Antietam Scenario

Thanks for the update. Hmm, yes, I've played many very laggy games in GCM. Perhaps smaller maps are the way forwards?

Actually, I've just had an idea for a skirmish that I could make myself. I will have to look into how this works. Would be a blast!

Here is all you need:

https://kriegsspiel.forumotion.net/t265-mp-scenario-creation-tutorial

If we could crop the Antietam maps to 2.5 miles that would be great. Less lag is always a plus. I would suggest it to NSD but they are overloaded likely making another 5 mile map.

Yup, the Antietam map would break down nicely into about 3 x 2.5sq m maps. You don't really need the SW quadrant, no-one ever fights there and its flat, rather dull terrain. Perhaps if NSD ever release a map-making kit someone could convert/make the smaller maps.

I think on Antietam especially we should turn Uniforms to Medium and Map Objects at High instead of 'Best' for both to lower lag.

Baldwin1 wrote:I think on Antietam especially we should turn Uniforms to Medium and Map Objects at High instead of 'Best' for both to lower lag.

And do all our hosts set trees at 66% as well?

For me there's one of the "non-best" uniform settings that makes no difference. I think they may need to be set to "low". All this does is remove the uniform variants IIRC. But yes, we could try that.

Definitely worth try a test next time - maybe play a game for 30 mins and time its actual real duration, then dial all the settings down and redo the same battle and time that.

Twas a bit boring.

But if MTG had sent those guns to the Union right, even further right than they eventually were, right from the beginning, Digby's attack might have proven fruitful.

My little, experienced Reb regiments chewed up the Union conscripts with ease. We were down in the sunken road leaning against breastworks. The Union had no chance. But. . . at one point I was 93 casualties caused and like 8 taken. Then once MTG got those guns on my flank, I had to pinch in behind that little rise. But one of my regiments was out in the open countering Digby's flank move with a huge regiment. In less than 5 or 10 minutes, they took 60 or so casualties from the cannon. If MTG had moved the guns before Digby's initial attack, I might have been hard pressed to hold. But there was no chance for Digby's green troops without powerful arty support.

The Union's best move, really, IMHO, would have been to march Digby and Hays around our left and force us to refuse that flank (turning away from the fortress of the sunken road) and then get arty over there to fire down our line. Perhaps then the green Yanks could have pressed to melee against small, arty weakened, experienced Rebs.

"Perhaps then the green Yanks could have pressed to melee against small, arty weakened, experienced Rebs."

Wait a minute. . . sorry Father General. . . those Reb boys were actually big, strong fellows. I meant "small regiments of".

kg little mac wrote:"Perhaps then the green Yanks could have pressed to melee against small, arty weakened, experienced Rebs."

Wait a minute. . . sorry Father General. . . those Reb boys were actually big, strong fellows. I meant "small regiments of".

Human flesh is irrelevant. It's the spirit that matters. Since the men of our cause are allied with all the angels and heavenly host, we always outnumber the enemy and occupy the high ground of Righteousness wherever we go. This is the reason why we fear no enemy and always prefer the attack. When viewed properly through the eye of faith, we have every advantage in battle. -The Father General, April 1862.

-Taken from, The Random Musings of the Father General 1st ed. 1874.

True, Soldier, we could have gone way around the Reb left (or either flank) but in the context of the whole Antietam battle it seems too gamey to do that. In reality the Reb line continues left and right and this sector is where French's division must attack. We did some flanking and maybe the guns could have been pushed a little more right, or brought up earlier, but a huge right hook right around behind you where those stone walls are wouldn't have been fair play I don't think, since whichever Reb division was on your left historically would have prevented such a move in the real battle.

Do those piled rail fences count as breastworks then? No wonder we couldn't kill any of you!

But if MTG had sent those guns to the Union right, even further right than they eventually were, right from the beginning, Digby's attack might have proven fruitful.

This is true. In fact to win the SP version of this scenario, I had to move a brigade all the way around the rebel line and attack from the front and rear simultaneously. It was a very unrealistic tactic, for the reasons Digby gives, and I wasn't going to do something like that in an MP game. I was actually reluctant to move the guns as far to the right as I did. In the real battle they would have been in no man's land and subject to intense fire. I only did so near the end of the battle, since it was already lost and moving them wasn't going to change that. At least I had a little fun.

The problem is that many NSD scenarios are designed for and tested with "anything goes" tactics and an unlimited view from the air. Those don't work well with the style of play we use in our games. It was unfortunate that your first exposure to Hits and Couriers was in this scenario. Hopefully you'll come back for a 2nd round and it will be more of a challenge.

Is it possible to get a map of Bull Run for the game? Is there one already, (considering the first version of the game)? Is it compatible?

Sometimes, the point [of a scenario] is to lose. I know that sounds counter intuitive, but to be fair, you are Yankees. -Musings of the Father General, spoken to a captured Union officer, 1863 campaign.

You see, any mediocre commander can handle a victory well. but it's how a commander handles a defeat that truly makes in interesting. How do you crack a position that is essentially unassailable? What do you do when you have a Father General type in the rear, ordering you forward into a sunken road?

That's why I LOVE campaigns with carry-over stats and consequences. It builds a story of character, a history, and all the things that make these types of games most interesting.

I'd take a fun defeat over a boring victory any day. Heck, I even dig the hour-long road marches. I love this game, I just want a campaign on top of it. But I can be patient. In time, we'll have it all. I think a campaign is the next natural step for NSD. I also miss the Kregisspiel campaign that we started last May, but stalled.

Mr. Digby wrote:Do those piled rail fences count as breastworks then? No wonder we couldn't kill any of you!

Yes. . . my whole brigade was on breastworks during your initial attack. When you moved more to my left, I had two regiments which were on regular fences.

Uncle Billy wrote:

But if MTG had sent those guns to the Union right, even further right than they eventually were, right from the beginning, Digby's attack might have proven fruitful.

This is true. In fact to win the SP version of this scenario, I had to move a brigade all the way around the rebel line and attack from the front and rear simultaneously. It was a very unrealistic tactic, for the reasons Digby gives, and I wasn't going to do something like that in an MP game. I was actually reluctant to move the guns as far to the right as I did. In the real battle they would have been in no man's land and subject to intense fire. I only did so near the end of the battle, since it was already lost and moving them wasn't going to change that. At least I had a little fun.

The problem is that many NSD scenarios are designed for and tested with "anything goes" tactics and an unlimited view from the air. Those don't work well with the style of play we use in our games. It was unfortunate that your first exposure to Hits and Couriers was in this scenario. Hopefully you'll come back for a 2nd round and it will be more of a challenge.

Well. . . Cleburne had moved his brigade from our left flank to help the center. If the Rebs can move to support the center and not have to worry about being flanked, that makes it even harder on the Yanks. Personally, I have no interest in re-enacting battles and would have had no problem with you guys flanking our line, or at least trying.

It was pretty rough on the yanks from the start.
I think I had around 1450 men all Irregulars in 3 regiments.
The 1st one routed and retreatedwith approx 60 arty casualties wihout even closing
to rifle range. The other 2 made it but couldnt hit anything..... literally no casualties caused for minutes.
I then attempted to melee 1 routed when making contact with a reb regiment 1/5 its size
the other caused a few casualties20-30 in melle then I retreated them before they broke.
20 to 30 minutes later 2 were willing 1 was gone.
moved up again close enough to shoot but couldnt hit a thing.
Got 1 regiment to melee till they broke.
I lost 200 and killed about 40.
my brigade morale was shot with only 100 casualties, it felt like I was literally having to
force them forward and couldnt keep them fighting for anything. The whole brigade routed off the field with under 300
casualties.

Well that is partly true.
I was ordered to move to the right flank actually by the Confederate commander to refuse the flank to recieve the Union attack.
I think in my opinion if Baldwin hadn't ordered me there, the union would have taken that flank in reverse.
I'm not sure of this of course but i do think it was a smart move from Baldwin to be fair.
I don't know if the union could have done too much damage even if they do get the position turned.however i certainly needed to be there to make sure i think.
Either way its damn tough for the union i have to agree.Id be up for trying it again at some point and taking a union command just to face the problem from that side.

Cleburne wrote:Well that is partly true.
I was ordered to move to the right flank actually by the Confederate commander to refuse the flank to recieve the Union attack.
I think in my opinion if Baldwin hadn't ordered me there, the union would have taken that flank in reverse.
I'm not sure of this of course but i do think it was a smart move from Baldwin to be fair.
I don't know if the union could have done too much damage even if they do get the position turned.however i certainly needed to be there to make sure i think.
Either way its damn tough for the union i have to agree.Id be up for trying it again at some point and taking a union command just to face the problem from that side.

Yes. . . I didn't mean to insinuate you made the move on your own, and from the saddle, I really couldn't tell where you went. I only meant to demonstrate that we made strategic moves based on what the Yanks did and that Yank moves to counter our moves wouldn't have bothered me in the least, regardless of whether or not they were historical.