View Full Version : Would like an opponent for Virginia '62 scenario
I am looking for some masochist who is willing to take the Yankees in the Virginia '62 scenario...
I have one game of EA going and another starting and thats all. I should be able to do at least one turn a day.
Originally posted by Mad Cow
I am looking for some masochist who is willing to take the Yankees in the Virginia '62 scenario...
I have one game of EA going and another starting and thats all. I should be able to do at least one turn a day.
I don't know this scenario, but I'm ready to try it if you are right, and if it is not too big.
Is it about ACW ?
And why do you need to be masochist to play the Yankees ?
La Palice.
Originally posted by LaPalice
I don't know this scenario, but I'm ready to try it if you are right, and if it is not too big.
Is it about ACW ?
Yea, it covers the war in the Eastern Theater during 1862.
It's 35 turns long and its not very big.
I have not played the scenario, either. It is available at this web site:
http://www.wargames.warfarehq.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=117
And why do you need to be masochist to play the Yankees ?
La Palice.
I was just joking about the masochist part. I'm from the South and look forward to exacting a little digital revenge.
:)
The Yanks go first, so whenever you are ready to begin, send a turn to vsp36@frontiernet.net
Are you on the TOAW ladder here?
CyberRanger
01 May 03, 19:02
If you are stilling looking, I'm interested. I'm on the ladder and this would be my FIRST PBEM game!
Originally posted by WestPointer
If you are stilling looking, I'm interested. I'm on the ladder and this would be my FIRST PBEM game!
I have room for another. Do you want the Yankees as well?
Originally posted by Mad Cow
Yea, it covers the war in the Eastern Theater during 1862.
It's 35 turns long and its not very big.
I have not played the scenario, either. It is available at this web site:
http://www.wargames.warfarehq.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=117
[b]
I was just joking about the masochist part. I'm from the South and look forward to exacting a little digital revenge.
:)
The Yanks go first, so whenever you are ready to begin, send a turn to vsp36@frontiernet.net
Are you on the TOAW ladder here?
Thank you for the link. I'm going to prepare my first turn, and I send you the file.
Yes, I'm registered on the ladder, same pseudo.
La Palice.
I'll have update for this scenario on Saturday if you want to wait.
Originally posted by Chuck
I'll have update for this scenario on Saturday if you want to wait.
Yes, if Mad Cow is right, I can wait until Saturday. I've just taken a look at it, and I would say that I understand why the Unionist need to be masochist :) The funny thing here is that I have the impression that I play in the same way as Mc Clellan leading his army : I can be timorous and irresolute. And apparently this campaign seems perfect for me to show that !
Now I need to find info about this campaign. Is there a good link on the net ?
La Palice.
Originally posted by LaPalice
Yes, if Mad Cow is right, I can wait until Saturday. I've just taken a look at it, and I would say that I understand why the Unionist need to be masochist :) The funny thing here is that I have the impression that I play in the same way as Mc Clellan leading his army : I can be timorous and irresolute. And apparently this campaign seems perfect for me to show that !
Now I need to find info about this campaign. Is there a good link on the net ?
La Palice.
http://www.peninsulacampaign.org/
http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Quad/6460/CW/204.html
http://www.angelfire.com/va3/valleywar/1site.html
I will see if I can post more later. I have a class now. I look forward to starting on Saturday.
Originally posted by Mad Cow
http://www.peninsulacampaign.org/
http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Quad/6460/CW/204.html
http://www.angelfire.com/va3/valleywar/1site.html
I will see if I can post more later. I have a class now. I look forward to starting on Saturday.
Thank you very much, very good links. I need them, I don't have many info about ACW, only two articles in a French magazine about wargames, Vae Victis, one about the army organizations, another about ACW generals. That why I know some little things about Mc Clellan.
I know there is a book in french at the library of my town, but because of the 1th May, it is closed. They "make the brigde" as we say here (and they don't work Monday !).
Anyway, I have a lot of thing to read this week end :)
La Palice.
The updated scenario is now available.
CyberRanger
03 May 03, 00:02
Great! Thx!
Originally posted by Chuck
The updated scenario is now available.
File downloaded, thank you.
La Palice.
Originally posted by Chuck
The updated scenario is now available.
Chuck, I am offering to you my services to playtest your ACW scenario whenever it is to that point. I plan to study the Civil War as I go further along in college and hopefully, one day, I will be able to make a living studying and writting on the Civil War.
Please let me know if I can be of any assistance. I also have access to a few OOB sources.
-V
Originally posted by Mad Cow
Chuck, I am offering to you my services to playtest your ACW scenario whenever it is to that point. I plan to study the Civil War as I go further along in college and hopefully, one day, I will be able to make a living studying and writting on the Civil War.
Please let me know if I can be of any assistance. I also have access to a few OOB sources.
-V
Mad Cow - I've emailed you some materials to look at. Not sure if that was the right email but let me know if you didn't get anything.
Some historical issues that I would like to get some handle on are and translate into TOAW terms:
1.) What would of brought the UK into the war on the side of the South? What would they of brought to the table (war materials, navy, men, a second front in Canada)?
2.) What would of happened had the South eliminated slavery in 1861 or 1863? How much of drag would this have on the economy? Would the states with the highest percentages of slave labor of left the Confederacy on the issue? How much additional manpower would the CSA of had?
3.) How much of an effect did the Northern blockade have on the Southern economy? How much did the CSA suffer due to shortages?
Originally posted by Chuck
Mad Cow - I've emailed you some materials to look at. Not sure if that was the right email but let me know if you didn't get anything.
I got it.
1.) What would of brought the UK into the war on the side of the South? What would they of brought to the table (war materials, navy, men, a second front in Canada)?
This is a very tricky issue. There could have been several issues which might have brought the UK into the war.
The Trent Affair was the closest which the Uk had actually come to being involved in the war directly on the side of the CSA.
http://www.civilwarhome.com/trent.htm
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0849365.html
I think this should be modeled in the event engine and there should be a decent chance that the UK will declare war on the United States as a result of the Trent Affair, say 15-25% maybe, I am not sure. The British people were really pissed off at this illegal act.
What the UK would have brought to the war was, obviously, the best Navy in the world. It would have ended the blockade, most likely. They also could have supplied the CSA with weapons, shoes, food, pretty much anything they needed (which was allot of stuff.) I would not have been shocked to see British troops fighting in the war at this point if war had been declared.
As far as number of troops, I don't know. The idea of a second front from Canada is very interesting, but I have never heard of this theory. It really would have made things much much harder on the US.
****
A good portion of the British government was hoping that the CSA would win the war. The British and US governments were not on the best of terms in these days. However, the majority of the British population was anti-Slavery. And this is what really hurt the South in their hopes for British intervention.
The Souths only trump card for the british was cotton. The British and French, too, were sorely in need of the South's cotton resources. Jefferson's overall strategy was to keep fighting until cottom stocks dried up in France and Britain and hope that their thirst for cotton force them to step into the war and put serious pressure on the US to either relax its blockaid or agree to a peace treaty.
After the Seven Days victory, Jefferson Davis had promised 100,000 bales of cotton to the French if they would denounce the Federal blockade. But Napoleon III refused to act without British support. Actually, Napoleon III could not act without the British even if he wanted too. Also after the Seven Days and the failure of McClellan's Penisular Campaign, the British Parliament had a motion before it which in effect amounted to recognition of the CSA as a sort of reward for "throwing the blue invader off of its doorstep." Unfortunantly for the South and fortunantly for the North, the Cabinet was on a "long vacation" and "before the issue could be forced, the members were scattered from Scotland to Germany in search of relaxation."
The CSA's biggest hope was for actual British and French military assistance in the war. But this was not likely to happen, and they probably realized that. Their most realistic hope was British and French mediation. They were hoping that pressure from across the Atlantic would force Lincoln to come to the table to sign a cease fire and effectively kill the Union. I think they underestimated Lincolns resolve with this "dream" of theirs.
Almost all chance of British and French involvement in the Civil War ended when Lincoln issued the emancipation proclomation. Turning a war to save the Union into a crusade against the evils of slavery. Basically, it would have been a very hard sell to the British public that UK troops should be inserted into the conflict on the side of the south, to defend slavery, which the UK had been fighting to eliminate on the open seas for decades now.
2.) What would of happened had the South eliminated slavery in 1861 or 1863? How much of drag would this have on the economy? Would the states with the highest percentages of slave labor of left the Confederacy on the issue? How much additional manpower would the CSA of had?
The chances of the south abolishing slavery are very slim to nill. It just wasn't a very feasible idea. The South's entire economy and social system was based on slavery. It probably would have sent everything into a tail spin. The idea of the CSA was firmly entrenched in slavery. While the idea that is passed by Tom Berringer's portrayal of james Longstreet in the movie 'Gettysburg' that "we should have freed the slaves then fired on Ft. Sumter." sounds good, I just don't see it as being possible.
Also, I believe that the right to own slaves was written in the Constitution of the Confederate States of America.
CSA consitution, Article I, Seciton IX
4. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
3.) How much of an effect did the Northern blockade have on the Southern economy? How much did the CSA suffer due to shortages?
The blockade killed the CSA. It stopped them from receiving military supplies from the UK and france, which were sorely needed since they had nearly no idustry themselves. They had cotton to sell but no one to sell it to.
If the Union blockade could have been broken by CSA ironclad, the war might have lasted much longer given the supplies they would have recieved.
I will get back to this in more detai later. And sorry if some of this seems mixed up, I was jumping from point to point. I will go back over it later and see it I forgot anyting and I will add more detail on other things.
Originally posted by Mad Cow
This is a very tricky issue. There could have been several issues which might have brought the UK into the war.
The Trent Affair was the closest which the Uk had actually come to being involved in the war directly on the side of the CSA.
http://www.civilwarhome.com/trent.htm
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0849365.html
I think this should be modeled in the event engine and there should be a decent chance that the UK will declare war on the United States as a result of the Trent Affair, say 15-25% maybe, I am not sure. The British people were really pissed off at this illegal act.
What the UK would have brought to the war was, obviously, the best Navy in the world. It would have ended the blockade, most likely. They also could have supplied the CSA with weapons, shoes, food, pretty much anything they needed (which was allot of stuff.) I would not have been shocked to see British troops fighting in the war at this point if war had been declared.
As far as number of troops, I don't know. The idea of a second front from Canada is very interesting, but I have never heard of this theory. It really would have made things much much harder on the US.
****
A good portion of the British government was hoping that the CSA would win the war. The British and US governments were not on the best of terms in these days. However, the majority of the British population was anti-Slavery. And this is what really hurt the South in their hopes for British intervention.
The Souths only trump card for the british was cotton. The British and French, too, were sorely in need of the South's cotton resources. Jefferson's overall strategy was to keep fighting until cottom stocks dried up in France and Britain and hope that their thirst for cotton force them to step into the war and put serious pressure on the US to either relax its blockaid or agree to a peace treaty.
After the Seven Days victory, Jefferson Davis had promised 100,000 bales of cotton to the French if they would denounce the Federal blockade. But Napoleon III refused to act without British support. Actually, Napoleon III could not act without the British even if he wanted too. Also after the Seven Days and the failure of McClellan's Penisular Campaign, the British Parliament had a motion before it which in effect amounted to recognition of the CSA as a sort of reward for "throwing the blue invader off of its doorstep." Unfortunantly for the South and fortunantly for the North, the Cabinet was on a "long vacation" and "before the issue could be forced, the members were scattered from Scotland to Germany in search of relaxation."
The CSA's biggest hope was for actual British and French military assistance in the war. But this was not likely to happen, and they probably realized that. Their most realistic hope was British and French mediation. They were hoping that pressure from across the Atlantic would force Lincoln to come to the table to sign a cease fire and effectively kill the Union. I think they underestimated Lincolns resolve with this "dream" of theirs.
Almost all chance of British and French involvement in the Civil War ended when Lincoln issued the emancipation proclomation. Turning a war to save the Union into a crusade against the evils of slavery. Basically, it would have been a very hard sell to the British public that UK troops should be inserted into the conflict on the side of the south, to defend slavery, which the UK had been fighting to eliminate on the open seas for decades now.
Thanks for the links. I'm going to use the variable for the UK intervention. Instead of a X% chance of entry it's going to be a X% chance of increasing the entry variable.
About cotton I have read that sources from India replaced the cotton from the South. Is this true?
The chances of the south abolishing slavery are very slim to nill. It just wasn't a very feasible idea. The South's entire economy and social system was based on slavery. It probably would have sent everything into a tail spin. The idea of the CSA was firmly entrenched in slavery. While the idea that is passed by Tom Berringer's portrayal of james Longstreet in the movie 'Gettysburg' that "we should have freed the slaves then fired on Ft. Sumter." sounds good, I just don't see it as being possible.
I recently read the book 'April 1865' and the author makes the case that the CSA was closer to abolishing slavery than previously thought.
The blockade killed the CSA. It stopped them from receiving military supplies from the UK and france, which were sorely needed since they had nearly no idustry themselves. They had cotton to sell but no one to sell it to.
If the Union blockade could have been broken by CSA ironclad, the war might have lasted much longer given the supplies they would have recieved.
Putting together the map for the scenario I can see the industrial differences between the two sides. In the North almost every town has a rail connection and it's almost overkill. However in the South the rail network is missing in many areas making transportation difficult. After the Mississippi was closed east-west travel is very slow as this river was used for moving goods rather than rail in the South.
Originally posted by Chuck
Originally posted by Mad Cow
About cotton I have read that sources from India replaced the cotton from the South. Is this true?
Yea. The cotton was a much bigger factor in the early war years than it was in the later years. Obviously, with the blockade, the UK was forced to look elsewhere.
I will have to find some numbers, but a very significant portion of their cotton came from the Southern United States just before the war.
I recently read the book 'April 1865' and the author makes the case that the CSA was closer to abolishing slavery than previously thought.
I have not read that book but would be interested to learn more about that. I guess I would imagine that when things got desperate, it was considered. But after the failed second invasion of the north I don't see it making any difference in the outcome. Lincoln was dead set to keep the Union together. He was not about to see all those lives and years wasted to allow the South to slip away by abolishing slavery.
Putting together the map for the scenario I can see the industrial differences between the two sides. In the North almost every town has a rail connection and it's almost overkill. However in the South the rail network is missing in many areas making transportation difficult. After the Mississippi was closed east-west travel is very slow as this river was used for moving goods rather than rail in the South.
I haven't had a chance to look at the stuff you sent me yet, but when I have a couple free hours I will certainly devote them to it. This is a great project and I hope I can help bring it along.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.