PBEM AAR - Discussion

[elmo3]

Ok, thanks. Logistics is certainly important (critical?) in any good operational game so I have no problem spending time on the numbers. Just wanted to hear that there is a good balance between that and the planning on the map. Who made the quote to the effect that "amateurs study tactics and professionals study logistics"?

Edit - No way I'm reducing the complexity. Bring it on! [:D]

Edit - Answering my own question from Google:

"Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics."

--Gen. Robert H. Barrow, USMC (Commandant of the Marine Corps) noted in 1980

[regularbird]

Disease seems to be a little inflated.  Can you explain the formula for determinig disease and its effects and what historical factors influenced the formula designs?  COG did not have this and I think they would have even more disease problems considering the army sizes during that time.  Can you turn disease off?

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: regularbird

Disease seems to be a little inflated.  Can you explain the formula for determinig disease and its effects and what historical factors influenced the formula designs?  COG did not have this and I think they would have even more disease problems considering the army sizes during that time.  Can you turn disease off?

Here is a quote from one Civil War website on the subject:

"While the average soldier believed the bullet was his most nefarious foe, disease was the biggest killer of the war. Of the Federal dead, roughly three out of five died of disease, and of the Confederate, perhaps two out of three. One of the reasons for the high rates of disease was the slipshod recruiting process that allowed under- or over-age men and those in noticeably poor health to join the armies on both sides, especially in the first year of the war. In fact, by late 1862, some 200,000 recruits originally accepted for service were judged physically unfit and discharged, either because they had fallen ill or because a routine examination revealed their frail condition."

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: regularbird

Disease seems to be a little inflated. Can you explain the formula for determinig disease and its effects and what historical factors influenced the formula designs? COG did not have this and I think they would have even more disease problems considering the army sizes during that time. Can you turn disease off?

Yes, this can definitely be turned off.

[regularbird]

ORIGINAL: elmo3

ORIGINAL: regularbird

Disease seems to be a little inflated.  Can you explain the formula for determinig disease and its effects and what historical factors influenced the formula designs?  COG did not have this and I think they would have even more disease problems considering the army sizes during that time.  Can you turn disease off?

Here is a quote from one Civil War website on the subject:

"While the average soldier believed the bullet was his most nefarious foe, disease was the biggest killer of the war. Of the Federal dead, roughly three out of five died of disease, and of the Confederate, perhaps two out of three. One of the reasons for the high rates of disease was the slipshod recruiting process that allowed under- or over-age men and those in noticeably poor health to join the armies on both sides, especially in the first year of the war. In fact, by late 1862, some 200,000 recruits originally accepted for service were judged physically unfit and discharged, either because they had fallen ill or because a routine examination revealed their frail condition."

Thanks elmo, I know that disease was a factor I just do not remember to many instanced where an army was smoked for 20,000 men in a 2 week period. not to mention 2 seperate armies in a 4 week period.

[Gil R.]

Someone, somewhere, recently expressed surprise at the large size of the armies. I thought I'd post the overview screen from the very beginning of the July 1861 scenario. Note that unlike the November scenario, by which time both sides had formed large armies -- as reflected in the game with the multiple army containers -- back then the units are scattered in several corps and divisions. Since it will take the player several turns to build the extra Barracks necessary for producing army containers and then those will take additional time to produce, the July scenario involves smaller forces fighting. It's therefore a very different game, at least for the first year of the war.

[elmo3]

Is that Jeb Stuart way up there in Canada? Lee is gonna be pissed if it is. [:)]

[Gil R.]

To be honest, I'm not sure what that is. I vaguely recall one of the playtesters seeing this before. (Since I've already shut down the game I can't easily check on it. I'll try to remember to do so later.) It might have something to do with British forces being present in Canada, poised to strike if the USA ticks them off...

[kfmiller41]

Is the Game AI any good? I am sure I will play PBEM but would sure be glad if the computer can fight a decent fight?

[jchastain]

ORIGINAL: elmo3

Is that Jeb Stuart way up there in Canada? Lee is gonna be pissed if it is. [:)]

Actually, that is the canadian army. Since they have the potential to join the CSA (through British diplomacy) they are shown in red even prior to being active.

[jchastain]

ORIGINAL: miller41

Is the Game AI any good? I am sure I will play PBEM but would sure be glad if the computer can fight a decent fight?

There was quite a bit of discussion on this earlier. The AI is decent, but it can't beat an experienced human player on an even playing field. The game has incremental difficulty levels that slowly stack the deck against you (through scaling with progressively worse multipliers rather than outright cheating) so that the upper levels become quite nasty.

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: jchastain

ORIGINAL: elmo3

Is that Jeb Stuart way up there in Canada? Lee is gonna be pissed if it is. [:)]

Actually, that is the canadian army. Since they have the potential to join the CSA (through British diplomacy) they are shown in red even prior to being active.

Okay, so that's what I vaguely remembered.

[nmleague]

Quick question for anyone.  Are generals for each side available in the game, when they were historically available?  From reading the PBEM AARs it seems that some arent in the game at a period that they were in really life, example, US Grant lead the forces that captured Fort Donelson in February 1862, but he is not yet in the PBEM game by September 1862.

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: nmleague

Quick question for anyone. Are generals for each side available in the game, when they were historically available? From reading the PBEM AARs it seems that some arent in the game at a period that they were in really life, example, US Grant lead the forces that captured Fort Donelson in February 1862, but he is not yet in the PBEM game by September 1862.

They do appear roughly at the time they first became generals, but in a database of 1000 generals I'd say it's a lock that there are a few mistakes. Once the game comes out we'll have a thread for reporting changes that need to be made to the generals' file, and will fix them by patch. (Plus, we'll tell people how to modify that file themselves in advance of the patch.)

[nmleague]

Should have mentioned that Grant was a Brigadier General at that time.

[Gil R.]

I figured.

It occurs to me that Grant is a big enough deal that we should make sure this is right before the game is released. I'm on the case...

[chris0827]

There was only one rank higher than brigadier general in the union army at that time. Grant was in command of a corps size unit at Forts Henry and Donelson and soon after in command of an army.

[nmleague]

Here is a site on the web that has the information on Fort Donelson   http://www.nps.gov/fodo
 
When I was looking for information on forts Henry and Donelson I found this site that lists links to all civil war battlefields by state http://www.nps.gov/fodo

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: regularbird


...

Thanks elmo, I know that disease was a factor I just do not remember to many instanced where an army was smoked for 20,000 men in a 2 week period. not to mention 2 seperate armies in a 4 week period.

That may be true but I think it is necessary to look at the bigger picture. If the numbers come out about right for a year, or for the whole war then any two week period or even a month on the high side is acceptable, to me anyway. Also I would speculate the designers might be using the disease mechanic as one way to discourage massing unhistorically large armies. It does make sense that the more troops you have in one container, the greater will be the deaths from disease if it hits that container. Those levels of single turn losses could be there as an incentive for you to build hospitals which become one more thing competing for scarce resources, thus forcing you to make tough choices. If losses from disease were more uniform each turn then that incentive could be lessened. Again, just speculation on my part.

[regularbird]

ORIGINAL: elmo3

ORIGINAL: regularbird


...

Thanks elmo, I know that disease was a factor I just do not remember to many instanced where an army was smoked for 20,000 men in a 2 week period. not to mention 2 seperate armies in a 4 week period.

That may be true but I think it is necessary to look at the bigger picture. If the numbers come out about right for a year, or for the whole war then any two week period or even a month on the high side is acceptable, to me anyway. Also I would speculate the designers might be using the disease mechanic as one way to discourage massing unhistorically large armies. It does make sense that the more troops you have in one container, the greater will be the deaths from disease if it hits that container. Those levels of single turn losses could be there as an incentive for you to build hospitals which become one more thing competing for scarce resources, thus forcing you to make tough choices. If losses from disease were more uniform each turn then that incentive could be lessened. Again, just speculation on my part.

OK, I can buy that one.