DOCSLIB.ORG

Battles on the Flanks

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Battles on the Flanks One of the key tenets of this design is beginning of the game, the rebel Washington were fairly invulnerable the vulnerability of the respective capital is flanked by a small, but to capture, as it is in most other capitals and the high payoff achieved strategically-placed Union force at strategic Civil War designs, the if a capital is captured. This dynamic Fort Monroe and multiple north- player can use the Army of the tension ensures that both players will south routes that need to be de- Potomac in fairly unrealistic man- keep strong forces in the Eastern fended. Although both capitals begin ners. McClellen's Peninsula cam- theater to both protect their own the game fortified, this is an insuffi- paign was a high risk operation in capital while threatening their cient defense. game terms. Lincoln insisted that a opponents. strong covering force remain behind During the Civil War, the effect of to prevent a Confederate thrust at When I learned that FOR THE forts were wide ranging. The unify- DC. It was this force, and the PEOPLE would be reprinted by GMT, ing historical thread is that a fort was Confederacy's desire not to trade I set out to pour more history into the as strong as the men and leaders who capitals, which prevented Lee from design. One of the things that I had manned them. Each turn of FOR THE moving North until the threat to noticed since the original publication PEOPLE represents around four Richmond was neutralized. Lincoln's of the game was the lack of play on months. If the fort is manned with decision to withhold McDowell's the Peninsula and more obviously in sufficient forces and adequate die roll corps from McClellen will occur in the Shenandoah valley. My analysis modifiers (DRMs), then the fort will the game, because to do otherwise is of the situation revealed that the key hold. If the attacker is superior in to court disaster. In game terms, the problems were 1) the weakness of these dimensions, then it is assumed Peninsula campaign finds the Army forts in preventing river crossings that over the course of four months of the Potomac (AoP) in the and 2) how the map captured the they will prevail. Upon examining Williamsburg space and the Army of various historical routes of advance. the lengthy siege of Petersburg, you Northern Virginia (AoNV) in Rich- My alterations to the map and rules find that it is the growing weakness mond while McDowell sits in were minor, but their impact on play of the Confederate forces coupled Manassas with four strength points has been profound. This article will with the threat to their last remaining (SPs). The best move for the Confed- discuss the new operational thinking lines of communication that results in erates in this situation is to attack the that is required for solid play in the the loss of the fort. On the other end AoP, which results in the Seven Days GMT edition of the game. of the spectrum, Forts Henry and battle. Donaldson were captured in about a A View from the President's Desk week. Battles on the Flanks Loss of the capital for either side is However, not all in the first edition not a game-ending event, but a very One of the design's other intents is to was as it should be. In the AH painful one. The Union stands to lose use the simulation dynamics to give version, it was too easy for players to thirty percent of its initial Strategic the player good reasons to take attack directly from Manassas to Will (SW) if Washington DC is historically-motivated decisions. If Washington. The game didn't have captured. Just as Lincoln did the proper historical rationale historically, your attention is for forcing the Confederates to focused on this potential maneuver to the west as they problem. If, despite your best did historically. During the efforts, you still lose Washing- Antietam campaign the Confed- ton to the rebels, then your eracy crossed from Manassas to situation is more difficult, but Frederick. During the not impossible. Assuming you Gettysburg campaign they relocate the capital to some- came through the Shenandoah where in the West out of harms valley. What I didn't adequately way, it is very unlikely for the factor into the original design Union to lose their capital twice was the impact forts had on in a game. river crossing operations. It was too easy for forces to cross The corollary is that the loss of rivers and directly assault forts. Richmond drives Confederate A small, but significant, rule SW down 27 points while the change now prevents direct Union gains 12 points for a net attacks on forts across rivers. change of 39 points. At the You either need to Amphibious assault them, giving the Union the Fredericksburg, which is where the expend one of these two opportuni- proper incentive to invest in armies usually resided when they ties by attacking at his first opportu- ironclads, or you need to maneuver weren't conducting offensive opera- nity. Since the Union usually goes around them. tions. It is a standoff situation where first, the AoP should be activated on the side that first moves off the line the first card play. The result will be a This rule, in conjunction with a minor loses, because this army is out of 6 SP loss for the Union and a 3 or 4 map change to the Potomac river position to stop a thrust at its capital. SP loss for the Confederacy with the denies the Confederate player the If the Union plays a cautious game Union army back in Manassas. ability to go straight after Washing- and avoids attacking in the East, as Because the Army of Northern ton, but still leaves it vulnerable to a they did historically, trouble can Virginia rolls a ten, there is a fifty flanking maneuver. This subtle ensue elsewhere on the map. If the percent chance that one of the key change enables a Peninsula cam- Union plays ahistorically during 1862 commanders will be killed. paign, because the Union has a bit or 1863, Lee moves and attacks the more time to react to a Confederate AoP driving it into Washington. Assuming that the Confederate thrust. For example, assuming the Because Lee is less than 2 to 1 response is to try and threaten Union holds Manassas with a force stronger than the Union, his move is Washington, the AoNV attacks and which is more than half the size of finished. The Union moves reinforce- wins another large battle. Due to the the AoNV, the AoP can leave Wash- ments into DC and then Lee activates fort in Manassas and the increased ington using the special McClellan again, marches through Frederick, Union defensive DRM capabilities, army move to Monroe. If Lee attacks and takes Washington. The Union the Confederate losses are probably 4 north in response, the AoP could capital is displaced, plus Lee has won or possibly 5 SPs reducing Lee down either take Richmond or maneuver two Large battles with a net effect on to 3 or 4 SPs. Now Lee is in Manassas back to Washington by sea. The one the Union of at least minus 40 and should have lost at least one key extra space of maneuver required to Strategic Will points. general. For all intents and purposes, take the Union capital doesn't The question at hand is the danger is past. If the Southern significantly reduce its vulnerability, how is a different result player overplays his hand, Richmond but to a well prepared Union force, achieved by the Union. becomes vulnerable to a counterat- enables some of the more extraordi- There are two key concepts tack since the AoNV will have nary historical maneuvers. in the Eastern Theater. insufficient strength to defend it. If First, Washington always has top Lee attacks, the Union should be able In the same vein the new optional priority on resources until it is to win a defensive battle in either Shenandoah Valley rule (which I secure. Second, never ignore the first Frederick, MD or in the Washington encourage everyone to use) causes concept. space where McClellan, plus the fort, the South to gain the proper histori- another Union general and any force cal perspective regarding this region. To secure Washington, the Union advantage gives the Union a +6 or If the Confederate player ignores the player must do several things. First, better total DRM. This large a DRM is valley it is possible for the Union to the AoP must start every Strategy usually sufficient for the Union to capture the state of Virginia by Phase at 15 SPs. Second, Washington hold his capital. conquering the northern half of the must contain at least 8 and probably state, without capturing Richmond. 10 SPs. Third, never let the AoNV This formula has a few key uncertain- This motivates the Confederate start the Strategy Phase in Manassas. ties. What if the Union player doesn't player to detach a small force to keep Fourth, maintain a fort in Manassas get any 3 operations cards? What if Union flanking forces at bay. Because whenever possible. Fifth, maintain the Confederate player goes first with it is important to not lose these small the capability to launch forces into a campaign card? Well the answer is and medium battles, I have found it the Shenandoah Valley (via Harper's that then it gets very exciting. If the best to use a high DRM leader who is Ferry into Winchester, Strasburg and Confederate player is a carpe diem easy to move.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Role of Intelligence in the Civil War Part II: Support to Military Operations Lecture Three: Lee Vs
    The Role of Intelligence in the Civil War Part II: Support to Military Operations Lecture Three: Lee vs. Hooker at Chancellorsville - Better Intelligence Doesn’t Guarantee Success Review: Last week, we noted that Gen. Burnside lasted less than 3 months, suffering defeat at Fredericksburg in Dec. 1862 and the “Mud March” in January. He was replaced January 26 by Gen. Joe Hooker, who immediately began making improvements in the army’s structure and supply. One of Hooker’s the key initiatives was the creation of the first professional intel organization - the BMI. What’s Next?: But, as winter began to give way to spring in 1863, the armies remained where they were at the end of the Battle of Fredericksburg the previous December – that is facing each other across the Rappahannock River. Both Lee and Hooker were considering offensive operations, when the weather improved. HOOKER PLANS TO MOVE AROUND LEE’S LEFT FLANK • The Army of Potomac was at peak strength – almost 140,000 men. In a late March letter to Hooker, Lincoln confirmed what he expected: “Our prime objective is the enemy’s army in from of us, and not with, or about, Richmond.” In the same letter, Lincoln applied the pressure, closing with : “YOU MUST ACT.” • Plan Objective: The Confederate Army, though only about half the size of the Union Army facing it, was in a very strong defensive position on Fredericksburg Heights with the river in front. To force Lee out into the open, Hooker would have to attack straight at him or go around to the right or left.
    [Show full text]
  • Measures of Effectiveness for the Information-Age Army
    Measures of Effectiveness for the Information-Age Army RICHARD DARILEK WALTER PERRY JEROME BRACKEN JOHN GORDON BRIAN NICHIPORUK R Arroyo Center The research described in this report was sponsored by the United States Army, Contract No. DASW01-96-C-0004. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Measures of effectiveness for the information-age Army/Richard Darilek ... [et al.]. p. cm “MR-1155-A.” Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-8330-2847-2 1. United States. Army. 2. Combat—Evaluation. 3. Combat—Data processing. 4. Information warfare—United States. I. Darilek, Richard E. UA25 .M43 2000 355.3'43—dc21 00-036615 RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND® is a registered trademark. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of its research sponsors. © Copyright 2001 RAND All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from RAND. Cover design by Tanya Maiboroda Cover illlustration courtesy of Raytheon Command, Control and Communication Systems Published 2001 by RAND 1700 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138 1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202-5050 RAND URL: http://www.rand.org/ To order RAND documents or to obtain additional information, contact Distribution Services: Telephone: (310) 451-7002; Fax: (310) 451-6915; Internet: [email protected] PREFACE This report presents the results of a project sponsored by the Direc- tor of Strategy, Plans, and Policy, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans, Department of the Army Staff.
    [Show full text]
  • Naval Flanking in Ground Warfare
    Naval Flanking in Ground Warfare Gideon Raz “The indirect [approach] is by far the most hopeful and economic form of strategy. ” B. H. Liddell Hart1 Israel’s Coastal Border The Mediterranean Sea, Israel’s only open border, also borders Israel’s enemies to the north and the Gaza Strip to the south, thereby linking it to enemy states. Thus, Israel’s control of this naval arena would enable it to project military strength from the sea, and afford it the capability to embark on landing operations of various types. “The shores of the State of Israel, the naval interface with each of our enemies, require us to expand our naval strength to the point of being able to land forces from the sea. David Ben-Gurion even said that we are bound to view the sea as Israel’s extended western territory.”2 The naval arena is the Achilles’ heel of Israel’s enemies and therefore also an opportunity for the IDF. The Operational Need Today the threat of high trajectory fire, based on the use of conventional weapons (missiles, rockets, mortar bombs) in massive quantities, tops the list of threats Israel confronts. It joins the classical, conventional threat that was based on the use of large military systems engaging in battles of ground maneuvers…The IDF must use the two major com- ponents of its capabilities, firepower and ground maneuver, in order to damage both the enemy’s military capabilities and its political or organizational infrastructure…An enemy seeking to avoid severe blows operates purposefully and cynically within civilian population centers.3 Rear Admiral (ret.) Gideon Raz, former Deputy Commander of the Israeli Navy Military and Strategic Affairs]7PMVNF]/P].BZ GIDEON RAZ | /"7"-'-"/,*/(*/(306/%8"3'"3& 46 Frontal assault has traditionally been the IDF’s main maneuver.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Use of Formations in Land Warfare
    On the Use of Formations in Land Warfare a statistical analysis ANDREAS FORSTÉN, JOSEFINE LETZNER Bachelor’s Thesis at CSC Supervisor: Petter Ögren Examiner: Mårten Olsson June 5, 2015 Abstract This paper investigates military formations and tries to give an answer to the question of how geometry affects outcomes of battles. The investigation has primarily been done with the aid of a model based on Markov chains. This method was then complemented with simulations made in Unity 3D. Special focus has been laid on analysing the flanking maneuver and comparisons have been made with recom- mendations from official sources in the military. The conclusions drawn point toward the importance of ge- ometry during battles. Referat Om bruket av formationer vid krigföring på land. Rapporten behandlar militära formationer och försöker ge svar på frågan om hur geometrin hos dessa påverkar ett slag. Undersökningen har i huvudsak gjorts med en modell baserad på Markovkedjor. Denna metod kompletterades se- dan med simuleringar i Unity 3D. Speciell fokus har lagts vid överflyglingsmanövern och jämförelser har gjorts med rekommendationer från officiella källor inom militären. De erhållna slutsatserna pekar mot att geometrin är av icke försumbar betydelse. Contents Symbols1 1 Introduction2 1.1 Scope and Objectives........................... 2 1.2 Problem Statement............................ 2 2 Background3 2.1 Formations and Maneuvers ....................... 3 2.2 Warfare - a Science or an Art? ..................... 4 2.3 Combat Modelling............................ 7 2.4 Alternatives in Combat Modelling ................... 7 2.4.1 Deterministic models....................... 8 2.4.2 Stochastic models ........................ 10 2.5 Time and State Discrete Markov Processes .............. 10 3 Method 14 3.1 Model..................................
    [Show full text]
  • Mughals at War: Babur, Akbar and the Indian Military Revolution, 1500 - 1605
    Mughals at War: Babur, Akbar and the Indian Military Revolution, 1500 - 1605 A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Andrew de la Garza Graduate Program in History The Ohio State University 2010 Dissertation Committee: John F. Guilmartin, Advisor; Stephen Dale; Jennifer Siegel Copyright by Andrew de la Garza 2010 Abstract This doctoral dissertation, Mughals at War: Babur, Akbar and the Indian Military Revolution, examines the transformation of warfare in South Asia during the foundation and consolidation of the Mughal Empire. It emphasizes the practical specifics of how the Imperial army waged war and prepared for war—technology, tactics, operations, training and logistics. These are topics poorly covered in the existing Mughal historiography, which primarily addresses military affairs through their background and context— cultural, political and economic. I argue that events in India during this period in many ways paralleled the early stages of the ongoing “Military Revolution” in early modern Europe. The Mughals effectively combined the martial implements and practices of Europe, Central Asia and India into a model that was well suited for the unique demands and challenges of their setting. ii Dedication This document is dedicated to John Nira. iii Acknowledgments I would like to thank my advisor, Professor John F. Guilmartin and the other members of my committee, Professors Stephen Dale and Jennifer Siegel, for their invaluable advice and assistance. I am also grateful to the many other colleagues, both faculty and graduate students, who helped me in so many ways during this long, challenging process.
    [Show full text]
  • ABSTRACT Constantinos Hasapis, Overcoming the Spartan
    ABSTRACT Constantinos Hasapis, Overcoming the Spartan Phalanx: The Evolution of Greek Battlefield Tactics, 394 BC- 371 BC. (Dr. Anthony Papalas, Thesis Director), Spring 2012 The objective of this thesis is to examine the changes in Greek battlefield tactics in the early fourth century as a response to overthrowing what was widely considered by most of Greece tyranny on the part of Sparta. Sparta's hegemony was based on military might, namely her mastery of phalanx warfare. Therefore the key to dismantling Lacedaemonia's overlordship was to defeat her armies on the battlefield. This thesis will argue that new battle tactics were tried and although there were varying degrees of success, the final victory at Leuctra over the Spartans was due mainly to the use of another phalanx. However, the Theban phalanx was not a merely a copy of Sparta's. New formations, tactics, and battlefield concepts were applied and used successfully when wedded together. Sparta's prospects of maintaining her position of dominance were increasingly bleak. Sparta's phalanx had became more versatile and mobile after the end of the Peloponnesian War but her increasing economic and demographic problems, compounded by outside commitments resulting in imperial overstretch, strained her resources. The additional burden of internal security requirements caused by the need to hold down a massive helot population led to a static position in the face of a dynamic enemy with no such constraints Overcoming The Spartan Phalanx: The Evolution of Greek Battlefield Tactics, 394 BC-371 BC A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Department of History East Carolina University In Partial Fulfillment for the Degree Master of Arts in History Constantinos Hasapis Spring 2012 Copyright 2012 Constantinos Hasapis Overcoming the Spartan Phalanx: The Evolution of Greek Battlefield Tactics, 394 BC-371 BC by Constantinos Hasapis APPROVED BY DIRECTOR OF THESIS ________________________________ Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • The Battle of Beersheba
    Running head: BATTLE OF BEERSHEBA The Battle of Beersheba Strategic and Tactical Pivot of Palestine Zachary Grafman A Senior Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation in the Honors Program Liberty University Spring 2013 BATTLE OF BEERSHEBA 2 Acceptance of Senior Honors Thesis This Senior Honors Thesis is accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation from the Honors Program of Liberty University. ______________________________ David Snead, Ph.D. Thesis Chair ______________________________ Robert Ritchie, M.A. Committee Member ______________________________ Randal Price, Ph.D. Committee Member ______________________________ Brenda Ayres, Ph.D. Honors Director ______________________________ Date BATTLE OF BEERSHEBA 3 Abstract The Battle of Beersheba, fought on October 31, 1917, was a vital turning point in the British campaign against the Ottoman Turks. The battle opened a gap in the Turkish line that eventually resulted in the British takeover of Palestine. The British command saw the cavalry charge of the 4th Light Horse Brigade as a new tactical opportunity, and this fac- tored into the initiative for new light tank forces designed around the concepts of mobility and flanking movements. What these commanders failed to realize was that the Palestine Campaign was an anachronistic theater of war in comparison to the rest of the Great War. The charge of the 4th Light Horse, while courageous and vital to the success of the Battle of Beersheba, also owed its success to a confluence of advantageous circumstances, which the British command failed to take into account when designing their light tank forces prior to World War II. BATTLE OF BEERSHEBA 4 The Battle of Beersheba: Strategic and Tactical Pivot of Palestine World War I has taken its place in the public perception as a trench war, a conflict of brutal struggle between industrial powers that heaped up dead and wounded and for- ever changed Europe’s consciousness.
    [Show full text]
  • 2. Competitive Analysis 2.1Concept of Competition Competition in Biology
    2. Competitive Analysis 2.1Concept of Competition Competition in biology, ecology, and sociology, is a contest between organisms, animals, individuals, groups, etc., for territory, a niche, or a location of resources, for resources and goods, mates, for prestige, recognition, awards, or group or social status, for leadership. Competition is the opposite of cooperationIt arises whenever at least two parties strive for a goal which cannot be shared or which is desired individually but not in sharing and cooperation. Competition occurs naturally between living organisms which co-exist in the same environment. For example, animals compete over water supplies, food, mates, and other biological resources. Humans compete usually for food and mates, though when these needs are met deep rivalries often arise over the pursuit of wealth, prestige, and fame. Competition is also a major tenet in market economy and business is often associated with competition as most companies are in competition with at least one other firm over the same group of customers, and also competition inside a company is usually stimulated for meeting and reaching higher quality of services or products that the company produces or develop. 2.2 Types of Competition Pure Competition A purely competitive market is a theoretical state in which no single buyer or seller has influence over the products sold in the market. Any seller enters the market to sell any product, and buyers are free to purchase any product desired. A large number of producers and sellers operate in the purely competitive market, and the products sold by one producer are easily replaced by a similar product from another producer.
    [Show full text]
  • Greek and Near Eastern Warfare 3000 to 301: the Development and Perfection of Combined Arms
    University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2012-12-12 Greek and Near Eastern warfare 3000 to 301: the development and perfection of combined arms Wrightson, Graham Charles Liquorish Wrightson, G. C. (2012). Greek and Near Eastern warfare 3000 to 301: the development and perfection of combined arms (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/26321 http://hdl.handle.net/11023/346 doctoral thesis University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY Greek and Near Eastern warfare 3000 to 301: the development and perfection of combined arms By Graham Charles Liquorish Wrightson A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT OF GREEK AND ROMAN STUDIES CALGARY, ALBERTA December 11th, 2012 Graham Charles Liquorish Wrightson 2012 ABSTRACT This dissertation traces the developments in battlefield tactics from the early Mesopotamian societies through to the battle of Ipsus in 301 BCE. The primary concern is an analysis of the system of combined arms and its gradual implementation in the Near East and Greece. This thesis will show that armies using combined arms generally proved to be more successful than those that did not.
    [Show full text]
  • Robotic Swarms in Offensive Maneuver
    Amphibious assault ship USS America test-fires rolling airframe missile launcher to intercept remote- controlled drone during exercise to test ship’s defense capability (U.S. Navy/Demetrius Kennon) Swarm drones could easily take on the appearance of the U.S Navy’s Low-Cost Robotic Swarms in Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Swarming Technology (LOCUST),3 an inexpen- sive, fixed-wing platform that is individ- Offensive Maneuver ually tube-launched and autonomously joins a swarm once airborne. Alterna- By Jules Hurst tively, ground-based swarm combatants might resemble miniature tanks like the Estonian ADDER weaponized ground vehicle.4 For the purposes of this article, or many years, military scientists of horse archers of the Asian steppe though, assumptions need to be made. have contemplated the advent of against less flexible foes.2 Whatever the Future swarm combatants will likely be swarming tactics as an evolution source of inspiration, few authors move F severable into two broad categories: fire within maneuver warfare, and futurists beyond the abstract employment of support swarms and maneuver swarms. have contemplated the execution of the robotic swarms. To fully explore swarm Fire support swarm combatants will tactics by cooperative teams of semi- utility in fire and maneuver, swarms carry one-time-use warheads that are autonomous drones.1 These projections should be inserted into the tactical con- changed modularly to deal with a variety expound on strengths demonstrated cepts of today—chiefly, the five forms of targets (area, point, soft-skinned, by hive-minded organisms such as bees of offensive maneuver recognized under hardened, airborne, and others).
    [Show full text]
  • Why America Beat Iraq but Loses to Japan
    Why America beat Iraq but Loses to Japan Copyright 1991/Joseph J. Romm Joseph Romm is a Research Scholar at the Rocky Mountain Institute in Snowmass, Colorado and a consultant to the Council on Foreign Relations Project on Global Security. America won the military war against Iraq for the same reason the Japanese are winning the high-technology trade war against us: the application of a fast-cycle, time-based competitive strategy. In the Gulf War, America used a dynamic, maneuver-based strategy to defeat the entrenched Iraqi forces who expected a head-on attack. The primary reason so many commentators overestimated the number of American casualties was that the Pentagon abandoned its traditional attrition-based strategy for a time-based strategy. Similarly, the Japanese use fast-innovation, flexible manufacturing to out-compete traditional mass production techniques widely used in this country. Unless American business abandons its traditional methods and adopts these techniques to a far greater degree, and unless the federal government supports the rapid research, development, and manufacturing necessary to sustain such a transition, then not only will American economic security suffer; ultimately, so will our military security, as our high-tech weapons will increasingly have to rely on foreign-made parts that may not be available fast enough in a future crisis. On the other hand, nurturing advanced manufacturing can bring high-paying jobs back to America and help revitalize our economy. The idea that time is an essential component of military strategy is hardly new. Almost 200 years ago, Napoleon said: “Strategy is the art of making use of time and space.
    [Show full text]
  • Ultimate General: Civil War “Game Guide”
    Ultimate General: Civil War “Game Guide” Chapters • Main Menu • Battle Basics • Advanced Battle Aspects • Battle Interface • Campaign Start • Army Management 1 Main Menu When you launch the game, you can select the following in the menu: Campaign The campaign starts from 1861 and ends at the speculative battles of Washington or Richmond on 1865. See also: Campaign start Historical Battle In this section, you will find several epic historical battles that include all the historical facts and data but can play out differently according to your actions. Custom Battle Here you have a list of speculative battles that are ideal for a short play session. Load In this window are all your saves that are categorized in three sections Campaign/Historical/Custom depending where you made them, in Campaign or Historical or Custom Battle. See also: Army management, Battle interface 2 Options In Options there are customization settings for the following: Resolution: By default your monitor’s native resolution is selected. Window mode: If it is enabled, you can play the game in window mode. By default, it is disabled. Sound: Move the slide bars to set the desired volume level for Music and Sound Effects. Controls: You can assign different keys for several battle commands. All your changes will have effect only if you click the button “Apply”. Pressing the button “Back” returns you to the Main Menu. See also: Battle interface 3 Battle Basics The following information will help you get started with the basic gameplay aspects of the battlefield. Contents • Map Controls • Selection • Moving a single unit • Moving a group of units • Halt • Run • Unit rotation • Range attack • Charging • Falling back • Wavering • Retreating • Surrendering • Shattered • Holding • Ground • Fortifying • Flanking • Mounting/Dismounting • Detaching skirmishers • Ammo & Supply Wagon • The Generals • Strategic points 4 Map controls • Moving the map: Press middle mouse button and move the mouse to position the map to the desired location.
    [Show full text]