Interested Player. How is Combat resolved?

[Tangogulf]

Hi all;

Just as the topic says. I viewed the Youtube promotional video and their appears to be a large number of units in the game. The battlemap that I saw in that video strongly indicates that this is an operationally based game. That being said, how is the combat resolved?

Is it done automatically based on any number of factors?
Is it zoomed down, so that the player resolves the battles?

Thanks for any and all help!

[PyleDriver]

You rely as the commander (Lincoln or Davis) to appoint proper generals to carry things out. Gary devised a wonderful tack battle system, so you don't waste time on the little things. This game moves quick and allows you to try so many different options...

[8D]
Jon

[hgilmer]

    Combat is basically "instant combat" with die rolls and probabilities determining who gets the advantage based on any number of things.  You see two graphs and you see unit firing, and you get informational messages like "Union Forces are falling back".  About 5 seconds after that, it goes to a screen that says how many losses were on both sides, who won, what general gets the win, and what kind of victory it was "Minor, "Major", Major & Strategic", I think that is it, I have yet to have more than a minor win, though.  The next screen shows a relative screen for the two sides showing what untis were damaged or destroyed.

[Tangogulf]

Thankyou for the replies. They helped a great deal.

I'm undecided on this one. I like the idea that this game offers less micro management then some other games, however, would be interested in managing the combat on some level. I already own FoF and know that it offers tactical battles.

I gather that in GGwbts that as overall commander one assembles units and their commands and put them into the field. Does the combat model give satisfaction on some level? I mean after all, I figure that all of the management activity around this game inevitably leads to combat and ultimately winning the war. Successfully combating the enemy has to be the goal. Does it deliver satisfying gameplay on this level?

Again, thanks for the replies

[WarHunter]

Does the combat model give satisfaction on some level? I mean after all, I figure that all of the management activity around this game inevitably leads to combat and ultimately winning the war. Successfully combating the enemy has to be the goal. Does it deliver satisfying gameplay on this level?

Tangogulf,

From my point of view, yes in spades. That is the short answer.

What may be harder to relate is the satisfaction of playing a game where you are given 2 very different objectives depending on which side you play.

The Union is tasked with victory by using offensive princples of warfare. Concentration of assets to perform feints, flank attacks, overruns and of course set piece large battle operations.

The Confederacy is tasked with victory using defensive princples of warfare. This is centered around use of interior lines, building fortifacations, quick reaction forces, guerilla warfare and well timed couterattacks.

These are facets that are brought out playing this simulation of War between the States.

Because a picture is worth 1K words. Here is a screen shot of the battle for Nashville. 1862 Aug. PBEM

After waiting for the hammer to drop it came down like a whirlwind. The top screen shows what was heading for the showdown.7 Leaders, 40 trained regiments of infantry, 2 Milita regiments, 6 Batterys. These are the spotted units. What other units were unknown.
The rebel OOB is clear to see. Army Commander Polk, Bragg, Van Dorn, McIntosh, Bonham were sitting in Nashville behind a level 1 Fortress. Hardee, Jackson, Wood & Bee marched in during the reaction phase before combat. After a long combat phase, the results are listed there at the bottom.

As with most historical civil war outcomes, it was a bloodletting. As a simualtion it comes darn close to what you read in the history books when flesh met steel in ordered lines. Its a wargame that delievers and satisfies as much as any game designed for this time period.

Thats my pov.

[PyleDriver]

Wow, that just said it all...

[8D]
Jon

[hgilmer]

    The part I like and I have yet to master it, and it makes it different than FoF is this - You don't just drop a bunch of units into army/corp/division and then march them to a battle where the other guy did the exact same thing.  Also, in FoF, what made it a little more fun for me is trying to get them exp and get them outfitted, but essentially other than that, it was always the same battle more or less with + or - the number of units within the army commands.

Here, you have to coordinate the generals and get them to wheel and perform in unison or you get a fight where no one shows up and you get slaughtered.  You can't just march everyone you have (with some initiative issues in FoF like here, but essentially in FoF I would amass as many troops as I could and get them to the battle (instant battles were always what I liked - I never liked the detailed part)) to a battle and then fight.  IThat's what I do in FoF.  I would get 110K under Grant, and 110K under Sherman and then just start rolling the other side up (all AI games).  Depending on the difficulty, it was pretty easy after a few turns for the union side.  The AI was good, but not great.

I am unsure yet here, but trying to coordinate getting everyone to the battle at the right time with the right guy in command makes the battles always different.  You could save a game and play a turn over and over and (from what I can see) get some seriouslydifferent outcomes here, but in FoF it was pretty much 95% of the time the exact same outcome in the instant battles.

I hope this helps.  It may not and I might not be completely accurate, since I'm basing it on the few turns I have been able to turn out so far.

[Tangogulf]

ORIGINAL: WarHunter

Because a picture is worth 1K words. Here is a screen shot of the battle for Nashville. 1862 Aug. PBEM

Warhunter. thanks so much for taking the time for writing the reply, but especially for the excellent screenshot. The picture says a great deal. If I may request some commentary about the picture from someone. I noticed that in the middle (horizontal) of that screenshot, it appears that part of the strategic map is showing. Are the units surrounding the confederate all of the attacking federal troops? So the player must manually take his/her units to the area of attack and co-ordinate them?

Nothing like the raw numbers to give it some impact. BTW, who would you say won your battle?

ORIGINAL: hgilmer

Here, you have to coordinate the generals and get them to wheel and perform in unison or you get a fight where no one shows up and you get slaughtered. You can't just march everyone you have (with some initiative issues in FoF like
I am unsure yet here, but trying to coordinate getting everyone to the battle at the right time with the right guy in command makes the battles always different. You could save a game and play a turn over and over and (from what I can see) get some seriouslydifferent outcomes here, but in FoF it was pretty much 95% of the time the exact same outcome in the instant battles.

I hope this helps. It may not and I might not be completely accurate, since I'm basing it on the few turns I have been able to turn out so far.

Yes, it helps a great deal. I understand now how the battles become somewhat personal. One must work with a variety of generals and their units to co-ordinate that attack. I imagine that if there is a general lacking in ability it must give one a dreaded emptiness having to have to use him.

Thanks again for all the replies. You are convinciing me!

[WarHunter]

The Units North of the river are Union troops that have been held back. You can barely see the American flag over the units.

The units south of the River are Rebel forces that either did not get inititave or did not have the movement points to enter Nashville.

Both Yankees and Rebels must be in the same region for combat to occur.

The battle was a Major victory for the Rebels.
Each battle is rated for victory. Major or minor and political points added to the victor, subtracted from the loser.

This is a rare wargame to play. solo or PBEM

[Joram]

Funny that's a major victory for the CSA as the results look much more devestating to them than to the USA.  Pyrrhic victory for sure.

[Bo Rearguard]

ORIGINAL: Joram

Funny that's a major victory for the CSA as the results look much more devestating to them than to the USA. Pyrrhic victory for sure.

Yeah...it's not an uncommon result in the big battles for the winner to be almost as bloodied and disorganized as the loser and not to be able to follow the victory up.

[WarHunter]

Because of this game, i've been dragging out dusty books about the civil war and just reading. All sorts of stuff that have been filed away in the brain cells have started to reactivate. But one document worth reading is the Gettysburg Address. 
 

"But in a larger sense we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract." Abraham Lincoln

/salute
Worth keeping in mind as the game is based from real events.