Just lost the whole Army of the Potomac

[SojaRouge]

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.

I disagree on these numbers.
Front lines are 200 men long. Of course I cannot consider that the front line will stop all shots, and that missing shots won't hit someone backward. But you cannot consider either that there are more objectives in 5 rank lines than in 2. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle of these values. And that is in clear areas, with everyone standing up.
Use a wall or trenches to protect the men, with only one line of 200 men visible at a time, and you get back to a balanced chance of shooting.

Another thing thinking about it is the loss of cohesion and disorganisation. Managing 5 ranks is more complicated than 2, because people would get to bump each other more while moving backward to reload.
Full units of 1000 men should have a bigger cohesion loss than incomplete units (where "survivors" know more each other and who has to do what).

[Banks6060]

I disagree on these numbers.
Front lines are 200 men long. Of course I cannot consider that the front line will stop all shots, and that missing shots won't hit someone backward. But you cannot consider either that there are more objectives in 5 rank lines than in 2. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle of these values. And that is in clear areas, with everyone standing up.
Use a wall or trenches to protect the men, with only one line of 200 men visible at a time, and you get back to a balanced chance of shooting.

Another thing thinking about it is the loss of cohesion and disorganisation. Managing 5 ranks is more complicated than 2, because people would get to bump each other more while moving backward to reload.
Full units of 1000 men should have a bigger cohesion loss than incomplete units (where "survivors" know more each other and who has to do what).

5 ranks?? I'm no master of mid 19th century infantry tactics, but I had always thought the standard line formation consisted of only 2 ranks. Allowing larger formations to "wrap around" their enemies and flank them. Basically....the more men you have, the longer your line is....the quicker you flank the enemy....the faster you kill him....the faster he runs away.

I don't think it would have been tactically sound to have a 5 rank line. If you could source your information I'd be very interested to read about that.

Cheers.

[SojaRouge]

5 ranks?? I'm no master of mid 19th century infantry tactics, but I had always thought the standard line formation consisted of only 2 ranks. Allowing larger formations to "wrap around" their enemies and flank them. Basically....the more men you have, the longer your line is....the quicker you flank the enemy....the faster you kill him....the faster he runs away.

I don't think it would have been tactically sound to have a 5 rank line. If you could source your information I'd be very interested to read about that.

Cheers.

I was just talking about the example given above.
400 men in a 2 line rank vs 1000 men in a 5 rank line.

I remember having read something about the Azincourt battle, where 7000 english farmers were used as archers and kicked french knights asses, and if my memory is correct, there were more ranks than 2. But this is not the historical period we are talking about here

[Jabberwock]

The numbers in the example may not be perfect, but the general historical trend is for fewer men to provide the "sharp end" for each combat unit. Also, in combat tested units, the survivors are individually more efficient killers than in less experienced units.

[Banks6060]

There is certainly a balance to be struck between quantity and quality when it comes to the amount of punishment one unit is able to dish out. What was it that commanders arrived at as the "ideal" size for a regiment in combat?

wasn't it between 250 and 500?

[Brochgale]

The numbers in the example may not be perfect, but the general historical trend is for fewer men to provide the "sharp end" for each combat unit. Also, in combat tested units, the survivors are individually more efficient killers than in less experienced units.

I am sure I read something that corroborates this - that regts tended or at least infantry units got smaller with with the passage of time - possibly due to technolgy changes that infantry had to deal with.

[Daxil]

In regards to the OP, I don't know if this applies, but it is taken directly from the manual and may be the root of the probhlem:

You cannot retreat from battle into completely hostile territories (i.e. 5% or less military control) ... doing so will result in complete destruction...

If you engaged in Spotsylvania all surrounding territories are 0% Union.

[berto]

I am sure I read something that corroborates this - that regts tended or at least infantry units got smaller with with the passage of time - possibly due to technolgy changes that infantry had to deal with.

Regiments were usually raised in communities, for example a town or a county. Generally speaking, as regiments suffered losses through the war, losses were not replaced by "outsiders"; units remained a fraternity of neighbors and townsmen. Thus, it was not technology but culture and politics that had regiments dwindling in size.

[Banks6060]

Regiments were usually raised in communities, for example a town or a county. Generally speaking, as regiments suffered losses through the war, losses were not replaced by "outsiders"; units remained a fraternity of neighbors and townsmen. Thus, it was not technology but culture and politics that had regiments dwindling in size.

Confederate regiments were regularly refilled with replacements according to what I've read. It was Union regiments which suffered from a lack of replacements, but that was because of Army protocol (flawed protocol at that). The culture was certainly present, but to say that a regiment wouldn't accept replacements from "outside" their community would be the same as saying a football team couldn't learn to deal with guys who get traded into their organization.

Part of what makes a unit work is the ability to work together despite differences. Respecting one another and pulling together when it matters. And as far as I know, this was the case during the Civil War. When the bullets started flyin'...I highly doubt it mattered what town you were from.

Now....I'll give ya the state though. regiments were seldom mixed with inhabitants of different states as far as I know.

[berto]

I'm not saying the replacement policies were driven from below, determined within the ranks. It was, as you say, an army protocol, decided and imposed from the top down.

[SojaRouge]

Confederate regiments were regularly refilled with replacements according to what I've read. It was Union regiments which suffered from a lack of replacements, but that was because of Army protocol (flawed protocol at that). The culture was certainly present, but to say that a regiment wouldn't accept replacements from "outside" their community would be the same as saying a football team couldn't learn to deal with guys who get traded into their organization.

Part of what makes a unit work is the ability to work together despite differences. Respecting one another and pulling together when it matters. And as far as I know, this was the case during the Civil War. When the bullets started flyin'...I highly doubt it mattered what town you were from.

Now....I'll give ya the state though. regiments were seldom mixed with inhabitants of different states as far as I know.

I remember a game (Battle Island, great turn by turn game) where units getting replacements were losing experience, because if you got a half size unit full of experience and you refill it with half rookies, the average experience for the filled unit will be half of the max experience.
Replacements should work this way, experience after a replacement could be a cross product (not sure it is the good term in english) between the initial size and the replacement size, rounded up.

[Pocus]

You already lose experience when receiving replacements.

[SojaRouge]

You already lose experience when receiving replacements.

Cool ! Better than coding user requests when they ask for it, code them before

[Coregonas]

As this thread is being followed, another example (similar to the one of the ranks before)... about EXPERIENCE bonus (after getting his first batttle) gained seems too low.

I recruit and "train" well the unit to late infantry ATT 11/20... It goes directly to the front.

I recruit a few months early a Militia unit. 750 troops -> values ATT/DEF 7-14
The militia unit goes wild and fights several hard battles. It goes up to a HARD VETERAN with 4 EXP stars, so +2/+2.

This VET gets "ONLY" 9/16 firepower... vs the 11/20 of the green late inf unit.

I am sure in the real world the "militia" HARD VET is going to chop the regular TRAINED (but GREEN) unit most of the times, in hirs first battle, on the second it is going to be different (wasn´t this way Rommel vs Patton in Kasserine?).

This is partly simulated well as it is, as an EXP unit upgrades to LATE INF somewhat quickly, with an extra chance. The same goes for the leaders.

Just send more wood to the fire!

[veji1]

not really, the real Infantry bonus comes partly from the better weapons and doctrine they where taught...

[tagwyn]

It was a question of policy not to augment older formations but to create entirely new units. Midway through the war men would see new regiments arrive and ask what division it was!! It was a bad policy. Nothing to do with culture or whatever buzz-word you might want to use. T

[bigus]

In regards to the OP, I don't know if this applies, but it is taken directly from the manual and may be the root of the probhlem:

You cannot retreat from battle into completely hostile territories (i.e. 5% or less military control) ... doing so will result in complete destruction...

If you engaged in Spotsylvania all surrounding territories are 0% Union.

I think this also explains the high losses in the Gettysburg tests I've done.
I was wondering why Stuart did not retreat on turn 1. Then I found out that The MC was all 100% Union around him!. The ZOC rule came into effect on a couple of occasions too. Seems the high casualties are a direct result of this.


Bigus

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Heldenkaiser]

It was a question of policy not to augment older formations but to create entirely new units. Midway through the war men would see new regiments arrive and ask what division it was!! It was a bad policy. Nothing to do with culture or whatever buzz-word you might want to use. T

Indeed. State governments would receive political credit primarily for how many regiments they raised, not how many men. You can't make much of having sent 5,000 men as replacements, they just disappear in the crowd, but having raised another five regiments that bear your state's name and drive up the designation numbers is a different thing. And each new regiment is 33 officer commissions, which means 33 happy favorite sons, a huge political capital in a time when elites were small.

[Daxil]

I think this also explains the high losses in the Gettysburg tests I've done.
I was wondering why Stuart did not retreat on turn 1. Then I found out that The MC was all 100% Union around him!. The ZOC rule came into effect on a couple of occasions too. Seems the high casualties are a direct result of this.


Bigus

There's actually two types of control: Military and Loyalty. I was looking at the latter, which changes slowly when it actually meant the former. Theoretically I think if you move a large corps-sized force through enemy territory it should be converting the areas it move through. I guess the problem would be if an enemy force engages you from the space you just vacated. IMO this doesn't make much sense. Even if a force is completely routed they're still armed. Some of them would coalesce and make it back home.

Also, I've had corps get wiped out on several occasions when in offensive mode and engaged against much larger enemy forces. I haven't played much, but this was in the early game in freezing weather. Use attack with caution. As a side note, I, like the grognards, wish it was more accurate towards history, but making these changes now might alter a solid game won't it? I mean, if there are less casualties on the battlefield won't the resources available have to be tweaked to prevent massive world war1 styles dug-in armies bogging down the war? There is a cause and effect that has to be taken into account here.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[bigus]

Also, I've had corps get wiped out on several occasions when in offensive mode and engaged against much larger enemy forces. I haven't played much, but this was in the early game in freezing weather. Use attack with caution. As a side note, I, like the grognards, wish it was more accurate towards history, but making these changes now might alter a solid game won't it? I mean, if there are less casualties on the battlefield won't the resources available have to be tweaked to prevent massive world war1 styles dug-in armies bogging down the war? There is a cause and effect that has to be taken into account here.

I say the casualty figures are good right now after doing more testing. One has to be careful of the MC around him, The stance, Supply ,etc ,etc ,etc.
One of the problems with the Gettysburg tests are that the MC was 0% for some units hence no retreat path and so a fight to the death.


bigus