Still Don't Like the Combat system

[Zachriel]

I was trying to avoid this off-topic discussion, but just want to set the record straight. The causes of secession in their own words:


Mississippi Declaration of Secession
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/re...tml#Mississippi

Texas Declaration of Secession
We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#Texas

Speech of Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens:
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition.
http://www.nv.cc.va.us/home/nvsageh...toneExcerpt.htm

[kailhun]

Originally posted by Zachriel
I was trying to avoid this off-topic discussion, but just want to set the record straight. The causes of secession in their own words:


Mississippi Declaration of Secession
(deleted for brevity)

Texas Declaration of Secession
(deleted for brevity)

Speech of Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens:
(deleted for brevity)

But these are all documents from politicians and politically active prominent southerners. They are not the people of the South. They just represent them in government. In decisions like these the people should decide directly.
And in most cases this didn't happen correctly. Firstly, in many states pro-unionists boycotted the referenda so the result is skewed.
Secondly, these referenda were rushed through in the heat of the moment and without a popular debate. I still say it's because the politicians knew that if cooler heads prevailed they would never convince 'The South to leave'.

As a last point, these documents smack of political propaganda. They were designed to link onto what people believed. Not what was true.

I still believe the ultimate reason for secession was fear amongst southern politicians that the South had lost it's dominant position and would be subjected to the same treatment as they had been dealing to the North for decades.

The myth that the South was bullied into secession and war is just that, a myth.

Robert

[Brutus66]

Fact:
The Emancipation Proclamation was directed only to the states that seceded from the Union. Slave states that remained with the Union were not affected.
Fact:
It was the 13th Amendment that freed all slaves. It was not ratified until 1865!
Fact:
The war started in 1860. The Proclamation was not delivered until 1863, just a few months before the battle of Gettysburg.

Lastly, as to the charge that Lee was a traitor, these are his own words: "I cannot raise my hand against my birthplace, my home, my children."
What would you have the guy do, Andrew? Would he have been a better man by helping Sherman burn down Atlanta?

[SpencerH]

Isnt there some truth in that the southern states wanted to sell their cotton to the English directly without interference from the federal government and the northern states that profitted from the status quo. Interference with the rights of the southern states to do so was the real cause of secession and the "War of Northern Aggression". I'm no expert and I'd like to "hear" your views

[Brutus66]

I think you're dead-on, Spence. I have always had the opinion that the war was, ultimately, all about the money.

[kailhun]

Originally posted by Brutus66
Fact:
The Emancipation Proclamation was directed only to the states that seceded from the Union. Slave states that remained with the Union were not affected.

The area stil in rebellion on the 1st of january 1863 (I may be wrong about the date). So slaves in parts of the South that were already under Northern control (quite a bit actually) did not fall under the emancipation declaration.
The ED is a bit of a strange document really. Mostly political, partly legal. Doesn't really do anything because it doesn't effect the areas the North does control, but only the areas the North doesn't control and therefore can't enforce it.
But the aboltion of slavery was started by this document. Like the start of an avalanche. After this there would be no turning back. Northern victory meant abolition of slavery.

Fact:
It was the 13th Amendment that freed all slaves. It was not ratified until 1865!

I remember hearing that Mississipe didn't ratify it untill the 1990's. It sounds very odd and I never checked this out. It seemed like an urban myth of some kind. Anybody know what this rumour could be refering to?

Fact:
The war started in 1860. The Proclamation was not delivered until 1863, just a few months before the battle of Gettysburg.

1861. And it's debatable if it was a war or insurrection. But let's say 'official hositilities'.
And it was after Antietam (September 1862). Lee's first forray into Northern territory. Defeated by McClellan.

Lastly, as to the charge that Lee was a traitor, these are his own words: "I cannot raise my hand against my birthplace, my home, my children."
What would you have the guy do, Andrew? Would he have been a better man by helping Sherman burn down Atlanta?

Well yes, sortoff. If Lee hadn't 'gone South', he would held a high command in the northern Army or not have fought. Either way the war would ended sooner. Little Mac would probably have taken Richmond on the first try and the burning of Atlanta would probably never had happened. No Grant, no Sherman, no burning of Atlanta and probably no Emancipation Declaration or 13th amendment.

Americans experienced the Union different in those days. They felt themselves to be Virginians first and then Americans (to stick with Lee), especially in the South. It was 'The United States are' before the war and 'The United States is' after. It was more like the Europena Union than the USA today.

Robert

[kailhun]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Isnt there some truth in that the southern states wanted to sell their cotton to the English directly without interference from the federal government and the northern states that profitted from the status quo. Interference with the rights of the southern states to do so was the real cause of secession and the "War of Northern Aggression". I'm no expert and I'd like to "hear" your views

Roughly it goes omething like this:

The South relied on Imports for many industrial items. Import from the North and import from Europe. The North was therefore in competition with Europe and wanted high import-taxes. The South didn't because that would mean that Europeans would raise their import-taxes (on cotton for example), thereby reducing the Southern income. The South controlled the US government and therefore there were no high importtaxes.
Lincoln (northern man) gets elected without even being on the southern ballots. Southern politicians have a rough idea where this is headed and decide to get out. A little propaganda with slavery as the wedge and off they go.

Robert

[Brutus66]

1861. And it's debatable if it was a war or insurrection. But let's say 'official hositilities'.

I will give you that one. I used that date because that is when South Carolina seceded. The hostilities weren't official, I guess, until Ft. Sumter was attacked in April of the following year.

[Brutus66]

Well yes, sortoff.

Ridiculous. Glad I don't have neighbors like you.

Little Mac would probably have taken Richmond on the first try

Also ridiculous. Maclellan could never act with speed and decisiveness. Totally out of chracter for him.

No Grant, no Sherman, no burning of Atlanta and probably no Emancipation Declaration or 13th amendment.

I object on the grounds that you are engaging in pure speculation.

Americans experienced the Union different in those days. They felt themselves to be Virginians first and then Americans (to stick with Lee), especially in the South.

My point to begin with...

There have been many good posts to this thread about problems with the combat system. I am glad to see that others are dissatisfied with the current combat model in Civ 3. A few posters mentioned that they thought the combat system is fine as is. I agree that the combat system is functional, but I still think it is a far cry from the Civ 2 combat system. I think removing fire power was a bad idea. I also think that leveling the hit points across eras is a bad idea. How can a spearmen unit withstand the same amount of damage as a tank? I think the hit points is really the biggest problem. Even if an ancient unit has a winning streak it would not be able to kill a modern unit if the hit points were more weighted. Maybe 10 spearmen could kill a tank, but never just one or two. The game is still fun, but not as engrossing as a Civ game should be.

[Andrew Cory]

Originally posted by kailhun
I remember hearing that Mississipe didn't ratify it untill the 1990's. It sounds very odd and I never checked this out. It seemed like an urban myth of some kind. Anybody know what this rumour could be refering to?

Well, since any southern state that wished to get back into the union had to ratify the 13th and 14th amendments, I would say that this is more than likley untrue. But I am fairly sure that Mississippi didn't celebrate MLK jr day until the 90s...


1861. And it's debatable if it was a war or insurrection. But let's say 'official hositilities'.
And it was after Antietam (September 1862). Lee's first forray into Northern territory. Defeated by McClellan.

Originally posted by kailhun
Well yes, sortoff. If Lee hadn't 'gone South', he would held a high command in the northern Army or not have fought. Either way the war would ended sooner. Little Mac would probably have taken Richmond on the first try and the burning of Atlanta would probably never had happened.

If R. E. Lee had stayed loyal, and taken the commission that Lincon offered him to head the US forces, I belive that much of the heart would have gone right out of the confederacy...

BTW: I do not wish to imply that Lee was anything short of brilliant millitairly, he was inarguably the best Stratagist and tactition that America produced until WWII, and possibly the best ever. It is merely his failings as a citizen which I call up...

[Spook42]

Originally posted by Andrew Cory
BTW: I do not wish to imply that Lee was anything short of brilliant millitairly, he was inarguably the best Stratagist and tactition that America produced until WWII, and possibly the best ever.

That Lee had excellent skills in campaigning, organization, and battlefield leadership can be agreed upon. But earnest study of the ACW reveals that as a "strategist," he was much more limited, and in this one regard Grant or even Sherman was his superior.

It is merely his failings as a citizen which I call up...

What failings? Much as Lee disfavored that Virginia secede, he could not bring himself to take arms against his home state which, for all intents & purposes, opted to become part of a new nation. He resigned his US Army commission before joining the CSA.

It wasn't a failing, it was a choice that he agonized over, and he accepted the consequences of his choice post-war. One just as well could argue that all of the leaders of the American Revolution (political & military) were nothing more than "traitors" and "failed citizens" too..........

[Andrew Cory]

Originally posted by Spook42
What failings? Much as Lee disfavored that Virginia secede, he could not bring himself to take arms against his home state which, for all intents & purposes, opted to become part of a new nation. He resigned his US Army commission before joining the CSA.

It wasn't a failing, it was a choice that he agonized over, and he accepted the consequences of his choice post-war. One just as well could argue that all of the leaders of the American Revolution (political & military) were nothing more than "traitors" and "failed citizens" too..........

Well, I am elswhere arguing that Lee did, indeed, betray the USA. Since I earlier today took a couple of hours to write several pages defending this statment, I don't feel _too_ inclined to rehash it right now. If you drop me an E-Mail, I might just send it on, though...

[Encomium]

[SIZE=1]
If R. E. Lee had stayed loyal, and taken the commission that Lincon offered him to head the US forces, I belive that much of the heart would have gone right out of the confederacy...

BTW: I do not wish to imply that Lee was anything short of brilliant millitairly, he was inarguably the best Stratagist and tactition that America produced until WWII, and possibly the best ever. It is merely his failings as a citizen which I call up...

You are HALF right.

Evil can most easily triumph when "good" men do nothing - or when they rationalize and choose the wrong side, as Lee did. He also made it quite clear he was not an "American"; he considered himself a Virgininian. Lee deserves much of the blame for the horrors and deaths of the Civil War.

As for Lee as a strategist, his inept performance at Gettysburg removes him from consideration as one of the "greatest". His other victories came as the result of he being lucky enough to go up against incompetent Union commanders, such as Pope and Burnside; the gutless McClellan, also.

Southerners revere Lee not so much because he is so great a general but because he was a more acceptable version of the Southern "gentleman". Blatant racists and slavery-proponents such as Forrest and Hood could not become "symbols" of the South. And neither could a fine general such as Longstreet who reluctantly fought for the South (though he did well) and after the war led Republican militias (some black) against racist white mobs in New Orleans.

And all this IS off-topic, but interesting!

Now I see why people get upset when posts are off topic. I will never highjack a thread again.

[Salvor]

Encomium, I didn't think this day would come , but I agree with quite a bit of your post. Particularly when you consider the similar reverence given to Jackson, who was killed early on and didn't contribute much beyond the first battle at Bull Run/Manassas.

I do think Lee was a very capable tactician, but he was old-school, and fought in the Napoleonic style. Grant, Meade, and Sherman invented a whole new style of warfare that was a lot less, er ... gentlemanly.

I also don't think you can blame Lee for the horrors of the war. He made a personal decision on which side to support. No different than the decision each and every other participant in that war made. Anybody can look back 140 years later and say "what if?" but at the time he wasn't thinking "Gee, if I go with the south there'll be much more horror and death. Yeah, that's just what I'll do!". Nobody could have predicted the horrors to come, and it's wrong to blame Lee for all the death and destruction just because he picked the "wrong" side. On the other hand, he did try to hold out for too long after the outcome was a foregone conclusion. He could and probably should have surrendered at least before the sacks of Fredericksburg and Richmond took place, if not sooner.

[jackshot]

Originally posted by Encomium
As for Lee as a strategist, his inept performance at Gettysburg removes him from consideration as one of the "greatest". His other victories came as the result of he being lucky enough to go up against incompetent Union commanders, such as Pope and Burnside; the gutless McClellan, also.

Southerners revere Lee not so much because he is so great a general but because he was a more acceptable version of the Southern "gentleman". Blatant racists and slavery-proponents such as Forrest and Hood could not become "symbols" of the South. And neither could a fine general such as Longstreet who reluctantly fought for the South (though he did well) and after the war led Republican militias (some black) against racist white mobs in New Orleans.

And all this IS off-topic, but interesting!

I agree.

Lee's strategy of running around Virginia with 50,000 men waiting to be caught was a travesty. His military reputaion rests mostly on the conduct of theater engagements like Chancellorsville and the Peninsula campaign, but it's hard to see how any of these were going to result, ultimately, in Southern victory.

That's the rub. He was never able to draw together a blueprint of how to win, and so many opportunities were wasted while resources were used facing off with the Union main force. At Appomattox in 1865, Lee surrendered an army that in terms of personal and equipment would have been the wildest opium dream of any resistance movement anywhere in the world.

The North never would have beaten a truly decentralized South. But a decentralized South would have had no mission for RE Lee. They chose to follow Lee.

[player1]

Hey Americans!

Please speak only about combat system.

If not...


GET OUT OF THIS THREAD!!!











P.S. You know, there is OT forum.

[Dienstag]

Hi, I'm the guy who seemed to be complaining about Cavalry losing to fortified Infantry (sorry about that, and, yes, it was Infantry, not Riflemen). I wouldn't have posted that, if it hadn't occured just minutes before. I think I have a decent understanding of probability and the Civ combat model, so I know that some attacks are always low odds, and that all attacks will sometimes lose. What got to me was that almost all of my low odds attacks failed, over an extended period of time, while I was doing everything I could think of to maximize my effectiveness. I think it was really just a sizeable blip from the far regions of probability, so in hindsight it's almost a relief to have gotten that out of the way.

In response to one of the _other_ topics in this thread (i.e.: not ACW), I'd say that I am most definately looking for more of a wargame in CivIII. I haven't done much wargaming, but I've tried 1 or 2 that make Axis & Allies look like Risk. To me, there's a very satisfying feeling in those lower levels of abstraction. Specifically, I think these games have significantly more immersion and strategic depth. If CivIII turned the abstraction down a notch or two, I would probably be quite pleased.

[kailhun]

Originally posted by Andrew Cory

Well, since any southern state that wished to get back into the union had to ratify the 13th and 14th amendments, I would say that this is more than likley untrue.

That's what I thought.

If R. E. Lee had stayed loyal, and taken the commission that Lincon offered him to head the US forces, I belive that much of the heart would have gone right out of the confederacy...

BTW: I do not wish to imply that Lee was anything short of brilliant millitairly, he was inarguably the best Stratagist and tactition that America produced until WWII, and possibly the best ever. It is merely his failings as a citizen which I call up...

Based on what I've read, it's fair to say that Lee was a noble and honourable man. He was also a great strategist and tactician. The best? Maybe, maybe not. I think much of what he did was based on desperation: strategies and tactics which seemed mad to veterans but which worked because:
a) only a madman would do this; Lee is not mad; does he know something we don't? Doubt!
b) they weren't so mad as veterans thought. Lee was forced to try them out and lo and behold they worked.
c) Lee had some very good subordinates such as Longstreet and Jackson. Especially Jackson. His death was a blow for the South. If Jackson had been alive at Gettysburg things would have been different indeed.

Did Lee 'fail' as a citizen? He probably thought so after the war. But someone can only do the best he can based on what he thinks is right at the time. You can expect no more and Lee definately did this. So, I don't think he failed in this sense.

Robert

[SpencerH]

If CivIII turned the abstraction down a notch or two, I would probably be quite pleased.

We've been discussing a similar topic in the artillery thread. I think that statement succinctly sums up my feelings (maybe three or four notches).

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Dienstag
Hi, I'm the guy who seemed to be complaining about Cavalry losing to fortified Infantry (sorry about that, and, yes, it was Infantry, not Riflemen). . . . If CivIII turned the abstraction down a notch or two, I would probably be quite pleased.

Well, cavalry are not good against infantry. Think WWI. The abstraction can be dealt with in the editor. I prefer a certain abstraction so I can spend more time on the strategic aspects of the game. But as always, I am flexible. In a strategy game, combat mechanics are secondary.

[player1]

A realy good tips for Cavalry vs Infantry

1) Don't rush with Cavalry.
2) Use Artilley.
3) Build Battlefied Medicine (good for Infantry pillage missions).
4) Stack a gruop of 3-4 Infantry units and go for enemy resources (rubber).
5) Try to pillage horsees too.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by player1
A realy good tips for Cavalry vs Infantry

1) Don't rush with Cavalry.
2) Use Artilley.
3) Build Battlefied Medicine (good for Infantry pillage missions).
4) Stack a gruop of 3-4 Infantry units and go for enemy resources (rubber).
5) Try to pillage horsees too.

Good tips.

Infantry warfare is very difficult and moves at a crawl, but it is possible to gain ground with careful planning. Infantry and artillery. Blast them. Keep blasting them until there is no resistance in the target. Only then attack. Bloody, but doable.

[SpencerH]

Cavalry SHOULD lose to fortified infantry in a city. If you're gonna try a suicide attack try 4-5 cavs (just an educated guess) for every inf unit. But if you want to make it reasonable, bombard them for a long while.

[Brutus66]

Now I see why people get upset when posts are off topic. I will never highjack a thread again.

Mea culpa, I suppose. The Civil War thing is an interesting topic, and there's a lot of intelligent, educated folks on these boards. A post like Andrew's is like bait to a big mouth bass, and we went right for it.

GET OUT OF THIS THREAD!!!

Sorry. Maybe you should consider Prozac. Some folks take these forums waaay too seriously.

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

And some folks obviously don't ! ? ! ?

No offense to none of course.

Seems to me that this American civil war today still ain't 'fully digested' by all Americans ...

AJ

[SpencerH]

Seems to me that this American civil war today still ain't 'fully digested' by all Americans ...

You mean " the war of northern aggression".

[player1]

Originally posted by Brutus66
Sorry. Maybe you should consider Prozac. Some folks take these forums waaay too seriously.

You know, when I read some thread, I read it because of particular topic.

If I want to read about Americal civil war, I'll go to OT forum.


And, besides...

Non Americans are not interested in American civil war too much.

At least as much as Americans are interested in first Serbian rebellion against Turks.








End of discussion.

[Evil Robot]

Originally posted by Dienstag
In my last game, I found myself at war when my best offensive unit was Cavalry, and my enemy's cities were defended by Infantry. I was enduring ruinous losses and inflicting pathetically little damage. (Casualty rates approximately 2.5:1, I guess) Ordinarily, I would not choose to attack in that situation, but it was one of those gang-up type wars, and at stake was Adam Smith's, The Pyramids, Magellen's Expedition, and Hoover Dam, all in the nearest two enemy cities.

Anyway, what with the now reduced chance of withdrawing, the higher defensive rating of Infantry, and the HP usually lost to Artillery, my Cavalry (all veteren and elite) were being massacred. I used massed artillery to reduce size 21 metropolises to size 3 rubbleheaps, and yet the defenders would seldom lose even a hitpoint to my artillery and assaults. At one point an entire 14 HP Cavalry Army was destroyed, having only dealt one HP of damage (I reloaded because if this, then lost that army a few turns later it what I deemed a 'fair' battle'). By the way, neither enemy city was on hills, and I never attacked across a river.

I did get tanks in time to send two of then against the 2nd city I took, but by then the war was winding down... One might say that Infantry are appropriately more powerful than obsolete Cavalry, but (A) I had no other choice and (B) I really think that for about 12-15 turns of intense warfare, my Cav vs Inf battles were statistically improbable in favor of the Inf.

End result: I beelined for Fission and rush-built the UN, and clocked in a cheap diplomatic victory just to put my efforts in the Hall of Fame.

I know this isn't the best example of problems with the combat model, but it's one of the biggest examples of combat ruining my game.

Also, I am sick to death of my elite Ironclad attacking another elite Ironclad, knocking him down to 1 HP in 4 consecutive shots, and then getting hit in the next 5 consecutive rounds. I call this the Rocky Syndrome (tm), and it seems to happen way too often.

World War One baby. That sounds exactly like it. And BTW, are you from Brea, Orange County, CA, USA? Because that's where I live.