I hope the main characters influence isn’t too substantial. Considering the low quality of generalship and soldiers on both sides of the war, the war could be drastically changed if someone knew what they were doing. Otherwise it would be great fun being a small cog navigating the working of two incompetent giants slogging at each other.
I am all for this idea!!! Do you have an outline or anything already, or are you still working on that?
I want to see Lincoln’s version of the Reconstruction Era vs. Congress’s version. As I understand it, Lincoln’s plan was to rebuild the South and bring them back into the Union while Congress wanted to punish them by destroying their economy. Since Lincoln died, we got Congress’s version, and the Southern way of life was torn apart. If I could change anything about the Civil War and its outcome, that would be it.
Oh, and I heard that Lincoln declared the South a foreign nation during the war so that captured soldiers would be treated as POWs rather than tried and executed as traitors. Do you happen to know if that’s true? And if so, could you mention it somewhere within the game?
@poison_mara I get what you mean. Maybe at the beginning there can be a quick summary about what happened, and then it goes “But it could have been like this…” And then the story begins! Oh, and a gallery of key figures and their contributions to the war would help.
@CaptainCoxwaggle Speaking of bad generals, I’d like to meet General Custer. Just for fun. 
The guy has a bad reputation, but he was actually very successful during the Civil War. Of course, the tactics that worked in against the South didn’t work against the Indians…
@derekmetaltron Hahaha I got that reference…well actually, you just gave me an idea for something 
@CaptianCoxwaggle I politely beg to differ with you. Generals Thomas, Sherman, Grant, Jackson, and Lee above all were some of the finest of their generations. Numerous reports have proposed that a combined United States at that time could beat any European power.
@Mirabella I have a outline and the works of a first chapter…that could be one of the endings achievable. I plan to focus more on the war part with the epilogue for each being the afterwar. The main prisoner system used during the Civil War was to parole soldiers, this died off towards the end though. As to the South being declared a foreign nation? I strongely don’t think so. The goal of the Union was for no nation to recognize the Confederacy so they could not receive any help. While the South was recognized as a beligerant, as a nation? I dont think so…and yeah…Im not exactly sure the specifics, but their will be info provided as to the generals and battles…if you have any suggestions I would like to hear them.
Sorry for the double post…
While I like the support being shown, I still haven’t seen much in the way of what people want to see.
@BraveMustang Yeah, you’re probably right about the prisoners thing. I think I got that information from my high school history textbook, so there was already a low probably of it being accurate (god our education system needs help).
“I still haven’t seen much in the way of what people want to see.” Well, I would want to see the political machinations going on and what the generals were up to. Oh, and stuff about how the Civil War was one of the first wars to make extensive use of industry, like railroads, telegraphs, iron-clad ships, etc. And all the moral implications of Sherman’s March to the Sea and his whole “let’s destroy everything in our way” thing. Even if we can’t save Lincoln from assassination, I’d like to at least stop Sherman from doing that and find another way to beat the South. (If another way exists, that is. A more interesting question would be whether it is possible to win without resorting to such action.)
Will we be playing our own characters or taking to role of famous Civil War figures?
@Mirabella This game will be focused more on the fighting parts, but I plan on dabbling on the politics (1850’s, Lincoln’s election in 1860-1864, some confederate politics)…
“Even if we can’t save lincoln from assasination”, “whether it is possible to win without taking such an action”
…Who says their won’t be? I have multiple endings planned/coded 
“Will we be playing are own characters, or taking to roles?”
Playing your own, however, you will be working closely with them…
Will it be possible to play a female MC?
@BraveMustang
General Thomas was a supply officer who managed to hold several defensive positions, which even a poor general can do, his lack of aggressiveness was a problem pretty much all union Generals shared. Although to his credit he knew his own limitations.
Sherman, Custer, and Grant were unique in their aggression, which made them stand out as good when they were merely competent. Sherman however was initiated a campaign of terror and atrocities against fellow Americans, Grant was as tactically flexible as Douglas Haig of the Somme, and Custer… well I have nothing against him, he was actually great.
General Jackson was the one general who actually knew what a bayonet was for, unfortunately he was also pigheadedly stubborn and near-suicidal. So he was no different from the legions of Aristocratic generals that made up the officer corps of most European states. If either side has such an officer corps, the civil war would have ended in a year, like the Franco-Prussian War, Crimean War, and Russo-Japanese War.
General Lee got some easy rep facing the Union, but again his own lack of aggressiveness, and failure to succeed in his few offensives makes him. Typically a general needs to succeed against superior forces in an offensive campaign to be considered one of the greats.
I seriously doubt any American General of the time would have been able to defeat Archduke Albrecht, Franz Ferdinand, Napoleon III, de Canrobert, or Lord Raglan much less von Moltke, Baron Napier, Hugh Gough, von Bittenfield, Prince Friedrich, François Bazaine even assuming American soldiers received equal training to European soldiers. I would think that such belief would be borne from a lack of knowledge of contemporary generals of the time period. There is strong reason why nations emulated the strategies of the Franco-Prussian war rather then the ACW.
First off, General Thomas was a general. Not an officer, but the general of the army of the Cumberland. If you consider that to be a supply officer, then so be it. I wouldn’t just call it “hold several positions” General Thomas literally saved the Union army from almost total destruction at the battle of Battle of Chickamauga…but fine, you don’t like defense victories? How bout an offensive one in the Battle of Chattanooge, (both battles considered widely decisive battles) where he completely destroyed the army of General Hood.
While yes Sherman’s march to the sea is touchy to most, I don’t believe that he did all bad during it. One, Sherman freed and then allowed them to travel with numerous black slaves. Two, war is hell. The South’s ability, infrastructure, and morale to fight were completely destroyed in this battle which, in the long run, saved lives. Also, Sherman gave specific orders to not badly treat civilians (see Special Field Order #120).
I don’t have much to say about Grant. He was literally the only general able to defeat general lee (the south’s best, but will get to that). If you don’t appreciate what general grant did, look at his predecessors.
General Lee was put in charge of the South’s armies because he was the best one capable of winning a defensive war. Which is how the South needed to win it due to the North’s immense manpower. While he is blamed for the battles of Gettysburg and Antietam (both of which he could have won with slight changes, such as not having his orders lost) he also won several campaigns such as the Seven Days Battles, or the Second Battle of Bull Run, or the Battle of Chancellorsville.
Finally, the reason nobody adopted the ACW strategies,is because they were American, and Europeans probably would prefer to take European ideas…if you look at the first world war, with the heavy use of machine guns and breach-loading rifles, the strategies of the ACW would have been much more helpful then the Franco-Prussian War. To steal a quote from Henry Harrison (I also recommend his series Stars and Stripes series if you want to see in detail how a combined American army could beat the Europeans). “When the civil war ended the combined armies of the North and South contained hundreds of thousands of highly trained soldiers. Not only could they undoubtedly have won in battle against the combined armies of Europe, but very well even if they had united their forces. Modern Warfare began in the Civil War, although it took many years or the rest of the world to realize this”.
1 Like
If you were to garner enough support and feedback from this thread, when could we expect to see a demo of the game?
I’m working on it now, I plan on only posting it when I feel I have finished enough for a good sized beta test.
Not sure if I would be very interested in a game like this, but I would definitely check it out just because I try to support all of the writers here.
@BraveMustang
Sherman was notorious for bringing back atrocities intentionally committed against civilians during an era where it was widely seen by civilised nations as a bad thing. While war is certainly Hell, most wars since the Thirty Years’ War were conducted with minimal civilian casualties. While I certainly agree ending a war quickly saves lives, as Suvorov himself stated in his bloody and controversial battle of Praga, this could have been accomplished through successfully taking Richmond, the fact that the Union had to resort to such measures against their own people is a measure of their own incompetence.
The reason why nobody adopted ACW strategies is because the French did, and lost to the Prussians, despite having breech-loading rifles as standard issue and widespread field entrenchments. It was this defeat that led to France having an offensive mindset during WWI, along with the fact that during the Russo-Japanese war, the Japanese impressed the world by taking “impenetrable” foritifactions defended by machineguns with massed infantry assaults. Trenches themselves were already used in the Crimean and Napoleonic wars, and there generally was little for Europeans to learn aside from the fact that Americans were unwilling to engage in close quarters.
The Prussians however did drastically change how their cavalry operated with their own research into the ACW, transforming it from it’s traditional shock role into one that specialises in reconnaissance and raiding, although they were still utilised from a shock role when opportunity arose. The Prussians also introduced open formations of soldiers in order to minimise the effects of modern firearms when facing the superior French chassepot.
Considering that most European powers vastly outnumbered either American army (Britain, France, Prussia, Austria, Ottomans, Russia alone), in addition to a system of conscription that had their male population already trained and available within a month of mobilisation (Excluding the British, but they also have the Indian Army) I fail to see how the American military could compare, even with 4 years of experience (which fails to account for the fact that professional European soldiers typically served for sixteen years, and were in constant battles across the many colonies). The “Stars and Stripes” trilogy, while well written enough, are chock full of historical inaccuracies (Particularly the bit where the Monitor took on the HMS Warrior, not that it would have mattered as the British had many, many more ironclads as well as imaginary names for all British ships and Regiments). It also curiously omits the only saving grace the US would have against the Royal Navy, the fact that the Russians were staunch allies of the Union and indeed were one of the primary reason why there was no European intervention (the French settled for Mexico instead).
Also anyone claiming that the American Civil War was the first modern war clearly doesn’t know what they are talking about. What is the definition for a Modern War? If it is one that encompasses the entire nation fighting with armies numbering in the hundred thousand, the Napoleonic War has them beat. If it is the first war fought with trenches and rifles, the Crimean war came first. If it is one that is fought with rifles amongst large hundred thousand man armies with the innovative use of railroads, that would be the Second Italian War of Independence. I would argue that the Franco-Prussian war, with it’s revolutionary centralised Headquarters and extensive usage of telegraph and communications that allowed for Prussian formations to converge and outnumber French formations despite being strategically outnumbered would be far better suited as the candidate of the first modern war.
I don’t mean to discourage you in any way, I look forward to your work. It’s just a personal peeve I have in regards to the American belief that their Army was not only competent, but capable of taking on European armies vastly more powerful then themselves.