Getting frustrated on the offensive and wrong icon location

[Guru80]

This is starting to drive me insane. I have not had a single win in 2 PBEM games against the same guy when a Corps of mine is attacking a Corps of his. I am the US and if I am on the offensive, even when I have the advantage, I will always retreat an get shredded. I would LOVE to have the screen shot where I moved 3 Corps and 2 independent divisions totaling well more than 5000 strength (3 Corps arrived together, the 2 divisions the next day) and retreated while attacking Mannassas from Fairfax and Winchester when I had him vastly outnumbered. Sure he was entrenched but only a couple levels.

Anyway, anyone have ANY sort of success with attacks such as mine posted below? Am I just failing to learn that I MUST have even greater odds to go against a Confederate Corps/Army?



In this image below, Grant attacked Nashville and retreated to Sumner, TN but the icon has him listed in the Region with Bowling Green. I verified he was indeed in Sumner and not actually where he was appearing by trying to move him to Sumner before I realized he was already there and he was listed in the Sumner regions force list.

[Pocus]

Wrong sprite location: Fixed for the next patch.

You will have more control on your force stance in battle in the XMas Patch too...

[arsan]

Wrong sprite location: Fixed for the next patch.

You will have more control on your force stance in battle in the XMas Patch too...

Does that mean you will add the ROE buttons to AACW so soon??????????
THAT'S what i call a XMas GIFT!!!!!!
I wasn´t expecting them for some months...
Thanks a lot!!

PD: if thats not what you are talking about... just forget this post leure:

[Pocus]

it is

[Hobbes]

This is starting to drive me insane. I have not had a single win in 2 PBEM games against the same guy when a Corps of mine is attacking a Corps of his. I am the US and if I am on the offensive, even when I have the advantage, I will always retreat an get shredded. I would LOVE to have the screen shot where I moved 3 Corps and 2 independent divisions totaling well more than 5000 strength (3 Corps arrived together, the 2 divisions the next day) and retreated while attacking Mannassas from Fairfax and Winchester when I had him vastly outnumbered. Sure he was entrenched but only a couple levels.

Anyway, anyone have ANY sort of success with attacks such as mine posted below? Am I just failing to learn that I MUST have even greater odds to go against a Confederate Corps/Army?



In this image below, Grant attacked Nashville and retreated to Sumner, TN but the icon has him listed in the Region with Bowling Green. I verified he was indeed in Sumner and not actually where he was appearing by trying to move him to Sumner before I realized he was already there and he was listed in the Sumner regions force list.

Great news on the patch!

I also got somewhat frustrated in the early battles in my PBEM game with Gene and lost most of them. I really think you need around a 3-1 or greater advantage when attacking into difficult terrain, fortifications, across rivers or in poor weather/ground conditions and keep in mind the frontage rules. With this in mind I did much better later in the game. In fact try and avoid attacking under the above conditions unless it's essential. Attacking into weakly defended areas important to supply and out manoeuvring your opponent is often more beneficial than frontal assault. If you do have to attack try and manoeuvre your opponent onto ground of your choosing (I know far easier to say than to do :sourcil

Cheers, Chris

[GShock]

Retrofitting AACW with NCP goodies is a very good idea that will extend the game's lifespan for a long long time.

[Guru80]

Great news on the patch!

I also got somewhat frustrated in the early battles in my PBEM game with Gene and lost most of them. I really think you need around a 3-1 or greater advantage when attacking into difficult terrain, fortifications, across rivers or in poor weather/ground conditions and keep in mind the frontage rules. With this in mind I did much better later in the game. In fact try and avoid attacking under the above conditions unless it's essential. Attacking into weakly defended areas important to supply and out manoeuvring your opponent is often more beneficial than frontal assault. If you do have to attack try and manoeuvre your opponent onto ground of your choosing (I know far easier to say than to do :sourcil

Cheers, Chris

I wish it were so, I really really do after experiencing this loss...AFTER this battle my cohesion was at around to 50% to a little less than it.

[Jagger]

Guru, below are a couple of threads discussing the power of defense. IMO, defense is extraordinarily powerful in ACW. Which I believe is a substantial benefit when playing against the AI. However, I believe the power of defense is a negative in PBEM play. Powerful defense tends to produce static, entrenchment lines with little maneuver having more in common with WW1 than the ACW.

Modding can produce a much more maneuver and offensively oriented game. The AAR with Kilcavalry demonstrates a modded game with defense substantially weakened and thus producing a maneuver oriented game with attacking a more viable option.

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=5728

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=5934

[Guru80]

Guru, below are a couple of threads discussing the power of defense. IMO, defense is extraordinarily powerful in ACW. Which I believe is a substantial benefit when playing against the AI. However, I believe the power of defense is a negative in PBEM play. Powerful defense tends to produce static, entrenchment lines with little maneuver having more in common with WW1 than the ACW.

Modding can produce a much more maneuver and offensively oriented game. The AAR with Kilcavalry demonstrates a modded game with defense substantially weakened and thus producing a maneuver oriented game with attacking a more viable option.

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=5728

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=5934

I will definitely be employing your PBEM mod in my next game!

[Jagger]

Hopefully it is going to be released shortly. I am waiting for some commands which will automate manpower and entrenchment changes. Currently I am adjusting them manually but no one else should even consider doing that. I also need some commands to simulate guerilla activity but they aren't crucial events. Those events can be released at any time. So 99% done.

So hopefully, the mod will be out very shortly.

[Clovis]

I wish it were so, I really really do after experiencing this loss...AFTER this battle my cohesion was at around to 50% to a little less than it.

I noticed all battles seems to show Union forces led by one star general.... So the command penalty wouldn't be the origin of your results?

[Guru80]

I was at 5% penalty in Hooker's Division and no Penatly at all in Millroy's Corps. I had Hooker in a Corps but got tired of the inactivity and am trying to get Hooker some experience so gets to a 2 star since he is ALWAYS active. The majority of my generals so far are inactive most of the time especially my Corps commanders.

I made sure that Hooker had a Signal company and ballon (as well as most of my divisions/corps do).

[denisonh]

The outcome of this battle is inline with what I would expect.

In the attack, you need to have at least 2 to 1 odds if not more. Definitely more as mentioned above if the enemy is entrenched. With an adequate leader, you will need more forces, especially if the defending general is good (Milroy's 1 vs Johnston's 4 is a net 15% advantage to the CSA in this case).

Attacking into entrenched enemies during the ACW time was not a good idea. That was one of the contributing reasons for Lee's adventures into Maryland and Pennsylvannia, as Alexandria/DC were heavily fortified.

Coordination of large attacks was not that easy historically; for example, the piecemeal attacks by the Union at Sharpsburg aided the CSA defense.

Attacking with a slight numerical advantage with an adequate general against a superior general dug in most cases be a recipe for defeat.

Find another place to attack or engage in a strategy to spread the enemy out.

I wish it were so, I really really do after experiencing this loss...AFTER this battle my cohesion was at around to 50% to a little less than it.

[runyan99]

I agree with Denison. The screenshot of that Fredericksburg battle shows Hooker (and Milroy) attacking a superior force that is intrenched.

Why do you expect to win that battle? You have no right to come off the winner in those circumstances.

Avoid attacking entrenched positions, and attack with a superiority of force.

[McNaughton]

In the scenario with Hooker, he is attacking with 3-2 odds, against Jackson. Jackson has morale benefits for the units in his stack which further increases the stack's combat potential. Jackson also has more artillery (just by one, but there also was an artilleriest in the stack), as well as more leaders in his stack (which each provide combat benefits for his units). Terrain, entrenchment, defending with a solid command (one appears to have a defensive entrenchment trait as well).

Looking at the Joe Johnston attack. Sure, the odds are much greater (almost 3-1), however, just looking at the commanders nullifies the Union numeric advantage. Milroy is attacking at a value of 1, while Johnston attacks at a value of 4. Was Milroy activated this turn? He also had almost a 400 value of fortification. So Johnston was defending with all advantages, and Milroy attacking at disadvantage.

Put a better qualified general in the place of Milroy, and your chance of success would have been greater. Provide a good general like Hooker with a larger force, and his chance of success would be greater. However, your best bet is to go with the Corps commanders you presently have, and put your best generals with in the best corps, and have them lead your offensives supported by the inactive corps (I am sure you can find at least one corps commander who tends to be active in a round out of the number you have). This, in my opinion, is why the Union should have lots of smaller corps (instead of a few larger ones).

[Clovis]

In the scenario with Hooker, he is attacking with 3-2 odds, against Jackson. Jackson has morale benefits for the units in his stack which further increases the stack's combat potential. Jackson also has more artillery (just by one, but there also was an artilleriest in the stack), as well as more leaders in his stack (which each provide combat benefits for his units). Terrain, entrenchment, defending with a solid command (one appears to have a defensive entrenchment trait as well).

Looking at the Joe Johnston attack. Sure, the odds are much greater (almost 3-1), however, just looking at the commanders nullifies the Union numeric advantage. Milroy is attacking at a value of 1, while Johnston attacks at a value of 4. Was Milroy activated this turn? He also had almost a 400 value of fortification. So Johnston was defending with all advantages, and Milroy attacking at disadvantage.

Put a better qualified general in the place of Milroy, and your chance of success would have been greater. Provide a good general like Hooker with a larger force, and his chance of success would be greater. However, your best bet is to go with the Corps commanders you presently have, and put your best generals with in the best corps, and have them lead your offensives supported by the inactive corps (I am sure you can find at least one corps commander who tends to be active in a round out of the number you have). This, in my opinion, is why the Union should have lots of smaller corps (instead of a few larger ones).

Number of units isn't the same as fighting value. Northern forces have more units but the balance of power is both in favour of CSA

[Guru80]

Actually he is my "Best" Corps commander right now unfortunately, at least tied with the best. It is still 61 and I don't have anything in the east (only Grant in the West) better than 3-1-1 that is capable of Corps command.

The main objective of these battles weren't really to win, though I did suspect I would get at least one, but to keep a constant drain on his manpower. Last game I made the mistake and let him build up and it was a stationary game with him so strong and entrentched he never moved in the East and I made mistakes on my naval assualts south which made them no threat at all.

[Jagger]

Last game I made the mistake and let him build up and it was a stationary game with him so strong and entrentched he never moved in the East and I made mistakes on my naval assualts south which made them no threat at all.

Defense is very, very, very strong. Look at the mechanics of march to guns, command control and the value of entrenchments.

If you are playing an experienced player in PBEM, you will have entrenched lines which are basically impervious to assault. If both sides are maxing manpower, the entrenchments will extend for hundreds of miles which leaves little to no room for maneuver in the main theaters. Result is static, stationary trenchlines.

Even 6-1 odds can easily be defeated by a well organized defense. See my battle results threads here for an example:

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=5728

What Guru is describing is not a one time glitch. It is the norm in PBEM games between experienced players maxing manpower.

[McNaughton]

Back to the same old discussion I guess...

The problem isn't with the fortifications and their strength, it is historically accurate that as early as 1862 strong fortifications were built and manned (Donelson, Washington, Lee after Antietam, etc.). The real problems are...

#1. No incentive for the CSA to attack and become mobile.
#2. An abundance of manpower for the CSA to build large numbers of units.

Remove these to issues, and the use of fortifications will be much more realistic. It is a player exploit based on skewed manpower gains and players becoming substantially more cautious than their historic counterparts.

Give Lee a reason to invade Maryland, Bragg a reason to invade Kentucky, and Price a reason to invade Missouri, then there will be fewer fortifications.

[Guru80]

Reading through Footes novels and seeing how the CSA was so stretched for men and had such thin lines everywhere through 62 at least that they had to constantly move units from one position to another because they just could NOT, even with their manpower maxed at the time, put up the defense we see in AACW by a CSA player.

This game I have solved that by taking a certian tactic right out of the book. My opponant is going to have no choice but to move his line or pay the price.

[McNaughton]

The problem out East is that there is no room to manoever, because the CSA can build enough powerful corps to block the main routes to Richmond. Out West is another issue, where the USA has the room to out-flank and the CSA must predict where the USA player is going to go. Even here, the USA player is best to lay siege to a Confederate strongpoint instead of assaulting it (historically accurate, as what happened at Donelson and Vicksburg).

[runyan99]

The real problems are...

#1. No incentive for the CSA to attack and become mobile.
#2. An abundance of manpower for the CSA to build large numbers of units.

#3 Bad Union players who cannot concieve of alternatives to running headlong into intrenchments.

By the way, it looks to me like the manpower situation is much improved since 1.04. I believe 1.04 had a bug where the draft was resetting every 6 months, allowing a lot of extra conscript points. Since that bug got fixed, it takes away a lot of manpower that was available in my earlier games.

[Jagger]

#1. No incentive for the CSA to attack and become mobile.
#2. An abundance of manpower for the CSA to build large numbers of units.

Remove these to issues, and the use of fortifications will be much more realistic. It is a player exploit based on skewed manpower gains and players becoming substantially more cautious than their historic counterparts.

Give Lee a reason to invade Maryland, Bragg a reason to invade Kentucky, and Price a reason to invade Missouri, then there will be fewer fortifications.

It doesn't do any good to give the CSA incentive to attack as they cannot break through the union entrenchments any more than the US can break through the CSA entrenchments. I dare any CSA player to crash through my 1861 entrenchment line to even remotely get near Gettysburg.

March to Guns, entrenchments, command control and ATT/DEF makes the defense immensely powerful.

Two experienced PBEM players quickly learn that attacking is suicide. Both sides create long lines of deep entrenchments and the fluid maneuvering and open field battles of the ACW disappear in the main theaters. The only option is for the Union to use river and sea invasions to bypass the entrenchment walls. It is much more like WWI than the ACW.

[McNaughton]

I don't buy the situation about static lines. I think it comes down to play style over that of the 'real' situation in the game. If you are moving, and encouraged to move (both sides), then there will be little chance for entrenchment since everyone will be encouraged to move. Amphibious assaults were critical to the USA strategy, therefore, their use to thin out Confederate main armies is not only required, but historic.

The USA won't win if they defend. They need to move. Their goal is to stretch the CSA too thin. If they do not accomplish these goals, then of course the battles will be stalemates.

I fully believe that it is play style which is the problem here, not the game itself.

However, I would like greater payback to represent the Confederate 'raids' of the North or the Border states, as currently fighting on your own lines of defence are too easy to do. Why attack when you do not have to?

[runyan99]

I agree. I think Jagger is playing newb Union players who aren't being aggressive enough about prosecuting the war, which leads to ossified lines on both sides.

Jagger, I'm still willing to play the basic game 1.07h with you to illustrate as best I can. The game isn't broken. It's totally dependent on the decisions and actions of both sides.

[Jagger]

I agree. I think Jagger is playing newb Union players who aren't being aggressive enough about prosecuting the war, which leads to ossified lines on both sides.

Jagger, I'm still willing to play the basic game 1.07h with you to illustrate as best I can. The game isn't broken. It's totally dependent on the decisions and actions of both sides.

I am afraid you don't know all the players I have played. If you are referring to my AAR opponent, Kilcavalry is an excellent, experienced player that understands the mechanics of the game extremely well. He knows what is smart and what isn't. He also knows when it makes sense to attack and when to defend as well as I do.

Although it boils down to crunching the numbers of the game mechanics. Anyone that does can see the obvious massive power of defense over offense. If you want to disagree, show me the errors in the numbers.

As to strategy, certainly the Union can go around entrenched defenses. However that does not negate entrenched lines for hundreds of miles which are suicide to attack and shut down entire theaters forcing advances to go around them.

I don't care about a strategy that goes around entrenchment walls. I want a game fluid with manuever where an attack by Lee with 65,000 troops against 90,000 Yankees is not absolutely folly.

I am afraid I will have to pass on your offer to learn something from your superior gamemanship. My plate is full.

[Jagger]

I don't buy the situation about static lines. I think it comes down to play style over that of the 'real' situation in the game. If you are moving, and encouraged to move (both sides), then there will be little chance for entrenchment since everyone will be encouraged to move. Amphibious assaults were critical to the USA strategy, therefore, their use to thin out Confederate main armies is not only required, but historic.

The USA won't win if they defend. They need to move. Their goal is to stretch the CSA too thin. If they do not accomplish these goals, then of course the battles will be stalemates.

I fully believe that it is play style which is the problem here, not the game itself.

However, I would like greater payback to represent the Confederate 'raids' of the North or the Border states, as currently fighting on your own lines of defence are too easy to do. Why attack when you do not have to?

I would have to respectfully disagree. In multiple PBEM games, I have seen the power of entrenched defense combined with massive manpower to create lines of entrenchments that cannot be penetrated by assault without unsustainable losses.

The south would never be able to launch a successful assault north from the eastern theater past 61 regardless of incentives.

It would only be possible in the west if the Union left gaps because they are on the offensive. Although there really are no objectives in the west worthy of the risk of a confederate offensive.

I try to imagine repeating the offenses of the ACW. Against the AI, it is possible and fun. Against a human, it is not.

[jazzbo]

For those of us old timers, who started gaming in the ancient 60's and have long since lost the time and ability to meaninfully play against anything but the AI, many of these complaints are music to our ears. All too often computer simulations have been basically worthless in solitaire mode against the AI, and therefore quickly abandoned. The beauty of the AGEOD games is that they allow you to play against an opponent that does not have perfect 20/20 hindsight and does not use 1864/65 tactics in 1861. As one interested in testing history and not focused on the win, AGEOD has been a god-send.

Long live a competent AI!!!

Jim

[kyle]

I may be wrong...

Yes Hooker and Milroy are attacking with superior force...but those screen shots show that the south has more men that took the field.

Isn't that what the black weight is for?

Plus a quarter of the Union army was made up of Supply elements and militia in each of those screen shots.

I say he was lucky he didin't lose more.

The more I look at those screen shots the angrier I get. How on earth did the Union expect to win????? One star generals...South probably fortified with Johnston... who knows about Jackson....Still its Jackson and Johnston ... each at least 4 for defense plus probably 4 for PGT....

I'm going to stop looking at the screen... should have lost 15k.... then maybe throw in a complaint..

I also don't buy that static line. In my PBEM with Henry, I tried to play a more static line game, he ran circles around me with his divisions, siezing tons of inititiative, and was starting to cause problems everywhere.

I learned from that experience. I would hazard to guess my current opponent would say we have anything But a static line game. I'm sure he wants to nail a number of my forces to the wall.

[kyle]

In regards to sea invasions and River....

Ft. Donalson....Vicksburg... Carolinas in '61/'62... I believe Butler or was it Butterield in Florida in early 62... New Orleans... The Peninsula Campaign....the Carolinas I believe again around 63/64....

I'll do some research and get some dates...

But the sea and river was most definately used to bypass troops.

And last time I checked...Lee didn't exactly march through the Union to get to Gettysburg or Antietam.... People put static lines all across straight on through West Virginia to Kentucky....?????????even if the union could somehow I doubt the South could and also withstain being hit from behind.

And if the North wanted to sit.... they lose without shots firing...for if the South has sizable armies left when times up...sorry, dont care what the number crunchy computer says... you lost.