Current Events > Confederate General Breckinridge Bragg Hugh G. Dick, outnumbered 2 to 1 D:

Topic List	Page List: 1
PIG_B0SS 01/18/18 11:27:56 AM #1:	--- NEVER BE GAME OVER <cite>PIG_B0SS posted [p:894296631] in Confederat... [t:76215311]...</cite> <quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
K181 01/18/18 11:35:10 AM #2:	Albert Sidney Johnston doesn't get love even when things go their way. --- The poster formerly known as Kakarot181: July 2, 2002 - March 14, 2012. Irregardless, for all intensive purposes, I could care less. <cite>K181 posted [p:894297053] in Confederat... [t:76215311]...</cite> <quote>Albert Sidney Johnston doesn't get love even when things go their way.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
UnholyMudcrab 01/18/18 11:44:30 AM #3:	Really, I'd call that a pyrrhic victory. You took a much higher rate of casualties than the Federals. --- http://i.imgur.com/VeNBg.gif http://i.imgur.com/gd5jC8q.gif http://i.imgur.com/PKIy7.gif http://i.imgur.com/3p29JqP.gif <cite>UnholyMudcrab posted [p:894297590] in Confederat... [t:76215311]...</cite> <quote>Really, I'd call that a pyrrhic victory. You took a much higher rate of casualties than the Federals.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 01/18/18 11:48:07 AM #4:	what is that from? --- He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor. <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:894297783] in Confederat... [t:76215311]...</cite> <quote>what is that from?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
PIG_B0SS 01/18/18 11:58:19 AM #5:	UnholyMudcrab posted... Really, I'd call that a pyrrhic victory. You took a much higher rate of casualties than the Federals. What? They had 62,066 men -> 31,418 dead I had 29,454 men -> 15,925 dead not higher they lost more a lot more cavalry and cannon crews --- NEVER BE GAME OVER <cite>PIG_B0SS posted [p:894298366] in Confederat... [t:76215311]...</cite> <quote><cite>UnholyMudcrab posted...</cite> <quote>Really, I'd call that a pyrrhic victory. You took a much higher rate of casualties than the Federals.</quote> What? They had 62,066 men -> 31,418 dead I had 29,454 men -> 15,925 dead not higher they lost more a lot more cavalry and cannon crews</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
PIG_B0SS 01/18/18 11:58:37 AM #6:	Balrog0 posted... what is that from? Ultimate General: Civil War --- NEVER BE GAME OVER <cite>PIG_B0SS posted [p:894298392] in Confederat... [t:76215311]...</cite> <quote><cite>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote>what is that from?</quote> Ultimate General: Civil War</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KILBOTz 01/18/18 12:01:56 PM #7:	whats the learning curve like on the game? --- http://i.imgur.com/O3syCWD.gif http://i.imgur.com/k3YiBdG.gif <cite>KILBOTz posted [p:894298565] in Confederat... [t:76215311]...</cite> <quote>whats the learning curve like on the game?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
K181 01/18/18 12:01:57 PM #8:	PIG_B0SS posted... UnholyMudcrab posted... Really, I'd call that a pyrrhic victory. You took a much higher rate of casualties than the Federals. What? They had 62,066 men -> 31,418 dead I had 29,454 men -> 15,925 dead not higher Rate as in percentage, I would assume. You suffered over 50% casualties, they suffered under 50% (at least per the image shown, which had a different casualty rate). It was essentially the basis behind the 1864 Overland Campaign where the Union took more casualties but the South suffered significantly higher as a percentage of their already depleted manpower. --- The poster formerly known as Kakarot181: July 2, 2002 - March 14, 2012. Irregardless, for all intensive purposes, I could care less. <cite>K181 posted [p:894298566] in Confederat... [t:76215311]...</cite> <quote><cite>PIG_B0SS posted...</cite> <quote><cite>UnholyMudcrab posted...</cite> <quote>Really, I'd call that a pyrrhic victory. You took a much higher rate of casualties than the Federals.</quote> What? They had 62,066 men -> 31,418 dead I had 29,454 men -> 15,925 dead not higher</quote> Rate as in percentage, I would assume. You suffered over 50% casualties, they suffered under 50% (at least per the image shown, which had a different casualty rate). It was essentially the basis behind the 1864 Overland Campaign where the Union took more casualties but the South suffered significantly higher as a percentage of their already depleted manpower.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
UnholyMudcrab 01/18/18 12:03:00 PM #9:	PIG_B0SS posted... UnholyMudcrab posted... Really, I'd call that a pyrrhic victory. You took a much higher rate of casualties than the Federals. What? They had 62,066 men -> 31,418 dead I had 29,454 men -> 15,925 dead not higher they lost more a lot more cavalry and cannon crews I guess I read the numbers wrong. What do the parentheses in the guns count mean? --- http://i.imgur.com/VeNBg.gif http://i.imgur.com/gd5jC8q.gif http://i.imgur.com/PKIy7.gif http://i.imgur.com/3p29JqP.gif <cite>UnholyMudcrab posted [p:894298630] in Confederat... [t:76215311]...</cite> <quote><cite>PIG_B0SS posted...</cite> <quote><cite>UnholyMudcrab posted...</cite> <quote> Really, I'd call that a pyrrhic victory. You took a much higher rate of casualties than the Federals.</quote> What? They had 62,066 men -> 31,418 dead I had 29,454 men -> 15,925 dead not higher they lost more a lot more cavalry and cannon crews</quote> I guess I read the numbers wrong. What do the parentheses in the guns count mean?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
PIG_B0SS 01/18/18 12:09:17 PM #10:	UnholyMudcrab posted... PIG_B0SS posted... UnholyMudcrab posted... Really, I'd call that a pyrrhic victory. You took a much higher rate of casualties than the Federals. What? They had 62,066 men -> 31,418 dead I had 29,454 men -> 15,925 dead not higher they lost more a lot more cavalry and cannon crews I guess I read the numbers wrong. What do the parentheses in the guns count mean? The crew that operate the cannons --- NEVER BE GAME OVER <cite>PIG_B0SS posted [p:894298988] in Confederat... [t:76215311]...</cite> <quote><cite>UnholyMudcrab posted...</cite> <quote><cite>PIG_B0SS posted...</cite> <quote><cite>UnholyMudcrab posted...</cite> <quote> Really, I'd call that a pyrrhic victory. You took a much higher rate of casualties than the Federals.</quote> What? They had 62,066 men -> 31,418 dead I had 29,454 men -> 15,925 dead not higher they lost more a lot more cavalry and cannon crews</quote> I guess I read the numbers wrong. What do the parentheses in the guns count mean?</quote> The crew that operate the cannons</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
PIG_B0SS 01/18/18 12:09:26 PM #11:	Correction: They had 67,826 men -> 31,418 dead (46%) I had 33,254 men -> 15,925 dead (47%) --- NEVER BE GAME OVER <cite>PIG_B0SS posted [p:894298994] in Confederat... [t:76215311]...</cite> <quote>Correction: They had 67,826 men -> 31,418 dead (46%) I had 33,254 men -> 15,925 dead (47%)</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
UnholyMudcrab 01/18/18 12:10:24 PM #12:	Ah, okay --- http://i.imgur.com/VeNBg.gif http://i.imgur.com/gd5jC8q.gif http://i.imgur.com/PKIy7.gif http://i.imgur.com/3p29JqP.gif <cite>UnholyMudcrab posted [p:894299047] in Confederat... [t:76215311]...</cite> <quote>Ah, okay</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
PIG_B0SS 01/18/18 12:19:47 PM #13:	Their counter attack broke my right flank early but I regrouped and hold in the woods then my center was routed but artillery concentration forced them back on the left flank I was also heavily outnumbered but I had more brigades, they did not cross the river to attack I secretly moved troops behind the left flank and made a flanking maneuver At the last moment I attacked them from behind with 4 brigades + 1 cavalry with artillery support, their garrisons ran and I destroyed all their cannons That's why they lost so many guns and the men operating those guns --- NEVER BE GAME OVER <cite>PIG_B0SS posted [p:894299584] in Confederat... [t:76215311]...</cite> <quote>Their counter attack broke my right flank early but I regrouped and hold in the woods then my center was routed but artillery concentration forced them back on the left flank I was also heavily outnumbered but I had more brigades, they did not cross the river to attack I secretly moved troops behind the left flank and made a flanking maneuver At the last moment I attacked them from behind with 4 brigades + 1 cavalry with artillery support, their garrisons ran and I destroyed all their cannons That's why they lost so many guns and the men operating those guns</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
PIG_B0SS 01/18/18 12:25:30 PM #14:	KILBOTz posted... whats the learning curve like on the game? I became really good after playing half of the Union's campaign realised that I made too many mistakes building my army and started over with the Confederate K181 posted... Still a catastrophic battle for both sides. 50% casualty rates for entire armies is shattering for both sides. Not for me, since most of the dead men were from the other generals' armies. Mine held the left flank and was mostly intact ; ] --- NEVER BE GAME OVER <cite>PIG_B0SS posted [p:894299952] in Confederat... [t:76215311]...</cite> <quote><cite>KILBOTz posted...</cite> <quote>whats the learning curve like on the game?</quote> I became really good after playing half of the Union's campaign realised that I made too many mistakes building my army and started over with the Confederate <cite>K181 posted...</cite> <quote>Still a catastrophic battle for both sides. 50% casualty rates for entire armies is shattering for both sides.</quote> Not for me, since most of the dead men were from the other generals' armies. Mine held the left flank and was mostly intact ; ]</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1

Current Events > Confederate General Breckinridge Bragg Hugh G. Dick, outnumbered 2 to 1 D: (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Confederate General Breckinridge Bragg Hugh G. Dick, outnumbered 2 to 1 D: