Something I would really love to se would be a very short AAR or even just screenshots of a big battle and its immediate outcome : I would like to get a feel of how after a big battle the armies cohesion look like, and to what extent cant the victor exploit his success...
Please....
I know your busy finalizing the game and all, but we poor spectators and would be players need a fix to survive until release date...
Petty please...
-
eddysterckx
- Private
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 1:58 pm
veji1 wrote:Something I would really love to se would be a very short AAR or even just screenshots of a big battle and its immediate outcome : I would like to get a feel of how after a big battle the armies cohesion look like, and to what extent cant the victor exploit his success...
Please....
I know your busy finalizing the game and all, but we poor spectators and would be players need a fix to survive until release date...
Petty please...
Well, how the armies come out of it depends on so many different factors, it would be hard to get a representaative sample. A couple of examples from my last game, playing as the CSA.
I was faced with a situation similar to what happened in the real war, where I was facing an army in North Virginia, when it pulled back, and suddenly I was faced with an amphibious invasion behind my lines near Richmond. I immediately shifted two corps of the ANV to confront the landings to the north and south of the James. On the north side, I had a corps under J.E. Johnston (Beauregard was the army commander), and the southern corps was commanded by...Huger I believe, anyway, it was a bad general who only had his position because of his ranking.
In the north, the numbers were nearly even, so I pushed in with Johnston, and fought a 4 day battle in which I stopped the Union advance, but lost too many men and too much cohesion to even consider another attack for fear of losing the entire army. I also had one general killed and two wounded in the attack. I had to pull the last remaining corps out of the Manassas area to reinforce this army and ensure I could hold.
In the south, I had a slightly larger force, and tried to push him back immediately since I had moved a force of ironclads into the seazone and was hoping to trap his army without naval support and get a large surrender. But Huger refused to attack. I would change his posture to offensive and send him forward, but every time, he would immediately retreat from the battle without even threatening an attack. In fact, on the second or third attempt, he retreated to the south and then retreated again from a second amphibious landing. He had suffered a few hits, but nothing serious, so I shuffled commanders and put Johnston in charge there after he had recovered and let Beauregard take command in the north. Johnston quickly attacked and forced a surrender of the forces in the south. Beauregard, after I had reinforced that half of the army, also pushed in and forced a retreat from the peninsula, but again they suffered fairly heavily, and had to recuperate for a couple of turns before they would be available for any action.
At Manassas, I had Jackson in command of most everything else I could scrape up in Virginia, so when McClellan began to move a force down toward Richmond from Alexandria, Jackson came out from Manassas and hit him as he tried to get by. In a two day battle Jackson was able to completely rout McClellan at Fredricksburg, capturing many guns and men while suffering only about 9,000 total casualties.
So here, in the span of about 4 turns, I had three very different fights. The battles near Ft. Monroe were successful, but very costly, and required a large reinforcement of troops to finish off the fight. Very similar to the actual battles in the Seven Days campaign.
Around Norfolk, my force was preserved by retreats, so when I eventually got a general there who would fight, the battle went fairly easily, and a single turn would have sufficed to restore the army to offensive readiness.
And in Fredricksburg, Jackson completely decimated an opposing force while suffering very small losses. His forces were in good condition to continue heading north if I chose to do so and didn't need a pause to regroup.
In general, most armies, assuming at least average leadership, should be able to fight 2-3 medium to large scale battles before they really need to be rested. Obviously, better leadership (Jackson's modified ratings in this were 7 strat, 10 off, 7 def) should produce better results and less downtime. But once an army starts losing cohesion, unless you have no other choice, you should always give them time to recover. If you do this, you'll be able to keep your army structure together and actual destruction of units will be kept to a minimum. Pressing too deep into unfriendly territory and fighting too many battles is where you'll begin to see armies falling apart and losing whole brigades. The highest battle casualties I've seen (I had a 5 day battle that produced nearly 65,000 casualties) were between two tired armies, and resulted in both sides losing the rest of the campaigning season while we pulled back and reformed the armies, which were both too beat up to even consider moving.
-
eddysterckx
- Private
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 1:58 pm
Pocus wrote:tomorrow yes. You can quote again what you said about the manual of Carrier at War if you want
"You know that when they start talking about the manual that the game
is ready - no programmer ever worries about the manual before the code
is as good as gold
"
Ok, tomorrow, do you want to make the announcement yourself "over there" or do you prefer that I do it ?
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
-
LMUBill
- Lieutenant
- Posts: 141
- Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 5:01 am
- Location: Cumberland Gap, Tennessee
- Contact: Yahoo Messenger
-
eddysterckx
- Private
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 1:58 pm
LMUBill wrote:Of course it will be printed in Cherokee.....
I don't care
http://wehali.com/tsalagi/
Civil War = a-ni-yv-wi-ya da-nu-wa (people war actually
)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Awesome news
Pocus wrote:tomorrow yes. You can quote again what you said about the manual of Carrier at War if you want
Thats good news here. Looking forward to it. I am particularly intrigued
by the military and zones of control concept I read about in the "feature-of-the-day" #26 article.
Okay, well, I tried to find a fairly representative battle in one of my games and found this three day slugfest. Most of your battles will be smaller than this one, but it was still a good one.
Here's day one. As you can see from the scales in the bottom middle, we came in with basically equal forces. Beauregard is on the offensive, while Little Mac is defending and the territory is swampy, giving him a bit more of an advantage. Day one ends with nearly equal casualties and results in a stalemate.
Day two renews the fight. This time Beauregard get slightly more forces into the fight, but the defensive advantage gives Mac a big boost for ranged combat, as you can see by the number of hits the CS takes before getting into assault range. This day sees the fighting go more against the CS, but still ends in a stalemate.
Day three ends in an overall defeat for the CS forces as the fighting winds down with a smaller fight. Nothing shattering, but the failure to punch through his defensive lines means that the CS forces failed to attain their objectives.
Now on to the shape of the CS forces following what was a pretty large battle. First, an overall picture, where you can see the graphics that show the cohesion and strength of the whole army:
Here you can get a quick impression of your forces. As you can see by the purple and blue lines on the bottom right of the Divisional images, Longstreet and Holmes were pretty heavily beaten up in this fight as we'll see with the next couple of shots.
As you can see from the unit detail on the right, Longstreet took quite a beating. The only infantry unit to come through in relatively good shape was the 28th and 49th Virginia BN. I wouldn't even think of using this force in another attack until they had some time to refit. If I did, they could start losing units in bunches.
Holmes got even more beaten up than Longstreet did. He would also need to be pulled out for a refit and reorganization.
It appears that Ewell was the reserve force in the battle, as he got off relatively lightly. He would have to be my rearguard if I pulled back, or main defense if I tried to stay in place to refit.
As you can see, losses aren't equally distributed in battle, which is the way it should be. Some units saw much heavier fighting than others, or just happened to get sent to the worst possible spot at the worst time. If Ewell had gotten hit as hard as the other two, I would be in big trouble. As it is, he can hold the line against an also beaten up Union force as I recover from these or bring up reserves.
Here's day one. As you can see from the scales in the bottom middle, we came in with basically equal forces. Beauregard is on the offensive, while Little Mac is defending and the territory is swampy, giving him a bit more of an advantage. Day one ends with nearly equal casualties and results in a stalemate.
Day two renews the fight. This time Beauregard get slightly more forces into the fight, but the defensive advantage gives Mac a big boost for ranged combat, as you can see by the number of hits the CS takes before getting into assault range. This day sees the fighting go more against the CS, but still ends in a stalemate.
Day three ends in an overall defeat for the CS forces as the fighting winds down with a smaller fight. Nothing shattering, but the failure to punch through his defensive lines means that the CS forces failed to attain their objectives.
Now on to the shape of the CS forces following what was a pretty large battle. First, an overall picture, where you can see the graphics that show the cohesion and strength of the whole army:
Here you can get a quick impression of your forces. As you can see by the purple and blue lines on the bottom right of the Divisional images, Longstreet and Holmes were pretty heavily beaten up in this fight as we'll see with the next couple of shots.
As you can see from the unit detail on the right, Longstreet took quite a beating. The only infantry unit to come through in relatively good shape was the 28th and 49th Virginia BN. I wouldn't even think of using this force in another attack until they had some time to refit. If I did, they could start losing units in bunches.
Holmes got even more beaten up than Longstreet did. He would also need to be pulled out for a refit and reorganization.
It appears that Ewell was the reserve force in the battle, as he got off relatively lightly. He would have to be my rearguard if I pulled back, or main defense if I tried to stay in place to refit.
As you can see, losses aren't equally distributed in battle, which is the way it should be. Some units saw much heavier fighting than others, or just happened to get sent to the worst possible spot at the worst time. If Ewell had gotten hit as hard as the other two, I would be in big trouble. As it is, he can hold the line against an also beaten up Union force as I recover from these or bring up reserves.
Stats
I know there is going to be constant nagging about Generals stats and such, but are the numbers shown final... i see Holmes with 1-1-3 while McClellan has 1-1-2... now, perhaps this is because McClellan is in command of an army while Holmes is in comman of a division, but this seems to reflect very poorly on McClellan's historical abilities...
Yes, McClellan was nearly impossible to get into a fight, but when he did fight he seemed to do so fairly capably, at least on the defensive. I certainly would not say that Holmes was a more capable general than McClellan.
Even Lee once said that McClellan was the most capable general he had ever faced in battle.
Yes, McClellan was nearly impossible to get into a fight, but when he did fight he seemed to do so fairly capably, at least on the defensive. I certainly would not say that Holmes was a more capable general than McClellan.
Even Lee once said that McClellan was the most capable general he had ever faced in battle.
The only battle Mac fought on the defensive was the Seven Days, and his performance there wasn't anything to write home about. Once he gave the order to pull back, he basically left the fighting up to his generals. They were the ones who saved that army, he had very little to do with it.
That said, he was a very good organizer, and that's reflected in the game with his attributes. It's to your advantage to have him in command of a large army because of how he's able to train it and improve it's cohesion.
Just a FYI here, the ratings you see on the battle screen are their base attributes, but I have played exclusively with highly randomized generals since the option was put in. So the ratings on the battle card weren't what they had in this game. It really adds a good bit to the game. I can't wait for the patch to make the ratings hidden too if they can work that in. It might be a nightmare to play with, but it will undoubtedly be fun.
That said, he was a very good organizer, and that's reflected in the game with his attributes. It's to your advantage to have him in command of a large army because of how he's able to train it and improve it's cohesion.
Just a FYI here, the ratings you see on the battle screen are their base attributes, but I have played exclusively with highly randomized generals since the option was put in. So the ratings on the battle card weren't what they had in this game. It really adds a good bit to the game. I can't wait for the patch to make the ratings hidden too if they can work that in. It might be a nightmare to play with, but it will undoubtedly be fun.
True, McClellan has several army-boosting abilities, when not in fight
An important thing that Spharv2 (Lee) failed to remark (or even see?). The USA has on average an entrench level of 3.95, which is a tremendous advantage. No wonder why the CSA was repelled...
An important thing that Spharv2 (Lee) failed to remark (or even see?). The USA has on average an entrench level of 3.95, which is a tremendous advantage. No wonder why the CSA was repelled...
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
Eddy you can post on the Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious newsgroup or any other place, this will save me some time best spend on deciding when coastal bound ironclads should be merged with pure ocean-going fleets. Thanks!
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
Pocus wrote:True, McClellan has several army-boosting abilities, when not in fight
An important thing that Spharv2 (Lee) failed to remark (or even see?). The USA has on average an entrench level of 3.95, which is a tremendous advantage. No wonder why the CSA was repelled...
Of course I saw that.
I was going to go through all those little icons so everyone could see what they were, but then I realized that between the Army status icons, and the battle roll icons underneath, I was going to have a 12 page post, so I figured everyone could wait and get the game to see all those for themselves. 
veji1 wrote:How can I know how many troops fought each other in that battle ?
having the casualties is great, but it would mean more if we could see that 46 000 rebs attacked 53 000 union soldiers and lost 7 000 soldiers on the first day, etc...
I think the same!
I hope in one of the first pacthes Ageod find the time to put the actual number of men not only in the battle results but also on armies and division descriptions.
To understand the importance of casualties taken, you have to know the numbers of men engaged in battle.
Instead of or in adition to:
"Army of the Potomac (13 units. pwr: 714)"
i will like to see:
"Army of the Potomac (25046 men. 46 guns)"
And the same with corps and divisions...
Will this be possible in one of your lovely patches???
Pleeeese!!
veji1 wrote:Still, having the number of guys on the battle result screen would be good, so that with have an immediate impression of how bloody the battle was :
74 456 mens, 129 guns 13 604 casualties.
Something like this.
Yes, you are right again.
I havn´t thought of that,
In the battle report siwould be very useful and inmmersive to know the number of troops and not only the numer of "elements" commited.
Could you also see this holding shift or hovering the mouse pointer somewhere??
Some screenshot would be really appreciated...
Cheers
For that, you're going to have to wait. More detailed battle reports are on their to-do list, but didn't make it in for release. Likely, it's going to be one of those additions like BoA has been getting the past few months, something that is added to AACW as it's incorporated into the next game. But Pocus would have to confirm that, it's not like they tell me everything they plan (But they should!). I simply know that they're planned, not what the timeline is.
arsan wrote:Yes, you are right again.
I havn´t thought of that,
In the battle report siwould be very useful and inmmersive to know the number of troops and not only the numer of "elements" commited.
Could you also see this holding shift or hovering the mouse pointer somewhere??
Some screenshot would be really appreciated...
Cheers
I'll get a screenshot of troop numbers when I get home from work, if I had the game installed here, I'd never get anything done...the forums are bad enough.
Here you go, nothing too detailed, but it lets you get the total numbers for your army, and you can separate out all the noncombatants too to get a better idea of your actual combat strength. Oh, and I just realized that I had already separated out Jackson's command, (Which you can see in the second tab there) since he was being sent north, so there was an additional force in this fight that is not shown in these screenshots. I believe I went into this fight with somewhere around 60-65,000 men, because Jackson has a couple of pretty strong divisions with him.
Must be nice to get time off for Easter, I don't have another holiday until July 4th.
slight discrepancy here, the key to show men is now CTRL not SHIFT, but I forgot to set it so for the Units (only for Elements, this is why you still get the elements names and not the # of men)
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
Thanks for the screen shot Spharv2!
It´s a very nice feature i haven´t seen before!
Buuut...
maybe Pocus could manage to include in one of the future patches the possibility to seen the total numbers of the army (maybe where you now get number of units and power).
In the long run (maybe in a far, far away patch or next game) i think it would be better, for immersion and realism, don't show the player anything about "power" or "Hits" on the units or battle screen.
Only men, guns... the real things real generals have to work with.
Of course the game system would still use "hits" an "power" for battle calculations, but keeping it hidden from the gamer.
Maybe it could be an option you could switch on and off.
I think things like this and others i have seen discussed on this forums like battle histories for units, generals biographies or statistical informations (losses, battles won/lost...) are the only thing this great game system need to improve: CHROME and IMMERSION.
Cheers
PS: sorry about your holidays... it´s a shame here in spain we don´t also celebrate the 4th of july!
If its a free day, i dont mind what it celebrates!!
It´s a very nice feature i haven´t seen before!
Buuut...
maybe Pocus could manage to include in one of the future patches the possibility to seen the total numbers of the army (maybe where you now get number of units and power).
In the long run (maybe in a far, far away patch or next game) i think it would be better, for immersion and realism, don't show the player anything about "power" or "Hits" on the units or battle screen.
Only men, guns... the real things real generals have to work with.
Of course the game system would still use "hits" an "power" for battle calculations, but keeping it hidden from the gamer.
Maybe it could be an option you could switch on and off.
I think things like this and others i have seen discussed on this forums like battle histories for units, generals biographies or statistical informations (losses, battles won/lost...) are the only thing this great game system need to improve: CHROME and IMMERSION.
Cheers
PS: sorry about your holidays... it´s a shame here in spain we don´t also celebrate the 4th of july!
If its a free day, i dont mind what it celebrates!!
I wholeheartedly agree.. From what I get of AGEOD's design philosophy, the idea is to make a game that allows the player to feel like the CiC, dealing with the real issues (supplies, detection, cohesion and all) while hiding from him all the purely mechanic aspect of the game, so that it does not become a statistic feast with endless optimization from the players (add an artillery brigade, get the 20% bonus from that, the -1 penalty from this.... Great I have managed enough forces to get the 3/1 ratio that I need for this ops.. etc..).
The idea is for the game to feel like a strategy game, and I think that actually hiding the Hits and stuff from the players ( or let's say not make them apparent : the player would have to press hotkeys to see them) and just make him see the number of guys, units, their cohesion, etc would make for a realistic experience.
The idea is for the game to feel like a strategy game, and I think that actually hiding the Hits and stuff from the players ( or let's say not make them apparent : the player would have to press hotkeys to see them) and just make him see the number of guys, units, their cohesion, etc would make for a realistic experience.
Return to “American Civil War AARs”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests