Well I both agree and disagree with you
About your flood tactic.
That I would counter by spreading my forces, I would love to take on a Union div with one of my own. An extra brigade, higher morale, better generals should see the Northern Agressors run back north most of the times. But then again I tend to operate 3 armies (Virginia, Kentucky/Knoxville, Memphis), spread out some of the subcontainers and you will have a hard time finding somewhere to go.
A container of GARR troops right out of their forts are nothing but targetpractice for the Southern lads
But I agree with the fact that forcing the North to attack is historically accurate.
When you say that the game forces the North not to fight, I agree when you play a human advisary, but not about the AI, even on full general I will face heaps of Union troops trying to break through my lines not even properly armed!!
Yes, BUT, they stop the Confederate advancing without a fight. That allows for the Union to respond with real forces or to move into the areas you just moved out of. This is simply about having more people than you do.
Move too far and see just how poor those Union farmboys can be when they surround a Confederate unit.
As Stalin said, "quantity has a quality all it's own."
Start breaking out divisions to match mine and I'd think that was a good enough trade. Alot of my divisions have only a single brigade with orders not to fight. The larger units you weakened now have to fight the same amount of Union troops they were going to fight either way.....that's an answer I'll take every time.