BLOODY SPOTSYLVANIA (MULE SHOE) - Ultimate General Civil War - Union Legendary Campaign - 37

Website: www.thehistoryg...
Instagram: / thehistoryguy25
See episode 1 here: • PHILIPPI - Ultimate Ge...
►Discord - / discord
►Patreon - / thehistoryguy25
Special Thanks to Chris Graham, Michael Frazee, AvenirDutch, and Jim O'Haire, who are the official sponsors of this channel. Your support is greatly appreciated!

[@pandakraut8594]

Definitely agree with your thoughts on the 20pdr units. You can break the game once get enough experienced units equipped with those. But either way it looks like your army is in more than good enough shape to keep going. Money is a bit low, but you have plenty of recruits and none of the battles coming up are particularly difficult for the union.

[@chrispgraham1975]

Nice win!!.. I little heavy on the losses.. I went in with almost 370 guns on this battle on legendary and just let them fly.. only lost about 5k inf before medicine and wiped them out.. It is a tough battle if you are recording a lot of micro management. If you are playing union legendary if you can get 20pdrs with rep points always pick them up.. no matter what!! Best gun in the game....way overpowered...

[@davidius74]

some of your infantry units were at the back and hardly ever used. The Fightin' Fins being one of them once you started the assault. Using so many units on the front line with Ammo issues and yet those other units that would've had no ammo problems would have made a difference as they would've had a higher firing rate and been able to do more damage. Also having more units on the front line would've allowed more firepower to be used on the enemy, driving them off quicker and causing more casualties on the Rebels and also saving your own men.

[@johnhardiman1970]

I sent my 1st Corp,1st Division around to the right to the bottom of the map and kept 2nd and 3rd divisions head on. Kept the CSA units busy with skirmishers and cannon fire. Sent the 4th Division and all of 2nd Corps down to the left,positioned 3 Divisions and all arty in front of the bottom CSA regiment and the rest up along the line. I engaged with 3 regiments,ran the 4th in the gap to flank Johnny Reb,when they broke I sent another Division beyond them and engaged the next Brigade the same way and the same with the 3rd. When a gap appeared at the victory point I ran in and soon as I took the point finished the game. That was at MG level,8k Union losses with 7k CSA losses,I'll take that victory.

[@adamwright9881]

You can Hold Control and Click All Units to add/group them for an order to fire or move instead of select unit, select target over and over

[@peterhansen1670]

It drives me nuts that you can't ctr-click them then assign them to a hot key, literally one of the most ancient features in any type of RTS game as far back as Command and Conquer and the first Warcraft game. The only similar game I have played prior to is Total War Empire, and I am really missing having all my arty on a hot key.

[@cs3473]

In the game, aren't the units in fortified positions susceptible to enfilading fire? If that is the fact, one thought I had would be to position the batteries in a way so that artillery units on your right would be firing down the line at the Confederate units to your left and vice versa. (Essentially the firing pattern for your artillery would be making a big "X" patterns...)

[@cardiac19]

37? In a row?

[@msmith42001]

I did this two times and they never attack out of the fortifications. Gonna try again and line up more left.

[@jamesaskme7454]

You need move cannons closer that get more accurate hit

[@markw2016]

I know this is an older video but I'm playing this game now and am very stuck on this mission. I like what you do here. can you tell what you're army layout was for this mission?

[@TheHistoryGuy]

I kinda went over that at the beginning. As much rifled artillery as you can to soften up the position before you attack. Stack brigades one behind the other so if the lead one is driven back, the next one in line can break through.

[@Youbeentagged]

Here's a great tip. For your 4 corps, specialise in different areas. Have 1 core whose main focus is artillery, 1 which is focused on cavalry, and the other 2 will be infantry + skirmishers. Of course, every corps will have at least 1 artillery, 1 cavalry, 1 infantry and 1 skirmishers unit. For this specific battle, use as much artillery as possible, and infantry. Do not use cavalry.

[@Galantus1964]

That's the way to do it , with that amount of arty ... BUT i think you mismaneged some of your brigades and took wayy to many losses... this can be done with less than 10k casualties...

[@lucasgomez0721]

Are you going to play Imperator Rome in the future?

[@TheHistoryGuy]

At some point, definitely

[@TheBeeperman]

The Mule shoe salient doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The terrain doesn't look to be that advantageous to justify stretching your lines out. Lee was already outnumbered almost 2 to 1. Seems to me it would have been better to have a straight front and use the units you would gain from that as reinforcements or a deeper defense. Lee was no fool so I'm sure I'm missing something.

[@ninjafroggie1]

the salient was actually on a slight high ground position compared to the rest of the confederate fortifications. Lee knew it was a weak point in his line, but also knew that allowing the enemy to take the position would allow the union forces to set up artillery on (comparatively) high ground, and in a position to rain enfilade fire on Anderson's positions to the west, which would have allowed the union II, V, and VI corps a much easier time trying to break through Anderson's line. It wasn't occupied by the confederates because it was good ground for defense, it was occupied to deny the union forces an advantageous position they could use on the attack. If Lee had allowed the union that ground, his entire line could have become untenable. The possibility that enfilade artillery fire from there would fatally weaken Lee's line to the west, and the chance that a rapid breakthrough there by union troops could result in Ewell's corps being cut off and surrounded, resulting in a loss of troops that Lee could ill afford, basically Forced Lee to defend the position despite it creating a salient in his line.

[@TheBeeperman]

@@ninjafroggie1 That makes sense. Thanks.

[@endrsgm]

@@ninjafroggie1 thanks :)

[@ninjafroggie1]

why the low quality? Only 360 resolution?

[@ninjafroggie1]

also, how I prefer to tackle the mule shoe: I start by deploying to the north west and west side, and begin my attack at the very end of the CSA line (bottom edge), because the 2nd line is too far back to support it. Then I use that breach to flank the line moving north, moving up the troops that were deployed outside the enemy line to sit in the woods on top of the now cleared CSA defences and flank the next positions along, which keeps CSA reinforcements from flanking my own brigades, as they are covered by the previous bridage that moved forward. Once the entire western side defenses are cleared, I weather several counterattacks using the trees to cover my own men, and then begin my push through the middle of the shoe once the enemy strength is depleted. Casualty wise I usually take about 10k.

[@TheHistoryGuy]

@@ninjafroggie1 refresh. It's HD now.

[@SomethingCompass]

@@ninjafroggie1 I agree, this is the easiest place to get a breakthrough. After that position falls the rest of the line can be rolled up. The only thing that makes this battle difficult is that we can't take the flag. The position would be easier to crush if the flag didn't end the battle.

[@MrSigmatico]

As the attacking force, you should have been the one with 3 times the casualties, those are the rules of warfare, had it been real-life technically you should have had 3 times his numbers or not have fought at all.

[@JohnnyAquaholic]

As a historian myself, I completely disagree with your assessment of Grant as a less than capable tactical commander. It's one thing to play a game and move pieces around a field with a complete overview. It's an entirely other perspective of commanding in actual combat. Grant succeeded because of his unwillingness to give ground, pursue the enemy and his approach to his commanding subordinates. It's for those reasons that Lincoln gave him such control. If you want to be a historian, be one. But please don't give half assed opinions of major players in actual combat while you play a game.

[@somemikeguy9631]

Why are you viewing/responding to a YT video, of a game played, of a military tactic analysis, then? As History Guy has mentioned before, he's a Civil War buff and his knowledge extends well beyond this game (that, and a first amendment right for his opinion/critique). If you know half of what a historian should know of military engagements, losing 6-7 thousand soldiers within a 30 minute span is abysmal leadership, probably due to attacking entrenched positions. Even Grant himself admitted that. No shit we didn't have UAVs in the mid 1800s for a battlefield analysis/overview. Next time think before typing maybe, puking all over a good thread eh?

[@JohnnyAquaholic]

@@somemikeguy9631 Because I've played the game, and so I stumbled upon this. Aside from that, his interpretation is simply wrong. The Civil War was lost by The Union until Grant was given control. Were mistakes made? Yes. Find me a war where none were such. The Union won the war because of the combination of Lincoln and Grant. Grant won the war for the country I now reside in. Lincoln has said at least that much. So, before you decide to espouse your own 2 cents (which really equate nothing), learn a thing or two about commanders in the Civil War and more importantly, how to inject yourself into an argument in which you know nothing.

[@somemikeguy9631]

@@JohnnyAquaholic You just can't help it huh? Learn the difference between "tactical" and "strategic" then get back with me. My point still stands... even stronger after your response. Get off your "patriotic" high horse for just a sec to understand that Grant didn't give the ultimate sacrifice for this country (albeit his efforts were greatly and positively impactful). More than 300 thousand union soldiers we can't say the same for. That 6-7k group lost was a mistake by Grant, he admitted it, and you should admit it too as a tactical leadership blunder. If you can't, maybe speak to a psychologist or something. I don't know what else to tell you. My two cents are from experience of 15 years in the military and a Joint Base Balad Iraq deployment, as well as many talks with more experienced men than myself. You're welcome.

[@madatrub]

@@JohnnyAquaholic calling someone else interpretation wrong is hilariously bad tact.