First, I know this is not a real or full campaign in any fashion so I will not reflect on the campaign process, only battle observations...
Battle Observations:
1. Use of Terrain: I totally understand why numerically inferior forces use the woods (Chancellorsville and the Wilderness as examples). The two battles fought in this campaign so far saw how terrain can really influence a battle. In the first battle the woods prevented a numerially superior force from exploiting a flank attack. In the second battle the numerically inferior force for much of the battle didn't use the terrain well enough to put itself in a position to more easily thwart the larger attacking force until reinforcements arrived.
Reflections on the second battle: Confederate forces for over an hour had one Brigade vs two Federal Brigades with the potential of a third Federal brigade entering the fight. The Confederates also held an exposed position which left that single brigade exposed to artillery fire.
Upon reflection it would have been more successful to have the Confederates take possession of wooded terrian (all around them) and use this terrain to lessen the impact of the only real weapon of the Federals during this battle (artillery).
2. Interior Lines: speaking specifically about the second battle, the Federals were able by where they positioned themselves to use their interior lines to quickly throw in reinforcements via roads. The Confederates had similar lines but we're a bit more distant due to pushing forward to take a key hill. When the confederate reinforcements did arrive they sent them off in too many directions via roads to make any effective use of them during the battle. The key point: send reinforcements towards the fight, don't try big turning movements in a battle involving only division sized forces.
3. Tactics
1. The first battle saw too rookies attempt to duke it out. To that end one of them employed a flank march while the other attempted a larger turning movement with 2 brigades of his division. The only real combat took place between two individual brigades. There was very little battlefield tactics used other than to blast away with some artillery fire, advance in line and fire a few volley and then charge. That took 10 game turns to effect. It ended with a minor confederate victory.
2. Battle two saw two experienced players go at it. The Confederate commander quickly took possession of a key hill while making dispositions to protect his rear in case he needed to fall back. The federal commander employed more napoleonic tactics by using a cloud of skirmishers to slow his opponent and then draw his opponent after him which exposed the opponent to severe artillery fire.
The Confederate commander failed to employ his artillery effectively, such as get the cannon to the top of the hill, and to do anything once he had the hill. Instead of staying below the crest and forcing the Federals to attack his dominant position, the Confederates exposed their troops to enemy force for no reason. The Confederate commander also allowed himself to get drawn into a fight verses skirmishers which made him advance down the hill, then retreat back up it to avoid artillery fire, then charge back down it again to drive back fresh Federal reinforcements. From the on set he could have charged the skirmishers. The negative would be that his troops would have tired while the skirmishers would have fell back and then advance again. His best bet would have been to stay behind the crest since he didn't take the initiative, once he took the hill, until it was too late and his troops were too tired. It would have been better to take 2 regiments from the brigade of 5 regiments and put them into skirmish order on the enemy side of the crest. He probably could have held out and turned the tide of the battle.
On the flip side the Federals failed to coordinate their second brigade of reinforcements to make a coordinated attack. Units were thrown in piece meal instead of taking the time to set up the brigade and then advance. The use of a full brigade as skirmishers was probably overkill but it allowed for faster movement, held up an attempted Confederate turning movement, and drove off Confederate artillery.
All of these next points match concepts that are evident when examining historical battles. On the whole what I would take away as key points would be:
1. The first battle saw too rookies attempt to duke it out. To that end one of them employed a flank march while the other attempted a larger turning movement with 2 brigades of his division. The only real combat took place between two individual brigades. There was very little battlefield tactics used other than to blast away with some artillery fire, advance in line and fire a few volley and then charge. That took 10 game turns to effect. It ended with a minor confederate victory.
2. Battle two saw two experienced players go at it. The Confederate commander quickly took possession of a key hill while making dispositions to protect his rear in case he needed to fall back. The federal commander employed more napoleonic tactics by using a cloud of skirmishers to slow his opponent and then draw his opponent after him which exposed the opponent to severe artillery fire.
The Confederate commander failed to employ his artillery effectively, such as get the cannon to the top of the hill, and to do anything once he had the hill. Instead of staying below the crest and forcing the Federals to attack his dominant position, the Confederates exposed their troops to enemy force for no reason. The Confederate commander also allowed himself to get drawn into a fight verses skirmishers which made him advance down the hill, then retreat back up it to avoid artillery fire, then charge back down it again to drive back fresh Federal reinforcements. From the on set he could have charged the skirmishers. The negative would be that his troops would have tired while the skirmishers would have fell back and then advance again. His best bet would have been to stay behind the crest since he didn't take the initiative, once he took the hill, until it was too late and his troops were too tired. It would have been better to take 2 regiments from the brigade of 5 regiments and put them into skirmish order on the enemy side of the crest. He probably could have held out and turned the tide of the battle.
On the flip side the Federals failed to coordinate their second brigade of reinforcements to make a coordinated attack. Units were thrown in piece meal instead of taking the time to set up the brigade and then advance. The use of a full brigade as skirmishers was probably overkill but it allowed for faster movement, held up an attempted Confederate turning movement, and drove off Confederate artillery.
All of these next points match concepts that are evident when examining historical battles. On the whole what I would take away as key points would be:
A. If outnumbered stay behind the crest of the hill or try to draw your opponent into ground that favors defensive fighting such as a woods.
B. Get artillery, the majority of it, into action quickly.
C. Make sure you have a reserve force behind your main battle line, even if it is only one regiment.
D. Organize your brigade into the battle formation you want to attack with before you launch troops into a fight. No piece meal attaks.
E. Avoid big / wide turning movements if only fighting with a division.
F. Use skirmishers all the time to preceded or defend against infantry attacks. They are scattered enough to avoid major casualties and will dent your opponent so that enemy unit comes up to fight more exhausted.
Finally, I have found so far that using napoleonic tactics are effective when used in the context of the civil war. Carnage and Glory is ruthless to those who use poor tactics and the rules allow for excellent game play.
