Realistic Numbers?

[regularbird]

I must agree with Mr. Scholl on this one.  I hope Eric takes a good look at his arguments.
 
I still think you are way to hard on Mac[:-]. 
 
AU, congrats on the big Auburn win this weekend.

[AU Tiger_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: regularbird

AU, congrats on the big Auburn win this weekend.

Thank you sir! I'll tell you though, my thumb sure is tired today....

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: regularbird

I must agree with Mr. Scholl on this one.  I hope Eric takes a good look at his arguments.

I still think you are way to hard on Mac[:-].

Let me explain my intense disdane for "Little Mac". In September of 1862, he was handed the greatest single chance to end the war that any commander on either side ever had. His opponant was divided all over the landscape, but hurrying to take a stand with his back to a major river. Within call he had well over twice as many men as Lee could possibly hope to bring onto the field. Mac had Lee's plans in his pocket and Lee didn't know it. All the man had to do was bring up ALL his troops and push in one massive frontal assult and the Army of Northern Virginia was done for..., leaving nothing of note between Mac and Richmond. When you think of all the suffering, misery, and loss of life on both sides that occurred between January of 1863 and April of 1865, and could have been avoided by any moderately competant performance by McClellan, it makes me want to strangle the pompous little ass. And he was PROUD of his performance at Antietam... Argh..., I can't think of the little twit without getting sick to my stomach.

[ericbabe]

I appreciate the feedback on game numbers.  We did calibrate the magnitudes of combat results based on historical data, and tried to calibrate the morale rules based on proportions of casualties.  The calibration might always use refinement, of course, and as we received feedback from our testers and adjusted the combat rules accordingly (such as, "increase defense values for terrain, or, lower the penalty for being out of supply") these adjustments may have caused deviation of the results from our initial calibration.

I would add that we do use the term "casualty" in the military sense of the term, not in the more common meaning that this word has (viz., someone who is killed).  Citing the Random House dictionary:

1.Military. a.a member of the armed forces lost to service through death, wounds, sickness, capture, or because his or her whereabouts or condition cannot be determined. b.casualties, loss in numerical strength through any cause, as death, wounds, sickness, capture, or desertion.

Also we do, of course, consider that the national governments' buying things like "universities" to be an abstraction.  I know some games have invented acronyms and have players allocate resources to those acronyms -- for instance, instead of "buying a university" we could have had the national government allocate resources toward General Research Expenses, and then the game could refer to "spending on GRE".  This would have made the game-lingo match the more general or abstract nature of the expenditure.  However, I was worried that a slew of acronyms would make the game harder to play, and game complexity was one thing that I think hurt sales of COG: some people very much liked the abstractions in the economy that we had in COG, but based on the amount of negative feedback I got (and read on other gamer boards), I think that far more people did not like them.  Our manual is about 250 single-spaced pages long (for the Advanced Rules!; the Basic Rules are fewer than 100 of those pages) -- we tried to do as much as we could to reduce the amount of information players needed to learn in order to play the game.

[marecone]

And what about those 0 killed men in a battle? I am not a programmer butthat shouldn't be too hard to fix.

Thanks and keep up the good work

[regularbird]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: regularbird

I must agree with Mr. Scholl on this one.  I hope Eric takes a good look at his arguments.

I still think you are way to hard on Mac[:-].

Let me explain my intense disdane for "Little Mac". In September of 1862, he was handed the greatest single chance to end the war that any commander on either side ever had. His opponant was divided all over the landscape, but hurrying to take a stand with his back to a major river. Within call he had well over twice as many men as Lee could possibly hope to bring onto the field. Mac had Lee's plans in his pocket and Lee didn't know it. All the man had to do was bring up ALL his troops and push in one massive frontal assult and the Army of Northern Virginia was done for..., leaving nothing of note between Mac and Richmond. When you think of all the suffering, misery, and loss of life on both sides that occurred between January of 1863 and April of 1865, and could have been avoided by any moderately competant performance by McClellan, it makes me want to strangle the pompous little ass. And he was PROUD of his performance at Antietam... Argh..., I can't think of the little twit without getting sick to my stomach.

Mr. Scholl sir, I will agree that the ANV should have been destroyed on that day and that Mac has that wasted opportunity on his resume, and he was a pompous ass. If Richardson had not caught some lead I believe it would have been destroyed. I am just having a little fun with your passion on the subject.[:)]

[elmo3]

I found a website with the following casualty figures on the 10 bloodiest battles of the war with an opinion on who won the battle:

#1
Battle of Gettysburg
Date: July 1-3, 1863

Location: Pennsylvania
Confederate Commander: Robert E. Lee
Union Commander: George G. Meade
Confederate Forces Engaged: 75,000
Union Forces Engaged: 82,289
Winner: Union
Casualties: 51,112 (23,049 Union and 28,063 Confederate)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#2
Battle of Chickamauga
Date: September 19-20, 1863

Location: Georgia
Confederate Commander: Braxton Bragg
Union Commander: William Rosecrans
Confederate Forces Engaged: 66,326
Union Forces Engaged: 58,222
Winner: Confederacy
Casualties: 34,624 (16,170 Union and 18,454 Confederate)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#3
Battle of Chancellorsville
Date: May 1-4, 1863

Location: Virginia
Confederate Commander: Robert E. Lee
Union Commander: Joseph Hooker
Confederate Forces Engaged: 60,892
Union Forces Engaged: 133,868
Winner: Confederacy
Casualties: 30,099 (17,278 Union and 12,821 Confederate)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#4
Battle of Spotsylvania
Date: May 8-19, 1864

Location: Virginia
Confederate Commander: Robert E. Lee
Union Commander: Ulysses S. Grant
Confederate Forces Engaged: 50,000
Union Forces Engaged: 83,000
Winner: Confederacy
Casualties: 27,399 (18,399 Union and 9,000 Confederate)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#5
Battle of Antietam
Date: September 17, 1862

Location: Maryland
Confederate Commander: Robert E. Lee
Union Commander: George B. McClellan
Confederate Forces Engaged: 51,844
Union Forces Engaged: 75,316
Winner: Inconclusive (Strategic Union Victory)
Casualties: 26,134 (12,410 Union and 13,724 Confederate)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#6
Battle of The Wilderness
Date: May 5-7, 1864

Location: Virginia
Confederate Commander: Robert E. Lee
Union Commander: Ulysses S. Grant
Confederate Forces Engaged: 61,025
Union Forces Engaged: 101,895
Winner: Inconclusive
Casualties: 25,416 (17,666 Union and 7,750 Confederate)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#7
Battle of Second Manassas
Date: August 29-30, 1862

Location: Virginia
Confederate Commander: Robert E. Lee
Union Commander: John Pope
Confederate Forces Engaged: 48,527
Union Forces Engaged: 75,696
Winner: Confederacy
Casualties: 25,251 (16,054 Union and 9,197 Confederate)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#8
Battle of Stone's River
Date: December 31, 1862

Location: Tennessee
Confederate Commander: Braxton Bragg
Union Commander: William S. Rosecrans
Confederate Forces Engaged: 37,739
Union Forces Engaged: 41,400
Winner: Union
Casualties: 24,645 (12,906 Union and 11,739 Confederate)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#9
Battle of Shiloh
Date: April 6-7, 1862

Location: Tennessee
Confederate Commander: Albert Sidney Johnston/ P. G. T. Beauregard
Union Commander: Ulysses S. Grant
Confederate Forces Engaged: 40,335
Union Forces Engaged: 62,682
Winner: Union
Casualties: 23,741 (13,047 Union and 10,694 Confederate)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#10
Battle of Fort Donelson
Date: February 13-16, 1862

Location: Tennessee
Confederate Commander: John B. Floyd/Simon B. Buckner
Union Commander: Ulysses S. Grant
Confederate Forces Engaged: 21,000
Union Forces Engaged: 27,000
Winner: Union
Casualties: 19,455 (2,832 Union and 16,623 Confederate)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's interesting to note that at Chicamagua, Stone's River, and Shiloh the "winner" suffered more casualties. That puts the designers in a bit of a dilemma since it would be nearly impossible for them to award a win in game terms to the side suffering more casualties without some very clever programming to take strategic factors into account.

Then there is The Wilderness, listed as "inconclusive", even though the Union suffered more than twice the CSA losses. Again, a very difficult conclusion to draw based on the numbers alone and almost impossible to program into the game I suspect.

That leaves only 60% of the battles listed with "expected" results (I'm including Antietam here as a strategic Union win) based on losses alone. Of those, the total losses for the winner was ~ 66K to the losers ~ 93K.

Perhaps what we need to do is wait for the game to come out and suggest that people post results from their battles so we have a bigger set of numbers to work from than just part of one AAR?

These numbers do not address the OP's concerns about inflated intelligence reports, nor the issue of "0" losses in smaller battles. FWIW I do agree with the OP that intel reports of million man marches are a bit much and "0" casualties, even in small engagements, feels unrealistic but neither are game breakers for me.

[Paper Tiger]

0 just does not work, even in the case of a massively superior force attacking a small force you only have the advanced guard to start with, so unless the advanced guard turns up sees the enemy while out of range of any of their weapons, realises that they are an isolate unit and not just an outpost or advanced guard of the opposing force surrounds them and they then surrender I don't see any way in which you can get 1500 - 0. At best you get a small battle between the advance guard and the small force and just maybe you get 1500-400 if the smaller force is unable to withdraw in good order and is routed, destroyed and dispersed. Even cavalry riding down routing troops would take some losses.
In most cases the much smaller force would I think normaly attempt to withdraw before combat.

[Mike Scholl]

"#10
Battle of Fort Donelson
Date: February 13-16, 1862

Location: Tennessee
Confederate Commander: John B. Floyd/Simon B. Buckner
Union Commander: Ulysses S. Grant
Confederate Forces Engaged: 21,000
Union Forces Engaged: 27,000
Winner: Union
Casualties: 19,455 (2,832 Union and 16,623 Confederate) "


I would submit that this belongs more in the Fortress/Siege category The "battle" was more a failed attempt to break out..., followed by the garrison's surrender. Otherwise, nice post with some actual concrete as a basis for your comments.

Not sure it would take any "very clever programing" to deal with the fact that sometimes the "winner" took more casualties than the "loser". Changing the perameters in the formula that generates the casualty results shouldn't be a big deal. In straight up casualty terms, the Russians "lost" WW II by a wide margin...but somehow they wound up in Berlin anyway. In the military sense, winning and losing is NOT all about killing. It's about taking away something your enemy doesn't want you to have.

[Paper Tiger]

How I would handle the one sided battles. Shoot me down on this if you will but it has to be better than 1500-0
Smaller force less than 50% attacking larger force, will withdraw to starting location taking march attrition. If defending force has "seek battle" 50% chance (mods for initiative of commanding generals?) of a battle at 2 - 1 odds
Larger force greater than 200% attacking non fortified defenders. Fight at 2 - 1 odds then 50% (mods for initiative of leaders) chance to withdraw 25%(modified by unit disposition) chance surrender, 25% another 2 - 1 battle withdrawing. Repeat process until unit surrenders or withdraws.

[elmo3]

This site lists outcomes and casualty figures for lots of battles if you drill down far enough. There are probably some small battles in there if someone with more ambition than I wants to hunt around:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

[Hard Sarge]

I still don't follow part of this theme

the battles reported with a 0 loss, are not battles, the other side ran away and did not fight, you will in some/most cases get 0-0 losses as no fighting was done, the one sided losses are the other side not haveing a good break contact and routed

I don't see how you are comparing battles and seiges to a meeting engagemnet, where they don't engage ?

(which is one reason, I like to go for HW over Quick battle, as I can force a battle, when the other side is not ready, but, the AI will still, if it knows it is a bad deal, break off and run away before you get to him)

from my AARs (which, of course are based on HW battles) even in some of the slaughters, I do not come away untouched

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

I still don't follow part of this theme

the battles reported with a 0 loss, are not battles, the other side ran away and did not fight, you will in some/most cases get 0-0 losses as no fighting was done, the one sided losses are the other side not haveing a good break contact and routed

I don't see how you are comparing battles and seiges to a meeting engagemnet, where they don't engage ?

I agree there should be a difference between battles, sieges and withdrawals - but "0" shouldn't be an option in any of them. Even in withdrawals, the loser doesn't just "run away" like a bunch of frightened women. They withdraw with a rear-guard that inflicts casualties. I don't think any of us are suggesting that the numbers be vastly overhauled. But there should never, ever be a "0."

In looking back over the ACW battles I could think of, the closest one I could find to a bloodless victory was Jackson's capture of Harpers Ferry just before Antietam. There, as I understand it, the two sides fought a brief skirmish, with each losing ~250 men, and the Union garrison surrendered. That, of course, was a (a) a siege and (b) a highly unique situation - and when they did fight, they both lost the same number of casualties.

I'm not a programmer, but it seems to me that one solution might be to change the way the program treats a "0" result. Instead of being a "0," perhaps it could be calculated as a percentage of the losses incurred by the victor, say, 10-20%.

[Paper Tiger]

ORIGINAL: Queeg

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

I still don't follow part of this theme

the battles reported with a 0 loss, are not battles, the other side ran away and did not fight, you will in some/most cases get 0-0 losses as no fighting was done, the one sided losses are the other side not haveing a good break contact and routed

I don't see how you are comparing battles and seiges to a meeting engagemnet, where they don't engage ?

I agree there should be a difference between battles, sieges and withdrawals - but "0" shouldn't be an option in any of them. Even in withdrawals, the loser doesn't just "run away" like a bunch of frightened women. They withdraw with a rear-guard that inflicts casualties. I don't think any of us are suggesting that the numbers be vastly overhauled. But there should never, ever be a "0."

In looking back over the ACW battles I could think of, the closest one I could find to a bloodless victory was Jackson's capture of Harpers Ferry just before Antietam. There, as I understand it, the two sides fought a brief skirmish, with each losing ~250 men, and the Union garrison surrendered. That, of course, was a (a) a siege and (b) a highly unique situation - and when they did fight, they both lost the same number of casualties.

I'm not a programmer, but it seems to me that one solution might be to change the way the program treats a "0" result. Instead of being a "0," perhaps it could be calculated as a percentage of the losses incurred by the victor, say, 10-20%.

Do you mean here that it is more a case of march attrition for the side withdrawing?

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: Paper Tiger


Do you mean here that it is more a case of march attrition for the side withdrawing?

Hadn't really thought about it from that end of the equation: i.e, what makes the withdrawing units losses so high? I'm not sure I have a problem there.

I'm looking at the other end of the equation: i.e., what justifies the pursuing force showing a loss of 0? Units of the size depicted in this game (division, corps and army) should never show 0 losses from any engagement, be it battle, siege or pursuit. That just never happened in the ACW.

I'm just looking at it practically. Whatever the reason for a large-scale movement of two opposing armies, there's always some guys at the back of one line shooting at guys at the front of the other - and in the ACW, those guys tended to hit each other in roughly equal numbers with surprising consistency. The game should reflect that, at least to the extent of replacing "0" with some other number.

[Queeg]

I hasten to add one important note: I think this probably the first time in about five years that I've been excited enough about a game to post suggestions before it was even released. So while I am whining, it's really good whining. [:D]

[Grifman]

ORIGINAL: elmo3

It's interesting to note that at Chicamagua, Stone's River, and Shiloh the "winner" suffered more casualties. That puts the designers in a bit of a dilemma since it would be nearly impossible for them to award a win in game terms to the side suffering more casualties without some very clever programming to take strategic factors into account.

Actually it could be done easily. The game first decides who won a battle. Then it assigns a random % of casualties to each side based upon some historical ranges. That would result in some battles where the victor has higher casualties than the loser. That's at least one way it could be done, though I can think of others.

Then there is The Wilderness, listed as "inconclusive", even though the Union suffered more than twice the CSA losses. Again, a very difficult conclusion to draw based on the numbers alone and almost impossible to program into the game I suspect.

There's an argument to be made that the Wilderness was a tactical victory for the South. Grant had both his flanks bashed, lost more men than Hooker and inflicted less casualties on Lee than Hooker - on virtually the same battlefield. The ONLY difference, and it was a big one, was Grant didn't retreat. He continued the advance on Richmond. There was every expectation in the AoP that there would be withdrawal after the battle - everyone knew Grant had been "whipped". But Grant was no Hooker. He ordered an advance and the army cheered when they heard the news. And Lee knew he was facing a different man than he had faced before.

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: Grifman


Actually it could be done easily. The game first decides who won a battle. Then it assigns a random % of casualties to each side based upon some historical ranges. That would result in some battles where the victor has higher casualties than the loser. That's at least one way it could be done, though I can think of others.

That's along the lines of what I'm thinking. Can't vouch for "easily" though.

[Grifman]

I can see an issue with this approach though. By basing results upon historical ratios, you ignore the impact of training and upgrades. You allow one player to totally ignore them while the player that uses them obtains no benefit. That's an issue.

[spruce]

ORIGINAL: elmo3

I found a website with the following casualty figures on the 10 bloodiest battles of the war with an opinion on who won the battle:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#3
Battle of Chancellorsville
Date: May 1-4, 1863

Location: Virginia
Confederate Commander: Robert E. Lee
Union Commander: Joseph Hooker
Confederate Forces Engaged: 60,892
Union Forces Engaged: 133,868
Winner: Confederacy
Casualties: 30,099 (17,278 Union and 12,821 Confederate)

after reading at Wikipedia about Chancellorsville and reading about Jacksons assault of the Union XI corps - by this manoeuvre Jackson shattered a whole Union corps of 11.000 men - from which 4.000 were captured - but the rest was either killed or wounded or running for their lives.

These 11.000 men are not displayed in the casualty figure stated above.

What I've learned about this discussion - is that the casualty rating in Fof - means how many soldiers are taken from your battle ready forces - after the battle is over. This also includes the 11.000 guys from the XI corps ... even a month after this horrible defeat that Union corps was not fit to fight a new battle.

The problem is that figures and definitions used by different people are in fact totally different - and as such it's really hard to support attacking the current game setup as it's a model or a game model.

Eric has convinced me that this approach is needed as a game model - otherwise the Union would achieve victory in a matter of months. And I also believe by tweaking a little, they'll make it better.

If you pull of a Jacksonlike manoeuvre - like Jackson did on the XI corps at Chancellorsville - the impact on the battle ready Union army is much more then dead and wounded soldiers only.

So it's all about definitions and comparing figures that are not to be compared. In the end, we should get a nice game that's fun to play ... and this will be the priority.