Odd Battle result

[patryn8]

A battle occurred around Nashiville, with my Army numbering about 32,000 and the USA division under Sherman numbering about 17,000. I destroyed about 12 of the 18 elements of the USA division, while only taking approxmately 1,300 casualties myself. The USA took over 7K casualties. It turned out that it was a CSA defeat because the USA was able to disengage. I lost 4NM, but it was clearly a tactical and strategic victory. I repulsed the attack on Nashville and also blockaded the USA divisions retreat with my fleet. Anyways, just wondering why I took a NM hit when it was anything but a loss?

[CWNut77]

Hmm...did the Union hold the position or were they attacking YOU?

[Rafiki]

Do you have a savegame that shows this, with a backup from the turn where the battle occured?

[patryn8]

Whats you email and I'll send the save file over. The entered the Nashville region as I was moving and Army there to counter. So far I maintain control of the region and Nashville. Shermans division is pretty much decimated.

[Rafiki]

You can make a zip of the savegame, including backup turns, and attach it to your post here

[Ethy]

my analysis of the situation would be that your commanding general had his political support number was low at the time and with such over whealming odds in such a crucial battle in Nashville in which you inflicted heavy casualties on the enemy but let them retreat. it may just be plausable that your general at the time wasnt really politically supported enough and even though he repulsed the attack might not have got the credit he deserved

perhaps the USA scorched the earth on there retreat leaving civilians unhappy maybe

or

the drop of such NM loss came from another front which you missed?

[CWNut77]

This is one of the many reasons why I love this game -- soooooo many variables!

[Paul Roberts]

my analysis of the situation would be that your commanding general had his political support number was low at the time and with such over whealming odds in such a crucial battle in Nashville in which you inflicted heavy casualties on the enemy but let them retreat. it may just be plausable that your general at the time wasnt really politically supported enough and even though he repulsed the attack might not have got the credit he deserved

Is there actually a battlefield effect from political ratings? If so, how does this work?

[Ethy]

Is there actually a battlefield effect from political ratings? If so, how does this work?

there isnt a direct battle effect on political ratings no but it is after the battle, won or lost that olitical support comes into play. having a general incharge of an army who has a low political rating and having him loose vital battles would deffinatly upset the public and government alike, otherwise why would the political number it be there?

we all know that generals are always different in technique and different politicians and the public have there views over certain generals etc. political ratings affect a commanders career and to rally public and political support you must give desicive victorys.

take for example your battle of Nashville, even though you won the battle in all strategic factors doesnt mean that it wasnt a political win aswell. you may well have took a NM hit just from the fact that the enemy got to attack Nashville maybe...

[Rafiki]

AFAIK, the political rating only comes into play when you wish to bypass a general who is senior in order to promote a general with less seniority, assign a junior general to command an army or remove a senior general from army command.

[Ethy]

AFAIK, the political rating only comes into play when you wish to bypass a general who is senior in order to promote a general with less seniority, assign a junior general to command an army or remove a senior general from army command.

i knew that however would it not be a good idea as it is to encorperate some system into a new patch that generals with higher political ties and respect have more too loose and gain for looseing and winning battles. i mean a commander who is always in the spotlight by the press and politically would affect NM more than a minor luitenant general.

lets not forget that a lot of officers gained there rank simply due to there political representation rather than skill on the battle field. a general who is the friend of a guvoner or the president would be wise to do well for he might loose the job as easily as he gained it

[Coffee Sergeant]

i knew that however would it not be a good idea as it is to encorperate some system into a new patch that generals with higher political ties and respect have more too loose and gain for looseing and winning battles. i mean a commander who is always in the spotlight by the press and politically would affect NM more than a minor luitenant general.

You mean the generals seniority should be affected more, or the national morale? I don't agree about the morale part. Was Gettysburg any less of a morale boost for the Union because a relatively unknown general(Meade) won there? Was it more demoralizing for the South because Lee was in command, and not say, Bragg? Even there - I believe that Lee was not blamed for the loss as much as his subordinates, like Ewell and Longstreet. As for the seniority party, its already tough enough to get the competent generals low in seniority to rise in the ranks, I wouldn't want to make it tougher.

However, I would like to see a system whereby in addition for losing morale for dismissing generals, you lose morale if you keep an unpopular general in place that has lost a major battle. And also close the 'empty Army' loophole somehow. Like if you don't want to dismiss McClellan, you can give him an Army command, but not command of any actual troops. I think this is a major exploit.

lets not forget that a lot of officers gained there rank simply due to there political representation rather than skill on the battle field. a general who is the friend of a guvoner or the president would be wise to do well for he might loose the job as easily as he gained it

This is already modeled by the seniority and politic ratings. although it applies only to army commands.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Ethy]

i guess i would just like to see more NM points taken off if a more senior general is in command and looses a major battle.

like you refered to the battle of Gettysburg i think it was a demorolising defeat for Lee as he lost the battle to someone much his junior in seniority in terms of rank as Meade just a few weeks before was only a Divisional Commander. the Confederates did indeed take a morale hit not only because they lost but to an inferior (so the thought) general.