Historical results

[wurger54]

Just wondering how the group finds the game when compared to historical events. Has anybody achieved the historical taking of New Orleans? What about Nashville and Memphis in '62? How about battle results? I'm finding the battles to be much more bloodier than historical and the loss ration is tilted way over with one side losing 3 times the amount of the other. What are you seeing?

[hgilmer2]

    I have taken Nahsville and Memphis in 62.  I agree with the casualties.

[JAMiAM]

Things depend so much on the relative skill levels of you and your opponents. I've had games where I've cut the Mississippi by the end of the '62 campaign season, and where a stalemate occurs at Memphis until late 1863.

The same thing applies to casualties. Often, what might seem at first blush to be "equal" forces are actually not. If one side has a decided advantage from leaders, supply, and position, you will get horrendously lop-sided results. However, the point usually missed by those bemoaning these loss results are that those forces are definitely NOT equal.

[heroldje]

before i fully understood the combat system i got a lot of lopsided results.  the more i understood how it works, the more realistic results i tend to get.

[Lanconic]

ORIGINAL: wurger54

Just wondering how the group finds the game when compared to historical events. Has anybody achieved the historical taking of New Orleans? What about Nashville and Memphis in '62? How about battle results? I'm finding the battles to be much more bloodier than historical and the loss ration is tilted way over with one side losing 3 times the amount of the other. What are you seeing?

Nothing happened at New Orleans.
The Union simply walked in.

[Curious]

ORIGINAL: heroldje

before i fully understood the combat system i got a lot of lopsided results.  the more i understood how it works, the more realistic results i tend to get.

Now that you've completely mastered the combat system what do you do differently than you did before? Just curious.

CB

[Treefrog]

well, if anybody has completely mastered the combat system, maybe they can explain why my guys always seem to attack at -3 to -6 and my opponents always seem to be at least +3 [&o]

[heroldje]

i wouldn't say i've mastered it, but I am defnitely able to avoid situations which lead to lopsided losses.  Dont attack if your whole army is spotted and theirs isn't.  Don't assume that you'll win the battle because you have more men - the generals are much more important.  If you have a large army make sure you have a good general who will commit them.  Dont attack in unpopulated areas with rough terrain if you outnumber the enemy.  Avoid attacking across rivers. 
 
I think the biggest mistake I made in the past was assuming that because i had 50 infantry and he had 30 that I would win. 

[wurger54]

ORIGINAL: heroldje

i wouldn't say i've mastered it, but I am defnitely able to avoid situations which lead to lopsided losses.  Dont attack if your whole army is spotted and theirs isn't.  Don't assume that you'll win the battle because you have more men - the generals are much more important.  If you have a large army make sure you have a good general who will commit them.  Dont attack in unpopulated areas with rough terrain if you outnumber the enemy.  Avoid attacking across rivers. 

I think the biggest mistake I made in the past was assuming that because i had 50 infantry and he had 30 that I would win. 

I just conceded my first PBEM game in late '63 when the AoP with Meade as AC and Grant as TC were whipped with 6-1 losses, 20k to about 3k. It was the end of a bad run of battles that saw a typical loss ratio of 4-1 losses or worse (for me). In the west the Rebs went over to the offensive and gradually pushed north to the Ohio. [&:] While I don't mind getting whipped, repeated ridiculously unhistorical losses are the fastest way to get a game put on the shelf. Here is a good web site for a quick reference to historical losses: [:Dhttp://americancivilwar.com/cwstats.html [:D] The only really lopsided results except for Cold Harbor were where one side surrendered. Even Fredricksburg is only in the 2.5-1 range.

I base the validity of a system on how it plays in relation to history. So far I'm not too impressed with this one. However, being only our first PBEM of this system, we're giving it another try. The trouble is I'm seeing much the same in the solitaire games I have going. [X(]

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: wurger54


I base the validity of a system on how it plays in relation to history. So far I'm not too impressed with this one. However, being only our first PBEM of this system, we're giving it another try. The trouble is I'm seeing much the same in the solitaire games I have going. [X(]

This rather indicates a lack of understanding in the nuances of the combat system, rather than a fault of the system itself. When it comes to combat, you need to focus on DRM's rather than how many forces are in a stack. Sure, sheer numbers can help in deciding who will retreat out of a battle, but the DRM's will decide who gets bloodied and who does not.

Try this thought experiment. Take a pair of White Dice, and a pair of Red Dice. Roll the four dice a number of times, summing the faces of each color. Add three to the total of the Red dice, and leave the sum of the White dice unmodified. See which color has the highest modified total. Play this game until the Reds have lost 10 times, or the Whites have lost 20 times. When either side reaches these limits, then stop and record the "Winner" of the "Battle". Record how many times the Reds win a battle, and how many times the Whites win.

When you understand why twice as many whites get defeated by an inferior number of reds, then get back to me.

In the meantime...wax on...wax off...[:D]

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: wurger54
I just conceded my first PBEM game in late '63 when the AoP with Meade as AC and Grant as TC were whipped with 6-1 losses, 20k to about 3k. It was the end of a bad run of battles that saw a typical loss ratio of 4-1 losses or worse (for me).

No offense intended, but this can really only happen if you are making some mistakes. You don't get 4-1 or 6-1 losses without some fairly serious modifiers stacking up on one side or the other. That's the kind of thing you'd normally see in the game if out of supply, attacking Level 2 fortifications, or Level 1 fortifications + entrenchments across a river, or without any scouting at all and fortifications, or with terrible generals against outstanding ones, etc.

Note that Meade does have a -1 Army Mod, so he's effectively a 2-2 when commanding an Army until he gets 3 Major Victories and gets rid of the Army Mod. If you're facing off against Lee, he's the equivalent of McClellan, but with an upside. Grant should really be your AC rather than your TC for best results. Sheridan or Hancock also make for better ACs than Meade, even with the Army Mod.

If you were trying for sake of simulation to go with the historical commanders as much as possible, you're really looking at something in game terms more like Grant as AC, Meade as his most senior Corps Commander with very high command or as a second AC that can operate independently and Halleck as TC.

Regards,

- Erik

[JAMiAM]

Another screenshot montage in the vein of "a picture is worth a thousand words".

[John Neal]

ORIGINAL: wurger54
... The trouble is I'm seeing much the same in the solitaire games I have going. [X(]

It's not a simple game to master. I'm getting better. Solitaire I got a decisive against the computer in Oct '64 at normal level with semi-random leaders (and FOW of course).

My current game is at challenger level with the historical leaders and corps commanders. I've got the computer's number now, so am trapping his units with regularity. The garrison requirements at challenger level is a real drag, though.

[wurger54]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

In the meantime...wax on...wax off...[:D]

Ah so! [:D]