commiting troops to battle

[mikeCK]

I saw an opportunity to take on the Union army peicemeal. while McClellan was in Alexandria, he had detached a small contingent to Harpers ferry. I used Stuarrt and 4 cav units to attck DC and did substantial damage and pinned him down ...unfortunately, I could not scout out Harpers ferry. I then moved in my Army commander and 3 leaders (jackson, Ewell and Early)with about 10 attached infantry and 3 arty. All had initiative. To my suprise, i noticed that only 2000 men were commited against 8000 for the union. Why didnt the full 20000 troops commit? was it something to do with scouting? The Army commander was Beuragard and his Attack rating is decent enough that he should be able to commit more than 1/10 his troops..right?

[hgilmer]

    I'm looking forward to someone answering this because it has been happening to me on the Union side.

[JAMiAM]

How many movement points did you have left after the movement? The number of MP's remaining is an indicator of how early you get to the battle and is a factor.

[mikeCK]

Cannot remember exactly. I only moved them one territory over though and all the leaders had initiative.  If I have a leader witgh movement points showing 0/4 with four units attached, does that mean that even with initiative, he can't move?  Regardless, teh others had around 5-9 movenments points.

[GShock]

0/4 seems command points not Movement points. MP are in white. Remember that attaching units coming from other territories to a leader does slow the entire stack down. Again as Jam said, the number of MP you arrive with, in the destination region, is a factor to be considered.

[dakjck]

I would like to see a full answer to what causes troops to commit and when as well.

[tedhealy]

Section 10.1.1.2

Prior  to  ground  combat  being  resolved  in  a  land  region,  leaders
attempt  to commit  their  troops  to battle. Unit Commanders will always attempt  to commit  their
attached units. Army Commanders  in  the same  region and  linked Theater Commanders may be
able  to assist  in  the commitment process.  In order  for an Army Commander  to assist a  friendly
unit, the unit must have been attached to a Unit Commander that gained initiative due to the Army
Commander having initiative (started the turn in the same area). The exception is if a defending unit
did not move during the reaction phase, in which case it may be assisted by the Army Commander
in  the  area whether  the AC  has  initiative  or  not.

The higher a leader’s command rating and the higher a leader’s attack rating (or defense rating for
defending  leaders),  the better  they will be at committing units. Each  leader may only personally
commit  a  number  of  units  up  to  their  command  rating.  Fewer  units will  tend  to  be  committed
overall in regions with forest, swamp and mountain terrain (this is especially true for non-infantry/
militia units). The higher the population and level of regional fortifcations in a region, the greater
the number of units will tend to be committed. The more movement points a unit expended before
reaching the region of battle, the less chance they will be committed. Militia and mounted units will
be slightly less likely to be committed.

Defending units in regions that have a level two fortifcation and regions with ports that have a level
one fortifcation will have a much easier time committing troops that are considered to be deployed
in  the  fort  (13.0).  In addition, normally when both sides have  less  than 20 units  in a battle area,
there is a chance for very small commitments to the battle (which allows a better commander a
chance to outmaneuver his opponent without having to fght a big battle), but in the above cases
(fortifcation  level  two or  fortifcation  level one with a port),  those smaller commitments will not
happen. 

The
greater the Command Rating of the leader, the greater the chance that the leader will infuence the
battle size. Leaders with a higher Attack Rating when attacking, or Defense Rating when defending,
will have a greater chance to infuence the battle size. This factor comes into play primarily when
large forces are involved, and can have a greater impact on the total units committed then all of the
other factors

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: tedhealy

Section 10.1.1.2

In addition, normally when both sides have  less  than 20 units  in a battle area,
there is a chance for very small commitments to the battle (which allows a better commander a
chance to outmaneuver his opponent without having to fght a big battle), but in the above cases
(fortifcation  level  two or  fortifcation  level one with a port),  those smaller commitments will not
happen. 

And this is the key part of that section. When you have small forces fighting each other anything can happen with regards to the battle size and commitments. If you want to assure a large battle, you have to have at least a medium sized army (30,000 men and 100 guns).

[PyleDriver]

Damn, I love this game. The best laid plans go astray...lol...Not many out there that do this...

[8D]
Jon

[mike1962]

The more movement points a unit expended before
reaching the region of battle, the less chance they will be committed.

Really like this part, seems to have a significant impact also. The more I play WBTS
the more I like it, very well thought out.

[mikeCK]

Thank you for the reply. I had read that part in the manual but i had not really locked on to it. I am trying to read a little, play a little and read a little...only way to go. Love the game

[hgilmer]

I think I twigged to part of the problem with commitment. That command rating is a killer for the Union. I just had a major battle that I lost to the AI (I didn't save it after, I wanted to see what happened). It was in the spring of 82 (May), and I got the holy grail of initiative. Every one of my commanders with troops in Maryland just above Manassas had initiative. So, I took as many possible (some had initiative but would not go), and I think the balance of forces were along the lines of 66 units for me and 48 units for him. Committed, not sure, because of the 2000/200 infantry/artillery thing, but the total troops committed was as the screenshot states - about 49K for me and 41K for them. I lost that battle. McDowell's Command rating is bad, I think.

[Twotribes]

Each turn represents a MONTH. Yet we have these convuluted rules that make the attacker less likely to ever even commit his troops to battle. Why bother with inititiave and then gum it all up with all this other hoey? Basicly this appears to be a mechanism to penalize the Union, since they have to attack, while rewarding the Confederacy.

I send in 30 infantry troops which is 60000 men and am lucky to get 4000 to start the fight, meanwhile the Defender gets his 40 or 50 thousand almost off the bat. As my forces try slowly to commit more they are pummeled and destroyed by that HUGE defensive force that already has been Committed.

Add in that the game allows the Confederates to somehow create MORE troops then the Union when the AI is controlling them and battles are a huge failure because the UNION can not ever get numbers on the Confederacy and when they do they can not commit those numbers.

I am beginning to lose interest in this game that has created a loss for the player in a solo game right off the bat.

[Joel Billings]

The commitment numbers in the early rounds don't really mean anything. Ultimately in the battle, every gun committed gets to shoot in the artillery phase and in the regular phase, and every other unit shoots once in the regular phase. It's the final number of units committed that matters, not who's there in the early rounds. The rounds were a way to try to add some tension into the game in terms of not knowing how many units would get committed. There is no advantage to being committed in the early rounds, just as long as the unit gets committed before the end of the battle.

Assuming you are using historical leaders, you'll find that McDowell's 2 attack rating will have a tough time beating Beauregard's 3 defense rating given anything near equal numbers. Also, his 2 tactical skill vs Beauregard's 4 will mean his units will take more casualties, and Beauregard's higher command rating means he will help out more units than McDowell, which means the first two items are magnified. 66 units to 48 is less than 1.5 to 1 and will usually be offset by the better leader ratings and defensive bonuses.

[hgilmer]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

The commitment numbers in the early rounds don't really mean anything. Ultimately in the battle, every gun committed gets to shoot in the artillery phase and in the regular phase, and every other unit shoots once in the regular phase. It's the final number of units committed that matters, not who's there in the early rounds. The rounds were a way to try to add some tension into the game in terms of not knowing how many units would get committed. There is no advantage to being committed in the early rounds, just as long as the unit gets committed before the end of the battle.

Assuming you are using historical leaders, you'll find that McDowell's 2 attack rating will have a tough time beating Beauregard's 3 defense rating given anything near equal numbers. Also, his 2 tactical skill vs Beauregard's 4 will mean his units will take more casualties, and Beauregard's higher command rating means he will help out more units than McDowell, which means the first two items are magnified. 66 units to 48 is less than 1.5 to 1 and will usually be offset by the better leader ratings and defensive bonuses.

So how do I change the momentum?

[JanSorensen]

You dont really attack in force until Grant arrives. Till then you mostly attack costal areas where opposition will be less. Once you have Grant, Sherman, Lyon and Sheridan leading your corps things will change.
 
I am playing a game as the USA against the AI on Hard. In 61 I only attacked by amph landings - bring the CSA trade down below 50. In 62 I am attacking in the west - by October Grant is in New Orleans.
 
So, its certainly possible - so just keep playing and reading the rules and you will get better. Its not a game to master in a few games so expect to keep learning for a longer while.

[WarHunter]

Here is a plan that might be useable. [:D]

“We propose a powerful movement down the Mississippi to the Ocean, with a cordon of posts at proper points (…) the object being to clear out and keep open this great line of communication in connection with the strict blockade of the seaboard, so as to envelop the insurgent States and bring them to terms with less bloodshed than by any other plan.”

(from a letter from General-in-Chief Winfield Scott to major-general George B. McClellan, dated May 3rd, 1861)

[hgilmer]

    Hey thanks for the map.

[madgamer2]

Yeah I know what you mean. In learning to play a game I generally run parts of it several times from different saved places. Run the attack in Grafton with Rosencrants and Kelly several times and you get very few loses to lots for the South and even a minor or larger victory for the North depending on the whim of the computer. (SIGH)

Madgamer