Yeah not paying 40$ for that. Will wait for discount. Until then, wishlisted.

Ahhh, good old Slitherine overpricing, you can wait till it's 70% off and it's still too expensive.

Insta bought. You can spend thousands of hours with this kind of game, so, In my particuar case, the price is OK.

is this about jan 6th? yup
oh this is the crappy strategic command where ai get free units nonstop limiting your strategy to slow crawling turtle it would be if it would be a decent game

Indeed technological advancements specially in warfare.
Basically it was the first indusrial war.The first modern war. advancement in the weaponry and fire power...number of casualties...

But it caused a boosting and modernization of industrial methods, The use and evolution of the telegraph, Naval advancements, proto submarine technologies, Massive use of trains and railroads.
Some things stood still in that way until 1914.

Obviously the advancements in WWII were higher, but the Secession War was almost a century before.

Also, cavalry dismounting and fighting each other on foot with their carbines. This was an outrage in Europe, but it was an adaptation to new weaponry, and a hint of the new roles for cavalry and other things to come.

Indeed an industrial war. Mass produced items like shoes with no distinction between left and right. Cheap canned food that made soldiers sick. Things to take into account for later. Some of them repeated in the Spanish-American war. Some were already repeated from the Mexican-US war (among the craze for enlisting at the beginning of the war, veterans from the Mexican-US war did NOT rush to join the army, which was a good hint, but nobody paid attention to that) Huge profits for industrials with supplier contracts with the government . War could be very profitable.

There are many sources, but this little book by a renowed historian is short, and a lovely good read.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/681654.Reflections_on_the_Civil_War

Indeed. Advancement does not mean it was done in the right way or for right reasons. I Just point that the main XIX science discoveries were used in that conflict.

Even the possible social advancements were relative, because the boost in industry was the dawn of terrble conditions for the human working force. The end of slavery was late, it was something already existed in other superpowers/nations. Not many though.

It was also one of the first conflicts where the journalism was commonly present in the war itself. Censored a lot of times.

Maybe in the Grande Armee era the armies were already massive in numbers like in the Civil War, but due to the weaporry advancements the causalties were so high that it was a cultural shock for the society.. The photographs and news about the battle of Antietam caused a shock

A curiosity. The American "Ok" term popularly used worldwide have its origin in the official casualtes papers published for the people. If no casualties, it was advised as "0K" (Zero Kills), and that meant that all was fine at least for that day.

Indeed. Overall, advancement does not mean a good thing per se in a war.

Wikipedia lists several possible origins for "OK", but this is not among them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OK#The_etymologies_of_OK

Well, that etymology was one I read a lot of years ago, in several sources, and is indeed one of the most common theories about it. Dubious? maybe, After reading the others probably the satyrical "Oll Korrect" is the main candidate. The matter is that even in the Vietnam War the zero kills interpretation was used for the same concept.Indeed maybe for dexcontextualized reasons but that means it was popular.

https://www.trustedtranslations.com/blog/the-etymology-of-the-word-ok

Here is explained the Civil War one and the possible reasons why it is or it is not "Ok" :)

obviously it comes from boxing , if you are not KO then it is OK

Yes, I had read about that this origin of "OK". Way before Wikipedia even existed. Seems very plausible.

True about the comparison with the Napoleonic era. Revolutionary France resorted to mass draft, obtaining a very large army that was not common in the era. However, a war could still be lost in a single battle, if the losses were too high, even at the time of the Franco-Prussian war (1870). Right before the Great War, it was speculated that the resources of modern states would made that impossible, as there would be means to recover from massive losses and for concentrating the new troops quickly. But in the Civil war (1861-1865) that was already happening.

Good observation about the American Civil War and journalism. As an aside, did you notice how the zenith of war journalism seemed to be the Vietnam war, while afterwards journalists have seen their freedom of movement severely curtailed? At least with US troops.