AGEOD Forums

In my current ACW game (latest patch), I've taken some MAJOR losses in NM from a series of naval battles that weren't particularly heavy in losses being lopsided or ships being sunk. On average, though, I lose 5-6 NM any time there's a big ironclad engagement. I just don't get the severity of the NM losses though, considering that during these engagements, I've only lost a handful of ironclads, and in several of them, there's been no losses whatsoever as far as destroyed elements.

Just seems excessive, I think there's been about 20-25 NM shift from these battles, so it's pretty signficant... far more than the actual strategic damage done. Maybe would make more sense for the NM losses to either be applied only to destroyed elements, or a reduced percentage for damage-only?

Biggest NM loss I have encountered - Battle was 11 Ironclads + 3 Gunboats versus 3 Ironclads + 3 Gunboats. Latter force lost 3 Gunboats and -1 NM.

Hmm..that does sound odd.

Are we talking River Ironclads or Monitors/ocean ironclads?

-deguerra

River ironclads. I don't recall the results being so skewed in previous games, but this latest game every river battle turns out to be at least a 4-5 NM shift, and only 1 of those battles actually had any destroyed elements (and even then it was only a small number). I just lost -4 NM in a battle with about 350 CP worth of ironclads vs 900 CP or so of Union ships, no losses, though I did take about 100 hits vs his 35ish. That seems to be the general pattern.

Part of it may be that we've both had really big fleets patrolling around too. But still, it seems weird to have massive shifts in NM over battles that really aren't a big deal to recover from. I could see that if the battles were resulting in major destruction of ships, but it's just not the case.

My example also was River Ironclads.