PBEM AAR - Long Live the Union!

[jchastain]

Looking at the battle report, it could have been a lot worse. We lost a few garbage weapons and a good bit of supply. Getting that supply back up will be the key to surviving and then bouncing back.

[jchastain]

Looking to the east, we might have a situation there also. He appears to be gearing up for a full offensive.

[jchastain]

First things first, we need to regroup. I don't need all these armies out here anyway. Let's combine into a couple of fighting units. I'll get rid of my army with the worst stats and then keep one siege army that will be mostly empty for now.

[jchastain]

Next, I need to get supply back up in a hurry. Time to turn the fire hose back up to full output - or as near to it as I can afford.

[jchastain]

When all is said and done, here are my remaining armies. Kentucky and Illinois combine for 160K men. I went ahead and spent all my gun inventory and did some more upgrades. I have to get that massive group reeady to fight. Supply is the big need right now though. The Army of Kentucky was decimated - no so much in manpower but in material.

(game still shows a siegework in cumberland - that's a mistake.)

[jchastain]

Just looking at the citry list, I see that I have a negative income. This isn't the time to go on a shopping spree. I need to keep those supply expenses up for a few turns and get back into the fight.

[jchastain]

I'll ratchet down the Dip spending on England even further and get pretty close to break even on cash income.

And that's all I can do right now. He definitely got the better of me that time. And I'm not convinced he's finished. Time to send it back to him and see what else I'll have to deal with.

[jchastain]

ORIGINAL: Grotius

Forge of Freedom is very well suited for PBEM, if this AAR is any guide. I had been worried that the absence of the tactical layer would be missed, but the strategic game is surprisingly deep.

You are right. I tried to say as much before, but it really is hard to truly grasp that the strategic game is in fact a full game until you really see it.

[Mike Scholl]

One thing I have noticed from the AAR reports is that the casualties seem to be much more one-sided than they should be.  The only two "battles" I can think of where the "winners" casualties weren't at least 60% of the "losers" were Fredricksburg and Cold Harbor---and both of those were closer to siege assults than battles.   A couple of times (Seven Days and Chicamagua) the "winners" casualties exceeded those of the "losers".   This doesn't seem to be the results shown so far in the AAR.

[AU Tiger_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

One thing I have noticed from the AAR reports is that the casualties seem to be much more one-sided than they should be. The only two "battles" I can think of where the "winners" casualties weren't at least 60% of the "losers" were Fredricksburg and Cold Harbor---and both of those were closer to siege assults than battles. A couple of times (Seven Days and Chicamagua) the "winners" casualties exceeded those of the "losers". This doesn't seem to be the results shown so far in the AAR.

I noticed that myself.

[Grifman]

Agreed, I'm curious as to how casualties are calculated. I'm wondering if combinations of details might give odd results.

To me, all the details (leaders, weapons, training, etc.) themselves should not actually result in the casualties. They should determine the level of victory/defeat - severe, moderate, draw, etc. Each defeat/victory level should have an associated percentage range of casualties based upon history. Then a die should be rolled to determine the result from the applicable range.

Of course, that's just one way to do it. I'd be interested in seeing how it is really calculated.

[marecone]

Very nice AAR's. Keep them coming

[ericbabe]

The casualty figures for battles include losses in the "pursuit" phase after the battle, in which the defeated side loses additional troops through enemy actions and to straggling/desertion as its forces run away.  Battles where the victors lose 0 and the defeated lose, say, 1000 are cases where the defeated side decided that it was outclassed and didn't fight at all, scrambling out of the province before the battle started; in that case there are only pursuit losses reported, and there are no actual combat casualties as such.  (FWIW, Gil is bugging me to make the battle report more comprehensive, to show more thorough breakdowns of participants and casualties... a more thorough battle report would make this aspect of the rules more clear.)

[Hard Sarge]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

One thing I have noticed from the AAR reports is that the casualties seem to be much more one-sided than they should be. The only two "battles" I can think of where the "winners" casualties weren't at least 60% of the "losers" were Fredricksburg and Cold Harbor---and both of those were closer to siege assults than battles. A couple of times (Seven Days and Chicamagua) the "winners" casualties exceeded those of the "losers". This doesn't seem to be the results shown so far in the AAR.

some of the ones I have posted show me takeing more losses then I gave out

but Quick battles in a PBEM game are more oneside, with a lot of the losses coming from the end of battle, during the battle they can be pretty close

Opps, should of finished reading all the posts before I posted, sorry

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

The casualty figures for battles include losses in the "pursuit" phase after the battle, in which the defeated side loses additional troops through enemy actions and to straggling/desertion as its forces run away.  Battles where the victors lose 0 and the defeated lose, say, 1000 are cases where the defeated side decided that it was outclassed and didn't fight at all, scrambling out of the province before the battle started; in that case there are only pursuit losses reported, and there are no actual combat casualties as such.  (FWIW, Gil is bugging me to make the battle report more comprehensive, to show more thorough breakdowns of participants and casualties... a more thorough battle report would make this aspect of the rules more clear.)

"Pursuit Losses"? This isn't the Napoleonic Wars. There was exactly ONE battle in the Civil War that resulted in singificant "pursuit losses" --- Nashville. "Pap" Thomas and his forces virtually destroyed Hood's Army of the Tennessee there. Though I'd say "discintegration" was closer to the mark, with the Army finally having had enough of Hood's bungling coupled with the end of the war being in sight. If this is what is being represented, I'd say it's being WAY overstated.

[spruce]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

The casualty figures for battles include losses in the "pursuit" phase after the battle, in which the defeated side loses additional troops through enemy actions and to straggling/desertion as its forces run away.  Battles where the victors lose 0 and the defeated lose, say, 1000 are cases where the defeated side decided that it was outclassed and didn't fight at all, scrambling out of the province before the battle started; in that case there are only pursuit losses reported, and there are no actual combat casualties as such.  (FWIW, Gil is bugging me to make the battle report more comprehensive, to show more thorough breakdowns of participants and casualties... a more thorough battle report would make this aspect of the rules more clear.)

well thanks Eric for the feedback, it seems right now I can understand the difference in casualties much better. And indeed - after battles where finished in ACW - sometimes brigades or regiments found themselves in dire straits and the only thing they could do was run without firing back (meaning a very bad rating of casualties inflicted/casualties taken, and also the chance of surrender). Also lots of desertions and stragglers, but this was more a "continuous" issue for the armies and for sure more prominent when being defeated.

But I agree with you now - the player needs to know how much troops were taken from his armies during combat ... some indication how badly mauled the unit was.

And camps do regrow these stragglers and deserters ... and take time.

That's why it seems nok to only rely on camps to grow your fielded numbers.

[jchastain]

OK.. we got through that last turn. But... strangely the siege continues without the siegers. There was a recent patch to fix the last siege issue (attacking the fort) but it doesn't seem to have worked quite right. Looks like the devs need to take one more look.

[jchastain]

There also seems to be more training going on. Not sure if someone tweaked a value there or if I'm just getting luckier.

[jchastain]

Out west, he withdrew from Nashville. Obviously he didn't know my supplies were so badly depleted. And my forces did't quite make it all to the same place. He reorganizes and jumps half way across the map, but I can't even walk next door. Perhaps this is how Golliath felt.

This is where we have an interesting conundrum. Normally, I would reoccupy Nashville now - this time with all my forces - and begin the encirclement anew. I can finish my reorg and resupply there as well as anywhere. And clearly he isn't ready to mess with my massive forces. I don't want to take advantage of a bug and liberate the city with half the effort. But I also do not want to be penalized. I send Gil a message suggesting that I enter and finish the siege next turn and then sit there for 2 more turns to "make up" for it not resetting the siege. For now, I'll sit here so we can monitor the bug and report it to the devs and I'll wait for Gil's response to my proposal.

[jchastain]

Looking east, he is definitely making some threatening moves. I think I have the forces to stop him if he crossed the border so for now I'll just wait and see what he does. I'm tempted to do an amphibeous landing by Norfolk, but sea supply is not reliable and the last thing I need right now is to strand a badly prepared army on a beach.