How is this battle result possible? (this time on the sea!)

[charlesonmission]

Hi there, another frustrating battle result on my end in an amazing PBEM game. -6NM hit and I had more power. That seems crazy (this is the second time this has happened to me on the seas!) Notice that nearly the same number of men are lost, yes I lost more cannon and 1 ship. And that is a -6NM hit...... Any ideas (please don't comment on strategy of why to have a CSA navy or not as this is an ongoing game, just the mechanics)?

[ATTACH]15895[/ATTACH]


Charles

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

NM lost is based on the hit discrepancy which looks roughly 2:1 in this battle. -6 seems a bit heavy though. I think Ironclads could use a bit of a buff myself. A couple extra points of protection would do it.

[charlesonmission]

I thought I read somewhere where Pocus said it was based on the number of ships sunk. I'm pretty sure I lost only one gunship element. That's not too much.

NM lost is based on the hit discrepancy which looks roughly 2:1 in this battle. -6 seems a bit heavy though. I think Ironclads could use a bit of a buff myself. A couple extra points of protection would do it.

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

I think it was at one time. They changed something in 1.15 I believe. NM loss was zero regardless of casualties before 1.15 unless units were destroyed. That isn't the case anymore.

[charlesonmission]

Which means there was a 6NM hit for about a 50 cannon differential. The other option is this, I wonder if there is a mistake in the screen. My NM actually went up 3 during this, I had embargo (+3) land victory (+1) and sea loss (-6) = -2. But I had an actual gain of +3 (which means that the sea loss was actually a -1 loss (which sounds more realistic). I know that NM does slowly go to 100, but that can't account for the rest of the move. Basically, the actual NM is correct, and the -6NM was a bug listing.

I think it was at one time. They changed something in 1.15 I believe. NM loss was zero regardless of casualties before 1.15 unless units were destroyed. That isn't the case anymore.

[Pocus]

NM & VP gain and losses are now calculated for each hit taken or dealt, but there is a dice roll each time. Also, the winner can never lose NM/VP and the loser can never gain them.

So perhaps here this is a combination of several factors:

a) you lost hits in elements that are pricey, according to the database
b) you had bad luck on the 'do I lose VP because hit dice rolls'
c) your opponent had a lot of luck (reverse of b)

[Palpat]

BTW, regarding both "how is this result possible" topics, I must say a RoP-like detailled battle log would be a great improvement for AACW.
It could be released as a DLC, and I would totaly buy it.

[Capt Cliff]

Ummm .... point of order! Just how could the Union fit so many ships into the James River?? So there's no stacking restrictions!!?? An the south built 13 ironclads!!??? OMG that is so unhistorical that I wonder about the game.

[Longshanks]

You can rest assured that if the CSA built 13 ironclads, that there's a lot of artillery, etc that they didn't build. The game gives you build options, it doesn't give you the historical OOB. Part of the fun is "what if", but such jollies have a high price.

There is no stacking limit anywhere at sea that I've ever experienced.

[charlesonmission]

But maybe there is a frontage restriction on rivers?

Charles

You can rest assured that if the CSA built 13 ironclads, that there's a lot of artillery, etc that they didn't build. The game gives you build options, it doesn't give you the historical OOB. Part of the fun is "what if", but such jollies have a high price.

There is no stacking limit anywhere at sea that I've ever experienced.

[charlesonmission]

Hi Capt Cliff,

Yes it may seem like a lot, but there is some context. It is the summer of 1864 and I've lost MO and AR (which didn't have lots of industry anyways), but still control the rest of CSA homeland apart from the approaches to Richmond. I still control Norfolk which the CSA lost in 1862 in actual history. Norfolk has quite a bit of capacity and was one of the larger shipyards at the time. So yes, it is more than the CSA ever put on the James, but we are in a different situation in 1864 than history. The SVF mod by Clovis, which he is still working on, will lower WS, increase the importance of industrialisation, and increase the time it takes to build clads... among other things. In the whole is should offer a slightly more historical version of this great game.

Charles

Ummm .... point of order! Just how could the Union fit so many ships into the James River?? So there's no stacking restrictions!!?? An the south built 13 ironclads!!??? OMG that is so unhistorical that I wonder about the game.

[Ace]

Does navy commander rank has any influence on the command of such a large fleet. I assume Semmens is still only 1 star admiral.

[Chaplain Lovejoy]

Perhaps the logic of the double negative "-6 National Morale points lost" means you actually gained 6 points.