Remove ads

A Regiment at War: A American Civil War Quest

Reader mode
mrsean22 said:
Speaking of Cavalry. Buford has been working with Yates since the Virginia campaign when both were under Pope. That is pretty far back. So both Yates and Buford should know each other pretty well and what both would be thinking when separated. Though Yates does like to give his commanders the objective to give them the ability to adapt. So really helps Buford on what he can do and when he should stop. Yates and Buford just work so well together even when they first worked together.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Skrevski said:
You know didn't put that together until now haha. It all runs together....
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I have a feeling that, to modern historians, Buford
will be to Yates what Jackson was to Lee OTL, Davout was to Napoleon, Nathaniel Green was to Washington, etc.

Or Murat to Napoleon if those examples are a bit extreme.
 
Duke William of said:
I have a feeling that, to modern historians, Buford
will be to Yates what Jackson was to Lee OTL, Davout was to Napoleon, Nathaniel Green was to Washington, etc.

Or Murat to Napoleon if those examples are a bit extreme.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Well we got the Grant and Sherman team up going out West. Lee got his Stonewall Jackson out here. Yates has the War Horse Buford as a team.

Was gonna say Kearny has his Hooker but Hooker been out for a little while so not sure if they count.
 
mrsean22 said:
Well he was hit by a cannon ball. Well close enough for it to matter. Really depends on if it was more like Yates cannon ball or Burnside cannon ball. Even if he gets better physically might not be doing good mentally.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
True True, but I know the answer to this grand question! Will I say? Not yet I say! Haha.

But perhaps there are other questions I can answer?
 
Really enjoying this convo btw, have eye surgery in a few days (don't worry shouldn't be bad at all ! Barely down for any length of time) and just having fun discussing things and theorizing things. Any other questions I can try and answer go ahead and ask!
 
I've been holding off on doing an analysis of the South Virginian/North Carolinian campaign for a while now, and most likely will continue to do so until we take Raleigh, as I've judged it as the logical culmination of our offensive, and, I suspect, where our foe will finally be forced into a decisive clash. That being said, there's a lot to look at. I really enjoyed the Three Day Siege because it was a completely unique event generated by our strategy and Skrev's worldbuilding, which made it fascinating to explore the implications. This also obviously applies to the subsequent campaign, and it's one we've been engaging in for quite some time, meaning a great deal of content has been accumulated with noticeable patterns in strategy and behavior on both sides.

It's hard to say anything definitive without knowing the conclusion, but I've been spending quite some time trying to get into the head of our opponent 'Pierre Gustave Toutant-Beauregard,' who OTL was most famous for nominally participating in the first battle of the war, fighting with Jefferson Davis, and proving an incredibly talented defensive general during (ironically) the Siege of Petersburg. He has been put into a rather difficult situation, needless to say - fighting an opponent who has both more and better quality troops than you do is what military intellectuals colloquially describe as "losing." That being said, through excellent use of defensive terrain and an absolutely ferocious performance by the undersupplied Confederate troops, Beauregard has gone three rounds counting with us and each of them were a remarkably close affair. That's not to say Yates hasn't continued to live up to his hype - he's similarly adapted his strategy to face this tenacious foe, in particular maximizing the use of his superior numbers to operationally overwhelm the rebels and never being afraid to broaden the front further, with our grand repositioning to Bern being the quintessential example of this.

As has been mentioned, cavalry has played an absolutely massive role in this campaign as well, with both Hampton and Buford constantly going at it all across over two states. Their efficacy has considerable strategic and doctrinal implications which are likely to be brought up within the context of the quest as the Union grasps for the best way to use it's mounted units.
 
Taut_Templar said:
I've been holding off on doing an analysis of the South Virginian/North Carolinian campaign for a while now, and most likely will continue to do so until we take Raleigh, as I've judged it as the logical culmination of our offensive, and, I suspect, where our foe will finally be forced into a decisive clash. That being said, there's a lot to look at. I really enjoyed the Three Day Siege because it was a completely unique event generated by our strategy and Skrev's worldbuilding, which made it fascinating to explore the implications. This also obviously applies to the subsequent campaign, and it's one we've been engaging in for quite some time, meaning a great deal of content has been accumulated with noticeable patterns in strategy and behavior on both sides.

It's hard to say anything definitive without knowing the conclusion, but I've been spending quite some time trying to get into the head of our opponent 'Pierre Gustave Toutant-Beauregard,' who OTL was most famous for nominally participating in the first battle of the war, fighting with Jefferson Davis, and proving an incredibly talented defensive general during (ironically) the Siege of Petersburg. He has been put into a rather difficult situation, needless to say - fighting an opponent who has both more and better quality troops than you do is what military intellectuals colloquially describe as "losing." That being said, through excellent use of defensive terrain and an absolutely ferocious performance by the undersupplied Confederate troops, Beauregard has gone three rounds counting with us and each of them were a remarkably close affair. That's not to say Yates hasn't continued to live up to his hype - he's similarly adapted his strategy to face this tenacious foe, in particular maximizing the use of his superior numbers to operationally overwhelm the rebels and never being afraid to broaden the front further, with our grand repositioning to Bern being the quintessential example of this.

As has been mentioned, cavalry has played an absolutely massive role in this campaign as well, with both Hampton and Buford constantly going at it all across over two states. Their efficacy has considerable strategic and doctrinal implications which are likely to be brought up within the context of the quest as the Union grasps for the best way to use it's mounted units.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah I will say the Buford-Hampton "fight" has been fun to write about, I actually got a biography on both of them recently to try and get into their mind sets. I found out that Hampton lost several sons in the war (a couple right in front of him) and still continued on and fought. Just a will of strength from that man. Buford's professionalism and dedication is also just fascinating to me, and it was a real shame he died as he did. What might have been had he lived.

Also when I originally started this I wasn't sure who would be fighting him, I have tried to allow things to develop organically as I think they would given the various situations. Thus I hope it is a engaging and true (As much as I can make it) to form of the era and history.

Also I really look forward to your analysis of this campaign. So much has happened, not just tactically but strategically, doctrinally, and even technologically. I do believe if it was studied today it would be talked about (and argued about with "What-if??") by scholars and historians abound.
 
Yates and Beauregard have really been showing their strengths from these campaigns. Beauregard is rarely ever in a field that wasn't somewhat of his choosing to have the defense advantage while Yates been using strategy to get around these defenses or forcing Beauregard to abandon the defenses from something else Yates is doing. Honestly Beauregard would of probably done a lot better against most other Union generals even some of the top Union generals.
 
Last edited:
mrsean22 said:
Yates and Beauregard have really been showing their strengths from these campaigns. Beauregard is rarely ever in a field that wasn't somewhat of his choosing to have the defense advantage while Yates being using strategy to get around these defenses or forcing Beauregard to abandon the defenses from something else Yates is doing. Honestly Beauregard would of probably done a lot better against most other Union generals even some of the top Union generals.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
An interesting think huh?

Might try to get the Union side of things much like the Confederate line up for you guys after I do this update. Then you can do a full "Ohhhh this might be good!"
 
I can't help but think that in-quest post war there's going to be a lot of discussion of how Yate fought his campaign's and what can be incorporated into the army at large.

And I've always enjoyed how Beauregard is so closely Yates equal it does legitimately feel that a wrong move on our part will see him capitalizing on it. It has kept this quest and campaign interesting that's for sure!
 
Skrevski said:
Yeah I will say the Buford-Hampton "fight" has been fun to write about, I actually got a biography on both of them recently to try and get into their mind sets. I found out that Hampton lost several sons in the war (a couple right in front of him) and still continued on and fought. Just a will of strength from that man. Buford's professionalism and dedication is also just fascinating to me, and it was a real shame he died as he did. What might have been had he lived.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
They also form a very striking image. Buford's force is using the cutting-edge of technology with his repeating rifles and consistently given whatever needed by an enthusiastic Yates, who has found the mobility and versatility offered by this empowered cavalry force to fit perfectly within his own preferred doctrine - the victory at Petersburg wouldn't have been even possible without Buford running into Kirby out of the blue during one of his now-characteristic deep strikes. Nonetheless, it's clear the sheer amount of moving and fighting being done is taking its toll.

And then you have Hampton, who has absolutely none of this, and has nonetheless been going toe to toe with Buford since day one. I imagine he has desperate holding actions in his goddamn nightmares - starting with those battles at the beginning of Antietam, where his inability to stall Yates quite possibly cost the Confederacy the battle. I can only imagine how utterly exhausted he and his men must be, and are probably scrounging for shoes, much less wielding semi-automatic carbines. You've just gotta give the rebels credit.
 
Last edited:
To me, what this campaign highlights, more than anything, is Yates's genius when it comes to maneuver warfare. We've already seen it in motion before, with Yates's breakneck charge to South and Catoctin Mountain at Antietam and Three Day Campaign. Now, with Yates pulling a fast one through his flanking maneuver around Bentonville, forcing Beauregard to make haste to Raleigh and force a decisive battle there, as well as his grand repositioning to Bern.

I wouldn't be surprised if he was compared to Napoleon for his blitzkrieg-like tactics and shouldering the aegis of fate upon himself.
 
Last edited:
Skrevski said:
Also when I originally started this I wasn't sure who would be fighting him, I have tried to allow things to develop organically as I think they would given the various situations. Thus I hope it is a engaging and true (As much as I can make it) to form of the era and history.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I will say, while it must be an enormous amount of work on your end, the fact that the quest could've gone in dozens of different ways if we'd made different decisions does show. This really gives our choices more meaning and tension - the battle for Petersburg would've played out completely differently if we hadn't gone for the amphibious invasion, for example. It's clear that the campaign has developed this way due to the strategy we've decided to employ, and that our victories were by no means certain. That means a lot to me, and it's baffling to comprehend just how much this quest has grown over time - but even that adds more to it, as Yates really has crawled all the way up from leading a regiment in a way that felt organic and earned.
Skrevski said:
Also I really look forward to your analysis of this campaign. So much has happened, not just tactically but strategically, doctrinally, and even technologically. I do believe if it was studied today it would be talked about (and argued about with "What-if??") by scholars and historians abound.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm going to have to reread the earlier parts - you can technically separate the campaign into two parts, the battle for Southern Virginia and for North Carolina, but I think they work better when considered together.
 
Oh dear, now we are getting into dangerous territory! Yates shaping the new fate of warfare! Yikes! Not sure I can take this talk!!!

I will say I am looking forward to when we get out of the Civil War (maybe into something else!??) and perhaps a fast forward or seeing what people think 20-30 years later. A LONG time down the road I think, as much as I hope to get back to pretty constant updates (been happy to push these out the last week, been nice to use it to relax and what not). The future will be interesting in TTL for sure.

Taut_Templar said:
I will say, while it must be an enormous amount of work on your end, the fact that the quest could've gone in dozens of different ways if we'd made different decisions does show. This really gives our choices more meaning and tension - the battle for Petersburg would've played out completely differently if we hadn't gone for the amphibious invasion, for example. It's clear that the campaign has developed this way due to the strategy we've decided to employ, and that our victories were by no means certain. That means a lot to me, and it's baffling to comprehend just how much this quest has grown over time - but even that adds more to it, as Yates really has crawled all the way up from leading a regiment in a way that felt organic and earned.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Really glad to hear this, I spend many an hour trying to make sure things line up, follow well and fits in with what I know of the era and the Civil War. I must have around 100-120 books on various devices and in physical form as I research the areas we have fought in (are going to fight in) and situations in other campaigns.

Really like matching things up form the other campaigns to what happens in the quest as well as it adds to everything and makes it feel more real and realistic to me. That and you get a birds eye view on what's happening, as well as everything ties in together and works.

Taut_Templar said:
I'm going to have to reread the earlier parts - you can technically separate the campaign into two parts, the battle for Southern Virginia and for North Carolina, but I think they work better when considered together.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yeah I consider this campaign having started back in late March and just been an extension of it moving on, though taking Goldsboro could have been a stopping point, Raleigh is certainly the major end point.
 
Yates has really come a long way from just leading a Regiment to a full army on a campaign. Yates improved his organization and logistics skills from building up his army, learning how it works and making sure he has what he needs. Tactically learning how Regiments and going higher through the ranks helped learned tactics on a bigger scale. And finally Strategically from this campaign look at where all the pieces are and all the moving pieces having a objective. Funnily enough Yates strategies go along with how Yates trained his first Regiment. By marching quickly and pulling off great maneuvers.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top