Bloody Battle, is it correct?

[Fern]

First of all, the generals named in the attached pics and the names you gave have differences, and i can't exactly figure who commanded who and how many by just looking at the battle screens, so i can only make guesses. If your brother gives exact information about the current status of the forces retreated, or you attach the battle log, i can say more. Also, remember that you both had numerous forces there, and the battle screen doesn't give you the exact information about what happened to every force in detail.

Before the battle:

E. Johnston Corps
Cheatham division
Breckinbridge division
1 art. battery
1 hospital
Supply

Forney Corps
Loring division
Hoke division (with elite brigade)
1 cav. regiment
Supply

AS Johnston army reserve (Johnston's stack)
Hardee division
Hindman cav division
Taliaferro "paper" division (1 militia regiment)
Supply

Reinforcements:
1 horse cav. artillery battery (my brother thinks he ordered it to move to AS Johnston stack but it was covered by other units, so he may well missed it)
1 10 pdr Parrot moving to Johnston stack

After the battle:
AS Johnston reserve (Johnston stack)
Hardee division (intact division, almost no losses, 50% cohesion lost)
Hindman cav division
Supply

All other units have been destroyed to the last man

My forces:

Thomas Corps
Sherman division (elite)
Hooker division (elite)
Kearny division
Mansfield division
Wallace division
French (artillerist)
Ballon
Hospital
Signal
Supply

Grant army reserve (Grant stack)
Prentiss division (small one with few elements)
Meagher division (elite)
Engineer
Supply

Pope Corps
Griffin division (elite)
Cav Regiment
Supply

Berry "Corps"
2 inf. regiments

After the battle:

Berry and Pope Corps anihilated

All other units survived.
Grant's divisions in his stack (Prentiss and Meagher ones) almost no losses (Meagher 400 men and Prentiss 400/500 men). Lots of cohesion lost

If you're willing to reveal the secret so desperately, check the battle log, so you can see what happened there.

Where can I find it? Is it the battle report?

[arsan]

Fern
Check here
C:\Archivos de programa\AGEod's American Civil War\ACW\Logs
For the battle log.
The problem is that i think the log gets redone with each new battle/turn (not sure) so if you have continued playing the game maybe its too late to check it. leure:
Regards

[Fern]

If I had known it, I would have saved it, Arsan. leure:

No log. There is a small one created when I started the game with no info about the battle

[arsan]

Check it after your next battle... you will see how the battle is resolved step by step, roll by roll and shot by shot...
It's a n interesting read to understand how the game works... but veeery long!!!

[Fern]

Be sure I will do it next time.

Thanks!

[GShock]

the turns are technically sent from one player to the other in pbem, you could ask your bro to give you the past turn, and replay it generating a log, whatever the result, that log could be examined by the devs to see if really something went wrong or all worked as intended.

log + sav of course.

[aryaman]

I had a similar experience with NCP
I sent Napoleon with 110.000 troops to fight Archiduke Karl, he had also about 110.00 troops. In NCP there are no trenches, so no trap factor here. The Austrian army was utterly destroyed, 100.000+ casualties for 12.000 French casualties. I thought in the first time that the terribly unbalanced result was consequence of the Napoleon unit multiple attributes, but maybe there is something more in the Ageod battle engine, generally it works well, but sometimes the level of casualties is just beyond anything realistic.

[Pocus]

for the full logs, you have to check 'error logging' in the options, system window.

[arsan]

I had a similar experience with NCP
I sent Napoleon with 110.000 troops to fight Archiduke Karl, he had also about 110.00 troops. In NCP there are no trenches, so no trap factor here. The Austrian army was utterly destroyed, 100.000+ casualties for 12.000 French casualties. I thought in the first time that the terribly unbalanced result was consequence of the Napoleon unit multiple attributes, but maybe there is something more in the Ageod battle engine, generally it works well, but sometimes the level of casualties is just beyond anything realistic.

From my little experience with NCP. the battle results there are much more bloody (in number of elements completely destroyed) and decisive than in ACW... probably done on purpose to reflect the different era, but also affected by the high number or good leaders with special abilities.

But of course with this i don't mean your reported result look reasonable to me Just to point that ACW and NCP battle result are not equivalents...
Regards!

[GShock]

It truly is all about the routing factors.

If a unit stands, then it will kill and be killed...this is perhaps the only adjustment to make to a perfect combat system we have in this engine imo.

[Pocus]

This is what I considered also... routing seems to not happen fast enough. Perhaps the piling of bonus (good commanders and such...)

[arsan]

This is what I considered also... routing seems to not happen fast enough. Perhaps the piling of bonus (good commanders and such...)

Pocus, maybe the changes on movement/cohesion rates has some impact in this? I'm playing a campaign in 1.10 a and notice troops now moves faster and loss much less cohesion from movement (both good points IMHO),
But this cause that stacks are normally with much higher cohesion than before (many times at 100% even after moving several regions away).
Maybe that causes that units fight harder and needs more combat rounds and hits to loss cohesion and rout?

I agree that retreating and routing should happen earlier...
Regards

[Nikel]

I do not play AACW, but now that you are talking about retreating and routing...

Elite units, Imperial Guard in NCP, not sure of what are the equivalent in AACW, are supposed to have a different behaviour in this aspect?

I mean in the way they hold heavy losses, will resist till the end?

The Guard played a major part in the climax of the Battle of Waterloo. It was thrown into the battle at the last minute to salvage a victory for Napoleon. Completely out-numbered, it faced terrible fire from the British lines, and began to retreat. It was the first time the Guard retreated without being ordered to do so. At the sight of this, Napoleon's army lost all hope of victory.

"La Garde meurt et ne se rend pas!" "The Guard dies, it does not surrender!" is attributed to General Pierre Cambronne. It has been suggested that this was in fact said by another General of the Imperial Guard, Claude-Etienne Michel, during their last stand at the Battle of Waterloo,[2][3] — it has also been suggested that the quote was ‘invented’ by a French newspaper editor[4] — but whatever the truth it makes a suitable epitaph.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Guard_(Napoleon_I)


http://www.wargame.ch/wc/nwc/newsletter/Aug2000/Old_Guard_Surrender_Waterloo.JPG

[arsan]

"La Garde meurt et ne se rend pas!" "The Guard dies, it does not surrender!" is attributed to General Pierre Cambronne.

I like better the alternative quote: "Merde!"

About Guard on NCP. Check his stats. Guard Cavalry, Old guard... They have HUGE discipline and cohesion ratings. You will not see them routing too much i think. They are more the kind of "kill or die" units
But they are exceptional units. Regular troops should retreat/rout before being annihilated.
Cheers

[Nikel]

Arsan, I did not know that alternative! But sorry, the other is the good one, it even appears in Asterix's comics


Now seriously, then the contrary will happen with militia units.
Are there any elite units in AACW? Was this, at least partially, what happened to Fern's brother, kill or die?

[arsan]

Yes there are elites in ACW... i will have to check his stats but i don't think they are as extreme as the old guard ones.
The problem with the result is that the whole CSA army had a "merde!" kind of behaviour...
The battle resolution is very complex so its not easy to single out a cause for the battle result like this.
Check the battle log after a battle in NCP or ACW and you will see all the variables and die rolls it involves.

[GShock]

I think Johnston + the entrenchment level + the quality of units involved played a key role in the failing of those routing rolls so that when the retreat roll was called, some units decided to stay so the battle carried on.

Another factor we weren't briefed on, is the national morale which might also have played a key role in the CSA will to fight after such big losses in the first battle.

On an exquisitely opportunist point of view, the display of the generals' names on the attached screenshot could be a good improvement in the game so you know in a big battle who arrived and fought and who didn't by the name. With so many generals around you surely want to know exactly who was involved.

[Korrigan]

At that point in time AACW10 will probably be used at West Point Military Academy to train officers

Actually, I think cadets would have good lessons (leadership, supply, etc.) to learn from AACW right now.

[Fern]

Another factor we weren't briefed on, is the national morale which might also have played a key role in the CSA will to fight after such big losses in the first battle.

Union National Morale before the battle: 96
Confederate National Morale before the battle: 101

[aryaman]

Thinking again about it, we probably are somehow mislead by the casualties report in battle, I mean they report total losses in 7 days (15 days in AACW), including WIAs, MIAs and surrenders, if the report was displayed like that high casualties would be more palatable.
Example:
Archiduke Karl losses 100.000 men in 7 days
4.000 KIA
28.000 WIA
35.000 MIA
In battle and the inmediate aftermath
The remaining 33.000 surrendered a few days later

Just trying to make sense...

[GShock]

Yes arya, surely if the screen showed the numbers of actual casualties it would make much more sense. Also i don't know if it's really just and fair to have losses that are not real losses be counted in the screenie, but yet, be sent back to the manpower pool.

These chaps probably fled the battlefield and are still available to be re-enlisted...this means they don't need training or equipment, so their value in WSU and $ should also be restored to the pool.

[aryaman]

These chaps probably fled the battlefield and are still available to be re-enlisted...this means they don't need training or equipment, so their value in WSU and $ should also be restored to the pool.

If they fled, probably the first thing they did was to throw away their equipment. It reminds me an scene of Troy, the movie, when the Greeks fled before the advancing Toyans, but the poor guys carried with them their shields, while for sure that would be the first thing a soldier would throw away in a rout...

[GShock]

Carrying a musket is not as hard and heavy as wearing an armor. In any case, the routing of the civil war was not always pursued for capture. Soldiers cheering instead of chasing.

[Fern]

If they fled, probably the first thing they did was to throw away their equipment. It reminds me an scene of Troy, the movie, when the Greeks fled before the advancing Toyans, but the poor guys carried with them their shields, while for sure that would be the first thing a soldier would throw away in a rout...

IIRC Greek hoplites (heavy infantry) were told by ther mothers and/or fathers to come back with the shield or on top of it. They said that because the first thing a routing hoplite usually did was throwing away his heavy hoplon (shield) in order to be able to rout away faster. If you came back with your shield, it would mean that you had not routed away from the battle, so you had faced the enemy in a courageous way. If you came on top of the shield, then you was dead and carried by your mates with help of your hoplon, so it would mean that you had also fought with honor, beign killed facing the enemy because your hoplon could be found by your corpse.

[soundoff]

Well my tuppence worth.

To begin with like others I've very pleased to have learnt something new regarding defending (particularly entrenched positions) unless I really do want to hold at any costs. Seems to me that the tooltip for defensive stances could do with a minor tweak and for the 'orange' button to say something more than 'standard rules' because I for one, like most players I suspect, reckoned that it was only by highlighting the 'red' defend button that my troops would stay to the death.

As for the casualties of this particular battle. My own opinion is that daft things do happen in war, much like having 300 Spartans hold off an entire army or in the Napoleonic era having cavalry break a formed square.

So as a one off strange result I see no problem with it. Mind you I'd be mighty concerned if it was repeatable too often. And as for some of the posts seeming to indicate that it was because it was Grant. Well excuse me but he must have been wearing his underpants on the outside of his leggings as another superhero does if you are really trying to tell me that 100k can defeat (to the point of extinction) an army of 80K who at level 7 have been entrenching for what...... at least 2 months. Particularly when the entrenched army is not a militia or conscript force. Now I'd accept as I said initially it could happen. If it happens regularly though it makes me smile

[aryaman]

Carrying a musket is not as hard and heavy as wearing an armor. In any case, the routing of the civil war was not always pursued for capture. Soldiers cheering instead of chasing.

The equipment carried by Napoleonic soldier weighted about 25 kgs, even if not pursued, soldiers in a rout would not mind to carry it.

[soloswolf]

The equipment carried by Napoleonic soldier weighted about 25 kgs, even if not pursued, soldiers in a rout would not mind to carry it.

I am not sure if you are saying they would carry it or if you are saying they wouldn't...

But if you have not spent any time with a 50+Lb ruck on your back, you always mind it.

[berto]

In a recent game of Bigus' Kentucky 1862 battle scenario, Bragg's ~60,000-strong Army of Mississippi attacked Buell's Army of the Ohio, entrenched at Nashville, also about 60,000 strong. The troops under my command, Buell's Northerners, were at their default defensive settings: Defensive Posture/Defend.

In three days of persisting battle, both sides suffered 2/3 casualties, leaving each side with ~20,000 men, when Bragg finally called off the attack.

2/3 casualties, on both sides? Hmm, doesn't seem right to me.

(No perhaps routed elements returned to the armies in subsequent turns. Both armies remained at ~20,000 for the remainder of the scenario--after being ~60,000 each initially.)

In the bloodiest large-scale battles of the Civil War (Murfreesboro, Gettysburg, Chickamauga, Shiloh, Wilderness, Spottsylvania, Antietam, and others), the highest casualty rates were ~30% (3/10, or less than 1/3) at Murfreesboro, followed by ~27% (Gettysburg, Chickamauga), followed by the rest at about 20% or below. These were battles of one day (Antietam) to three or more. Note: These casualty figures account for killed, wounded, captured, and missing, not just KIAs. (Source: Wikipedia.)

2/3 casualties, on both sides? (I've seen this sort of thing before.) When the extreme for the Real Game was 1/3 (but usually much less). I agree with the OP (and some others):

Battle losses are (sometimes) too high, even way too high.

I don't think you can explain away these sorts of results by (a) any clarifications about what "casualties" really mean (there is no discrepancy of interpretation) or (b) any posture or ROE settings (are we to suppose that, for virtually the entire Civil War, both sides "played" at the lower two Posture and ROE settings and rarely, if ever, operated at the higher two?) or (c) entrenchment levels (what real-life commanders ever assaulted entrenched positions again and again for days on end to the point of incurring 2/3 casualties?).

IMO, some adjustments are needed. (Not necessarily to the overall balance, just at the extremes.)

Suggestion: After a day of 20% losses, forces should be very reluctant to carry on any further, and retreat should be quite likely. There should be some modifiers in place to make it virtually certain that either force, but especially the attacker, would break off any engagement where casualties reach 30-35%.

[Brochgale]

In a recent game of Bigus' Kentucky 1862 battle scenario, Bragg's ~60,000-strong Army of Mississippi attacked Buell's Army of the Ohio, entrenched at Nashville, also about 60,000 strong. The troops under my command, Buell's Northerners, were at their default defensive settings: Defensive Posture/Defend.

In three days of persisting battle, both sides suffered 2/3 casualties, leaving each side with ~20,000 men, when Bragg finally called off the attack.

2/3 casualties, on both sides? Hmm, doesn't seem right to me.

(No perhaps routed elements returned to the armies in subsequent turns. Both armies remained at ~20,000 for the remainder of the scenario--after being ~60,000 each initially.)

In the bloodiest large-scale battles of the Civil War (Murfreesboro, Gettysburg, Chickamauga, Shiloh, Wilderness, Spottsylvania, Antietam, and others), the highest casualty rates were ~30% (3/10, or less than 1/3) at Murfreesboro, followed by ~27% (Gettysburg, Chickamauga), followed by the rest at about 20% or below. These were battles of one day (Antietam) to three or more. Note: These casualty figures account for killed, wounded, captured, and missing, not just KIAs. (Source: Wikipedia.)

2/3 casualties, on both sides? (I've seen this sort of thing before.) When the extreme for the Real Game was 1/3 (but usually much less). I agree with the OP (and some others):

Battle losses are (sometimes) too high, even way too high.

I don't think you can explain away these sorts of results by (a) any clarifications about what "casualties" really mean (there is no discrepancy of interpretation) or (b) any posture or ROE settings (are we to suppose that, for virtually the entire Civil War, both sides "played" at the lower two Posture and ROE settings and rarely, if ever, operated at the higher two?) or (c) entrenchment levels (what real-life commanders ever assaulted entrenched positions again and again for days on end to the point of incurring 2/3 casualties?).

IMO, some adjustments are needed. (Not necessarily to the overall balance, just at the extremes.)

Suggestion: After a day of 20% losses, forces should be very reluctant to carry on any further, and retreat should be quite likely. There should be some modifiers in place to make it virtually certain that either force, but especially the attacker, would break off any engagement where casualties reach 30-35%.

Gettysburg was a 3 day battle and then some if you count the lead up engagements especially between JEB Stuart and the forces he had to meet prior to Gettysburg.
Shiloh was a 2 day battle.
If you look at Grants wilderness campaign - horrific federal casualties - enough to have Grant labelled a butcher by certain elements of the yankee press and others.
Lee would not have fought at Gettysburg but events overtook him and he pressed the attack almost to the point of destroying ANV. A bit more daring from the yanks at Antietam and he could well have been destroyed utterly there?
War is anarchy as far as I can see?

[berto]

Gettysburg was a 3 day battle and then some if you count the lead up engagements especially between JEB Stuart and the forces he had to meet prior to Gettysburg.
Shiloh was a 2 day battle.
If you look at Grants wilderness campaign - horrific federal casualties - enough to have Grant labelled a butcher by certain elements of the yankee press and others.
Lee would not have fought at Gettysburg but events overtook him and he pressed the attack almost to the point of destroying ANV. A bit more daring from the yanks at Antietam and he could well have been destroyed utterly there?

Yes, and in every case, whether one, two, or three days, the entire-battle, multi-day losses never exceeded 27%, for Gettysburg, the bloodiest among the ones you cited. At the Wilderness, Federal losses were 18% for the entire three-day battle, or "only" (in AACW terms) about 6% per day of battle.

In AACW, not too unusually, I am seeing single-day losses equalling the losses for two- and three-day historical battles, but after the first-day 20% losses (when the historical armies would almost always call it quits)--the AACW armies continue to fight, sometimes for days on end!