Just lost the whole Army of the Potomac

[Clovis]

- Armies that reiterate fight in the same turn or next after a bloody battle while IRL they would have recuperated instead.

this one is yet occuring in my mod. I suspect the cause to belong to the low chesion losses rabble units inflict to enemy who is recuperating in the next days and come back to fight

[berto]

Perhaps upgrading a bit more the Skill "Fast Mover" could do the job... instead of giving a +15%, give a +40% to some special leaders (i e sherman). .... those leaders are limited... 4/5 in each side? and would help reducing the battle high losses now detected.

Unfortunately, that would make impossible something like an historical Kentucky 1862 campaign. Buell was certainly no fast mover, yet he moved pretty fast in reaction to Bragg's and Smith's invasion of Kentucky.

Every leader should have the potential to move fast (perhaps using forced marches) under the right, though certainly not all, circumstances.

Except Halleck!

[Banks6060]

Here's an interesting thought I just had. this game abstracts combat in such a way that a 150 man element (or one that has just about 3 or 4 hits to go until it's dead) Issues the EXACT same amount of punishment as a FULL regiment of 1000 men.

Could this be adjusted perhaps? Chance to hit being directly correlated with unit SIZE?

Size DOES matter

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Banks6060]

What makes you think that Pocus' combat calculator does not take the number of hits into consideration in his calculation? I could be mistaken, but I bet it does already. The number of men/guns/horses is for flavor but they are based on a total number of hits that the unit contains. His engine is going to the trouble of calculating the changes to display these flavor numbers, so it would seem to be kinda silly not to use the same ratio to compute the combat power of the unit along with the current cohesion multiple.

I'm not assuming anything....I'm asking. I need to clarify.

It APPEARS as though a unit with only 4 hit-points left will have the same chance to hit, with the same amount of damage, as a full strength element.

If Pocus or another developer could debunk that then I can easily abstain.

[GShock]

Clovis, please.

[Clovis]

Hum...

I just looket at the model database. Except a very few support units which have moreover a low firepower value, I don't see units with fewer hits but high firepower.

And if an regiment is depleted, even if it will keep its initial firepower, losses it will receive should eliminate it quickly from the battleground and so limit the hit it can make to enemy.

That's not to say such a mechanism shouldn't be useful. But it can't be modded and its impact should be really weak on the overall battle results.

[bigus]

Has anyone altered the Combat.Opt and the ROE.Opt to see if this has any impact on Battle losses?

Edit:In the Combats.opt file try changing the number of rounds per day to 4. These were quick tests with the Gettysburg scenario. Seems o.k

Cohesion recovery might be a problem now though. After a three day battle and 22,000 casualties almost all my corps had good cohesion at the start of the next turn.

Also it seems with higher settings (FOW etc) the battle losses seem to be much higher. (giving the AI a hugh advantage maybe). I lost Stuarts entire corps with the highest settings in a couple of tests.



Bigus

[Pocus]

I'm not assuming anything....I'm asking. I need to clarify.

It APPEARS as though a unit with only 4 hit-points left will have the same chance to hit, with the same amount of damage, as a full strength element.

If Pocus or another developer could debunk that then I can easily abstain.

No, there are steps. It is not directly proportional to the % of hits remaining, to give some kind of rubber band on behalf of the weaker (you can rationalize this decision by saying that on a 1000 men regiment, not all can fire in most of the situations ... the % of men actually able to fire in a regiment is bigger as the regiment get depleted).

[Banks6060]

No, there are steps. It is not directly proportional to the % of hits remaining, to give some kind of rubber band on behalf of the weaker (you can rationalize this decision by saying that on a 1000 men regiment, not all can fire in most of the situations ... the % of men actually able to fire in a regiment is bigger as the regiment get depleted).

With respect, how is this the case? Each regiment was formed into two ranks regardless of their size...so I would assume the percentage of men firing was directly correlated with the number of troops in the front rank at the LEAST.

more troops....more guns....more bullets....more hits?

This is a point in an historical argument, I realize the conversation about transferring anything into the game engine is pretty much over.

[Pocus]

For a lone regiment, with enough space to deploy, yes, you can form a line of 500 men on two ranks, and they would all fire. Now, on a cramped battlefield, I would say that you just can't apply the firepower of 100% of the men of your regiment at a given time, but only a fraction of them.

You can also consider that is also made for game balance purpose. Already the engine has no problem favoring the most powerful side with very clear victories, you don't want to favor this trend, so you design tiny rules which can mitigate this snowballing.

[Heldenkaiser]

For a lone regiment, with enough space to deploy, yes, you can form a line of 500 men on two ranks, and they would all fire. Now, on a cramped battlefield, I would say that you just can't apply the firepower of 100% of the men of your regiment at a given time, but only a fraction of them.

Hm, I am not sure. According to Civil War regulations and practice, it was pretty much standard to deploy the entire regiment in a single line without any reserves or such. Any units held back as a second wave (on the attack) or reserve (on the defence) would be entire regiments at least, even more likely whole brigades or even divisions (depending on the size of the whole). Any regiment actually engaged would have all its rifles in the firing line at any given time. That's afterall what linear tactics are all about, and anything more complex would have been difficult to control and confusing, especially giving the tiny size of the regiments by mid-war.

[Coregonas]

In a instant all a regiment can be in the first line, but for instance not ALL regiments of the division are firing at the same time.

This simplification is not far from reality as it is.

Edit->

400 men in a 2 rank line vs 1000 men in a 5 rank line

400 men fire less, but have more chances to hit. (x2,5 objectives )

1000 men fire more, but less chances to hit (x 0,4 objectives)

Yes yes its not exactly that way... but... some compensation is really.

[Jabberwock]

In a instant all a regiment can be in the first line, but for instance not ALL regiments of the division are firing at the same time.

This simplification is not far from reality as it is.

Edit->

400 men in a 2 rank line vs 1000 men in a 5 rank line

400 men fire less, but have more chances to hit. (x2,5 objectives )

1000 men fire more, but less chances to hit (x 0,4 objectives)

Yes yes its not exactly that way... but... some compensation is really.

+1. Good illustration.

[Banks6060]

In a instant all a regiment can be in the first line, but for instance not ALL regiments of the division are firing at the same time.

This simplification is not far from reality as it is.

Edit->

400 men in a 2 rank line vs 1000 men in a 5 rank line

400 men fire less, but have more chances to hit. (x2,5 objectives )

1000 men fire more, but less chances to hit (x 0,4 objectives)

Yes yes its not exactly that way... but... some compensation is really.

Indeed. It is abstracted well enough in the game. I can leave that part alone. I kinda liked the idea of shorter battles though. I still think troops upgrade a little too quickly....ratcheting up their fire values. Perhaps units should take even GREATER cohesion losses from combat??

[Clovis]

Indeed. It is abstracted well enough in the game. I can leave that part alone. I kinda liked the idea of shorter battles though. I still think troops upgrade a little too quickly....ratcheting up their fire values. Perhaps units should take even GREATER cohesion losses from combat??

What I done...

[berto]

Perhaps units should take even GREATER cohesion losses from combat??

You've put your finger on the solution, or at least the largest part of the solution.

[berto]

What I done...

Yes, but it doesn't apply to all scenarios, right?

[Brochgale]

Hm, I am not sure. According to Civil War regulations and practice, it was pretty much standard to deploy the entire regiment in a single line without any reserves or such. Any units held back as a second wave (on the attack) or reserve (on the defence) would be entire regiments at least, even more likely whole brigades or even divisions (depending on the size of the whole). Any regiment actually engaged would have all its rifles in the firing line at any given time. That's afterall what linear tactics are all about, and anything more complex would have been difficult to control and confusing, especially giving the tiny size of the regiments by mid-war.

Interesting idea. I guess you might know that the Stonewall Brigade was assigned what might be called a protect the rear role at Gettysburg - a unit that might have been used to CSA on day1 but they were not there when Ewell was dithering admiring the scenery. Now if they had been there - who knows what might have happenned if Ewell in particualr had those extra brigades assigned other duties on that first day.

Also Lee did have cavalry or he could have had them closer to hand but elected to have Jenkins Brigade I belief doing something else.

In other words not all units available to an Army or to a Corps are available to engage directly in action but are fulfilling other perhaps necessary actions - debatable point?

[Clovis]

Yes, but it doesn't apply to all scenarios, right?

Indeed.

[Drakken]

Clovis, couldn't you do a mod keeping everything vanilla except what you have modded to the cohesion losses and to the combat logic?

[Clovis]

Clovis, couldn't you do a mod keeping everything vanilla except what you have modded to the cohesion losses and to the combat logic?

I lack time unfortunatly...Changes are made into around 40 model files and the combat settings file mostly so anyone could do the adpatation.

But you have to think to all side effects: less bloody battles means another vanilla default, ie the massive armies built will increase...So that's need new modding too, like the massive lowering of WSU prod at start...

[Coregonas]

Im trying to figure some of somewild results in battle.

Comparing the most rare results -> My conclusion (perhaps erroneous) was than a "combat group" with some numerical superiority has too much advantage, in the surplus part.

After some comment with one of my friends about PT-Grande Guerre combat system---> make me ask ...

Once odds are 1-1, and some extra units are available, do 2 elements fire at a single element?

i.e. If 4 divisions fight versus 3, are the elements of the stack with 4 divisions firing
1 vs 1,
1 vs 1 and
2 vs 1

I believed it was not this way, just 1 vs 1 one round, then 1 vs 1 the next, so loses were slowly done...

However Seems in a couple hour fight, all the 7 divisions are firing each other...

Some one knows ?

[Heldenkaiser]

In other words not all units available to an Army or to a Corps are available to engage directly in action but are fulfilling other perhaps necessary actions - debatable point?

Yes. Keeping a reserve on the army or corps level, having infantry regiments guard the trains, the HQ and such, having cavalry patrol the flanks, the rear area, the LOC, having entire brigades holding particularly important terrain features and outposts, &c., was standard practice. So no, hardly ever would everybody on the OOB actually be in a battle, except as a desperate measure. But as I said, units held back would usually be at least entire regiments. In a major army, the regiment was usually the smallest building brick and tactical unit as well. Now of course, out West, in guerilla warfare, and such, regiments would break down in companies employed semi-independently. But not, as a rule, in the Army of the Potomac or Northern Virginia.

[bigus]

To lower losses, I made only a few changes:

- lowered the cbtHitCoef to 105 in the Combat setting file, so units will have less chances to hit enemy. I suspect default value to be based on the wrong belief mass introduction of rifled firearms to have substancially raised the firepower effect of small arms. Some recent studies are pointing out both low training level and unwillingness to adapt tactics to new realities kept the usual range of fire very close to smoothbore period. So the AACW combat model is certainly too much lenient with long range hit chance.

- lowered the cohesion value of each unit. A low value gives more rout chances. Inexperienced units will leave battles more quickly, shorter battles will give less losses for both sides

- lowered the maximum entrenchment levels at start.

On the contrary, an experienced unit in the last years will get more chesion and protection and, like vanilla settings, more firepower. So the losses should be higher.

Interesting. Lowering the cbtHitCoef did'nt really seem to help me. Reducing the Number of rounds per day did . In tests with the Gettysburg scenario the only serious casualties were overrun situations involving Stuart , 6-1 odds or greater. (but these were serious casualty figures....20,000 and the loss of Stuarts Corps In most cases). Maybe the ROE.opt needs to be adjusted.
What value Did you reduce the cohesion to in the 'models.xls'?


Bigus

[Clovis]

Interesting. Lowering the cbtHitCoef did'nt really seem to help me. Reducing the Number of rounds per day did . In tests with the Gettysburg scenario the only serious casualties were overrun situations involving Stuart , 6-1 odds or greater. (but these were serious casualty figures....20,000 and the loss of Stuarts Corps In most cases). Maybe the ROE.opt needs to be adjusted.
What value Did you reduce the cohesion to in the 'models.xls'?


Bigus

Results come from the addition of changes to cohesion levels, lowering of the cbtHitCoef and tweaks to XP progression and artillery chance to hit. Reduction of rounds has always produces mixed results, the most being the battles end without sufficient cohesion losses to hinder forces to start again to fight each other during the turn.

For models,I've altered the cohesion value.

Results are pretty good as much losses are around 10% and generally balanced.


2 examples of results:

[Franciscus]

Results are pretty good (...)


2 examples of results:

...if you call zero casualties (CSA side ) in a battle between 16.000 men a good result

(not even a soldier caught by a stray bullet, falling in a ditch or getting a sunstroke ?)

(Sorry Clovis, I just could not resist it And I am not saying that in the vanilla game we do not get often battles with nil casualties, either)

[Clovis]

...if you call zero casualties (CSA side ) in a battle between 16.000 men a good result

(not even a soldier caught by a stray bullet, falling in a ditch or getting a sunstroke ?)

(Sorry Clovis, I just could not resist it And I am not saying that in the vanilla game we do not get often battles with nil casualties, either)

You would find very curious results in reality too:

Battle of Meridian 1864:US 26,847 men 170 losses

[bigus]

Reduction of rounds has always produces mixed results, the most being the battles end without sufficient cohesion losses to hinder forces to start again to fight each other during the turn.

For models,I've altered the cohesion value.

Results are pretty good as much losses are around 10% and generally balanced.

Yes I did notice a lack of cohesion loss with number of rounds reduced.
I guess I'll check out your numbers from your mod and test with cohesion reduced.

Bigus

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted