To me, speaking as both a constructive critic:
Alternate history is one thing, fantasy is another. "What if Davis was totally different than he was OTL"
might work as a POD. As background, where we're just supposed to assume Davis wakes up with the personality of (for instance) Lincoln in regards to taking advice and criticism and blunt speech? That comes off as, in a word, sloppy. Whether you have a degree in history or not isn't the point.
Obviously some things will be different in alternate timeline. Here's an example from my half-abandoned project (not posted here because its in no shape to call a timeline yet, but it'll serve to illustrate some points):
POD: Davis agrees with Lee that the Confederacy's best chance is to reinforce the ANV to the hilt and if that means leaving North Carolina and other places with minimal regular troops, so be it. Trained and especially veteran troops are more important with Lee.
Davis didn't do that OTL. But its something Davis could be imagined as capable of doing if he felt it was necessary (he did go to great lengths to reinforce Sidney Johnston prior to Shiloh), its something that was historically discussed, and it could be done with the existing resources of the Confederacy.
But Stars and Stripes Forever (review here:
http://users.wowway.com/~jenkins/ironclads/ssreview.htm ) is not plausible. And to the extent a timeline asks us to swallow things like that does is the extent that it resembles fantasy rather than alternate history.
So to turn this into something addressing a part of Valus's penultimate post that really bothers me as a constructive-minded critic:
Also, so many people have a cobb up there ass for wanting everthing to be absolutly perfect. Here is a news update for those people: It ain't going to happen! I am sorry if my timeline isn't perfect or up to your standards. I wasn't trying to please you! I'm just doing something that i have always wanted to and am having fun with it also. For those who say that i am ignoring reality, let me say if i was to use reality, then why on earth would i want to right ALTS?
1) So if you're not interested in what we think, why are you posting it here? I mean, what is the reason for posting this somewhere that you will get feedback if you don't care?
2) As stated above, there's a difference between alternate history and fantasy.
If you want to write a timeline where the Confederacy has a big, daring plan by Lee in 1863 and seizes opportunities to win big (maybe not winning the war, but moving in that direction by the end of the year), I'd love to help you.
But if your timeline is going to be filled with stuff that could happen in a computer game but which are utterly impossible in the actual situation, then I'm afraid that's just fantasy.
Valus36 said:
First let say that i am not trying to piss people off. If i offened anyone, i apoligize. Let me say that i understand the concerns the people have of my atl, mainly, where in the world is the south going to get the men to make lee's plan plausable. For that answer, i humble ask my readers to wait untill i update the story. I will explain everything as the atl progresses. As for research, let me assure my readers that i am well studied in the civil war and understand logistics, manpower, and the such. Besides the internet, i own at least 100 books on the subject. I somtimes use them when writing an atl to make sure i have a generals name spelled right, or a town and such. Also, the majority of these books i have read at least 2 times or more. So let me assure you that you need not worry about concerns like logistics and manpower and how i am going to make everything work. Trust me, i will answer everyone's questions as the atl continues.
And I just have to shake my head at this. Your timeline flounders because the questions on manpower have to be addressed to begin with. That doesn't mean you have to have Lee explain them in the form of the Master Plan we've seen so far. That does mean you, the author, have to know these things.
And judging by your references so far on the subject, you don't. Whether you own a hundred books on the subject or not is not the point.
Here, let me give an example.
http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/sources/recordview.cfm?content=/038/1039
Breckinridge's division except for the 47th Georgia (which is from Beauregard's department) is from Bragg's army.
McNair's brigade is from Bragg's army, Evans's brigade and two of the artillery batteries are from Beauregard's department. Maxey's brigade and the Louisiana battery are local.
Loring's division is local - part of Pemberton's force, cut off after Champion's Hill.
Walker's division: Ector is from Bragg's army, Gregg's brigade is local, and Wilson and Gist are from Beauregard's department.
Jackson's cavalry division is from West Tennessee.
Of the troops from Beauregard's department, only Evans's brigade, two artillery batteries, and the 47th Georgia are relatively recent arrivals (sent as of the 15th of May). The others were sent at the beginning of the month. Similarly, Ector and McNair were sent from Bragg around the beginning of May and Breckinridge came later.
The reason I'm spelling this out? Because your plan relies on Bragg not being stripped of manpower, which means that the force around Vicksburg loses five brigades of infantry and three batteries. That means up to a third of the infantry is somewhere else. So instead of ~25,000 men, Johnston has more like 16,000.
This is what you don't get, or at least have shown no understanding of in your posts to date. Your posts seem to indicate that you think Johnston had all those troops in the Alabama-Mississippi area and that none of the other areas that will need to be drawn on for manpower to reinforce Bragg and Lee are impacted.
You have two basic choices here:
You can address this, or you can complain that we're picking on your timeline.
Please don't choose the latter.