What's with Combat?

[Texican]

I know that random luck plays a role, but when I have Lee with 78000 men in a fortified position with 20 artillery pieces, and I get attacked by McClellan with 100,000 men and far less artillery (at this time), I should not have 15 of my units get hit in a row before inflicting any casualties on the other side.

Not realistic.

[Treefrog]

Ah, but the devil is in the details.

What were his combat modifiers and what were your combat modifiers.

[Erik Rutins]

Texican,

Unfortunately, while luck does play a role, far more often "unusual" results are explained by lack of scouting, leadership issues, supply issues, etc. Impossible to tell what happened in your case without you looking at the combat details and seeing what the modifiers were.

Regards,

- Erik

[paullus99]

Absolutely - sounds like you pulled a "Cold Harbor" and sent your troops against a prepared position without preparations or scouting first. You always need to stack as many modifiers in your favor, once you've done that - the combat results become much more positive.

[Erik Rutins]

Well, he was the one being attacked, so it wouldn't have been a Cold Harbor but clearly something had to have gone wrong in terms of the battle preparations to have that kind of disparity. I guess I should ask to be sure: did the casualties even out over the battle and were they only badly lopsided in the initial exchange? If they evened out over the course of the battle, then I wouldn't worry about it.

[GShock]

Anything might be ...perhaps worthy of checking the gamesave he's talking about. 90% player mistake...this game is much much harder than it seems.
Example? A nice -2 Army Mod unspotted (even nicer if hidden and random or semirandomized). Example? Most of defending forces unable to respond in time due to another small number, the specialty attribute of the main leaders not coping in presence of arty in the stack...penalty for movement you pay in reaction phase (which means most of the first engagements happen with much reduced forces on his side and better odds on the other)...countless factors.
Finally, lady luck. [:'(]

[JudgeDredd]

ORIGINAL: GShock
...this game is much much harder than it seems. ...

Absolutely.

I posted something similar. Came down to my lack of understanding of the combat mechanics, leadership, committment, modifiers...they all play a hand.

[paullus99]

Okay, so it was a Chickamauga & not Cold Harbor - getting surprised is always a bad thing.

[Texican]

ORIGINAL: paullus99

Absolutely - sounds like you pulled a "Cold Harbor" and sent your troops against a prepared position without preparations or scouting first. You always need to stack as many modifiers in your favor, once you've done that - the combat results become much more positive.

I was on the defense.

[Texican]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Well, he was the one being attacked, so it wouldn't have been a Cold Harbor but clearly something had to have gone wrong in terms of the battle preparations to have that kind of disparity. I guess I should ask to be sure: did the casualties even out over the battle and were they only badly lopsided in the initial exchange? If they evened out over the course of the battle, then I wouldn't worry about it.

Ah, I closed down the game before it resolved. After 15 hits in a row, I didn't want to see the outcome. Will let it play out next time.

[Treefrog]

Well, 15 hits in a row is always disappointing. However, consider the "law of large numbers" (described inter alia in books on playing blackjack [8D]).

[heroldje]

i honestly doubt that you recieved 15 hits in a row.  i have played at least 10 full campaigns and never gotten anything close to that mark, and that includes attacking unsupplied armies who have HUGE modifiers against them.

my suggestion would be to take a little more time to understand that game, if you got anything near that result you were making very, very serious errors of judgement that a better understanding of the rules would fix.

simply not scouting would not give that lopsided of results.

[emcgman]

I have a related question.

If you are defending from a fort, for example, with no intention of launching an attack, do you still need to scout the immediated regions for enemy troops? Will defensive scouting give you better battle odds in case your position is attacked?

Would that have anything to do with the posters results?

I've only had the game for 2 weeks, so I am just learning as well.

[Erik Rutins]

Yes - if you have thoroughly scouted the adjacent region you are being attacked _from_ (even if the attacker moved from multiple regions away) then the attacker will be scouted on the way in as they pass through that region, which will significantly help your battle results.

[GShock]

It is a good idea to scout as often and as much as possible. You can be sure the region is 100% scouted if you can see all troops (when there is no ghost icon) at that point, better scout neighboring regions to prevent unscouted reinforcements to come in the reaction phase. This forces the enemy to bring scouted troops in the back areas iif he wants to restore their bonus. In case there's only one pathway (i.e. the only enemy region is ahead) you could still scout and then attempt a raid with the remaining MPs but you can't do the opposite. 

[Texican]

ORIGINAL: heroldje

i honestly doubt that you recieved 15 hits in a row.  i have played at least 10 full campaigns and never gotten anything close to that mark, and that includes attacking unsupplied armies who have HUGE modifiers against them.

my suggestion would be to take a little more time to understand that game, if you got anything near that result you were making very, very serious errors of judgement that a better understanding of the rules would fix.

simply not scouting would not give that lopsided of results.

I didn't scout, and maybe that's the problem. But the 15 hit units in a row (meaning 15 of mine hit before any enemy unit getting hit, not each of 15 sequential units getting hit) is the truth.

[Doc o War]

Tex- I had that happen occassionaly in the past-hugely lopsided casualties- several times 10 to 1, 11 to 1, 15 to 1  and my guys would seem to be dug in and reinforced, and loose- when a defnder looses 15 to 1 and started dug in you think you are crazy- or the game is not working. Look back at the battle vids- pause when the battle report comes on and review the battle- look at the stats and the modifiers your units have versus the enemy- then the OMG starts happening. Look at how many Generals are in the area with Us instead of Cs behind their names- Uncommitted- Committed... Ouch- half the generals in that battle region never committed even though they were there- welcome to the civil war.. I began to undertstand the fact that some wouldnt end up committed, or guys would loose modifiers while the enemy gained them, did I cross a river to enter the region?-  when I started out and didnt do everything wisely- wasnt aware of rotating my guys so they loose the dreaded binoculars of spotting. Try to get unspotted.
 
- cav units are critical- every major formation should have them- cav leaders too- build them up- scout all the time- I started raiding all the time and lost big at first- I rarely raid now - sometimes a pop just for sport- but if I have a chance to scout  I will always scout with cav. every turn every cav- they also protect your forces from being scouted.
 
Combat is all about the modifiers.