AGEOD's WW1

[Razgovory]

Just play the South and you will find the game is awesome.

Why is that?

[Berkut]

Just play the South and you will find the game is awesome.

Why is that?

It is a ACW game - they all suffer from Southern fanboi-ism, and the South is over-powered so that the game will be "interesting". This one is no different.

[Ed Anger]

Just play the South and you will find the game is awesome.

Why is that?

When I played the South, I was able to build sizable manpower reserves (regiments & brigades not formed into divisions or corps) at Richmond and Atlanta.

While keeping the Union bottled up in DC and Loiusville.

[Lettow77]

 The South pretty much cant win in competitive PBEM. To say you can bottle up the northern AI is not reflective of much other than a bad AI.

If anything, the ratings of generals were preposterous. Grant being even comperable to Lee is absurd, and they were too hard on Halleck, Mcclellan and others.

[PDH]

If anything, the ratings of generals were preposterous. Grant being even comperable to Lee is absurd, and they were too hard on Halleck, Mcclellan and others.

You are right. Grant should be rated way higher than Lee, as he was a far greater strategist and tactician. Lee was alright in moral, though, so maybe the case should be made that he could be closer to Grant.

[Habbaku]

You are right. Grant should be rated way higher than Lee, as he was a far greater strategist

[grumbler]

If anything, the ratings of generals were preposterous. Grant being even comperable to Lee is absurd, and they were too hard on Halleck, Mcclellan and others.

You are right. Grant should be rated way higher than Lee, as he was a far greater strategist and tactician. Lee was alright in moral, though, so maybe the case should be made that he could be closer to Grant.

I know that this is a troll, but just want to make sure that you understand that Grant did a "Pickett's Charge" about six times, with the same result every time.  With tactics like that, who needs Lee?

[Alcibiades]

Soviet swarm tactics ftw.

[Ed Anger]

Send in the Irish brigade first.

[Tamas]

You american history geeks are not really better than balkantards, its just that you drool over different topics.

[Ed Anger]

You american history geeks are not really better than balkantards, its just that you drool over different topics.

Go back in your wagon. We don't need any beets or a car stolen.

[Razgovory]

Just play the South and you will find the game is awesome.

Why is that?

It is a ACW game - they all suffer from Southern fanboi-ism, and the South is over-powered so that the game will be "interesting". This one is no different.

Well it is a French game.

[PDH]

I know that this is a troll, but just want to make sure that you understand that Grant did a "Pickett's Charge" about six times, with the same result every time.  With tactics like that, who needs Lee?

Oh I understand, but then Lee did the same thing over and over too. I believe he lost a higher percentage of troops - he was quite the butcher as well.

[Berkut]

And to be fair, one can argue that Grant actually had the troops to expend on frontal assaults - Lee did not.

Indeed, that is what made Grant so different from the other Eastern Union commanders. He didn't run his ass back to Washington every time he lost a fight. He understood what Lincoln said about the Union army after...what was it, Chancellorsville? Paraphrasing, after the Union "lost" a battle, he said something like "Still, if we could "lose" three more fights like this, we will have won the war...".

[Martim Silva]

You are right. Grant should be rated way higher than Lee, as he was a far greater strategist and tactician. Lee was alright in moral, though, so maybe the case should be made that he could be closer to Grant.

I thought that it was actually Sherman who was the better strategist, suggesting his march to the sea. His letters to Grant seem to indicate a very sharp person trying to convice someone he believes to be less able to grasp the whole of the situation.