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

Re: [civilwarwest] Fwd: Where the War REALLY was Won (and who won it)

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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.