AGEOD Forums

Hi Ageod team,

at first I wish that my static "AACW Team Member" will be removed please confirm this anyone..it`s my personal wish

I had in the game now a "little dance" with Johnston around Harpers Ferry...Johnston was not able to beat a smaller force of hooker..with about 7000men more..so "funny" results..and the best was: Johnston already had the control of the city..but moved a field upper harpers ferry and then Hooker "jumped" back from a field close to harpers ferry back..this action can also describe the user "GChristie" as he saw it he also said that the first battle result was absolutley crazy he is my pbem partner. I post now here the whole game that we`ve played..maybe you find something.but in my eyes I don`t made a mistake: I had enough supply, enough "holding together" from the units all...

Sorry but I`ve lost the trust to the game engine and I lost the fun of the game..even when I know that I also made mistakes..that cannot be "this juming" in 2 preverious turns..and the best is: I play also an other pbem..also the csa..and the same: I attack Harpers Ferry with a complete army stack..and a single unit holds the city...sorry something is not right

notice: please let me know your e-mail adreß anyone who wants to have game to check...I cannot upload here..the size is to big

Regards
Dudosh

I don't get what is the problem we should see on that screens
The battle result don't look that strange IMHO
13,500 CSA versus 9,500 USA. Both with good leaders, the USA with superior artillery and a a bunch of elite/heavy infantry and cavalry, both attacking so no entrenchments on any side.
In my book this is a balanced fight. Anything can happen...
so whats the matter?? That you lose and got pissed off??
Sorry, but your reaction seems a little childish

Union had more artillery, so they dealt more damage. Union had more regular infantry, so they had higher staying power. Everything else (minus cavalry, but cavalry is not too useful *during* a battle) seems to be equal. To be honest, I fail to see where the suprise is when USA troops win under these circumstances...

arsan wrote:I don't get what is the problem we should see on that screens
The battle result don't look that strange IMHO
13,500 CSA versus 9,500 USA. Both with good leaders, the USA with superior artillery and a a bunch of elite/heavy infantry and cavalry, both attacking so no entrenchments on any side.
In my book this is a balanced fight. Anything can happen...
so whats the matter?? That you lose and got pissed off??
Sorry, but your reaction seems a little childish

It is like I said...this "funny thing" happens for 3 turns, I have attacked Harpers Ferry with double so strong forces..and I had captured the town..but then at the end of the turn the AI had throw me out of harpers ferry..that is the deal..I already had the city..and then "jumped" out with johnston and hooker jumped back into harpers ferry..and I`m asking me:

what is childish one? that one that only would like to have an answer..or the someone that only comments the pictures..you can have the whole save-game if you want asran..it happened like i said:

I captured Harpers Ferry, hold it until the end of the turn..and then throwed out but WINNING the battle!

regards

Screen shots are almost useless to figure this out. We must have saved game.

To make your saved games smaller for upload, make a copy of your saved game folder, then go through the copied saved game sub folder and all of it's Backup folders and delete the replay [.rpl] files. Then zip the folder. [We don't need the replay files to diagnose the issue] It should then be small enough to upload. You can also delete the Backup folders with 'numbers' higher than 4....

I admit it can be frustrating at time, to only have the battle report summary and try to understand why you lost while you thought you should win... But if you are really in doubt and want to remove it, then you have the full battle log (provided you activated error logging) and then you can either understand why you lost, with much more details that you ever wanted or you spot a bug!

I'll remove your custom title Marcel. I hope you'll remain an AACW player though

Hello,

Dudosh and I have been playing by email. I will try to explain what I think his frustration is.

On turn 8 of the April 1861 campaign, Johnston's command assaulted Harper's Ferry with a roughly 2 - 1 advantage. Hooker was dug in with one division and some cavalry under Shurz in a blue/orange defensive posture. Johnston attacks with a 2, Hooker defends with a 2. I think Dudosh thinks that those odds should have guarenteed the outcome. I don't hold the same assessment, 3 - 1 maybe...

The "funny thing" Dudosh refers to is that when Dubosh processed our turn, Johnston attacks, and Hookers command zooms all the way to Pittsburgh, then returns to Harper's Ferry (at least that is what I see when I used the playback button). Johnston wins the battle, loses aren't too serious for either side, but Hooker remains in command of HF and Johnston winds up one region to the Northwest of HF.

Now, on the next turn I gamble that Johnston will again assault HF instead of moving towards Pittsburgh. So I reinforce Hooker with a division railed over from Alexandria. Johnston again assaults HF, Hooker holds, Johnston wins the battle but Hooker holds the ground and Johnston's command winds up one region to the east of HF. Again, I think Dudosh's concern is with winning the battle but not gaining HF, and that one guarantees the other.

The next turn I'm figuring Johnston is now getting low on ammo, and his brigades are pretty roughed up, I detach Hamilton and another division from Alexandria and rail over to attack Johnston with an orange/orange attack posture. Hooker marches east to attack Johnston, but will retire after two rounds unless Johnston is whipped. Hooker arrives on day 5, Hamilton on day 6. The plan works and CSA loses the battle with Johnston loosing about 2,600 men to the union's 1,600.

The first battle seems odd, if only because the playback shows Hooker moving to Pittsburgh and back.

The next two battles do not, at least from my understanding of the game mechanics - it seems that my strategy paid off.

So, my issue is that while I don't think the battle results are too unusual, the very weird result of the playback of turn 8 is.

Arsan, Dudosh is a dedicated player, this was his 21st pbem. My suggestion is to try to help him understand the game mechanics a little better so that he remains a dedicated player, not to chastise him. Otherwise we are likely to lose him.

Hello,

Dudosh and I have been playing by email. Without some context the pictures don't tell you much. Here is my attempt to explain what I think his frustrations are.

On turn 8 of the April 1861 campaign, Johnston's command assaulted Harper's Ferry with a roughly 2 - 1 advantage. Hooker was dug in with one division and some cavalry under Shurz in a blue/orange defensive posture. I think Dudosh assumed that those odds should have guaranteed the outcome. I don't hold the same assessment, 3 - 1 maybe...

The "funny thing" Dudosh refers to is that when Dudosh processed our turn, Johnston attacks, and Hooker's command zooms all the way to Pittsburgh, then returns to Harper's Ferry (at least that is what I see when I used the playback button). Johnston wins the battle, loses aren't too serious for either side, but Hooker remains in command of HF and Johnston winds up one region to the Northwest of HF.

Now, on the next turn I gamble that Johnston will again assault HF instead of moving towards Pittsburgh. So I reinforce Hooker with a division railed over from Alexandria. Johnston again assaults HF, Hooker holds, Johnston wins the battle but Hooker holds the ground and Johnston's command winds up one region to the east of HF. Again, I think Dudosh's concern is why did he not win control of HF when he won the battle a second time. I understand from reading the forum that this can happen, perhaps someone can direct Dudosh to a thread that explains why a victory in battle does not always lead to winning the battlefield?

The next turn I'm figuring Johnston is now getting low on ammo, and his brigades are pretty roughed up, and that he probably is looking to withdraw. I detach Hamilton and another division from Alexandria and rail over to attack Johnston with an orange/orange attack posture. Hooker marches east to attack Johnston, but will retire after two rounds unless Johnston is whipped Orange/blue stance). Hooker arrives on day 5, Hamilton on day 6. My plan works and CSA loses the battle with Johnston loosing about 2,600 men to the union's 1,600.

The first battle seems odd, if only because the playback shows Hooker moving to Pittsburgh and back.

The next two battles do not, at least from my understanding of the game mechanics - it seems that my strategy paid off.

So, my issue is that while I don't think the battle results are too unusual, the very weird result of the playback of turn 8 is.

Arsan, Dudosh is a dedicated player, this was his 21st pbem. My suggestion is to try to help him understand the game mechanics a little better so that he remains a dedicated player, not to chastise him. Otherwise we are likely to lose him. He really likes the game, but results like in turn 8 are undermining his desire to keep playing.

I hope this long explanation is useful for all.

Regards.

sorry for the double post.

What's with Hooker moving to Pittsburgh? Why would that happen without his being ordered there? Especially with the results of the battle. t

gchristie,
Thanks for the explanation. Things look clearer now
You are right, maybe i was too harsh with the "childish" thing, but i can't help but think that way when an AACW beta team member ask for his resignation and "lose the trust on the game" because a somewhat strange battle result
Specially when he prefers to do it on the open forum and with underline instead of posting his concerns and ask for explanations or submit his resignation on the AACW private beta forum where he has access and use to post
I guess both, he and me, are having a bad day today

About the strange results: certainly what you explain of Hooker going to and back from Pittsburgh look like a replay glitch/bug. I don't really think he has gone there, just that the replay showed something weird.
Probably someone at AGEOD woudl be interested on taking a look at that replay.
The rest of the battles, as you explain them, don't look specially strange, except for a questionable Victory title on one of the battle reports.
But as on real war, sometimes the difference between victory and a defeat are so small and unclear that it's difficult for the game system to get it right 100% of the times.

Regards!

Dudosh wrote:Hi Ageod team,

at first I wish that my static "AACW Team Member" will be removed please confirm this anyone..it`s my personal wish

I had in the game now a "little dance" with Johnston around Harpers Ferry...Johnston was not able to beat a smaller force of hooker..with about 7000men more..so "funny" results..and the best was: Johnston already had the control of the city..but moved a field upper harpers ferry and then Hooker "jumped" back from a field close to harpers ferry back..this action can also describe the user "GChristie" as he saw it he also said that the first battle result was absolutley crazy he is my pbem partner. I post now here the whole game that we`ve played..maybe you find something.but in my eyes I don`t made a mistake: I had enough supply, enough "holding together" from the units all...

Sorry but I`ve lost the trust to the game engine and I lost the fun of the game..even when I know that I also made mistakes..that cannot be "this juming" in 2 preverious turns..and the best is: I play also an other pbem..also the csa..and the same: I attack Harpers Ferry with a complete army stack..and a single unit holds the city...sorry something is not right

notice: please let me know your e-mail adreß anyone who wants to have game to check...I cannot upload here..the size is to big

Regards
Dudosh

Curious post. Oh well...back to my mod...

Dudosh's first screen shot seems to show two CSA divisions with extremely low cohesion and combat values <100.

That might be a clue as to what happened.

77NY wrote:Dudosh's first screen shot seems to show two CSA divisions with extremely low cohesion and combat values <100.

That might be a clue as to what happened.

Also, Johnston appears to have attacked across a river. That doesn't help your attack.

I think the first and third screenies show Johnson after retreating from a difficult battle so you expect them to have some high fatigue. Also Johnson didn't attack across a river as there is no icon under his ledger - this is his retreated position.

But something else that might have influenced the battle is the CSA has four supply wagons. These each count as 1200 men and 600 horses when at full strength. So in such a small battle their presence could greatly reduce the CSA numerical advantage. 13,570-4,800= 8,770men and 5,565-2,400= 3,165horses.
Sure the USA had one supply wagon too, (and I think USA supply wagons have more men and horses from ones I've captured in games) but even at the same strengths it leaves USA with 8,205 and 1,409 which leaves the CSA with an even lower odds advantage. (assuming that everyone's supply wagons are at fully strength.)

BI

Big Ideas.

You got it. Shots 12 and 14 are the results after the third engagement between Johnson's forces and Hooker'/Hamilton's. Johnson did not cross a river at all. Hooker did for the third battle, which was probably a bad idea given he had tangled twice with Johnson, but war is hell. Screen #13 was the results of the second engagement between Johnson and a reinforced Hooker.

Dudosh's real beef was with the first engagement, for which he did not post a screen shot. I would, but don't know how.

Anyway, this has probably gone on long enough.

Very good observation about the inflation of force totals when supply is factored in. I'm continually learning stuff about this game. Thank you.

deleted

I guess what Big ideas means is that the men/horses can misguide one into believing he had a numerical advantage, when most of this advantage is from not combat elements, but logistical ones (supply wagons) with lots of flavour men and horses but zero fighting power.
Seems pretty "on spot" IMHO
Cheers

deleted

If i remember correctly to have a supply wagon or more on a stack will give a 10% bonus on fire power to the rest of the units.
But besides this indirect advantage, they don't actually fight on battles

Regards

deleted

Sorry I should have said supply wagons are good for food fights but not very helpful in fire fights. And you have 16 elements of supply wagons, which brings your elements down to 27. Your opponent also has 27 fighting elements after you take away his logical support units. The USA have more artillery which in this small battle probably tilted the advantage to the Feds.

BI