From the creators of Crown of Glory come an epic tale of North Vs. South. By combining area movement on the grand scale with optional hex based tactical battles when they occur, Forge of Freedom provides something for every strategy gamer. Control economic development, political development with governers and foreign nations, and use your military to win the bloodiest war in US history.
Erik's settings and advice, see pages 6 & 7 of this thread, are great and, I believe, render the game historically "acceptable."
You don't want to overdue historical "accuracy" with this particular game system or you won't have enought decisions to make. There are only a finite number of ways to invade the South. You want, as designer, to retain as many options for the North as possible, Anaconda, prefer Mississippi, prefer center, prefer east, concentrate on camps, muster, navy, etc.
On the other hand, I am waiting for the next patch before I get back into the game because the retreat bug is a show stopper for me.
Yes on all points, though the biggest show-stopper for me is the wildly disproportionate losses in Quick Combat.
ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
But the Southern "Militia Tradition" was very strong and active, which meant that they already had a lot of "volunteer" and State Units formed and available in the Spring of 1861. The same type of "South Carolina Volunteers" that besieged Ft. Sumpter were available all over the South.
But these numbers did not show up at "the front" because they were needed all along the coast to man the siezed fortifications, and the Governors kept significant numbers "at home" to guard their own states.
How true is it that there were more Southern state militia than Northern states?
Almost all the early regiments on both sides were formed from state militia. I have never been able to find the numbers that indicate that the south had a larger militia tradition.
The South had a much more active "Militia Tradition" simply from the fear of slave revolts. In the North the "militia" was primarily a social affair of balls and parades and such---but in the South genuine need and fear kept the "militia" in a higher state of training and readiness. That's the real basis for the difference.
Many Northern and Southern Militia units were somewhat of 'social affairs' in nature.
Many Northern and Souhern Militia units were also used to enforce local law and order at times, and in the old Northwest Territory, to fight Indians every now and then. There were many river and lake pirates and land based desparados around in those days, particularily along the western, southwestern and northwestern borders, the northern border with Canada and the southern border with Mexico etc.
Some Southern and Northern units were very well drilled and had a bit of 'snazziness' to them, in both dress and drill.
Seems only a minority were anything near 'regular' or 'professional', but the best of them had the basics and a bit more down, and there were veterans of previous wars in the ranks of both Northern and Southern militia units.
Therefore, I think the concept of the South having 'better' militia units is bunk, as was shown on the battlefields of Bull Run One and Wilson's Creek etc. In both those battles the Northern troops were forging ahead with zeal and determination, until the Southerners rallied due to timely reinforcement and the fatigue of the Northern troops that were on the offense.
However, due to a good number od Slave revolts occurring in the South over the years, I can comprehend that perhaps a higher percentage of Southern Militia may have had a slight bit more of experience than some Northern militia but not others, and by no means did Southern Militia outnumber theri northern counterparts simply because the North had a larger population.
Many Kansan, Iowan, Minnestotan, Wisconsonian and even Michiganian troops from the western UP had some experience in dealing with the Lakota, Osage, Chippewa, Kansas, etc. etc. Indians in those Frontier States, either as homesteaders, in local posses and/or Militia.
I think the oldest Militia unit in the USA was/is from Massachusetts, an Arty. Company I think it is that formed in the late 1600's, but it could be Virginia, I read this some time ago and just ran across it the other day.
Chris
'What is more amazing, is that amongst all those approaching enemies there is not one named Gisgo.' Hannibal Barcid (or Barca) to Gisgo, a Greek staff officer, Cannae.
That's the CSS North Carolina BB-55
Boris Badanov, looking for Natasha Goodenov
ORIGINAL: christof139
I think the oldest Militia unit in the USA was/is from Massachusetts, an Arty. Company I think it is that formed in the late 1600's, but it could be Virginia, I read this some time ago and just ran across it the other day.
I read somewhere that Europeans think a hundred miles is a long distance, while Americans think a hundred years is a long time. The school I went to in England was founded in 1604, before the voyage of the Mayflower.
It is funny you mention the above Jonathan. My friend in Sweden often tells me that he has pissed in bathrooms older than my country. I have always found that amusing.
There are indeed lavoratories in the USA that are also older than the USA, and I am not referring to the outside green Latrine, but inside the building latrines.
Urinating on walls in Europe can be habitual.
Chris
'What is more amazing, is that amongst all those approaching enemies there is not one named Gisgo.' Hannibal Barcid (or Barca) to Gisgo, a Greek staff officer, Cannae.
That's the CSS North Carolina BB-55
Boris Badanov, looking for Natasha Goodenov
