You are kidding me, right?

[Snydeman55]

So, I got the game...and now I'm frustrated to all hell. Someone explain to me how it is that I can enter a detailed battle as the Union and get SUCH unbalanced results.

I attack with the Army of Kentucky....my units, firing 6 Brigades onto 1 Confed brigade at ALL flanks....and it consistently outshoots me. Not by a little either...we're talking me losing 20-50 for every 1 they lose. I charge their undefended supply caisson and kill 150 for a loss of about 20. They charge MINE and get a kill ration easily triple that. I charge one of their brigades in the open field and get a ratio of 20 losses for 120 kills. They charge ME and get regular loss-kill ratios of 0 (!!!)/30/40 to 250/500!!!

In the Battle of Paducah I have 3-1 odds...hit flanks, rear and front of their Army. Only, I'll never win...because every corn-fed is a marksman and every bluecoat couldn't hit the boradside of a battleship if it was sitting ON TOP of him.

Wth? There's no way the Confederate troops should be that overhyped. (Hello, 1st Manassas) I don't CARE if they have a slightly higher morale and are in entranchments. When I'm pouring fire on them from three directions from multiple brigades I'd think I'd kill more than 20 guys and lose slightly less than 600 in one volley.

If this had been the true Civil War, the Union would have bleed itself to death inside 6 months.

What am I missing? I'm playing the game on intermediate and normal power for both sides. I've perused the manual and have played CoG so I'm no stranger to this genre.

[Connecticut14th]

i've only played as the CSA, so i can't really comment on your situation, but maybe you are underarmed? have you purchased weapon upgrades for your units?

[Snydeman55]

Well, first off this was in the first few turns of the war. Second off, I don't have weapon upgrades enabled. That is, I turned that option off.

[Gil R.]

What difficulty setting are you at? (I don't mean power, which determines resources.) The higher difficulty settings give the AI more of a morale boost, so that it's harder to rout.

Also, the game is deliberately designed so that in the opening months the CSA has superior forces, especially in terms of morale (which reflects to some extent the historical reality in the aftermath of Bull Run).

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.
Also, the game is deliberately designed so that in the opening months the CSA has superior forces, especially in terms of morale (which reflects to some extent the historical reality in the aftermath of Bull Run).

Some superiority is historically justified, but the poster is saying that when he outnumbered his surrounded opposition by 6:1 the casualties were running 1:20 against him. That's way beyond "somewhat superior" and charging past "totally rediculous" as well. You need to read his post again a bit closer Gil.

[bountyhunter]

I had a similar occurance when I assualted Fort Pickens after a couple of turns of siege. I had approx 18,000 against the 2500 garrison. I completely surrounded one garrison artillery unit (in and outside the fort and by hex) and I was slaughtered and routed. I understand there are penalties in assualting a fort, but I was shocked and that was my last attempt at the "assualt the fort" option! I think I would have been better off throwing stones at the defenders.

[Snydeman55]

Difficulty is 1st Sgt as I recall. (Like 3rd from lowest) and all power settings were set at normal. I can beat the computer at the resource game, no worries....but I can not seem to defeat him - at all, ever - in the 5 detailed battles I've fought. And I'm no slouch at tactical games either, wihich makes this all the more frustrating. I know how to flank, lay down fire on a position, use reserve troops, etc. But when I can not close on an enemy position at all because I get slaughtered in a 1-1 firefight, I can not win.

[darthsmaul]

Snydeman55

I can relate, I can do well on resources and raising troops and such but if I get into a detailed tactical battle even if I outnumber the CSA and have them flanked 4 or 5 to 1 my brigades get hammered while the CSA one is like the stonewall brigade to the 10th power.

I was wondering what I am doing wrong, I do pretty good in COG battles but no clue on this at all, I was hoping there was a way to fight just tacticle battles and learn, going back to the manual but I dont think it will tell me much.

thoughts anyone?  Maybe we need a west point for some of us on tactical battles 101?  I know I do.

love the game just no clue on how to win a battle

[SurrenderMonkey]

Well, I don't know what to say except that I'm managing just fine w/out reading more than about 10 pages of the manual. Let me ask:

1) Are your firing troops in column or line? Line is far more effective.
2) Do they have "improvised weapons" or something solid like Springfields?
3) Are they out of supply? When units have no ammo, they can't do much damage.
4) What is the overall disposition of your troops? (That's a technical question ... )

In my first detailed battle, I had 9,000 Union troops against 3,000 rebels. The rebels were in a fort which I carefully surrounded and then attacked on all sides like you described. It took me most of the day to wear them down, and one of my brigades routed before it was ovr. But in the end the fort fell and we won the day. Not too complex. Just about what I expected.

[Snydeman55]

Springfields, every one. Disposition I'm not sure about, but my logistcs and tactics on the Army are not bad (Normal, I think). I would find it hard to believe that disposition could account for that large of a gap.
 
Here's a goodun. The CSA has assaulted DC, forts and all, with the NVA - 110,000 strong - against about 171,000 Yankees IN FORTS. Now, on the approach I did some mighty nice damage, but after about two rounds my forts get dismantled and then it's a normal line vs line fight....and I proceed to take losses like 1 Confed dead and 48 Yankees dead.
 
Is someone over at Matrix smoking crack? All things being equal, there should NEVER be that kind of discrepancy in a firefight vs roughly even numbers of troops at close range. (No one was out of supply, before you ask) I'm just plain sick of tactical battles where the Yankees get their butts handed to them as if every man was firing a blowgun in the dark during a hurricane. YES the North had inferior generals, but the myth of the superiority of the individual Confederate soldier is just that - a myth. Both sides produced good men on the battlefield, and even with the Union disadvantage at the outset of the war, the numbers I'm getting in tactical battles are just friggin ridiculous.
 
Think it's time I put the game down and walked away slowly. This is giving me heartburn.
 
PS- In the defense of DC, I had one unit - about 2000 strong with 4.0 morale - in the ruins of a fort, fired on by confederate brigade in the open in line formation....1 rebel dead, 140 Yankees killed. Nuts.

[Snydeman55]

And I wanted to add that the CSA assaulting DC with a FULLY operational AoP in prepared fortifications SHOULD result in a whoopin of Confederate butt. The fact that they are hanging in there - and quite possibly going to win - is silly beyond belief.

[ravinhood]

I think it's hilarious and This ain't RTW baby. hahahah Good for the AI kick ole Snydeman's butt hahahahah

[Hard Sarge]

Odd, in my AARs everyone was complaining that the AI was too easy to beat

[Snydeman55]

Ravenhood, you must bring a lot to conversations with people, eh? Glad you're such a tactical genius and all. Us lowly folk can only bask in your Greatness. Have a good day.

Hard Sarge, that is precisely why I started this thread. It IS odd, and way beyond everything I've read on this period. While I'd rate myself well above the average person in tactical sense, I'm probably smack in the average for a grognard...but the tactical battles are whooping me. The thing is, if I was being outmaneuvered or outgunned, fine. But I'm maneuvering into great firing positions, bringing my best units to bear, and getting wildly unbalanced results. As an example, I have an art brigade surrounded on all sides by 6 brigades, all focused on firing or charging into it. All 6 brigades have become mincemeat, with the artillery throwing off my last assault at a loss of 7 for him, 346 for me. Does that sound remotely historical? If you caught an artillery brigade alone by itself and charged it from 3 directions....um, need I really explain what would have happened?  This arty brigade is like a fortress unto itself...in an open field, nonetheless.

I'm going to try and collect some screenshots to show you guys what I mean.

[Ironclad]

Yes reading your (Hard Sarge's) AARs I was concerned about the opposition provided by the battle AI so its encouraging to read feedback that suggests the AI is so much more formidable than in COG. I really like COG but it is discouraging to know that even moderate play experience enables one to repeatedly beat its AI (especially on the defensive) even when heavily outnumbered.

What I want in a wargame is an AI that is challenging and inventive that forces you to pull out all the stops and ensure the best possible odds and even then you might lose. Also a good game should require you to learn the techniques for winning over a long period of time at advanced and higher difficulty levels. The ideal AI needs to be continually chellenging as players gain experience. If that means that it is given some hidden advantages not open to the human player then I can live with that - provided they are not so blatant as to destroy the impression that it is an equal contest.

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: Snydeman55

Here's a goodun. The CSA has assaulted DC, forts and all, with the NVA - 110,000 strong - against about 171,000 Yankees IN FORTS. Now, on the approach I did some mighty nice damage, but after about two rounds my forts get dismantled and then it's a normal line vs line fight....and I proceed to take losses like 1 Confed dead and 48 Yankees dead.

Are you sure of what you're seeing? 171,000 men in forts simply isn't possible -- forts hold just a few brigades maximum (e.g., 6 brigades fit into the biggest, Fort III). So you'd need twenty-eight forts minimum to hold all of them...

[Erik Rutins]

Snydeman55,

I think posting some screenshots and ideally a pre-battle save or two would be great. Then the resident experts can take a look and see if they can duplicate your results or if there's something you're missing. Certainly, the descriptions of results you are providing are not a design goal of the engine, as long as there aren't other major factors involved that are being omitted.

Regards,

- Erik

[Snydeman55]

Gil,

There were around 7 large multi-hexxed forts...each could hold about 6-10 brigades. I'll screenshot the battlefield ASAP. I did have a few brigades in between forts, but most were within the forts themselves.

Interestingly, I restarted a new campaign giving myself one extra power, reducing confederate power by one, and dropping difficulty to Corporal just to see what happened. Also, following people's advice, I enabled my own "upgrading weapons" option so that *I* could decide what weapons went where. In a battle in Kentucky, I fared far better. Is it possible that having the 'enable weapon upgrade' option somehow meant that my troops' weapons wwere never upgraded? I'll post screenies of the Kentucky battle that I won hands-down and then the Washington battle where the ANV was monkey-stomping me.

So I don't know if it was the downgrading of the diff level, the hands-on approach to weapons upgrading, or a combination of both that allowed me to have a much more historical result.

[Snydeman55]

Hmm, having trouble uploading a picture. Do I have to host them on a separate webpage first?

I've saved them in bitmap form to my desktop.

[Kipper]

I have given up until all this is fixed as well. In some opening battles much of my union army would rout BEFORE contact with any CSA!!! And yes, I have read the whole manual, been wargaming for 20+ years, played a lot of COG etc etc. so I am not a naive wargamer - some people on this forum seem to conclude this is the problem with anybody that has an issue with the game.

Kipper