KickStarter War of Rights - Historically accurate civil war game using cryengine

[Ulminati]

Kwan civil war is the least interesting war ever for some reason. I love me some ww2, ww1, napoleanic, sengoku jidai, pelephoenecian, medieval, roman etc wars. But for some reason as soon as it's kwan-on-kwan, my interest drops to 0.

 

[Serus]

Why so ? It was quite interesting. As in strategically interesting. Many wars of the era in Europe that were short and decisive (Prussia-Austria, France-Prussia) or were prolonged bloodbaths a little like Civil War but imo less interesting (Crimea War, Russia-Ottoman war of 77 to some extent). There are some more but of all those Civil War seems to be one of the most interesting and the biggest conflicts from the mid-19th century era.
Who cares about the political side and that it was an internal affair of USA (from the winner's perspective at least). On a side note the political side was also quite interesting with - in theory- the possibility of a third power(s) entering the conflict in some way. The military side is the one that is interesting to gamers and the Civil War is not bad to play with on boardgames and computers. I think some people are blinded by their anti-americanism or whatewer you call it. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Burning Bridges]

Kwan civil war is the least interesting war ever for some reason. I love me some ww2, ww1, napoleanic, sengoku jidai, pelephoenecian, medieval, roman etc wars. But for some reason as soon as it's kwan-on-kwan, my interest drops to 0.

Who cares? You just have your head stuck up your own ass.

 

[Ulminati]

Why so ? It was quite interesting. As in strategically interesting. Many wars of the era in Europe that were short and decisive (Prussia-Austria, France-Prussia) or were prolonged bloodbaths a little like Civil War but imo less interesting (Crimea War, Russia-Ottoman war of 77 to some extent). There are some more but of all those Civil War seems to be one of the most interesting and the biggest conflicts from the mid-19th century era.
Who cares about the political side and that it was an internal affair of USA (from the winner's perspective at least). On a side note the political side was also quite interesting with - in theory- the possibility of a third power(s) entering the conflict in some way. The military side is the one that is interesting to gamers and the Civil War is not bad to play with on boardgames and computers. I think some people are blinded by their anti-americanism or whatewer you call it. Just my 2 cents.

I think it's mostly the period. Modern(ish) arms but still moving in giant blobs

 

[DramaticPopcorn]

Arms were nowhere near modernish, you retard.

 

[JamesDixon]

Arms were nowhere near modernish, you retard.

The extent of modernization was using paper cartridges for certain rifles like the Spencer and Sharps while using rifled barrels for the Union army.

 

[Burning Bridges]

LOL, machine guns, submarines, 7-shot lever action rifles and so on.

 

[Ulminati]

The extent of modernization was using paper cartridges for certain rifles like the Spencer and Sharps while using rifled barrels for the Union army.

Arms were nowhere near modernish, you retard.

Niggas, pls

The Gatling gun is one of the best-known early rapid-fire weapons and a forerunner of the modern machine gun. Invented by Richard Gatling, it is known for its use by the Unionforces during the American Civil War in the 1860s

Repeating rifles were a significant advance over the preceding breech loaded single-shot rifles when used for military combat, as they allowed a much greater rate of fire. Repeating rifles saw use in the American Civil Warduring the early 1860s

The U.S. government had purchased 765 Colt revolving carbines and rifles prior to the Civil War. Many of these were shipped to southern locations and ended up being used by the Confederacy. After the war began, the Union purchased many more rifles and carbines. Sources disagree over the exact number purchased, but approximately 4,400 to 4,800 were purchased in total over the length of the war.

The weapon performed superbly in combat, seeing action with the 21st Ohio Volunteer Infantry Union forces at Snodgrass Hill during the Battle of Chickamauga during the American Civil War. The volume of fire from this weapon proved to be so useful that the Confederate forces were convinced that they were attacking an entire division, not just a single regiment

The Agar machine gun was one of about fifty or so hand-cranked machine guns developed for the war during this period. It was named after its inventor, Wilson Agar (sometimes spelled Wilson Ager). The gun was nicknamed the 'Coffee Mill Gun' because the crank and the ammunition hopper on the top of the weapon gave it a look similar to that of a common kitchen coffee grinder.

Agar advertised the gun as "an army in six feet square", due to its high rate of fire. In 1861, the Agar machine gun was demonstrated to President Abraham Lincoln, who was very impressed by the weapon. Lincoln wrote "I saw this gun myself, and witnessed some experiments with it, and I really think it worth the attention of the Government."

You'll find dozens of weapons like that devloped in the 1850s and 1860s with a casual googling.
Fucking retards like you deserve to stand in a 3-ranks deep tight formation while someone fires a handcranked machine gun at you.

 

[JamesDixon]

Ulminati: The Gatling Gun didn't see use until 1863 and in very limited numbers.The Agar was purchased as a lot of 64 total and rarely saw combat use. The Sharps and Spencer rifles were used, but only in the cavalry in large numbers by 1863. Infantry and Artillery units still used the Enfield or Springfield muskets.

 

[Pirata Alma Negra]

Dammit, why people just funds crap now adays.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

"War of Rights"

Such as the right to own slaves.

 

[Beastro]

Ulminati: The Gatling Gun didn't see use until 1863 and in very limited numbers.The Agar was purchased as a lot of 64 total and rarely saw combat use. The Sharps and Spencer rifles were used, but only in the cavalry in large numbers by 1863. Infantry and Artillery units still used the Enfield or Springfield muskets.

Holy shit.

What part of modernish don't you understand?

The whole period of 1840-1900 was one massive tumult of military technology where things were developed and fielded only to be obsolete but the time they reached soldiers hands in large numbers. Artillery fire ranges were too long and aurrcate and needed to wait for technology and training to make full us of it. It wasn't until the end of the century that things settled down with bolt action rifles of similar designs, artillery of similar designs, took into the 1900s to settle down machine gun and that is just land warfare, naval warfare continued to rapidly evolute up to the beginning of WWI.

 

[DramaticPopcorn]

Niggas, pls

I cant even

 

[Burning Bridges]

Holy shit.

What part of modernish don't you understand?

The whole period of 1840-1900 was one massive tumult of military technology where things were developed and fielded only to be obsolete but the time they reached soldiers hands in large numbers. Artillery fire ranges were too long and aurrcate and needed to wait for technology and training to make full us of it. It wasn't until the end of the century that things settled down with bolt action rifles of similar designs, artillery of similar designs, took into the 1900s to settle down machine gun and that is just land warfare, naval warfare continued to rapidly evolute up to the beginning of WWI.

Nevermind that retard. He got his knowledge from wikipedia and probably thinks WWII was fought with obsolete technology because German soldiers were still armed with Karabiner 98.

 

[Burning Bridges]

The Agar machine gun was one of about fifty or so hand-cranked machine guns developed for the war during this period. It was named after its inventor, Wilson Agar (sometimes spelled Wilson Ager). The gun was nicknamed the 'Coffee Mill Gun' because the crank and the ammunition hopper on the top of the weapon gave it a look similar to that of a common kitchen coffee grinder.

Agar advertised the gun as "an army in six feet square", due to its high rate of fire. In 1861, the Agar machine gun was demonstrated to President Abraham Lincoln, who was very impressed by the weapon. Lincoln wrote "I saw this gun myself, and witnessed some experiments with it, and I really think it worth the attention of the Government."

You'll find dozens of weapons like that devloped in the 1850s and 1860s with a casual googling.

I believe it was in Tales of The Gun. The War ministry did not adopt new weapons because they worried about ammunition. That it would need 10 to 100 times more ammo, that soldiers would not aim properly etc.

at ca 16:00

 

[JamesDixon]

Holy shit.

What part of modernish don't you understand?

The whole period of 1840-1900 was one massive tumult of military technology where things were developed and fielded only to be obsolete but the time they reached soldiers hands in large numbers. Artillery fire ranges were too long and aurrcate and needed to wait for technology and training to make full us of it. It wasn't until the end of the century that things settled down with bolt action rifles of similar designs, artillery of similar designs, took into the 1900s to settle down machine gun and that is just land warfare, naval warfare continued to rapidly evolute up to the beginning of WWI.

Yes, but very few of the innovations actually made it to the battlefield during the war. They only became more numerous after the war. The biggest impact of technology was the rifled barrel used by the Union forces en mass. The Confederates were using Enfield smooth bore muskets that lacked the accurate range in comparison to the Springfield Rifle used by the Union.

Nevermind that retard. He got his knowledge from wikipedia and probably thinks WWII was fought with obsolete technology because German soldiers were still armed with Karabiner 98.

Yes, I'm a retard for stating that the tech innovations did not impact the war as much as you believed. I've studied American History for 34 years with primary source documentation. My knowledge comes that study and not Wikipedia.

 

[Burning Bridges]

No, you are a retard for just looking up some trivial facts, coming to entirely worthless conclusions what they actually mean and getting into argument with people who are studying much deeper. On the issue of rifles, the South did not have the ability to produce a lot of new rifles because they lacked industry, and import by sea was extremely difficult, so they used what they had. The North modernized at a good pace but that that doesn't mean issuing all of their infantry with repeating rifles. As long as there were supply shortages the first priority was to modernize the ammunitions industry, not giving every soldier a new rifle (in addition to the one he already had) that needed more ammo before they could make more ammo available. But both sides developed and used technology when they could, like they did with monitors or even the first submarine.
It can even be argued that the Civil war was not about tactics, so arms did not matter all that much. The two sides had to solve many problems on very different areas (politics, organizaton, strategy etc) that arms did not matter. You could have equipped whole divisions with the newest rifles and won the first engagement but strategically still lose when organization suddenly breaks down, for example because of desertion and enlistments are over. But what am I telling you, there will always be fools who think Lincoln should just have armed 50,000 men with Henry rifles and they would have marched directly into Richmond, or that Hitler could have won the war if he had only issued a few thousand jet fighters.

 

[JamesDixon]

No, you are a retard for just looking up some trivial facts, coming to entirely worthless conclusions what they actually mean and getting into argument with people who are studying much deeper. On the issue of rifles, the South did not have the ability to produce a lot of new rifles because they lacked industry, and import by sea was extremely difficult, so they used what they had. The North modernized at a good pace but that that doesn't mean issuing all of their infantry with repeating rifles. As long as there were supply shortages the first priority was to modernize the ammunitions industry, not giving every soldier a new rifle (in addition to the one he already had) that needed more ammo before they could make more ammo available. But both sides developed and used technology when they could, like they did with monitors or even the first submarine.
It can even be argued that the Civil war was not about tactics, so arms did not matter all that much. The two sides had to solve many problems on very different areas (politics, organizaton, strategy etc) that arms did not matter. You could have equipped whole divisions with the newest rifles and won the first engagement but strategically still lose when organization suddenly breaks down, for example because of desertion and enlistments are over. But what am I telling you, there will always be fools who think Lincoln should just have armed 50,000 men with Henry rifles and they would have marched directly into Richmond, or that Hitler could have won the war if he had only issued a few thousand jet fighters.

Paragraphs are your friend. Strawman much? I only stated that these were the weapons commonly used in regards to the newer firearms being developed like the Gatling and Agar machineguns. The South had no problems securing arms from the English which is why the majority of weapons issued to the Confederate Army was of British origin like the Enfield Musket. I never touched upon the modernization of industry since that was not what I was responding to initially.

 

[Burning Bridges]

It was just a reminder that you can not impress us with your wikipedia knowledge. I hope you got the point by now.

 

[JamesDixon]

It was just a reminder that you can not impress us with your wikipedia knowledge. I hope you got the point by now.

I don't use Wikipedia. I stated before that I have studied American History for 34 years using primary source documentation. Do you know what primary source documentation is? I doubt it. For fun I would read such volumes of work like Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies by the Government Printing Office 1866. It's an almost 140 volume set of books, with each book roughly 1,000 pages long, that has every order and correspondence ever issued and written by both sides of the war. It's split into four series of volumes that covers the Operations of both sides, Prisoners of War, Union Correspondence, and Confederate Correspondence. See that there is a prime example of what is primary source documentation presented in secondary source document format.

 

[Burning Bridges]

You have read all that and learned so little?

 

[JamesDixon]

You have read all that and learned so little?

I learned a lot more about the War of Southern Independence than you ever have. Your ignorance is quite telling.

 

[Burning Bridges]

Nevermind then. Your success in life is also quite telling.

 

[anus_pounder]

:kwafuckyeah:

Thread delivered.

 

[JamesDixon]

Nevermind then. Your success in life is also quite telling.

You stated, "there will always be fools who think Lincoln should just have armed 50,000 men with Henry rifles and they would have marched directly into Richmond..." The Union Army of the Potomac certainly had a lot of Henry Rifles in 1862 and they most certainly attempted to march on Richmond. Does McClellan's Peninsula Campaign sound familiar? Does the battles of First and Second Manassas ring a bell? Both battles were fought because the Union Army of the Potomac attempted to seize Richmond.

My success in life is actually better than yours. I've survived horrors you can only imagine and would have made you piss your pants. I'm far more successful than a pantywaist like you.