Container Movement Rates

[MadMike]

Greetings gents!

Longtime lurker, 1st time poster on this forum.

WCS: I'm having a great (read frustrating) time playing and trying to master this incredibly deep game, well done!

My comment/question is in regards to the CSA AI's post-beta penchant for running sprints between James River and Paducah with large army-sized (110k+) formations with little or no cost and distressing regularity. If the transportation infrastructure and logistics of the day allowed this, why didn't the AoNV head off to relieve Vicksburg in a quick 3-4 month round-trip operation?

This issue has only really come to my attention post-beta, and I wondered if it had come to anyone else's attention.

My immediate reaction is to suggest that movement rates be additionally affected by container size, if not even by actual unit size. It would seem to be realistic to expect that a large army-sized formation would find it hard to keep pace with a more nimble corps-sized unit, and the same for a corps and a division.

If I recall correctly; the ACW consisted of many, many smaller engagements than large pitched battles ala Gettysburg. In fact, wasn't the ACW noted for having the most battles of any American war ever?

Possibly a simple 1-2-3 structure would suffice to reflect this dynamic, with Army units moving 1 province, Corps units moving up to 2, and Division units capable of up to 3 provinces. (this could all be affected by command, generals, supply, quality, disposition, terrain, and weather of course)

The drama and fluidity of the game would certainly be increased with the incentive to use smaller sized units for more rapid-tempo operations, while the big armies ground against each other in their wars of attrition.

How do the grognards on board feel about this idea?

Cheers,
MadMike

[Gil R.]

It's in another thread, but this issue has come up, and of course you're right that the ANV shouldn't be heading west all the time. Eric's got a plan to make it so that both sides' largest armies must stay within a certain radius of their capitals, which would probably solve this. This and other changes to the AI will probably be in a new version of the beta-patch that will be released not "soon," but at whatever point comes right after "soon."

[MadMike]

Thanks for the reply Gil, and I apologize for not posting in the original thread.
 
What's your feeling concerning the movement rates overall, beyond restricting certain size armies within a set radius of the capitals?

[Gil R.]

I think they're about right. They rarely can go more than three provinces, and if you think of it, that's about right: a two-week turn with men averaging 20 miles a day would get them about 300 miles per turn. I've never thought this was a problem, and don't recall anyone raising the issue.

[tevans6220]

I wonder how feasible it is to keep the largest armies close to the capital. It all works great if your largest army happens to be in the east where Richmond and Washington is but what if your largest army is in the west? I suggest that the rule be that the largest eastern army be kept close to the capital and the largest western army be kept close to a major western city. You'll have the opposite effect if the largest army is in the west. The western army will move east to be close to the capital and the eastern army could still move west. By having cities in both theaters that armies must defend you prevent that.
 
It might be wise to even have a rule preventing movement in either direction as long as major enemy forces are in their vicinity. There's no way that the ANV should ever march west with the AOP in their front. Lee did send Longstreet's Corps west in 1863 but still had the ANV in position to counter any move by the AOP. Sherman never would have marched through Georgia and north if Hood's AOT had not been covered and destroyed as a fighting force. At no time was a front left completely uncovered. Maybe a rule should be implemented to reflect that. Something along the line of each major enemy force must be countered if at all possible.

[Gil R.]

That's not too likely to happen -- the biggest armies start the game in VA/MD, and the AI would have trouble creating a larger army out west.

[Ironclad]

I think there is an issue about movement through some mountainous terrain for armies or even corps. Despite the existing penalties the Union AI in Southern Steel seems to find it comparatively easy to reach Lynchburg from Abingdon via Knoxville or Kenawa. Admittedly its usually one province (sometimes two) at a time. Surely this route was never a runner for large forces in the real event.

[MadMike]

The idea that large military formations traveling over dirt roads, with horse or mule drawn artillery and supply trains, could make a steady 20 miles per day for 14 straight days isn't realistic.
 
Even further; that this military formation could march, then maneouver in the face of the enemy, fight a battle lasting 1-7 days, and then continue on with the march and attain the same distance as if a battle hadn't taken place defies logic.
 
Jackson's famous "foot cavalry" of the Valley campaign sometimes covered up to 35 miles per day, but he never commanded more than 17k men, and it was not a sustained rate of travel.
 
Leading up to Gettysburg, Lee took 27 days (June 3-July 1) to cover the ground from Culpeper to Gettysburg. (roughly Shenandoah-Cumberland-York) In game terms that's 2 provinces of movement in 1/2 the time it took Lee and the AoV. The Federal forces took 18 days (June 13-July 1) to go from in front of Fredericksburg to Gettysburg. (roughly Annapolis-York)
 
This line of thought and research has led me to the conclusion that combat with a like-size force (greater than 2/3 your own, maybe) should seriously impact a formations ability to continue it's planned movement. The deployment for, and conduct of, a battle, not to mention it's aftermath of casualty and straggler collection, is not free in terms of time.

[Drex]

Traveling by foot would be slower but by train the rates would stay the same?

[MadMike]

Interesting question, Drex, I'm not sure why they couldn't stay the same.
 
I'm not familiar enough with the actual capabilities of ACW era railroad infrastructure to comment.
 
What do you think?

[Drex]

deleted

[Drex]

Leave the RR movement as is but decrease the movement by foot. I think RR troop movemnt worked fairly well back then even if the infrastructure wasn't fully developed.

[kentul]

please let us know if you folks are going to add something like limiting how far an army can go from its capital. thats a really dumb solution.

[Erik Rutins]

No one's discussing that and any changes are only to affect the AI's behavior, not to limit human players.

[kentul]

ok, well thats different and makes more sense.

[MadMike]

Thanks for the clarification Erik, that had me a bit worried. [:)]
 
FoF is already the best strategic simulation of the ACW I've ever played in 20+ years of gaming, and it is on the razor's edge of being definitive, imho.
 
Have you had any thoughts on the general direction of this thread regarding strategic movement rates of various sizes of military formations, and the effect of enroute combat?
 
Thanks,
Mike
 
 

[f15eagle]

It does seem a bit outside the constraints of the time allotted for a game turn to allow a large force to travel almost 300 miles and engage in multiple battles. If an army's (using that term for simplicity) primary tasking is to move to a given point, it should be set to avoid combat and should be forced to stop if it is engaged. Likewise, if an army's tasking is to engage the enemy at a certain location or capture a particular province, it should stop and fight when it successfully arrives, but shouldn't be allowed to bring all of its force to bear in defeating an interdicting force, then continue on to its destination. If two armies are ordered to engage two different provinces simultaneously, they shouldn't be allowed to simultaneously reinforce each other if they happen to be adjacent after they reach their destinations.

In terms of what is happening in the game, it appears to be in a little bit of danger of drifting towards a "killer stack" issue simply because there is no suitable counterbalance to the advantages of stuffing as many units as possible into the largest containers possible. I will confess that there are so many things to learn about the game that I might be overlooking something, however.

I suspect adapting the game's mechanics to accommodate a higher level of granularity in strategic movement and combat is a bit impractical at this point, but it might be something to consider for a later version, or even in another game system. In my opinion, it would be good to present a player with some interesting and difficult decisions when he encounters the reality of "no battle plan survives contact with enemy." For example, it might be necessary to detach a force to deal with enemy harassment of a flank or rear area, with the consequence being that you might not arrive at the planned engagement with enough force to win. It would also be nice to see a more detailed strategic reserve and reinforcement system.

I agree with the sentiments of everyone else that this is a wonderfully deep and challenging ACW game and commend you on the accomplishment. Few games succeed at bringing together so many elements at all of the levels that FoF does.

[ericbabe]

Well, we could have a chance of cancelling any further movement orders for any military group that wins a battle.  We could make this a check against the group's Logistics Rating perhaps.

[Kingnothinb]

In my current game the AI (CSA) has 3 army groups that travel together between Richmond and Memphis attacking my 3 seperate armies (1 in VA, 1 in Kentucky and 1 west of the Mississippi) as I advance south. It's an interesting strategy where they never lose a battle but are slowly losing ground as I replace my losses and creep south faster than the 3 armies can travel east-west. If it weren't for their massive garrisons in every city the AI's strategy wouldn't work at all though.

[dude]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

Well, we could have a chance of cancelling any further movement orders for any military group that wins a battle.  We could make this a check against the group's Logistics Rating perhaps.

I would make this check against the Group's Commading officer's Init rating... if no commanding officer then use the logisitics rating. It would put a little more emphisis on having a good Init Rated officer in charge.