Matrix Games Forums

I have only been following the game for about the last month so dont know the rational for much of the game. The game is enjoyable, and I understand the need to try to balance the game out somewhat, via european support, research and economies, but Im having trouble with the hugh battle casualties inbalance. I think the ACW was one of the first wars of attrition, the CSA might have had better troops and leaders, but the USA even while losing battles was able to extract a deadly toll. Again not sure of the rational for the casualties in the game I decided to just do a quick check of some of the battles that came to my mind, to see in the casualties were in fact so much greater for the USA. I found that in the battles checked that indeed even though the CSA may have won the battle the cost in lives was almost as great for them. This may be less so in the East but in the West the CSA doesnt seem to have inflicted any more casualties than they suffered. I know this has been approached in other threads but I think the examples below support the arguement that even with superior leaders and troops the CSA still suffered large casualties and ultimately lost the war of attrition. I think the Spotsylvannia Courthouse battle is a good example of what probably occurred many times. The USA had 100,000 troops vs 52,000 troops for the CSA, the CSA won the battle, but they still lost 12,000 to the USA 18,000. Here are the figures, since not all battles broke down the killed and wounded Im just giving the total casualties.

Antietam USA 12,400 CSA 10,320

Stones River USA 13,249 CSA 10,266

Fort Donelson USA 2,331 CSA 15,067

Franklin USA 2,326 CSA 6,261

Chickamunga USA 16,170 CSA 18,454

Shiloh USA 13,047 CSA 10,699

Manasas I USA 2,950 CSA 1,750

Manasas II USA 13,830 CSA 8,350

Fredericksburg USA 13,353 CSA 4,576

Spotsylvannia Couthouse USA 18,000 CSA 12,000

CHattanooga USA 5,815 CSA 6,670

Gettysburg USA 23,000 CSA 28,000

The USA might have enter most battles with superior numbers, but there inexperienced poorer quality, poorly lead troops would not hold or carry attacks, thus lost the battles, but they still extracted a terrible cost for the CSA none the less.

Are you playing vs the AI? If so what level?

In order to make the game competitive against the AI lots of goodies are given to the AI (more at higher levels I think) making their troops very powerful. I have won battles where I had as many casualties as the AI had troops. I have also lost battles where the AI lost a few hundred and I lost a few thousand.

I play the quick battles and when I check the AI's troops they almost all are of better quality than my troops because they receive 30 weapons and/or 50 money or 80 research a turn from overseas (in addition to their normal production) while I am receiving 12 weapons, 40 money 29 horses etc a turn without any outside help.

In human (north) play vs the computer (south), I have seen very lopesided casualties in quick battles.  In on example one part of the AOP meet a CSA force of about 1/3 its size in a sector the USA controlled, both sides had generals.  The CSA won, no problem,  the USA suffered about 12,000 casualties, the CSA about 1,000, next turn a different AOP group meet the same CSA forces in the same sector, US controlled, both sides with generals, US with about a 3-1 advantage.  Again the US lost, again about 12,000 troops, the CSA about 700 hundered.  Next turn the two AOP groups together meet the same CSA group in the same US sector, probably with over a 2-1 advantage, US lost, about 11,000 casualties, CSA about 1000 casualties.   Oh almost alL the US troops had upgraded weapons.

The USA troops losing each time, given the poorer troops and gernerals, even while on the defensive can be understood, but the casualties figures are terrrible, the CSA can win but there has to be attrition.  They might win the first battle, maybe the second, but by the 3rd that army should have been down to almost nothing and should have been defeated.

I posted this on another thread, I have watched the quick battles results of each brigade attacks/volleys along the bottom and I would say that 90% or more of the time the CSA brigades recieve zero casualties from an attack/volley, while the USA troops are recieving up to over 350 per attack/volley.   I understand the the poorer quality troops may panic and run, but even poor troops firing in mass into a mass of troops will inflict casualtites, which I think is supported by the figures in the post above.

Another thought, this casuality inbalance also has a hugh impact on the whole disscussion about camps and how easy or hard it is to build camps.  If one side facing much greater losses than the other their need for replacements is much greater.

One of the reasons for the reported imbalance with quick combat is that "pursuit" casualties are included in the reported casualties -- these are casualties lost to attrition as the losing side flees from battle.

Since it seems that the pursuit numbers are causing a lot of confusion, and also since it seems that many people do not like the large pursuit loss, our plans in an upcoming patch are to greatly reduce pursuit casualties (and to move the base percentage to a moddable file, so that people who like the larger pursuit casualties can mod the number back up).

Was the loss of troops to pursuit that large in the ACW? I realize in the Napoleonic wars armies had large cavalries that pursued defeated armies and inflicted large casualties.  Is there any record of large cavalry pursuits during the ACW, or for that matter, how many times, once a battle was decided did the winning side immediately press there advantage and pursue the defeated army.
 
Either way my concern is the lack of casualties on one side vs the other. As the figures above illistrate casualties for many ACW battles were fairly equal, maybe they dont show additional casualties taken by the loser after the battle, but even if they dont they sure show that even the winning sides took many losses.
 
Thanks for taking the action that your taking and hopefully that will help.  But if even after the persuit loses are removed, if the losing side has losses of say 4 times or more than those of the winning side, there is still a problem.

What about march attrition after battle? I'm fine with the casualties as in my mind it represents not just pursuit casualties, but stragglers, desertion and other things that would entail after an army had to flee a battlefield. I don't think many history books quote the casualty figures for that after the battle so who knows how potent it was?

Even when no pursuit casualties are listed there are tons of lopsided battle casualties.

When the AI has troops rated as 6 or 8 for quick combat and you have units rated 2 or 1 or 0 for quick combat you have to expect a slaughter.

Having said that, I agree that even in a slaughter the losers should inflict a few more casualties on the winner.

ORIGINAL: nmleague

Was the loss of troops to pursuit that large in the ACW? I realize in the Napoleonic wars armies had large cavalries that pursued defeated armies and inflicted large casualties. Is there any record of large cavalry pursuits during the ACW, or for that matter, how many times, once a battle was decided did the winning side immediately press there advantage and pursue the defeated army.

Either way my concern is the lack of casualties on one side vs the other. As the figures above illistrate casualties for many ACW battles were fairly equal, maybe they dont show additional casualties taken by the loser after the battle, but even if they dont they sure show that even the winning sides took many losses.

Thanks for taking the action that your taking and hopefully that will help. But if even after the persuit loses are removed, if the losing side has losses of say 4 times or more than those of the winning side, there is still a problem.

There was virtually no cavalry charges during ACW becouse muskets and rifles of the era were much more accurate with longer effective range than Napoleonic era. Cavalry charges at ACW towards enemy was same as suicide. I think there was only one cavalry charge in whole civil war.

This is the reason why in ACW cavalry used horses only for greater mobility but in combat they always dismounted and fight as infantry.

Actually, I believe Custer did 5 charges at Gettysburg to hold off the South's calvery.

ORIGINAL: Jakerson

ORIGINAL: nmleague

Was the loss of troops to pursuit that large in the ACW? I realize in the Napoleonic wars armies had large cavalries that pursued defeated armies and inflicted large casualties. Is there any record of large cavalry pursuits during the ACW, or for that matter, how many times, once a battle was decided did the winning side immediately press there advantage and pursue the defeated army.

Either way my concern is the lack of casualties on one side vs the other. As the figures above illistrate casualties for many ACW battles were fairly equal, maybe they dont show additional casualties taken by the loser after the battle, but even if they dont they sure show that even the winning sides took many losses.

Thanks for taking the action that your taking and hopefully that will help. But if even after the persuit loses are removed, if the losing side has losses of say 4 times or more than those of the winning side, there is still a problem.

There was virtually no cavalry charges during ACW becouse muskets and rifles of the era were much more accurate with longer effective range than Napoleonic era. Cavalry charges at ACW towards enemy was same as suicide. I think there was only one cavalry charge in whole civil war.

This is the reason why in ACW cavalry used horses only for greater mobility but in combat they always dismounted and fight as infantry.

There were plenty of cavalry charges in the Civil War but they weren't mass charges like Ney at Waterloo. Most were small scale, a couple hundred men. The largest was probably 2 or 3 regiments.

Don't forget the Battle of Brandy Station June 9,1863
approx 24 US Cav Regt's v 20 CSA Cav Regt's
A.Pleasonton v J.E.B.Stuart

ORIGINAL: Iron Duke


Don't forget the Battle of Brandy Station June 9,1863
approx 24 US Cav Regt's v 20 CSA Cav Regt's
A.Pleasonton v J.E.B.Stuart

They didn't line up at opposite ends of a field and charge at each other. They mostly fought dismounted.

Casualties are frustrating and unrealistic, especially the pursuit casualties. In a couple of battles and campaigns there were instances of this but overall.

Cavalry was employed mounted and made many a classic cavalry charge in the ACW: 1) Rush's 6th PA Cav. lancers at Kernstown or chanceslorville I do believe. 2) Mounted charges were indeed made at Brandy Station. 3) Mounted charges were made at Gettysburg. 3) A splendid and large mounted charge was made by about 4 or so Texas units at Pea Ridge (Leestown, the 1st day). 4) During the 1864 Valley Campaign many mounted charges including against infantry were made, mainly by Union Cav. 5) During the Appomattox Campaign. 6) During Price's 1864 Missouri Campaign many mounted charges were made by both sides, and it was after the Battle of Westport or Big Blue River that the Confeds suffered large puruit casualties all the way back to Indian Territory and Arkansas, as for all practical purposes almost their entire army disintegrated.

Cavalry was used in a shock role, sometimes successfully and sometimes not, usually not but many times during the later war it was.

I get a lot of battles, big, medium, and small where one side suffers none or virtually not any casualties from Quick Battle and that is rather frustrating and not at all accurate.

Chris

Also, in the Trans Miss. Theater, many mounted charges were made throughout the war, not just during the late period. These were full-blown charges in many instances.

Chris

ORIGINAL: christof139

I get a lot of battles, big, medium, and small where one side suffers none or virtually not any casualties from Quick Battle and that is rather frustrating and not at all accurate.

I agree. This is one area where the game seriously departs from reality. Not just from the historical results from the ACW, but from common sense reality. Hopefully, it will be tweaked in a patch.

Chris, I have never seen big or medium battles not return any casualties. I have seen 0 casualties pop up at the very end of the QC. Those are casualties lost from pursuit alone. It happens 50% of the time. Once in awhile I will see 0 casualties in a very small battle involving an independent BDE from time to time. I just chalked it up to the BDE eluding combat by vanishing in the forests.
8^)

I'm just getting started with the game, and there is still much I don't understand about it, but I had a series of quick battles in 1861 as the CSA vs a Union AI where I had 30,000 Rebs vs 10,000 Yanks up in Maryland. In the first two battles - where I allowed the computer to Autodeploy the troops - there were zero casualties on both sides. In the third battle I'd had enough of that, so I put all of my cavalry and best units in the charge zone to see what effect that would have. I still had zero casualties in the battle but about 3500 Yanks were lost in the pursuit phase.

Since I have only scratched the surface of this magnificently deep game, I suppose there could be any number of reasons why this may have happened that I didn't notice, but I doubt it's leadership (which I would normally expect in a case like this). I had most of my best generals (including Lee) in the Rebel stack.

Can weather effects cause the battle to not occur at all?

Hi you all,

Yes, I get the no casualty battles in Quick battle mode only. Also, I think in Instant Battle.

Thanx for the explanations and all.

Happy New Year!!! Chris

Another great instance of mounted cavalry being used en masse against enemy cavalry and infantry would be the CSA Cav. at Murfreesboro or Stone's river. They cahrged everyone mounted on the Confed left, captured one entire battery, at least 1,000 POW's, many supply wagons, and scattered Zahm's small Union Cavalry Bde.
 
Why I previously forgot to mention Murfreesboro I don't know, as I am modding the TalonSoft game of it and reading about it in great detail, again.
 
Chris