When (not) to attack

[Heldenkaiser]

Does anybody have any rules of thumb regarding the chances of an attack? How do you try to guess them? What elements figure in the equation, and how are they weighed, relatively to each other?
- Strength value of the opposing forces?
- Strat / Def / Off rating of commanders?
- Entrenchments?
- Terrain? (Crossing rivers etc.)
- Chances of enemy corps in neighbouring provinces marching to battle? (That one seems to me especially hard to figure into guessing one's chances to succeed.)

This is a general question of course, but it was triggered by a real situation in which I tried to determine whether throwing four Union corps with a combined power of 11,000 against a single Reb corps with a power of just over 2,000. But the Rebs were beyond a river, and heavily entrenched, and there were three more corps in an adjacent region who would have brought the combined strength of the enemy to over 6,000 if they would all have marched. Was I to attack or not? The immediate odds said YES, but the worst case scenario of adding all possible negative factors made me decide NO. Was I correct? Is there any way of reasonably guessing the odds of an attack based on all those factors mentioned (and maybe others)?

I know in the end if's all just guesswork and chances and nothing's for certain in war, but still ... any advise on how to guess the odds? Thanks.

[Chaplain Lovejoy]

One piece of advice I saw several months ago: do not attack across rivers--ever.

[enf91]

It depends on terrain. In clear terrain with good weather, 3-1 odds should be enough to make victory certain. In difficult terrain and/or bad weather, frontage is limited, so manpower is at once less important and in greater demand; since only a few units at a time will engage, having many other units will eventually become overkill, but because the terrain is so beneficial for the defender, more attackers are needed.
Entrenched enemies are trouble, particularly if the entrenchment sprite above the unit has an artillery piece in it. When possible, outmaneuver; when not, overwhelm.

[Colonel Dreux]

Does anybody have any rules of thumb regarding the chances of an attack? How do you try to guess them? What elements figure in the equation, and how are they weighed, relatively to each other?
- Strength value of the opposing forces?
- Strat / Def / Off rating of commanders?
- Entrenchments?
- Terrain? (Crossing rivers etc.)
- Chances of enemy corps in neighbouring provinces marching to battle? (That one seems to me especially hard to figure into guessing one's chances to succeed.)

This is a general question of course, but it was triggered by a real situation in which I tried to determine whether throwing four Union corps with a combined power of 11,000 against a single Reb corps with a power of just over 2,000. But the Rebs were beyond a river, and heavily entrenched, and there were three more corps in an adjacent region who would have brought the combined strength of the enemy to over 6,000 if they would all have marched. Was I to attack or not? The immediate odds said YES, but the worst case scenario of adding all possible negative factors made me decide NO. Was I correct? Is there any way of reasonably guessing the odds of an attack based on all those factors mentioned (and maybe others)?

I know in the end if's all just guesswork and chances and nothing's for certain in war, but still ... any advise on how to guess the odds? Thanks.

I wouldn't attack in your position. Sometimes it works if they're not on the defensive and are moving their forces somewhere else leaving that lone corps helpless, but likely they'll reinforce when you attack and Fredricksburg you.

[Benihana]

I wouldn't attack in your position. Sometimes it works if they're not on the defensive and are moving their forces somewhere else leaving that lone corps helpless, but likely they'll reinforce when you attack and Fredricksburg you.

I always assume worst case. If I'm attacking and hoping their corp won't MTSG, I assume they will. If I'm attacking and hoping my corp will MTSG I assume they won't. I'd probably have been fired by Lincoln in the first few months of the war.

[Colonel Dreux]

I always assume worst case. If I'm attacking and hoping their corp won't MTSG, I assume they will. If I'm attacking and hoping my corp will MTSG I assume they won't. I'd probably have been fired by Lincoln in the first few months of the war.

He would have fired me too (at least that first summer to fall while I was figuring out what I had and what the South had). I'm sympathetic to McDowell and McClellan. However, thanks to hindsight, I just attack, attack as a Union player. You've got too much stuff for the South to handle. You'll lose some battles, but there is no way the AI can stop an aggressive Union player (probably can't stop a cautious one either).

[Heldenkaiser]

One piece of advice I saw several months ago: do not attack across rivers--ever.

Read that too ... does it apply to all kinds of rivers? Those small region-border rivers too? Or only to navigable ones?

[Heldenkaiser]

When possible, outmaneuver; when not, overwhelm.

Yes! But how much superiority is in "overwhelm"?

[Heldenkaiser]

You've got too much stuff for the South to handle. You'll lose some battles, but there is no way the AI can stop an aggressive Union player (probably can't stop a cautious one either).

That may be ... but a cunning human player can, I am afraid!

[enf91]

Yes! But how much superiority is in "overwhelm"?

Trial and error, I guess. Just make sure that "trial" is about 4-1 power and "error" is not catastrophic.

[Banks6060]

If the defender were in open terrain in your scenario...I'd have attacked. The frontage would have allowed you to overwhlem him...and I'd bet he would have automatically retreated prior to calling for reinforcements.

But then again I'm of the more aggressive ilk.

[Mortar]

I believe when deciding to attack or not there are other things to consider as well as superiority in force. There is the weather and terrain conditions, any possible supporting forces, any command penalties they have, their supply status, and what you believe the condition of your force will be after the conflict and your ability to hold what you gain should you win. Im sure their are other possible factors as well. One thing to consider is that rather than attack an entrenched enemy is the possibility of attacking where he is not but where he cannot ignore you. If you place yourself in his supply line, or separate his forces with a force of your own, you can often compel him to attack you while you are in defense. You can also sometimes send an additional force on the following turn to that region to bolster defense (your opponent will see a force that he believes he can overwhelm but find a larger force in defense of the region when he arrives) . You must make sure not to expose vital regions by doing this though. In doing indirect attacks like this you can often maintain the initiative and keep your opponent on his his heels, denying him the chance to dig in at critical points. Im no AACW expert but this is my strategy in chess and most other games where it applies. The value of initiative cannot be stressed enough, as without it you will find yourself constantly responding to your opponents strategy and fighting a battle to not lose rather than to win (Just ask McClellan).

[Chaplain Lovejoy]

The value of initiative cannot be stressed enough.

Hear, hear! Keep forcing your opponent to react to your moves rather than the reverse.

[Heldenkaiser]

Trial and error, I guess. Just make sure that "trial" is about 4-1 power and "error" is not catastrophic.

[Heldenkaiser]

I believe when deciding to attack or not there are other things to consider as well as superiority in force. There is the weather and terrain conditions, any possible supporting forces, any command penalties they have, their supply status, and what you believe the condition of your force will be after the conflict and your ability to hold what you gain should you win. Im sure their are other possible factors as well. One thing to consider is that rather than attack an entrenched enemy is the possibility of attacking where he is not but where he cannot ignore you. If you place yourself in his supply line, or separate his forces with a force of your own, you can often compel him to attack you while you are in defense. You can also sometimes send an additional force on the following turn to that region to bolster defense (your opponent will see a force that he believes he can overwhelm but find a larger force in defense of the region when he arrives) . You must make sure not to expose vital regions by doing this though. In doing indirect attacks like this you can often maintain the initiative and keep your opponent on his his heels, denying him the chance to dig in at critical points. Im no AACW expert but this is my strategy in chess and most other games where it applies. The value of initiative cannot be stressed enough, as without it you will find yourself constantly responding to your opponents strategy and fighting a battle to not lose rather than to win (Just ask McClellan).

Agree 100%. It's my philosophy as well. The only problem is that, like Grant in the Overland Campaign, I can't keep on sidling around my opponent's flank forever. I am already bumping my head against the mountains, and at some point I WILL have to attack. Question is where and when and under what conditions ...

[Mortar]

I guess then a simpler answer could be...under the best conditions you can manage to place your force, at the risk of being Mr. Obvious. There is the old 3-1 ratio for attacker vs defender, and the 5-1 ratio for attacker vs fortified defender, but I dont think this is always necessary or practical. Certainly the aggressor carries the burden of needing a larger force and of choosing the right time, terrain and weather to make his attack. Even with ideal conditions, I think there is still a degree of finger-crossing and hoping for the best, with any attack.

[Brochgale]

As CSA I dont generally attack. I do try to give ASJohstone a decent size of Army Of Tenessee though especially with the surpriser trait, But give him some decent Corps/Division Commanders. I do attack more with Lee though as it seems something he is more inclined to do almost regardless of the odds.

[W.Barksdale]

Does anybody have any rules of thumb regarding the chances of an attack? How do you try to guess them? What elements figure in the equation, and how are they weighed, relatively to each other?
- Strength value of the opposing forces?
- Strat / Def / Off rating of commanders?
- Entrenchments?
- Terrain? (Crossing rivers etc.)
- Chances of enemy corps in neighbouring provinces marching to battle?

These are all important factors to consider. I'd count enemy strength and entrenchment levels at the top. Be very careful attacking high level entrechments.

Weighing each of these is unique to a specific offensive, however. In your case, with the information provided, I'd have made the same decision.

If at all possible try to maneuver to cut off sources of supply for your enemy and force him to attack you. Just be sure that you keep adequate forces to block enemy movements to your key objectives while keeping your own supply line open. Should be a breeze as the Federal player. A wee bit more difficult as the rebels.