A Calamitous Seven-Day Battle

[jimwinsor]

I just recently fought a seven day battle in one of my PBEM games, and the results were pretty startling. I had two Union corps in the area, three divisions each, under Grant and Thomas respectively, go against 5 CSA divisions united in a single stack (hence with a -25% command penalty). We both moved simultaneously into a 100% CSA controlled area, so no one was entrenched.

In a nutshell, the Union got clobbered. Here's what happened:















The next result was that Grant's corps was practically annialated. That last battle saw both his corps supply wagons getting captured. As you can see, nothing is left in those 3 divisions except for artillery elements:



In comparison, Thomas' corps is comparitively unscathed. It still has lots of ammo in fact, whereas Grant's demolished corps has none (not surprisingly).

As a result of so much element loss in those last 4 days, the Union lost 11(!) National Morale. The CSA seems to have gained a similar amount. To add to my misery...Grant, Sherman and Kearny all got blamed for the disaster. Grant had enough senority to take command of a new 4th army prior to the disaster...no more. He got bumped down to 6th in senority. Sherman lost 5 levels of senority, meaning it will take him years now at this rate to get his second star.

So, my question is: What just happened?

It seems to me what happened is, that despite the event message I got prior to the first battle announcing that Thomas' corps was joining in the battle, AND despite seeing his forces and leaders in all the 7 battle reports above...he really did not contribute to the majority of those battles...particularly the latter ones.

It looks to me like Thomas corps mostly sat and did nothing, as Grant and company launched several attacks at bad odds, and attacked themselves into oblivion.

Now I know that sometimes seperate forces can be involved in combat seperately in this game, and it is somewhat random what stacks participate in a round, and which do not...but what happened in this case seems a bit extreme.

I have to ask myself...if Thomas was sitting some of these rounds out...why did Grant attack? Shouldn't game algorithm called for Grant to retreat in this circumstance, calling off the suicide attacks?

Seems to me the CSA, in comparison, benefitted greatly by keeping his forces in a large unwieldy -25% stack. Not only did all his forces participate, in every round...but more importantly, he was able to spread his losses out, avoiding the morale and seniority killing penalties Grant, Sherman and company suffered from, due to element elimination.

If this is somehow not a bug...I think how the combat system treats battles with multiple cooperating stacks like this might need to be tweaked a bit.

[Pocus]

Seems unadequate to say the least, indeed. I'm willing to check the battles to understand the why. I need all your game (or at least the current and previous turn), ie the 5 files for each turn, in ZIP format. If you are unsure of what to send, I will give you details. To phmalacher@gmail.com (until support@ageod.com functions normally)

[Jacek]

My guess is that Thomas haven't joined the battle. Grant corps fought Johnston alone. If so, he did pretty well in my opinion then.

[Sheytan]

the battle results look very close, the issue here is what the heck happened to thomas...

[PBBoeye]

Yeah, that and the CSA division stack not getting hacked by penalties in performance. Well, I am sure they'll figure it out.

I like the casualty rates. Nice balance. None of this 100 vs 10000.

[jimwinsor]

Adding up the casualties for all seven days:

USA CSA
1. 7833 10436
2. 7245 8623
3. 6510 4801
4. 5873 3233
5. 4648 2155
6. 4011 1616
7. 1169 538
---------------
37289 31402
+ 8400 CSA prisoners
--------
= 45689

The CSA also captured 15 tons of war supplies.

I guess not bad for 3 divisions vs. 5. The main concern here is, yes, where was Thomas?

[AndrewKurtz]

The main concern here is, yes, where was Thomas?

Sounds like what was said about Franklin and Porter at Antietam or Jackson several times during the Seven Days

[James D Burns]

The main concern here is, yes, where was Thomas?

Isn't anyone concerned by the fact that all of Grant's combat elements (except a few artillery) were totally destroyed?

This did not happen during the war, there were probably less than a dozen regiments destroyed outright for the entire war if you count both sides losses together. Yet in the game we see dozens and dozens of regiments destroyed in every battle.

To me this is the true problem with combats in the game, there is no self preservation routine for individual regiments so they get wiped out in just a few battles. This should not be happening except in very rare cases for a very understrength regiment now and then, but definatley not for entire divisions and corps.

Most major multi-day battles saw regiments suffer about 5% - 10% casualties on average for the entire multi-day battle. Those that were heavily engaged and considered routed/broken suffered about 20%.

The game needs to model this by taking elements out of the combat routines when they suffer losses between 10% - 20%. They should not be allowed to re-engage until at least 3-5 days have passed to allow the men to recover from the *shock* of their losses.

If forced to fight (I.e. trapped in a fort or city) they should suffer a major morale penalty and be prone to surrendering if greatly outnumbered. Perhaps flag an elemennt with a shoock effect icon that takes x number of days to go away after a battle.

The combat routines would not recognize these elemennts as combat units and would treat them like supply wagons or something. I'm just rambling on now, but something needs to be done about the horrific number of destroyed elements currently generated by the combat routines.

Jim

[jimwinsor]

Yeah that is really my main concern.

If Thomas was going to dither like Jackson during the Seven Days, well, ok...I can easily see that...but Grant should not be attacking and attacking and attacking himself to death in that scenario. Thats what makes no sense here.

Notice the power disparities in favor of the Union in all those battles. Also, it's interesting that at no time did EITHER side call for a retreat.

I get the feeling Thomas was considered there for attacker retreat calculations, but not defender retreat calculations, and certainly not for battle calculations.

[AndrewKurtz]

Yeah that is really my main concern.

If Thomas was going to dither like Jackson during the Seven Days, well, ok...I can easily see that...but Grant should not be attacking and attacking and attacking himself to death in that scenario. Thats what makes no sense here.

Agree completely. If Thomas didn't arrive, stop attacking.

To me, the only time complete destruction makes sense is a surrender. Otherwise, the units did self-preserve and would retreat.

[SirMaru]

There were 650,000 dead in our Civil War on both sides. Many battles turned out in totally unexpected ways. The First Battle of Bull Run saw the Union totally routed with large casualties. No one on either side expected this outcome.

In the game I am sure the die rolls could alter all battles in multiple ways.

[PBBoeye]

But we're talking about a combat resolution consistency here, not the outlier stuff.

AGEod's game are not tactical; thus, the combat engine and its results are crucial to the success of AGEod games. Without it being relevant and producing routinely reasonable results, the entire game system swings on a thread. I say this not to the team, but to those who may want to say, "well, that could happen" without recognizing consistent resolution patterns.

It's our job to help the devs get this combat resolution engine sharp and superb.

[Sheytan]

"Less is More"

The word "more" is intended to reflect the terrible losses in men of the Iron Brigade. The common (and overused) phrase "Less is More" can be applied to the Black Hat Brigade with considerable irony. Bruce Catton in his book Mr. Lincoln's Army wrote of the 2nd Wisconsin, "Over the length of the war, [the 2nd Wisconsin] was to win the terrible distinction of having a higher percentage of its enrollment killed in action than any other regiment in the United States Army." The 24th Michigan, in the battle of Gettysburg lost 80% of its men making that the highest percentage of loss for any Union regiment at the battle. (The 2nd Wisconsin was a close 77%.)* When the day was done and roll was taken, less meant "more".

Image of the marker which denotes the 24th Michigan's position on Culp's Hill on days two and three of Gettysburg. It reads, "24th Regiment Michigan Volunteer Infantry. Iron Brigade. Of the 496 men who went into battle on July 1, 1883, 99 answered roll call here on the morning of July 2 - 3, 1863." Original Photograph by Terrence J. Lemke.

units that were formed as regiments fought until there was very little left of them. and were as a result combined with other formations. in modern warfare a unit is considered combat ineffective after it suffers 10% losses, losses of 30% are considered to result in the unit not bieng combatworthy at all. in the civil war on the other hand units that were raised as regiments of a few hundred men or more were companies by the end of the war if not disbanded. one thing I remember from the boardgame by SSI, Terrible Swift Sword was just how many regiments at Gettysburg where really nothing more then company sized formations. in fact the biggest regiments I recall in that game were confed units of about 800 men, which today is in effect a batallion sized unit. this dosnt explain your combat results however, and I just as much as you would like to see why thomas didnt fight.

Isn't anyone concerned by the fact that all of Grant's combat elements (except a few artillery) were totally destroyed?

This did not happen during the war, there were probably less than a dozen regiments destroyed outright for the entire war if you count both sides losses together. Yet in the game we see dozens and dozens of regiments destroyed in every battle.

To me this is the true problem with combats in the game, there is no self preservation routine for individual regiments so they get wiped out in just a few battles. This should not be happening except in very rare cases for a very understrength regiment now and then, but definatley not for entire divisions and corps.

Most major multi-day battles saw regiments suffer about 5% - 10% casualties on average for the entire multi-day battle. Those that were heavily engaged and considered routed/broken suffered about 20%.

The game needs to model this by taking elements out of the combat routines when they suffer losses between 10% - 20%. They should not be allowed to re-engage until at least 3-5 days have passed to allow the men to recover from the *shock* of their losses.

If forced to fight (I.e. trapped in a fort or city) they should suffer a major morale penalty and be prone to surrendering if greatly outnumbered. Perhaps flag an elemennt with a shoock effect icon that takes x number of days to go away after a battle.

The combat routines would not recognize these elemennts as combat units and would treat them like supply wagons or something. I'm just rambling on now, but something needs to be done about the horrific number of destroyed elements currently generated by the combat routines.

Jim

[Clovis]

Isn't anyone concerned by the fact that all of Grant's combat elements (except a few artillery) were totally destroyed?

This did not happen during the war, there were probably less than a dozen regiments destroyed outright for the entire war if you count both sides losses together. Yet in the game we see dozens and dozens of regiments destroyed in every battle.

To me this is the true problem with combats in the game, there is no self preservation routine for individual regiments so they get wiped out in just a few battles. This should not be happening except in very rare cases for a very understrength regiment now and then, but definatley not for entire divisions and corps.

Most major multi-day battles saw regiments suffer about 5% - 10% casualties on average for the entire multi-day battle. Those that were heavily engaged and considered routed/broken suffered about 20%.

The game needs to model this by taking elements out of the combat routines when they suffer losses between 10% - 20%. They should not be allowed to re-engage until at least 3-5 days have passed to allow the men to recover from the *shock* of their losses.

If forced to fight (I.e. trapped in a fort or city) they should suffer a major morale penalty and be prone to surrendering if greatly outnumbered. Perhaps flag an elemennt with a shoock effect icon that takes x number of days to go away after a battle.

The combat routines would not recognize these elemennts as combat units and would treat them like supply wagons or something. I'm just rambling on now, but something needs to be done about the horrific number of destroyed elements currently generated by the combat routines.

Jim

I'm currently trying with all units cohesion level lowered by 10, reducing so the firepower and raising chances of rout...

[Pocus]

Can you please send the save JimWinsor?

Thanks.

[Mike]

Pretty much agree with everything you said here. The armies in AACW fight on when the historical counterparts would have gone over to the defensive. Only 'Old Wooden Head' Hood would keep attacking and detroy his army.

Isn't anyone concerned by the fact that all of Grant's combat elements (except a few artillery) were totally destroyed?

This did not happen during the war, there were probably less than a dozen regiments destroyed outright for the entire war if you count both sides losses together. Yet in the game we see dozens and dozens of regiments destroyed in every battle.

To me this is the true problem with combats in the game, there is no self preservation routine for individual regiments so they get wiped out in just a few battles. This should not be happening except in very rare cases for a very understrength regiment now and then, but definatley not for entire divisions and corps.

Most major multi-day battles saw regiments suffer about 5% - 10% casualties on average for the entire multi-day battle. Those that were heavily engaged and considered routed/broken suffered about 20%.

The game needs to model this by taking elements out of the combat routines when they suffer losses between 10% - 20%. They should not be allowed to re-engage until at least 3-5 days have passed to allow the men to recover from the *shock* of their losses.

If forced to fight (I.e. trapped in a fort or city) they should suffer a major morale penalty and be prone to surrendering if greatly outnumbered. Perhaps flag an elemennt with a shoock effect icon that takes x number of days to go away after a battle.

The combat routines would not recognize these elemennts as combat units and would treat them like supply wagons or something. I'm just rambling on now, but something needs to be done about the horrific number of destroyed elements currently generated by the combat routines.

Jim

[jimwinsor]

Can you please send the save JimWinsor?

Thanks.

Kyle Brooks is the host player for this game, I am having him send them in to you...

[mikee64]

Well my first thought (from months ago when the discussion started) for the "destroyed" regiments: It is a game abstraction folks. With all the research that went into this excellent design I find it hard to believe the devs didn't realize these large amounts of regiments were actually not "destroyed" in the war.

I just think of it as the removal of the element as an effective fighting force until it can be relatively easily replaced in appearance and effectiveness via replacements.

How about this, what about instead of regiments that were "destroyed" during the war, we look at regiments that lost that their battle flags? I have _no clue_ what this number is, but is usually a good indicator a regiment was in a fight in which it fought desperately and suffered heavily, and needed significant time to recover. Would that bring these element losses more in line with what we see?

Two caveats - the battle posted here does indeed seem to have something amiss, just as one I posted earlier in Manassas. And, The comment about Lee not being able to hold up for long in VA in 1864 with this destruction of elements is a valid one.

Again, my main point is just that the usual combat results where some elements are eliminated resulting in NM loss or gain is just a game design abstraction that works well in most cases other than odd ones like posted in this thread.

[PBBoeye]

Again, my main point is just that the usual combat results where some elements are eliminated resulting in NM loss or gain is just a game design abstraction that works well in most cases other than odd ones like posted in this thread.

I agree with that. I will say that the 'to the death' susceptibility isn't what I want to see very often. Surrenders and PoWs is the better choice, but perhaps there is a 'retreat' inability going on here?

[mikee64]

Yes, here is the thread with screenshots near the bottom where I had eerily similar results in loss of elements to those jimwinsor had here:

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=4794&highlight=combat+results

In these cases I agree something seems to be odd. What I do not think we can do is try to equate actual "destroyed" regiments in the war with eliminated elements in AACW in general.

Something else in common is both of our battles were in pbem games, where the forces are usually better organized than Athena does.

[jimwinsor]

Mike,

Yep, this looks similar...the Union force was in a single stack under McDowell in all your battles, I gather? Whereas you had spread your forces and organized them into nice neat little corps, so as to avoid command penalties, thinking that would help...?

Then yes, this does seem very similar!

[Nial]

As someone alluded to earlier. Keying too much on the word destroyed is being a bit too literal really. As I was glancing through the CSAs causulty lists last week. It was striking how many regiments lost 70% to 80% of their men in single engagements. Lets call this kind of manpower loss ' Operationaly destroyed' The unit is no longer strategicly functional. And most times would be folded into another unit, at which point the regiment in question ceases to exist as a fighting unit. It would be more reallistic (game wise) to have whatever % of the unit thats left shuffled back to the replacement pool.

On the battle in question? Have seen similiar before. And while I can't say as I would be happy about it if one of my corps decided to sit out a battle just over the next ridgeline. That is not unhistorical either.

I know.......if the mechanics of the battle are messed up in some way?
I would be a bit irked too.

Nial

[jimwinsor]

Ah, but you see, the problem is, forming corps is now a bad strategy.

As things stand now, it would seem better to mass your forces under one commander, and swallow the -35% penalty...rather than risk horrific morale losses when some forces attack, and some do not.

[James D Burns]

Everyones missing the point. It doesn't matter if destroyed units equate to this that or the other, the fact is the combat formations are gone and won't be replaced until they are re-purchased. Rebuilding a full Union Corps could take 4-8 months due to the costs involved, for the south it'll probably take a year or more.

This means that a southern army knocked back on its heals time after time in late 1864 through 1865 being pursued by Grant in engagement after engagement cannot be recreated in game. Instead what will happen is Lee will get wiped out in just one or two turns fighting and the war will be over as there won't be a southern army left to fight with.

The ability for regiments to fight on after repeated heavy fighting is what made the civil war an attritional war. To recreate attritional war your combat elements need to have a lot of staying power, and this simply does not exist in the game currently.

Individual elements are far to fragile.

Jim

[Nial]

[quote="jimwinsor"]Ah, but you see, the problem is, forming corps is now a bad strategy.

Possibly, but one battle, or series of battles in one game is not enough of a sample to make that hypothesis yet. Though it is worrying to say the least.
Personaly I have not had such a graphic example in any game yet. But that in itself is not enough to dispute your theory either.

I will be paying much closer attention, of that you can be sure.



[Quote ] Everyones missing the point. It doesn't matter if destroyed units equate to this that or the other, the fact is the combat formations are gone and won't be replaced until they are re-purchased.

This means that a southern army knocked back on its heals time after time in late 1864 through 1865 being pursued by Grant in engagement after engagement cannot be recreated in game. Instead what will happen is Lee will get wiped out in just one or two turns fighting and the war will be over as there won't be a southern army left to fight with.

The ability for regiments to fight on after repeated heavy fighting is what made the civil war an attritional war. To recreate attritional war your combat elements need to have a lot of staying power, and this simply does not exist in the game currently.

Individual elements are far to fragile. {Everyones missing the point. It doesn't matter if destroyed units equate to this that or the other, the fact is the combat formations are gone and won't be replaced until they are re-purchased.

This means that a southern army knocked back on its heals time after time in late 1864 through 1865 being pursued by Grant in engagement after engagement cannot be recreated in game. Instead what will happen is Lee will get wiped out in just one or two turns fighting and the war will be over as there won't be a southern army left to fight with.

The ability for regiments to fight on after repeated heavy fighting is what made the civil war an attritional war. To recreate attritional war your combat elements need to have a lot of staying power, and this simply does not exist in the game currently.

Individual elements are far to fragile. [Quote]

No, probably not. But then I usualy play the south. And that wouldn't happen to me anyway. But I do find that armies retreat frequently to fight another day. So while your point is valid. I don't find it remotely a game breaker.

Nial

[PBBoeye]

I agree with James Burns. The repurchase thing bothers me. That is why I hope Clovis' mod addresses the issue (mainly, the lowering of cohesion levels to promote routing instead of 'stand to the death').

The main army commands are like these massive battering rams, made out of china.