Confederate Infantry too weak

[salad fork]

Confederate Infantry seem way too weak in prolonged firefights with Union Infantry. If anything it would have been quite the opposite as the ANV would have had more veterans then the AOP at this point in the war. The Union Infantry as a whole should get no advantage whatsoever when it comes to musketry . I miss the old rank system of brigades in SMG it seemed to balance things out well and historically (obviously the Union had a good amount of well experienced veteran troops as well and this should be done on a Unit to Unit basis).

If you look at the casualties at the battle of Gettysburg they are fairly even despite the Confederates constanltly attacking Union troops in unfavorable terrain ( The Confederate Army was very professional and managed to do this by attacking in oblique, which would give them overwhelming fire superiority ). Considering it is estimated that less than 1% of American Civil War casualties were from melee combat (bayonet/hand to hand combat) something feels very wrong here.

[76561198222703484]

Try banging away at 3 star CSA units. I personally don't think they are too weak.

[salad fork]

Originally posted by JoseyWhales3:

Try banging away at 3 star CSA units. I personally don't think they are too weak.

Usually they just rout, rally and re-rout about 12 times pacing back and forth without doing any substantial damage when the A.I is playing.

Also 90% of the time I am playing multiplayer in a competetive group that has been playing for almost 17 years now ( mostly games very similar to this Sid Mier's Gettysburg and Antietam) so the players really abuse terrain and fire superiority.

[Mobile Terror Unit]

Lunatic,

There are, indeed, general characteristics that distinguish the ANV and the AOP, but there are bridage-level differences in combat performance regardless of whether the brigade is Union or Confederate. So, there's two levels of facts to know: 1) army-level facts and 2) brigade-level facts. But knowing just 1) won't make you a genuinely effective strategist at this game. That being said, learning brigade-level differences will come in time and your ability as a commander should improve :D

Also, I'm not sure Gettysburg had too many drawn-out, standing gun battles, but there were numerous assaults throughout the battle (e.g. Devil's Den, Little Round Top, Pickett's Charge, and so on). The Union held the strategically desirable ground during the battle, therefore the Union had every reason to defend, which put the Confederacy on the offensive throughout the battle. The Confederates weren't going to push the Union off Little Round Top simply by exchanging fire, hoping the Union would break and run away.

[salad fork]

Originally posted by mobileterror666:

Lunatic,

There are, indeed, general characteristics that distinguish the ANV and the AOP, but there are bridage-level differences in combat performance regardless of whether the brigade is Union or Confederate. So, there's two levels of facts to know: 1) army-level facts and 2) brigade-level facts. But knowing just 1) won't make you a genuinely effective strategist at this game. That being said, learning brigade-level differences will come in time and your ability as a commander should improve :D

Also, I'm not sure Gettysburg had too many drawn-out, standing gun battles, but there were numerous assaults throughout the battle (e.g. Devil's Den, Little Round Top, Pickett's Charge, and so on). The Union held the strategically desirable ground during the battle, therefore the Union had every reason to defend, which put the Confederacy on the offensive throughout the battle. The Confederates weren't going to push the Union off Little Round Top simply by exchanging fire, hoping the Union would break and run away.

The Confederates exchanged fire while attacking in oblique to try and gain superiority by being able to fire on the enemy from many angles , this was a tactic that allowed Lee to gain an advantage while being outnumbered in many battles.

Yes the Union managed to secure their flanks and had a strategic advantage in terrain which is why they won the battle, but even so the Confederates inflicted high musketry casualties on the Union despite the disadvantages which says something in itself.

[Fleeting_dreams]

I think there is no reason for the South to be less accurate they had practically the same rifles and lots of southerners had been using firearms for there whole life.

[salad fork]

Originally posted by ike519:

I think there is no reason for the South to be less accurate they had practically the same rifles and lots of southerners had been using firearms for there whole life.

That and it was widely known, especially at this point in the war, that bayonet charges were more or less suicidal because of the heavy rate of fire and accuracy of those firearms. Those that were ordered were done so out of desperation.

[rbdoallo]

Yep a this point of the war both armies have the Enfield or the Springfield rifled muskets (or similars) with Minié bullets, only some northern cavalry units and sharpshooters from both sides have Sharps, Spencers carbines, Whitworth rifles, etc... but still a one star confederate brigade is better in every thing minus the firepower compared to a one star federal brigade, and the South have much more two and three stars brigades than the North...so it's not so bad.

[Fleeting_dreams]

Originally posted by Lunatic High:

Originally posted by ike519:

I think there is no reason for the South to be less accurate they had practically the same rifles and lots of southerners had been using firearms for there whole life.

That and it was widely known, especially at this point in the war, that bayonet charges were more or less suicidal because of the heavy rate of fire and accuracy of those firearms. Those that were ordered were done so out of desperation.

The only real way for a "bayonet charge" to be succesfull was by suprise, and how do you get thousands of men to charge by suprise? beats me, so bayonet charges where pretty much uslesss in the war of northern aggresion, but that dosen't mean the bayonet has lost all usefullness.

[salad fork]

Originally posted by ike519:

Originally posted by Lunatic High:

That and it was widely known, especially at this point in the war, that bayonet charges were more or less suicidal because of the heavy rate of fire and accuracy of those firearms. Those that were ordered were done so out of desperation.

The only real way for a "bayonet charge" to be succesfull was by suprise, and how do you get thousands of men to charge by suprise? beats me, so bayonet charges where pretty much uslesss in the war of northern aggresion, but that dosen't mean the bayonet has lost all usefullness.

With a brigade being able to send 3000 rounds a minute downrange the bayonet was more a psychological weapon then a physical one. I guess the point i'm trying to make here is the Confederates didn't break Union positions by merely charging like maniacs and engaging in hand to hand combat ( thus a charge bonus and range penalty shouldn't be given to the South), they were well disciplined and attacked in organized formations en echelon using obliqued lines to contiously fire while advancing on their target allowing them to gain fire superiority.

[Mobile Terror Unit]

Originally posted by Lunatic High:

Originally posted by mobileterror666:

Lunatic,

There are, indeed, general characteristics that distinguish the ANV and the AOP, but there are bridage-level differences in combat performance regardless of whether the brigade is Union or Confederate. So, there's two levels of facts to know: 1) army-level facts and 2) brigade-level facts. But knowing just 1) won't make you a genuinely effective strategist at this game. That being said, learning brigade-level differences will come in time and your ability as a commander should improve :D

Also, I'm not sure Gettysburg had too many drawn-out, standing gun battles, but there were numerous assaults throughout the battle (e.g. Devil's Den, Little Round Top, Pickett's Charge, and so on). The Union held the strategically desirable ground during the battle, therefore the Union had every reason to defend, which put the Confederacy on the offensive throughout the battle. The Confederates weren't going to push the Union off Little Round Top simply by exchanging fire, hoping the Union would break and run away.

The Confederates exchanged fire while attacking in oblique to try and gain superiority by being able to fire on the enemy from many angles , this was a tactic that allowed Lee to gain an advantage while being outnumbered in many battles.

Yes the Union managed to secure their flanks and had a strategic advantage in terrain which is why they won the battle, but even so the Confederates inflicted high musketry casualties on the Union despite the disadvantages which says something in itself.

I didn't say Lee didn't use those tactics throughout the course of the war. He was an expert strategist, so I'm assuming he used them whenever he could to his advantage. Nonetheless, I can even grant you he did use those tactics during the war, but that doesn't change the fact that Lee might have used or relied upon those tactics much less during Gettysburg than other battles. So, one could argue there's a context-sensitive reason (perhaps one among many) for the CSA's disadvantage in a drawn out gun battle. For the time being, this game is UG: Gettysburg, not UG: American Civil War.

Currently, the Union is the easier side to play in multiplayer and I'm not sure how to correct the imbalance in a way that prevents the CSA from having an overwhelming advantage over the USA. Personally, I'm still learning how to use the Confederates better and they have a steeper learning curve than the North does. That being said, I've had my butt handed to me by people who really know how to play as the Confederates. So, I know for a fact the Confederates can win.

[Mobile Terror Unit]

Originally posted by ike519:

Originally posted by Lunatic High:

That and it was widely known, especially at this point in the war, that bayonet charges were more or less suicidal because of the heavy rate of fire and accuracy of those firearms. Those that were ordered were done so out of desperation.

The only real way for a "bayonet charge" to be succesfull was by suprise, and how do you get thousands of men to charge by suprise? beats me, so bayonet charges where pretty much uslesss in the war of northern aggresion, but that dosen't mean the bayonet has lost all usefullness.

Although the South lost the battle, they did manage to pull off a very effective surprise charge at Shiloh.

[salad fork]

Originally posted by mobileterror666:

Originally posted by Lunatic High:

The Confederates exchanged fire while attacking in oblique to try and gain superiority by being able to fire on the enemy from many angles , this was a tactic that allowed Lee to gain an advantage while being outnumbered in many battles.

Yes the Union managed to secure their flanks and had a strategic advantage in terrain which is why they won the battle, but even so the Confederates inflicted high musketry casualties on the Union despite the disadvantages which says something in itself.

I didn't say Lee didn't use those tactics throughout the course of the war. He was an expert strategist, so I'm assuming he used them whenever he could to his advantage. Nonetheless, I can even grant you he did use those tactics during the war, but that doesn't change the fact that Lee might have used or relied upon those tactics much less during Gettysburg than other battles. So, one could argue there's a context-sensitive reason (perhaps one among many) for the CSA's disadvantage in a drawn out gun battle. For the time being, this game is UG: Gettysburg, not UG: American Civil War.

Currently, the Union is the easier side to play in multiplayer and I'm not sure how to correct the imbalance in a way that prevents the CSA from having an overwhelming advantage over the USA. Personally, I'm still learning how to use the Confederates better and they have a steeper learning curve than the North does. That being said, I've had my butt handed to me by people who really know how to play as the Confederates. So, I know for a fact the Confederates can win.

He did use those tactics at Gettysburg, although his strategy was based on faulty intelligence so the flanking attacks were not unchecked and lines were vastly overextended at the most crucial times. The assault on Little Round Top was never supposed to happen, the plan was to roll the flank of the Union troops parralel to the emmitsburg pike and to avoid the heights and outflank Cemetary Ridge in coordination with an attack from the northwest by AP hill and diversions at Culps hill to divert reinforcements. These mistakes were a combination of misinterpreted orders and a lack of intel from Jeb Stuart's absence.

Much like on the third day it wasn't expected that the Artillery barrage to cover the attack would be so ineffective, or that the troops in support of Picket's Division that were sent to roll the flank would either rout or be decimated so quickly leaving Picket's division totally exposed. The intention was never there for Napoleonic style frontal assaults that weren't heavilly supported by oblique flanking attacks with echelon attacks taking place to stop the flow of enemy reinforcements to the main front.

[Studmunky]

Frankly I just agree with your first point. They made the Rebs REALLY bad. Their arty is decent but wayyy outmatched by Union.Their Infantry is "tougher" but not great in the firepower department which makes them awful at any kind of defense, even just temporarily to hold a capture position.

I feel like the Confederates in this game may as well just have swords since the only way to win is to just relentlessly charge which is no fun at all. (And lets be honest, that was more Grant's style of butchery anyway)

[salad fork]

Originally posted by Studmunky:

Frankly I just agree with your first point. They made the Rebs REALLY bad. Their arty is decent but wayyy outmatched by Union.Their Infantry is "tougher" but not great in the firepower department which makes them awful at any kind of defense, even just temporarily to hold a capture position.

I feel like the Confederates in this game may as well just have swords since the only way to win is to just relentlessly charge which is no fun at all. (And lets be honest, that was more Grant's style of butchery anyway)

A firing while advancing command would be useful.

Yes but I think Grant's attacks that could be considered "butchery" were based off of the only options he had left when he failed to outflank Lee, and with mounting political pressure to end the war. Lee knew the terrain better and was almost impossible to outmaneuver. Stopping the momentum of the entire AOP supply line and road and rail traffic to avoid a confrontation with an army 1/2 of their size would have been political suicide.

[Studmunky]

Oh I'm not trying to argue that Grant used the wrong strategy, because frankly it doesn't matter. He did what he had to do. (And he did it drunk as hell) He threw away human lives like they were pennies but he won the war 150 years ago so the point is moot. I just wish the game would reflect this.

The fact is, more Union soldiers died in almost every major engagement during the American Civil War. Sure you can attribute this to better leadership on the part of the Confederates but generals don't win a war, soldiers do. I think the Confederate soldiers in game should be superior to Union infantry in every single way, because, arguably, that is how it actually was. By Gettysburg, the Union was desperately low on veterans and mostly recruiting Irish and German immigrants right off the freaking boat. Also the confederates were using the British Enfield which was entirely comparable to the American Springfield so the firing disadvantage doesn't really make a whole lot of sense.

That's all I am trying to say. I do agree that the firing while advancing button would be useful though.