It's just so enticing to "set the record straight!"

One question, though: pardon my ignorance, but what's VoT?

[jgdpzr]

VoT=Valley of Trouble, the new scenario in the gold demo.

[dumbo]

As long as we are taking a head count for me ACW (American Civil war) means instant yawnsville so my vote would be no.

Stick to the Russian Front WW2 please.

[Greg Scurlock]

Hey guys, just got back from lunch and can't believe how far off course this has gotten. "War of Northern Agression" is just a little joke here in the south so relax. And i would just like to see Civil Wargaming advance as WWII gaming has with CM.

[Guest Ol' Blood & Guts]

Well you can also apply the same logic to the International Coalition against Iraq in 1990-91. I guarantee that the one major factor in wanting to drive Iraq out of Kuwait was OIL. When prices of gasoline jumped from $1.05 to $1.49/gallon overnight, wouldn't you go to war too?

I guarantee, that if a country invaded another country that has really no contribution to the world's economy, that there would NOT be a international effort to stop it.

Actually why I think Russia objects to any conflict where the "wrong-doers" are using Russian-built equipment is that they don't wanna be embarrased by watching their stuff being pumbeled and trashed by Western equipment.

"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong."--Dennis Miller

[Guest smbutler]

I've said this before and I'll say it again: the CM engine, with some imaginative--and perhaps fundamental-- adjustments (esp with the time segments and scale), would make for a killer 18th and 19th century platform.

As far as the political debate about causes (I'm from the South); the root cause WAS slavery, but very few YANKEES should flatter themselves with the idea they their ancestors were fighting to free slaves. Good Yankee men like Chamberlin and Shaw, who faught specifically to free the slaves, were rare exceptions. That said, we, the South, were just BUTT wrong...

[Guest Mirage2k]

Sorry to contribute to an increasingly OT thread, but I just had to but in....

States' rights vs. slavery as a cause of the American Civil War? As far as I can tell, they are one and the same! The issue was the states' rights to legalize slavery, and the right of the territories (ie soon-to-become states) to pervade the "peculiar institution."

As far as the war being one of "northern aggression," lets stop for a minute and remember that there is NO provision ANYWHERE in the constitution that says a state has the right to secede.

And Zamo, the founding fathers had VERY different visions of what the U.S. should look like. Not all of them believed in states' rights as fervently as you implied in your post. Even before the Constitution was ratified, the conflict between Federalists and Anti-Federalists became very heated, as were the party politics between the Federalists and Jefferson's Republicans in the late 1790s and into the early 19th Century (I seem to remember at least one brawl on the floor of Congress).

-Andrew

[Gespenster]

I tend to agree with Zamo's assessment of the Epic Struggle that was the Civil War. It wasn't all about Slavery, there were many other things that divided the states as well. In fact, nearly 75% of all Southern Troops didn't own Slaves at all (could not afford them), including many Officers such as Robert E. Lee, who set all his his slaves free long before the first shots were fired at Ft. Sumter. In fact, Lee was offered the job of commanding the entire Union Army by President Lincoln in 1860 but waited to give his answer until he found out where his home state of Virginia would stand on the issue of succession. At that time, where you were from actually meant something being a Virginia Gentleman or a South Carolina Farmer commanded respect. Now a days, no one really cares where you are from, so people don't understand the fanatical pride that people had in their states in 19th century America. Once Virginia succeded from the Union, Lee stated that he "could never bare arms against his home state of Virginia" and turned down the position offered to him. So don't think the South fought merely to keep slaves, that is a very narrow minded assumption. After the War, Slaves (although free) weren't treated much better in the North, they were still discriminated against. I am from Virginia (and damn proud of it) I had many ancestors that fought (and died) in the US Civil War, NONE of whom owned Slaves ... And I refuse to believe that they died in vain, They will always be remembered by me and my family as Men who fought because their native soil was being invaded, (same as you would do if someone invaded your home) their traditions, and way of life were being threatened ... NOT becasue of slavery .... now that's enough about that.

I too would like to see a good ACW game on the PC, Sid Myer's "Gettysburg" is an excellent game ... but not good enough. I think it would look good on CM's engine (although that would take quite a bit of work I'm sure). I also would like to see it on the Close Combat Engine, where I think the thought of mounted cavalry, cannon, and Infantry would flourish.

Blood & Guts: To say the Union kicked their asses is a very bad assesment as well ... although they did win (overwhelming supplies of men and materials will do that)They certainly did not "Kick their asses" ... the War was 4 long bloody years of hell, where the Union Army suffered more than her share of casualties at places like Bull Run, Antietam, Fredericksburg, Gettysburg, and Cold Harbor. Just a thought ...

Sorry for the novel folks.

~G

[This message has been edited by Gespenster (edited 05-15-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Gespenster (edited 05-15-2000).]

[Doug Beman]

I find it interesting that the Confederacy actively pursued an alliance (or at least an official buy/sell relationship) with Great Britain, a country which still considered its monarchy a very active player in its government, a country that actively practiced the same sort of external control the Confederacy was trying to shake.

In fact, some in Great Britain saw an alliance with the Confederacy opening the door to the return of most/all of the US to colony status (or so I've read here/there)

DjB

[Guest Babra]

Question: A Civil War is a war for control of a government/nation by two disparate factions. Doesn't that make the ACW a war for independence rather than a civil war?

And yes, I'm a member of the ACW club, and YES, I think the CM engine is just the ticket for that genre. I'd buy it. I'd buy two in case I wore one out.

[EScurlock]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mirage2k:

As far as the war being one of "northern aggression," lets stop for a minute and remember that there is NO provision ANYWHERE in the constitution that says a state has the right to secede.

-Andrew<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That issue is still undesided. IIRC one or more captured southern generals demanded to be tried for treason to deside that very issue in the courts. Never happened.

------------------

He who gets there the fastest with the mostest wins.

[Joe Shaw]

Originally posted by Gespenster:

I tend to agree with Zamo's assessment of the Epic Struggle that was the Civil War. It wasn't all about Slavery, there were many other things that divided the states as well. In fact, nearly 75% of all Southern Troops didn't own Slaves at all (could not afford them), {snip} So don't think the South fought merely to keep slaves, that is a very narrow minded assumption. {snip}

[Guest mch]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>. It's just so enticing to "set the record straight!"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed,but....

How much can really be "set straight" in

the space of one post? It seems to be

the hallmark of "armchair"historians everywhere to want to reduce the causes and

effects of large chunks of history to a

"one liner",a simple awnser.I don't think

that oversimplification does any amount of

history,no matter how small,any justice.

just my lil' ol' .000002$

(confederate dollars)

------------------

"you got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away, know when to run........"