Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fwd: Where the War REALLY was Won (and who won it)

Expand Messages
  • fwnash@comcast.net
    Subject: Re: Where the War REALLY was Won (and who won it) I want to propose a topic for discussion expanding on my comment that “Rails for the railroad
    Message 1 of 15 , Nov 28, 2009
    • 0 Attachment

      Subject: Re: Where the War REALLY was Won (and who won it)



      I want to propose a topic for discussion expanding on my comment that “Rails for the railroad systems were also forged in Pittsburgh , although the railroads contributed no or little advantage in the west ”.  



       



       

      Proposition.   The Civil War would not have been much different nor cost more lives without the railroads.



       



       



      Background.   To start the discussion, I will list generalized reasons for declaring that the railroad systems did not contribute positively to the war effort when all things are considered.   These reasons included capitalist profiteering, lack of lines to critical war front areas, limited capacity in general, static military targets requiring protection, dangerous to operate, etc.



       

      Prior to the Civil War there were approximately 200 railroads in the US .   Two-thirds of the lines and railway miles were in the states loyal to the Union .   All the locomotives, also known as steam wagons, were manufactured in the North or Europe .   There was a refit facility in Birmingham , AL which miraculously kept some fifty locomotives maintained for the South during the war.   And there was only one manufacturing place in the South where bent rails could be reclaimed.   Bent iron rails, known as “ Sherman ’s Bowties”, were difficult to straighten.   When it came to rail transportation the South was at a distinct disadvantage in the number of locomotives and rolling stock, miles of track, and the maintenance and manufacture of track, rails, locomotives, and cars.



       



       

      In an article originally published in the September 1996 issue of America’s Civil War magazine, Alan R. Koenig wrote:   “ During the war, railroads were second only to waterways in providing logistical support for the armies. They were also vital to the economies of the divided nation. A great deal has been written about railroads in the war , and in particular the spectacular engineering feats of the U.S. Military Railroads ’ Construction Corps under Herman Haupt . But strangely, the tactical employment of locomotives and rolling stock, which was actually quite widespread, has thus far escaped serious attention.”   Although the Koenig’s article supports the theory that railroads were useful, the instances sited are specific events where railroads played a vital role in the outcome.   The phrase “thus far escaped serious attention” is far more telling.



       

      If we focus our attention on the role of railroads, we will discover whether that role has been exaggerated.   With some dispassionate thought, we may bring to light a historical misconception.



       

      Looking forward to this discussion.

      Fran Nash








      ----- Original Message -----
      From: pbswan@...
      To: "daz0463" <fwnash@...>
      Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 3:25:15 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
      Subject: Re: Where the War REALLY was Won (and who won it)

      Whatever about the Pennsylvanian rivermen -- Did you really mean to say:
      "Rails for the railroad systems were also forged in Pittsburgh, although the railroads contributed no or little advantage in the west."

      Estelle





      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "daz0463" <fwnash@...> wrote:
      >
      > From the date of your post, it is obvious that I took quite some time to formulate my response.  After considerable thought and analysis, I've come to my conclusion.  The Civil War was won in:
      >
      >                 Pittsburgh = Steeler Country
      >
      > And was won by western Pennsylvanian rivermen.
      >
      > Some believe the momentum of the Civil War changed after victories in the Western Theater, whether Vicksburg or Shiloh.  If this premise is true, then what were the major enablers that differed from the east?  The major advantages of the Union Army were the tall stack steamers: civilian transports, tinclads, and gunboats, and their men: captains, pilots, engineers, and crews, who operated the transports.  The origin of these advantages, and other support goods, was Pittsburgh.
      >
      > A mindful analysis of the Charles and E Kay Gibson's "Dictionary of Transports and Combatant Vessels, Steam and Sail, Employed by the Union Army 1861-1868", indicates that approximately 720 steamboats were employed on the western rivers during the Civil War.  The Army Quartermaster built and purchased 105 and chartered 615.  Cross referencing those steamboats by name with Capt Frederick Way's "Way's Packet Directory, 1848-1994" revealed that just over 44% of the steamboats were built in Pittsburgh.  My definition of "Pittsburgh" is the region on the Ohio and Monongahela Rivers approximately 20 miles down the Ohio and 20 miles up the Mon from Pittsburgh.  That region includes boatyards in river towns such as Freedom, Shousetown (no longer exists), Elizabeth (Lewis and Clark keelboat fame), Brownsville, McKeesport, California, Belle Vernon ...  That region is about 4% of the total run of the Ohio River.
      >
      > From Gibsons Dictionary I have included all the boats which means packets built as far up the Mississippi as Keokuk, IA and as far down as New Orleans, LA and in Bridgeport, AL on the Tennessee River.   So my 40 miles of water surrounding Pittsburgh is competing with all the boatyards on the rest of the Ohio plus nearly the full length of the Mississippi and the Tennessee rivers.  Gunboats also skewed the data against Pittsburgh.  Gunboats were built specifically for the Quartermaster in strange places such as Oquaka, IL, Burlington, IA, Chatanooga, TN, etc.   These sites were not commercial boatyards like those found in Cincinnati, OH, New Albany, IN, and Elizabeth, PA.
      >
      > The sources used to identify the steamers on the western rivers were the primary sources of Gibson's Dictionary part 2 and 3 of HR-337 and one secondary source identified as Hurst which refers to a list in "The Battle of Shiloh" by TM Hurst.  The Gibsons do not list the build port for the steamers.  By cross referencing the name provided by the Gibsons with the build location in Way's Directory, I have my data.
      >
      > I confess I lost 13.6% of the Gibson steamers.  In most cases, the names identified by the Gibsons did not match with Way's Packet Directory.  The missing steamers I believe were often tugs and ferries not listed by Capt Way because they were not packets.  In a few cases the names did match but I excluded the boats if either the vessel was out of service before the war or not built until after the war according to Way's Directory.  I trust Capt Way more than the Gibsons.
      >
      > In addition to the boatyards, Pittsburgh was the major iron works center in the Union. Approximately 60% of the artillery used by the Union Army was forged in Pittsburgh.  Rails for the railroad systems were also forged in Pittsburgh, although the railroads contributed no or little advantage in the west.   Theses two additional products, artillery and rails, provide the mortar to keep my main conclusion standing.  Without experiencing a single warlike day, Pittsburgh provided the underlying support that changed the momentum of the war.
      >
      > A different yet interesting line of research would be:  How different would have been the outcome of the Civil War without the steamboats pilots who knew the chutes, channels and shoals of the Ohio and its tributaries?
      >
      >
      > Note 1:  I was surprised that Pittsburgh's steamboats did not total more than 50%.  Alas, I had spent too much time not to respond with the data at hand.    For the Missouri River commerce of the late 1860's, Pittsburgh produced approx 70% of the packets.  I was also amazed by the number of packets built in Cincinnati.  Far more than any other single site, but far less than the Pittsburgh region according to my definition of the region.  I had no idea Cincinnati had such a river history.  To honor the history of Cincinnati's contributions to the epoch of steamboats, I will celebrate with a case of Little Kings.
      >
      > Note 2:  The Chaplain of the 72nd Ohio Infantry was Rev Adam B Poe, one of the founders of Ohio Wesleyan College.  Three of his first cousins from Georgetown, PA were packet owners and captains who steamed to Pittsburg Landing in Apr 1862: Jacob, Thomas W, and Adam Poe.  Another Georgetown steamboat captain, Jackman T Stockdale, was also at Pittsburg Landing on 6-7 Apr 1862.   Two Georgetown captains, George W Ebert and Richard Calhoon, and their vessels were chartered at the correct time, but I can not place them at Pittsburg Landing.  About that time George W Ebert had been running messages between Helena, AR, Memphis, TN and St Louis, MO.  Richard Calhoon had been transporting troops and supplies along the Ohio.  I am curious whether the reverend and the captains knew.
      >
      > Fran Nash
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "jbissla" <gabriel@> wrote:
      > >
      > > The American Civil War Western Theater Discussion Group is a great
      > > forum for the 600-plus men and women who see significance in what
      > > happened westward from the Appalachians. Millions of other Americans,
      > > however, STILL assume the "real war" occurred mostly in Virginia, and
      > > Gettysburg was the war's turning point. For those of us who believe the
      > > war's outcome was shaped in the Western Theater instead, the popular
      > > lack of awareness is a kind of continuation of the insults Easterners
      > > used to heap on Westerners ("armed rabble," "drunkards," etc.). I have
      > > just joined the small group of writers who argue the war's outcome was
      > > shaped in the Western Theater by Westerners while Easteners were
      > > achieving no more than (as Richard McMurry puts it) "a bloody strategic
      > > stalemate." The battlefields of Virginia and nearby were great for
      > > creating widows and orphans, but until Grant came east, not much else
      > > that might end the war. My new book, "Blood, Tears, and Glory: How
      > > Ohioans Won the Civil War" (see wwww.orangefrazer.com/btg) makes the
      > > argument from one point of view; I hope others will chime in with
      > > theirs. James (Jim) Bissland
      > >
      >


    • keeno2@aol.com
      Could go either way, fwnash. I could go either way as well. The role of the RR has been somewhat overplayed, and I accept much of what you say. However,
      Message 2 of 15 , Nov 28, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Could go either way, fwnash. I could go either way as well.
         
        The role of the RR has been somewhat overplayed, and I accept much of what you say. However, (there's almost all of one of those, isn't there?) Sherman would have been unable to take Atlanta without that rail connection through Chattanooga to Nashville to Louisville. On the obverse, Hood would have been much better supplied for his jaunt to Nashville if he'd had a complete rail connection between Corinth and Florence. Then, the investment of Petersburg was largely a matter of interdicting Lee's rails from points south and west. And I hear that Meade's vaunted supply line at Gettysburg was finally finished after the battles.
         
        Possibly the only time Grant retraced his steps is when Van Dorn burned Holly Springs.
         
        So, while I agree that the role of rails is given perhaps too much credit, they did play a role.
         
        Ole
      • fwnash@comcast.net
                                           Nov 29   Mr K   Your response was exactly what I was hoping for.   One person will be
        Message 3 of 15 , Nov 29, 2009
        • 0 Attachment

                                             Nov 29

           

          Mr K

           

          Your response was exactly what I was hoping for.  One person will be unable to research a topic so broad, but a large group with diverse interests and points of view can cover the entire range of data, and with luck discover something new or interesting.  Original research combined with creative thinking!  Your examples are perfect candidates for analysis. 

           

          Let’s look at the railroad connections between Louisville and Chattanooga .  Two railroad companies were involved:

           

              (1)  Louisville and Nashville RR (L&N RR)

              (2)  Nashville and Chattanooga RR (N&C RR)

           

           

          The general statistics in 1861 for each railway line are listed below.  I added the Virginia and Tennessee RR to further the discussion.  The L&N and N&C RRs are two of the larger lines in the South.  The number of locomotives and miles of track are equal.  The track gauge differs which means the two lines could not be connected.  In Nashville , the goods form one line would have to be unloaded, carted to the other line and there reloaded.    

           

              RR       Engines   Cars    Miles     Track

              L&N       38           342      285      5 ft Gage 60# T-rail

              N&C       37           380      255      5 ft Gage 55# Urail

              V&T        40           406      224      5 ft Gage 60# T-rail

           

          The L&N RR was neutral until 4 Jul 1861 when the governor of TN detained rolling stock on the southern part of the line.  The Union took the KY portion shortly thereafter.  By early in the summer of 1862, the entire RR was under Union control.  To the best of my knowledge, there is no information after the Union took control regarding how many locomotives and cars were operable.  

           

          The N&C supported a number of small lines to mining areas in Shellmound , GA and Huntsville , AL .  The N&C RR supported both the sides at the same time in 1863.  Like the L&N there is no information about the status of the locomotives and cars after 1861.

           

          An example of the railroad maintenance issue can be inferred from the Virginia and Tennessee RR (V&T RR).  In 1861 the V&T RR listed 40 locomotives. In 1863, of that number 9 were classified as useless and 9 awaiting repair.  The attrition was due to normal wear and tear, not to enemy action.   I do not know whether the 45% rate of deterioration was consistent across all southern RRs, but the maintenance problem was acute in the South.  No were new locomotives available.  Railroad cars also deteriorated over time.  Although the cars were constructed almost entirely of wood, cast-iron wheels and wrought-iron axels posed problems.  Rail was also wearing out all over the South and stockpiles of new rails were nearly exhausted by 1863.      

           

           

          General Railroad Operations and Capacity.   We take for granted the railroads of the Civil War period were much like the national transportation system of today.  Nothing could be more different.  During the Civil War years, railroad transportation meant traveling mostly in upright chairs on unheated soot filled cars that rocked and pitched their way along state imposed “standard” gauge iron track.  Check out the Lincoln trip to the Cooper Union in New York City in 1860.  He traveled on five different railroad systems with an occasion ferry thrown in to cross a problem river.  The track gauges differed – 8.5 inches vice 10 inches.  Each railroad was an independent company.  Many railroads terminated in towns without connection to continuing lines.  Cargo would be unloaded, carted across town or farther, and then reloaded.  These problems made the movement of troops and goods by rail very inefficient.  Not until the Railways and Telegraph Act of January 31, 1862 were standards put in place to enable interoperability.  Unfortunately, these standards were legislated too late to benefit the Civil War effort for the North. 

           

          In the 1860s, steam locomotives could pull 8-10 passenger cars at 25 mph or 20 freight cars at 10-20 mph.   Again, we take for granted that trains are multiple locomotives pulling hundreds of loaded boxcars or passenger cars.  That was impossible in the 1860’s.  The first railroad car that could carry fifty men was not introduced by the Pennsylvania RR until 1862.  The math indicates that during the war one rail car could transport 50 men so a 10 car train could transport a maximum number of 500 men.  Supplies, artillery, horses, etc required additional locomotives and rolling stock.  To move an army of 20K soldiers without their equipment and supplies would require 40 locomotives and 400 passenger cars.  To move their equipment and supplies would require additional locomotives and freight cars.  Few RRs had that many locomotives aand cars.  Few railroads had two tracks between the terminal stations so the system was usually simplex, not bidirectional. 

           

           

                      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/chicago/sfeature/sf_made_07.html

           

          During the war, the North was forced to build and man garrisons along the railroads to guard depots and bridges.  The North controlled two-thirds of the railroads and lines at the beginning of the war and captured approx one-third of the South’s resources in the first year.  That means that the North had to spend more resources to defend and protect their rails.  Depots and bridges were great military targets because large quantities of railroad materials, in addition to military supplies, were maintained at these depots so the damaged lines could be quickly repaired. 

           

          It was difficult for both sides to replace damaged rail equipment in the South.  I have read that loaded boxcars were transported across rivers by steamboats and ferries, but I do know whether the same was true for locomotives.  Even in those days locomotives were enormously heavy machines.  If they could be moved they also had to have the right wheel configuration to work on the tracks intended.  The North used captured hardware on the southern rail lines. 

           

           

          L&N RR Capacity.  When the North took control of the L&N RR in 1862, the number of working locomotives available to the North is unknown.  Assuming the best case, all 38 locomotives were operational; with a “broke” rate of 45%, that number became 21.  We can calculate the time taken to move Sherman ’s troops from Louisville to Nashville with both counts of locomotives.  The MapQuest distance between the two cities is 175 miles.  Since the L&N had 285 miles of track either the L&N had some long spurs or there were two tracks at least a portion of the way. 

           

          How much time is required to march an army 175 miles?     

          What was the cost per mile to transport troops and freight?

           

          We will be able to compare time and cost and determine whether the RRs were a benefit. 

           

           

          Conclusion.  That’s all the time I have.   My St’lers need all the cheers they can get tonight.  Alotta factoids, more analysis later.

           

          I am reminded of Sherman writing to Porter from his headquarters on the TN River, “We are obliged to the Tennessee which has favored us most opportunely, for I am never easy with a railroad which takes a whole army to guard, each foot of rail being essential to the whole; whereas they can’t stop the Tennessee, and each boat can make its own game.”

           

          Mr K - I too agree the RRs played a significant role in specific events.  Not sure, in general, whether they played a positive role in toto.

           

          Again, thanks for the good start.

          Fran Nash

           

           

           


          ----- Original Message -----
          From: keeno2@...
          To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2009 3:46:08 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
          Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Fwd: Where the War REALLY was Won (and who won it)

          Could go either way, fwnash. I could go either way as well.
           
          The role of the RR has been somewhat overplayed, and I accept much of what  
          you say. However, (there's almost all of one of those, isn't there?)
          Sherman  would have been unable to take Atlanta without that rail connection
          through  Chattanooga to Nashville to Louisville. On the obverse, Hood would have
          been  much better supplied for his jaunt to Nashville if he'd had a complete
          rail  connection between Corinth and Florence. Then, the investment of
          Petersburg was  largely a matter of interdicting Lee's rails from points south
          and west. And I  hear that Meade's vaunted supply line at Gettysburg was
          finally finished after  the battles.
           
          Possibly the only time Grant retraced his steps is when Van Dorn burned  
          Holly Springs.
           
          So, while I agree that the role of rails is given perhaps too much credit,  
          they did play a role.
           
          Ole

        • keeno2@aol.com
          Much too complex for my rapidly aging brain. You re getting into details that I don t even want to think about. For me, it remains that the rails were
          Message 4 of 15 , Nov 29, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Much too complex for my rapidly aging brain. You're getting into details that I don't even want to think about. For me, it remains that the rails were important in many situations, although not all.
             
            The Tennessee was important, but didn't reach to Chattanooga for most of the year. The rails were impervious to seasons but bled manpower for each mile. That a train might have to off-loaded and another reloaded isn't so much of a snag as has been ascribed to the situation. Routine. Manpower. Horses and wagons.
             
            The real detriment in reliance on railroads is in that the Confederacy had few connecting with anything, and no wherewithal whatever to replace rails or rolling stock. Still, the secesh managed to cannibalize spurs to maintain the semplance of a network. Theirs was still a miracle of patchwork.
             
            Taken as a whole, the rivers likely did more service to the Union forces than did the rails. But that's only skimming the surface.
             
            Ole
          • carlw4514
            I certainly agree that I was instantly overwhelmed by all that information. Your proposition: The Civil War would not have been much different nor cost more
            Message 5 of 15 , Nov 30, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              I certainly agree that I was instantly overwhelmed by all that information.

              Your proposition:
              The Civil War would not have been much different nor cost more lives without the railroads.

              I think I would have to say I disagree that the war would not have been much different, although I don't know how to weigh your qualifier "much". Certainly, outside of war, it was really changing the country, so it is hard to imagine we would have fought the same war without them. One thing that comes to mind is that the railroads stepped in to make up the difference when the Mississippi was closed down.

              As far as the war itself, I'd have to say quite a few battles would not have been fought at all without the railroads and the supplies to the armies they provided.
            • Tony
              ... I think you need to pick up Warren Grabau s 98 Days in which he performs a calculation of the distance that a civil war unit could travel away from the
              Message 6 of 15 , Nov 30, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, fwnash@... wrote:
                > Proposition.   The Civil War would not have been much different nor cost more lives without the railroads.
                >

                I think you need to pick up Warren Grabau's "98 Days" in which he performs a calculation of the distance that a civil war unit could travel away from the rail lines without massive foraging. Basically, there's a point at which the food required to carry the wagon teams a given distance becomes greater than the capacity of the wagon. It is a shockingly short distance, I can look it up for you some time when I get a chance.

                An army travels on its stomach, and in the ACW its stomach traveled by rail.
              • shaun c
                For a long time I ve been considering a civil war play by email game about gettysburg, using what is effectivly tabletop miniature rules for the combat. The
                Message 7 of 15 , Dec 7, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  For a long time I've been considering a civil war play by email game about gettysburg, using what is effectivly tabletop miniature rules for the combat.

                  The game would be basicly a map, with a list of known statistics for the players (unit quality/type/leader/strength etc)

                  Players would be given orders in a chain of command, from army commander to corps commanders downwards in a realistic fashion.

                  Would anyone here be interested in taking part in such a game? it would be slow paced and represent gettysburg from the first day onwards.

                  I have previously done some research into the topography and Order of battles for both sides, making the game would merely be a matter of turning historical leaders into game worthy statistics and effecting a gameplayable map.

                  Any ideas/comments/good idea??


                  Windows Live: Friends get your Flickr, Yelp, and Digg updates when they e-mail you.
                • shaun c
                  Correction, all i would have to do is consolidate the rules and make a workable map (which i pretty much have already), the commanders i decided to give random
                  Message 8 of 15 , Dec 7, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Correction, all i would have to do is consolidate the rules and make a workable map (which i pretty much have already), the commanders i decided to give random attributes to represent a level of unknown knowledge of their ability in combat in such a circumstance (with historically exceptional leaders having higher chance for better attributes).


                    To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                    From: shaunchattey@...
                    Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 05:27:44 +0000
                    Subject: [civilwarwest] Civil war game

                     
                    For a long time I've been considering a civil war play by email game about gettysburg, using what is effectivly tabletop miniature rules for the combat.

                    The game would be basicly a map, with a list of known statistics for the players (unit quality/type/ leader/strength etc)

                    Players would be given orders in a chain of command, from army commander to corps commanders downwards in a realistic fashion.

                    Would anyone here be interested in taking part in such a game? it would be slow paced and represent gettysburg from the first day onwards.

                    I have previously done some research into the topography and Order of battles for both sides, making the game would merely be a matter of turning historical leaders into game worthy statistics and effecting a gameplayable map.

                    Any ideas/comments/ good idea??



                    Windows Live: Friends get your Flickr, Yelp, and Digg updates when they e-mail you.


                    Windows Live: Keep your friends up to date with what you do online.
                  • gordhamer
                    I think it s a great idea! Count me in. ... [snip]
                    Message 9 of 15 , Dec 8, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I think it's a great idea!

                      Count me in.

                      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, shaun c <shaunchattey@...> wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      > For a long time I've been considering a civil war play by email game about gettysburg, using what is effectivly tabletop miniature rules for the combat.

                      [snip]

                      > Any ideas/comments/good idea??
                    • James and Kathy
                      Howdy Shaun Cool deal I ll take any WI or 3d Ark., Col. Van H. Manning unit either sides fine. Yours in service James Acerra ... From: shaun c To:
                      Message 10 of 15 , Dec 8, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Howdy Shaun
                         Cool deal
                        I'll take any WI or 3d Ark., Col. Van H. Manning unit either sides fine.
                        Yours in service
                        James Acerra
                         
                         
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: shaun c
                        Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 11:27 PM
                        Subject: [civilwarwest] Civil war game

                         

                        For a long time I've been considering a civil war play by email game about gettysburg, using what is effectivly tabletop miniature rules for the combat.

                        The game would be basicly a map, with a list of known statistics for the players (unit quality/type/ leader/strength etc)

                        Players would be given orders in a chain of command, from army commander to corps commanders downwards in a realistic fashion.

                        Would anyone here be interested in taking part in such a game? it would be slow paced and represent gettysburg from the first day onwards.

                        I have previously done some research into the topography and Order of battles for both sides, making the game would merely be a matter of turning historical leaders into game worthy statistics and effecting a gameplayable map.

                        Any ideas/comments/ good idea??


                        Windows Live: Friends get your Flickr, Yelp, and Digg updates when they e-mail you.

                      • shaun c
                        I ll have a go at consolidating the various rules into one easily readable format this week, and I ll keep you guys posted on the progress, once I ve posted
                        Message 11 of 15 , Dec 8, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I'll have a go at consolidating the various rules into one easily readable format this week, and I'll keep you guys posted on the progress, once I've posted the rule system and map, ideas and comments would be very welcome.

                          Shaun


                          Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 10:06:55 -0800
                          From: na_jeb@...
                          Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Civil war game
                          To: shaunchattey@...

                          Hello Shaun!
                            I'd be interested in getting involved!
                          Please keep me posted!
                          -Charles


                          From: shaun c <shaunchattey@...>
                          To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                          Sent: Mon, December 7, 2009 10:51:49 PM
                          Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Civil war game

                           
                          Correction, all i would have to do is consolidate the rules and make a workable map (which i pretty much have already), the commanders i decided to give random attributes to represent a level of unknown knowledge of their ability in combat in such a circumstance (with historically exceptional leaders having higher chance for better attributes).



                          To: civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com
                          From: shaunchattey@ hotmail.com
                          Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 05:27:44 +0000
                          Subject: [civilwarwest] Civil war game

                           
                          For a long time I've been considering a civil war play by email game about gettysburg, using what is effectivly tabletop miniature rules for the combat.

                          The game would be basicly a map, with a list of known statistics for the players (unit quality/type/ leader/strength etc)

                          Players would be given orders in a chain of command, from army commander to corps commanders downwards in a realistic fashion.

                          Would anyone here be interested in taking part in such a game? it would be slow paced and represent gettysburg from the first day onwards.

                          I have previously done some research into the topography and Order of battles for both sides, making the game would merely be a matter of turning historical leaders into game worthy statistics and effecting a gameplayable map.

                          Any ideas/comments/ good idea??



                          Windows Live: Friends get your Flickr, Yelp, and Digg updates when they e-mail you.


                          Windows Live: Keep your friends up to date with what you do online.



                          Windows Live: Friends get your Flickr, Yelp, and Digg updates when they e-mail you.
                        • shaun c
                          My first consult :D Commanders skill in this tabletop rules range from 1-5, as i stated before the actual skill will not be revealed until they have been
                          Message 12 of 15 , Dec 8, 2009
                          • 0 Attachment
                            My first consult :D

                            Commanders skill in this tabletop rules range from 1-5, as i stated before the actual skill will not be revealed until they have been engaged in combat and shown their mettle. However as an indication that some generals were of a higher caliber than others, I will give them a higher chance of having a higher skill.

                            between 1-4 regular commanders will have (average commanders)
                            2-5 exceptional commanders will have

                            (the use of these skill levels ill explain later)

                            The question is, who should get the exceptional tag???

                            Off the top of my head, I have in my mind:

                            Chamberlain (U)
                            Longstreet (C)
                            Hancock (U)
                            Reynolds (U)
                            Stuart??? (C)
                            Armistead (C)
                            Alexander?? (C)
                            Lee (C)

                            additions? removals?


                            To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                            From: viking_reborn@...
                            Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 16:23:16 +0000
                            Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Civil war game

                             
                            I think it's a great idea!

                            Count me in.

                            --- In civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com, shaun c <shaunchattey@ ...> wrote:
                            >
                            >
                            > For a long time I've been considering a civil war play by email game about gettysburg, using what is effectivly tabletop miniature rules for the combat.

                            [snip]

                            > Any ideas/comments/ good idea??




                            Windows Live: Friends get your Flickr, Yelp, and Digg updates when they e-mail you.
                          • Dick Weeks
                            Folks, I did not mind the announcing of the start of a Civil War game in this discussion group. I think playing Civil War games always adds to one s knowledge
                            Message 13 of 15 , Dec 8, 2009
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Folks, I did not mind the announcing of the start of a Civil War game in this discussion group.  I think playing Civil War games always adds to one's knowledge of the war as it was and how it might have been.  However, the game cannot be played in this discussion group.  That's not why the group was set up.  You can start your own group for this purpose very easily on Yahoo.  I hope all understand.  Please take this discussion to another venue. Thanks.
                               
                              I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
                              Dick (a.k.a. Shotgun)
                              http://www.civilwarhome.com
                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: shaun c
                              Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 5:51 PM
                              Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Re: Civil war game

                              My first consult :D

                              Commanders skill in this tabletop rules range from 1-5, as i stated before the actual skill will not be revealed until they have been engaged in combat and shown their mettle. However as an indication that some generals were of a higher caliber than others, I will give them a higher chance of having a higher skill.

                              between 1-4 regular commanders will have (average commanders)
                              2-5 exceptional commanders will have

                              (the use of these skill levels ill explain later)

                              The question is, who should get the exceptional tag???

                              Off the top of my head, I have in my mind:

                              Chamberlain (U)
                              Longstreet (C)
                              Hancock (U)
                              Reynolds (U)
                              Stuart??? (C)
                              Armistead (C)
                              Alexander?? (C)
                              Lee (C)

                              additions? removals?


                              To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                              From: viking_reborn@...
                              Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 16:23:16 +0000
                              Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Civil war game

                               
                              I think it's a great idea!

                              Count me in.

                              --- In civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com, shaun c <shaunchattey@ ...> wrote:
                              >
                              >
                              > For a long time I've been considering a civil war play by email game about gettysburg, using what is effectivly tabletop miniature rules for the combat.

                              [snip]

                              > Any ideas/comments/ good idea??




                              Windows Live: Friends get your Flickr, Yelp, and Digg updates when they e-mail you.
                            • shaun c
                              Understandable, I never intended to play it on this board, but i will cease from discussing it here aswell. To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com From:
                              Message 14 of 15 , Dec 8, 2009
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Understandable, I never intended to play it on this board, but i will cease from discussing it here aswell.


                                To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                                From: shotgun@...
                                Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 19:08:07 -0500
                                Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Civil war game

                                 

                                Folks, I did not mind the announcing of the start of a Civil War game in this discussion group.  I think playing Civil War games always adds to one's knowledge of the war as it was and how it might have been.  However, the game cannot be played in this discussion group.  That's not why the group was set up.  You can start your own group for this purpose very easily on Yahoo.  I hope all understand.  Please take this discussion to another venue. Thanks.
                                 
                                I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
                                Dick (a.k.a. Shotgun)
                                http://www.civilwar home.com
                                ----- Original Message -----
                                From: shaun c
                                Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 5:51 PM
                                Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Re: Civil war game

                                My first consult :D

                                Commanders skill in this tabletop rules range from 1-5, as i stated before the actual skill will not be revealed until they have been engaged in combat and shown their mettle. However as an indication that some generals were of a higher caliber than others, I will give them a higher chance of having a higher skill.

                                between 1-4 regular commanders will have (average commanders)
                                2-5 exceptional commanders will have

                                (the use of these skill levels ill explain later)

                                The question is, who should get the exceptional tag???

                                Off the top of my head, I have in my mind:

                                Chamberlain (U)
                                Longstreet (C)
                                Hancock (U)
                                Reynolds (U)
                                Stuart??? (C)
                                Armistead (C)
                                Alexander?? (C)
                                Lee (C)

                                additions? removals?


                                To: civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com
                                From: viking_reborn@ hotmail.com
                                Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 16:23:16 +0000
                                Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Civil war game

                                 
                                I think it's a great idea!

                                Count me in.

                                --- In civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com, shaun c <shaunchattey@ ...> wrote:
                                >
                                >
                                > For a long time I've been considering a civil war play by email game about gettysburg, using what is effectivly tabletop miniature rules for the combat.

                                [snip]

                                > Any ideas/comments/ good idea??




                                Windows Live: Friends get your Flickr, Yelp, and Digg updates when they e-mail you.



                                Windows Live: Keep your friends up to date with what you do online.
                              • shaun c
                                For those interested, i have created a group for discussion of the game so as not to interfere with this group. http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/ACWargame/ To:
                                Message 15 of 15 , Dec 8, 2009
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  For those interested, i have created a group for discussion of the game so as not to interfere with this group.

                                  http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/ACWargame/


                                  To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                                  From: shotgun@...
                                  Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 19:08:07 -0500
                                  Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Civil war game

                                   

                                  Folks, I did not mind the announcing of the start of a Civil War game in this discussion group.  I think playing Civil War games always adds to one's knowledge of the war as it was and how it might have been.  However, the game cannot be played in this discussion group.  That's not why the group was set up.  You can start your own group for this purpose very easily on Yahoo.  I hope all understand.  Please take this discussion to another venue. Thanks.
                                   
                                  I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
                                  Dick (a.k.a. Shotgun)
                                  http://www.civilwar home.com
                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  From: shaun c
                                  Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 5:51 PM
                                  Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Re: Civil war game

                                  My first consult :D

                                  Commanders skill in this tabletop rules range from 1-5, as i stated before the actual skill will not be revealed until they have been engaged in combat and shown their mettle. However as an indication that some generals were of a higher caliber than others, I will give them a higher chance of having a higher skill.

                                  between 1-4 regular commanders will have (average commanders)
                                  2-5 exceptional commanders will have

                                  (the use of these skill levels ill explain later)

                                  The question is, who should get the exceptional tag???

                                  Off the top of my head, I have in my mind:

                                  Chamberlain (U)
                                  Longstreet (C)
                                  Hancock (U)
                                  Reynolds (U)
                                  Stuart??? (C)
                                  Armistead (C)
                                  Alexander?? (C)
                                  Lee (C)

                                  additions? removals?


                                  To: civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com
                                  From: viking_reborn@ hotmail.com
                                  Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 16:23:16 +0000
                                  Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Civil war game

                                   
                                  I think it's a great idea!

                                  Count me in.

                                  --- In civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com, shaun c <shaunchattey@ ...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > For a long time I've been considering a civil war play by email game about gettysburg, using what is effectivly tabletop miniature rules for the combat.

                                  [snip]

                                  > Any ideas/comments/ good idea??




                                  Windows Live: Friends get your Flickr, Yelp, and Digg updates when they e-mail you.



                                  Windows Live: Keep your friends up to date with what you do online.
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.