Victory tyep

[satisfaction]

Just a question on the rationale for Strategic, Major and Minor victories. I think there is something a little off in there somewhere. For example I just launced a double attack to take Nashville. In one attack, the big one, on Nashville Grant beat Price (their army commander and mine). Army was roughly 40,000 for me (about 30,000 committed) and 30,000 for CSA (about 20,000 committed). Grant won easily and lost only about 3,000 and perhaps 20 guns...Price lost about 6,000 and no guns. This was a minor victory for Grant. In the diversionary attack on Dickson my 6,000 vs CSA 6,000. I lost about 2,000 and so did CSA. I may have lost 10-20 guns. This was a MAJOR Strategic win for CSA....in a skirmish! This is the second time my diversion has been an equal battle loss and force wise, but was at least a major CSA victory. I think there might need to be some sort of adjustment for Major (for sure for STRATEGIC) battles in regards to number of men present. I've lost 2 Major's and 1 Strategic and both were diversionary skirmishes....there have been no other battles beyond minor in the rest of the war. (June 62).

[Joel Billings]

Strategic Victories are the only kind that impact political points. The reason we distinguish Major and Minor Victories is to deal with how the AC's involved will improve. I think the manual discusses what constitutes Major or a Minor victory for the commander. I think it basically comes down to the higher CP you are, the bigger the battle has to be to get credit for a Major Victory. This Major vs Minor only impacts the AC (and maybe TC) as far as I remember.

[satisfaction]

((oops nice type by me on title of thread)) Anyway, figured as much for major and minor...but what makes a strategic? It's killing me to get those against me when they are on the much smaller feint attacks to pin down potential concentrations and/or choke points. Plus I have suffered equal losses in these smaller battles to close to equal numbers involved.

[JanSorensen]

Its a strategic victory if the side with the least units had more units than 20+die(10). So, on average its a Strategic victory if both sides had atleast 26 units in the battle - and its always a Strategic Victory if both sides had atleast 31 units present.
 
Its a major victory _for that leader_ if both sides had more units than his command rating.
Its a minor victory _for that leader_ otherwise.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen

Its a strategic victory if the side with the least units had more units than 20+die(10). So, on average its a Strategic victory if both sides had atleast 26 units in the battle - and its always a Strategic Victory if both sides had atleast 31 units present.

Its a major victory _for that leader_ if both sides had more units than his command rating.
Its a minor victory _for that leader_ otherwise.

Since I don't yet have this game--it's ordered but there are problems getting it--what is the average size of a unit?

[JanSorensen]

Short answer - 2000 men.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen

Short answer - 2000 men.

Sounds like a bug--three units on each side can't be a strategic victory. Obviously something to be fixed in the next release.

[satisfaction]

I'm not totally sure there is a bug, but I think the algorithm should be looked at closely again. I wish I had the detailed report to show, but when I tried to get it all I could find was a small naval action report (which was the last battle in the turn). I know this is probably me not knowing how to cycle back through the battles. Maybe I'm completely misremembering this, but I was pretty shocked and was paying attention. Maybe the size for strategic should be upped a little bit? I'm thinking it represents Antietam, Gettysburg, Chancellorsville, Vicksburg, 7 Days type battles. This was more of a Ft. Donelson or smaller battle.

[willgamer]

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen

Its a strategic victory if the side with the least units had more units than 20+die(10). So, on average its a Strategic victory if both sides had atleast 26 units in the battle - and its always a Strategic Victory if both sides had atleast 31 units present.

Its a major victory _for that leader_ if both sides had more units than his command rating.
Its a minor victory _for that leader_ otherwise.

This is close to the manual (p.156-146), but not quite:

Strategic Victories: A Strategic Victory is awarded to a victorious attacking player if the defending side has over 20 + die (10) units in the land region in which the battle (not committed units but all units in the region) takes place. A Strategic Victory is awarded to a victorious defending player if the attacking side has over 20 + die (10) units in the land region in which the battle takes place. The winner of a Strategic Victory is awarded 20 political points. The losing side of a Strategic Victory loses 10 political points.

Which version is correct? [&:]

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: willgamer

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen

Its a strategic victory if the side with the least units had more units than 20+die(10). So, on average its a Strategic victory if both sides had atleast 26 units in the battle - and its always a Strategic Victory if both sides had atleast 31 units present.

Its a major victory _for that leader_ if both sides had more units than his command rating.
Its a minor victory _for that leader_ otherwise.

This is close to the manual (p.156-146), but not quite:

Strategic Victories: A Strategic Victory is awarded to a victorious attacking player if the defending side has over 20 + die (10) units in the land region in which the battle (not committed units but all units in the region) takes place. A Strategic Victory is awarded to a victorious defending player if the attacking side has over 20 + die (10) units in the land region in which the battle takes place. The winner of a Strategic Victory is awarded 20 political points. The losing side of a Strategic Victory loses 10 political points.

Which version is correct? [&:]

In other words, diversionary attacks in regions with lots of units are automatically strategic victories for one or the other side. I don't have the game yet, but it sounds like a brain fart.

[willgamer]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: willgamer

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen

Its a strategic victory if the side with the least units had more units than 20+die(10). So, on average its a Strategic victory if both sides had atleast 26 units in the battle - and its always a Strategic Victory if both sides had atleast 31 units present.

Its a major victory _for that leader_ if both sides had more units than his command rating.
Its a minor victory _for that leader_ otherwise.

This is close to the manual (p.156-146), but not quite:

Strategic Victories: A Strategic Victory is awarded to a victorious attacking player if the defending side has over 20 + die (10) units in the land region in which the battle (not committed units but all units in the region) takes place. A Strategic Victory is awarded to a victorious defending player if the attacking side has over 20 + die (10) units in the land region in which the battle takes place. The winner of a Strategic Victory is awarded 20 political points. The losing side of a Strategic Victory loses 10 political points.

Which version is correct? [&:]

In other words, diversionary attacks in regions with lots of units are automatically strategic victories for one or the other side. I don't have the game yet, but it sounds like a brain fart.

I don't understand what you mean. If the manual is the correct case, automatic would require a minimum of 31 units on the losing side. That's a lot of units that are out of direct control of the winning side; hardly a diverionary attack! [X(]

[JanSorensen]

The manual is correct - not that the difference is large. The version is wrote about would have made it slightly harder but not by much to get a strategic victory. The important issue here is that you only gain a strategic victory if you beat a large enough force. If anyone has a game where they are seeing a strategic victory after a battle where the loser only had a smaller force then by all means do sent that save game to Joel.

[willgamer]

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen
If anyone has a game where they are seeing a strategic victory after a battle where the loser only had a smaller force then by all means do sent that save game to Joel.

I don't believe we have enought information in the "e" reports to audit this.

Consider this a request for additional detail (e.g. total number of troops/side, number of troops committed) in the "e" battle reports. [&o]

[WarHunter]

I have managed to give the Union 3 Major victories attacking Fort Monore. If i ever take the place, I might get a "minor" victory? This is based on my scouting and known reports of union size. I'll keep my eye on the (E) report.
 
 

[ph4n]

ORIGINAL: willgamer

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen
If anyone has a game where they are seeing a strategic victory after a battle where the loser only had a smaller force then by all means do sent that save game to Joel.

I don't believe we have enought information in the "e" reports to audit this.

Consider this a request for additional detail (e.g. total number of troops/side, number of troops committed) in the "e" battle reports. [&o]

go to the strategic map and click the "show battles" button - voilà.