Officer Attrition

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Officer Attrition

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> Officer Attrition

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Officer Attrition - 9/20/2006 10:21:09 PM

Oldguard

Posts: 94
Joined: 9/15/2005
Status: offline

My apologies if this has been asked and answered already - I wasn't able to find anything on it.

I was reading about the Battle of the Wilderness and noted that officer attrition had a major impact on the course of that battle. Gen. Longstreet was wounded at the moment when a flank attack threatened to roll up the Union positions. The Union lost Gen. Wadsworth and Alexander Hays. Confederate generals John M. Jones, Micah Jenkins, and Leroy A. Stafford were also killed in that battle.

And of course, Jackson died at Chancellorsville which seriously harmed the cause of the Confederate Army of N. Virginia.

How is officer attrition modelled in FoF? Is it random? Does it rely on terrain (the Wilderness area seems to have been especially deadly for commanders due to the limited visibility)?

Post #: 1

RE: Officer Attrition - 9/20/2006 11:05:14 PM

ericbabe

Posts: 11927
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline

Generals can be wounded/killed in combat. In quick combat, only 1-star generals (brigade commanders) can be killed outright, 2-star generals can be wounded, and higher ranking generals cannot be harmed. (It made our beta testers very upset to lose their high level generals in quick combat.) In detailed combat, any general can be wounded/killed, and the chance is proportional to the amount of damage the brigade to which the general is attached sustains.

(in reply to Oldguard)

Post #: 2

RE: Officer Attrition - 9/21/2006 12:01:27 AM

Slick91

Posts: 269
Joined: 12/30/2002
From: Charleston, SC USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

Generals can be wounded/killed in combat.� In quick combat, only 1-star generals (brigade commanders) can be killed outright, 2-star generals can be wounded, and higher ranking generals cannot be harmed.� (It made our beta testers very upset to lose their high level generals in quick combat.)� In detailed combat, any general can be wounded/killed, and the chance is proportional to the amount of damage the brigade to which the general is attached sustains.

So, if you play the game using nothing but quick combat, you�re guaranteed never to loose a 3 or 4 star general. But, if you take over the battles on your own, you risk loosing everything? That doesn�t seem right to me.

There should be some chance of anyone being killed even in quick combat. Maybe weigh the chances of loosing high ranking generals as slim to none, but there should always be an outside chance of have Lee or Grant KIA no matter how you play the battles. Stonewall Jackson was shot by his own troops for cry out loud.

_____________________________

Slick
-----------------------------
"Life's tough, it's tougher if you're stupid."
-John Wayne

(in reply to ericbabe)

Post #: 3

RE: Officer Attrition - 9/21/2006 1:46:02 AM

Oldguard

Posts: 94
Joined: 9/15/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Slick91
So, if you play the game using nothing but quick combat, you�re guaranteed never to loose a 3 or 4 star general. But, if you take over the battles on your own, you risk loosing everything? That doesn�t seem right to me.

There should be some chance of anyone being killed even in quick combat. Maybe weigh the chances of loosing high ranking generals as slim to none, but there should always be an outside chance of have Lee or Grant KIA no matter how you play the battles. Stonewall Jackson was shot by his own troops for cry out loud.

Of course, in detailed battle you would have more control over the placement of your generals. If you keep them out of range of enemy artillery and muskets, he'll stand a much better chance of surviving.

Jackson was shot by his own people, this is true -- but he was also reconnoitering across his own lines after dark. If you don't want your Stonewall to get shot, send some lieutenants :)

(in reply to Slick91)

Post #: 4

RE: Officer Attrition - 9/21/2006 1:47:15 AM

pixelpusher

Posts: 689
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline

Eric, doesn't the sharpshooter upgrade also increase the chance to kill enemy generals?

(in reply to Slick91)

Post #: 5

RE: Officer Attrition - 9/21/2006 1:50:33 AM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oldguard

Of course, in detailed battle you would have more control over the placement of your generals. If you keep them out of range of enemy artillery and muskets, he'll stand a much better chance of surviving.

That's exactly why we have the rule protected top generals from being killed in quick combat -- the player has zero control over them, so it's quite irksome when they get killed. I was playtesting a PBEM game with one of our testers and he and I both lost 4-5 major names, guys like Lee and Grant. (I can't remember who at this point.) It was absolutely no fun to lose them, which is why we've made them invulnerable in quick combat. Once the game is out we'll see if people like or dislike this rule and perhaps adjust it, but for now we believe that the best option is to keep things as they are. (I'll add that none of our beta-testers has objected to this rule, and some were very much for it.)

(in reply to Oldguard)

Post #: 6

RE: Officer Attrition - 9/21/2006 1:52:08 AM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pixelpusher

Eric, doesn't the sharpshooter upgrade also increase the chance to kill enemy generals?

I'll field that one: yes.

If one equips a brigade with sharpshooters they have a better chance of killing generals within four hexes, and of causing morale loss among infantry more than one hex away.

(in reply to pixelpusher)

Post #: 7

RE: Officer Attrition - 9/21/2006 2:47:04 PM

Slick91

Posts: 269
Joined: 12/30/2002
From: Charleston, SC USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

That's exactly why we have the rule protected top generals from being killed in quick combat -- the player has zero control over them, so it's quite irksome when they get killed. I was playtesting a PBEM game with one of our testers and he and I both lost 4-5 major names, guys like Lee and Grant. (I can't remember who at this point.) It was absolutely no fun to lose them, which is why we've made them invulnerable in quick combat. Once the game is out we'll see if people like or dislike this rule and perhaps adjust it, but for now we believe that the best option is to keep things as they are. (I'll add that none of our beta-testers has objected to this rule, and some were very much for it.)

I understand the logic behind the decision, but it just seems to me that there should exist an slim outside chance of losing no more than one major general in a quick battle, say 1/1000 (or whatever) chance on a dice roll. I agree that to do a quick battle and loose three or four major generals is excessive and extremely frustrating. But, it seems to me it should be more of a very slim realistic possibly rather than setting the same possibility to zero is to remove a big part of the "what-if" playability of a historic game.

Maybe just consider testing the possibility in an update patch? You guys are the ones who are holding the keys to the car. Just my two cents�and a nickel more.

_____________________________

Slick
-----------------------------
"Life's tough, it's tougher if you're stupid."
-John Wayne

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 8

RE: Officer Attrition - 9/21/2006 4:32:38 PM

Oldguard

Posts: 94
Joined: 9/15/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.
If one equips a brigade with sharpshooters they have a better chance of killing generals within four hexes, and of causing morale loss among infantry more than one hex away.

I like that idea. You could call it "Berdan's rule" :)

quote:

Armed with Sharp's rifles, Whitworth rifles, sporting arms, and custom-made, privately owned target weapons (some weighing over 30 lbs) Northern and Southern marksmen performed efficient service at Yorktown, Gettysburg, Vicksburg, Chattanooga, Atlanta, Spotsylvania, the Wilderness, and Petersburg, and were valued in any protracted battle or small combat. The unpleasant results of this service and the moral climate of the day make finding specific records of sharpshooting duty a rarity, but the efficiency of Confederate sharpshooters in the Devil's Den at Gettysburg and the demoralizing effects of the sniping deaths of such prominent soldiers as Union Maj. Gen. John Sedgwick demonstrate the sharpshooters worth.

Source: "Historical Times Encyclopedia of the Civil War" edited by Patricia Faust

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 9

RE: Officer Attrition - 9/21/2006 6:43:11 PM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Slick91

Maybe just consider testing the possibility in an update patch? You guys are the ones who are holding the keys to the car. Just my two cents�and a nickel more.

This is definitely the sort of thing that could be changed with in the first patch. We're not fiercely opposed to it -- at this point, we're only fiercely opposed to any new programming that pushes back the release date...

(in reply to Slick91)

Post #: 10

RE: Officer Attrition - 9/21/2006 8:28:00 PM

Slick91

Posts: 269
Joined: 12/30/2002
From: Charleston, SC USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Slick91

Maybe just consider testing the possibility in an update patch? You guys are the ones who are holding the keys to the car. Just my two cents�and a nickel more.

This is definitely the sort of thing that could be changed with in the first patch. We're not fiercely opposed to it -- at this point, we're only fiercely opposed to any new programming that pushes back the release date...

A-men to that!!! That's why I suggested the patch route.

You could also make it a selectable option in the game setup for players to pick.

< Message edited by Slick91 -- 9/21/2006 8:31:31 PM >

_____________________________

Slick
-----------------------------
"Life's tough, it's tougher if you're stupid."
-John Wayne

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 11

RE: Officer Attrition - 9/21/2006 9:35:41 PM

dh76513

Posts: 131
Joined: 9/19/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oldguard

Of course, in detailed battle you would have more control over the placement of your generals. If you keep them out of range of enemy artillery and muskets, he'll stand a much better chance of surviving.

That's exactly why we have the rule protected top generals from being killed in quick combat -- the player has zero control over them, so it's quite irksome when they get killed. I was playtesting a PBEM game with one of our testers and he and I both lost 4-5 major names, guys like Lee and Grant. (I can't remember who at this point.) It was absolutely no fun to lose them, which is why we've made them invulnerable in quick combat. Once the game is out we'll see if people like or dislike this rule and perhaps adjust it, but for now we believe that the best option is to keep things as they are. (I'll add that none of our beta-testers has objected to this rule, and some were very much for it.)

In discussing such a rule designed to protect generals, I agree with Gil that the game should include this protection. Such a protection reflects greater historical accuracy in the game as both the Union and Confederate High Command (Corps Commanders and above) were well protected. Furthermore these High Command operations were establish well in the rear and generally at elevations providing the leadership a grand view of the strategies and movements. Usually runners on horseback carried their orders to and from the battlefield commanders based on their observations. As such, the High Commands (again, corps level commanders and above) on both sides were very rarely in a path of harm. Nonetheless, with 1008 general officers on both sides it may be helpful information to know that only 73 Confederacy General Officers and 67 Union General Officers were actually killed in action during the entire American Civil War. More importantly, it should be noted that most of these were not in the high command. In fact, no Union general in the High Command was killed on a battlefield during the entire war. The South lost four from their high command from which only one was an army-level commander (GEN Albert Sydney Johnston at Shiloh). The other three were corps-level commanders (e.g., LTG Ambrose P. Hill at the Fall of Petersburg; LTG Thomas J. Jackson at Chancellorsville; and LTG Leonidas Polk at Pine Mountain). So, I do agree that losing four or five high command generals (like Lee and Grant) in a battle would not only be �absolutely no fun� in the game, but also a major historical flaw.

< Message edited by dh76513 -- 9/22/2006 1:49:39 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 12

RE: Officer Attrition - 9/22/2006 1:50:46 AM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

Agree dh. While killing high ranking officers might seem like a good idea in theory, it is far less appealing in practice. In detailed combat with this engine, one has the ability to place high ranking generals in the rear as was often done in the ACW or to get their full benefit but thereby risk them at the front line. In Quick Combat on the other hand, if it is done as it was in CoG, one has no such control. If it is possible for an 80K men Army to encounter a single aimless brigade and route them but lose R E Lee in the process because the computer decided that he should lead the charge personally, that is not only highly unrealistic but it is also no fun. As I have said countless times, there will always be and needs to be a random element in strategy games, but the outcome should be primarily determined by the strategy and not simply by whomever gets lucky on one random roll of the dice.

(in reply to dh76513)

Post #: 13

RE: Officer Attrition - 9/22/2006 7:35:10 PM

andysomers

Posts: 157
Joined: 9/11/2006
Status: offline

I disagree on this thread - particularly with respect to Corps commanders. Virtually EVERY Corps commander in the war was at least slightly wounded once, and several were killed, including the brightest. I could make a list, but I will just use these names for now:
CS Corps commands - Jackson (chancellorsville), AP Hill (KIA Petersburg), Longstreet (wounded at least twice), Stuart (KIA Yellow Tavern)
US Corps commands - Reynolds, Sickles, Hancock (killed or wounded at G'burg), Sedgewick (KIA near Spotsylvania), McPherson (KIA Atlanta Campaign), Mansfield (KIA Antietam).

However, I can think of only one Army commander killed during the war - AS Johnston at Shiloh. JEJohnston was seriously wounded at Fair Oaks in the Seven Days as well. Lee a few times exposed himself to enemy fire as well and could have been easily wounded.

That said - I definitely think the possiblity should be there for Corps commanders to be casulaties. However, army casulaties should be either non-existant I think, or have a very slight risk.

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 14

RE: Officer Attrition - 9/22/2006 8:51:51 PM

dh76513

Posts: 131
Joined: 9/19/2006
Status: offline

Thanks andysomers for making me do some work and I do stand to be corrected. The US lost four from their high command: one army-level commander (James B. McPherson at Atlanta) and three corps-level commanders (Joseph K Mansfield at Antietam; John F. Reynolds at Gettysburg; and John Sedgwick at Spotsylvania). This is very interesting and that both had the same losses. However, to the best of my knowledge only one � John Sedgwick � was thought to be shot by a sharpshooter. As for those wounded, like Winfield Hancock, the focus is on death.

< Message edited by dh76513 -- 9/22/2006 8:53:57 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to andysomers)

Post #: 15

RE: Officer Attrition - 9/22/2006 10:02:40 PM

andysomers

Posts: 157
Joined: 9/11/2006
Status: offline

I would make the case that wounding should be fairly common, at least 4-5 times more common than death. So many generals were wounded, even at the Corps level. Wounding and knocking a general out for a few months should be fairly standard I would think.

McPherson - is he technically an army commander? In function I would say a Corps commander, with Sherman functioning as Army commander.

Anyway, good discussion. Perhaps this would be an easy turn off or turn on option, or even three levels. probability high, slight, or none. Either way, whatever the case I would prefer to see Corps commander casualties at a MUCH higher frequency than Army commander casualties (almost no chance).

(in reply to dh76513)

Post #: 16

RE: Officer Attrition - 9/22/2006 10:04:12 PM

Slick91

Posts: 269
Joined: 12/30/2002
From: Charleston, SC USA
Status: offline

Well, I�m not approaching it from a 100% historical perspective. I�m more simplistic and want more entertainment than a historical lecture.

I think that it is more unrealistic to have the quick battle at 100% impossibility of ANY major generals being wounded or killed, than setting the same percentage to 0.1% and/or limiting the causality to one general (or a reasonable facsimile thereof).

I just question the thought process that says, �If I take control of this battle, I may get my generals wiped out, but if I hit quick battle then they�ll ALWAYS be safe from harm.� That just seems like flawed logic to me�there should be a simple compromise or adjustment somewhere down the road.

I don�t want a game that recreates the war from start to finish and follows the history book�s timeline and facts, I�d like to see it offer the same historical dynamics, but entertains with a historical what-if possibility.

Just trying to offer a little constructive criticism, its not a deal breaker for me, but I�d like to see it tweaked a little.

_____________________________

Slick
-----------------------------
"Life's tough, it's tougher if you're stupid."
-John Wayne

(in reply to dh76513)

Post #: 17

RE: Officer Attrition - 9/22/2006 10:08:59 PM

andysomers

Posts: 157
Joined: 9/11/2006
Status: offline

Slick,

That's pretty much my thoughts - nail on the head.� The history I quote is more for example and to establish probabilities and such - definitely not which generals and when.� I think that what we all look for is an alternate history, based on historical realism and limitations. Again, I think this may be a good on/off type option.

AS

< Message edited by andysomers -- 9/22/2006 10:11:14 PM >

(in reply to Slick91)

Post #: 18

RE: Officer Attrition - 9/22/2006 11:30:58 PM

anarchyintheuk

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline

Games with leader casualties usually have a problem with the disparity in the amount of historical vs. game combat. Although there were hundreds of skirmishes in the ACW, there were few major battles (> division-level). I'm only assuming that there will be more, rather than less, combat in the game.

BoA is one of the best games that I've ever played, but by the end of a campaign 1/2 to 2/3 of my officers are toast due to the large amount of game combat vs. the admittedly few large scale battles of the RW.

There was a great board game about the ACW by Victory Games (appropriately titled The Civil War) that had the same problem but it had a kind of work-around. At the beginning of a turn you received x number of leaders from the reinforcement pool for placement during the game's unique-for-the-time pulse system. In the course of a turn you would place your reinforcement leaders with whatever army you wanted and try to get them promoted as soon as possible. In order to promote them they had to survive one battle (casualties were rolled per battle) and next turn they would receive their promotion. Like most systems the greater the rank the lesser the chance for casualties, which led to a kind of truce for the rest of the turn after one combat. Having Sherman or Jackson getting whacked as a brigadier was bad for the morale. The casualty rate was somewhat severe. IIRC a brigadier was dead on a roll of 2-6d role of 4, wounded on a 5, a division commander was dead 3, wounded on a 4 and a corps or army commanders only had to worry about a bullseye. The truce period usually happened in the early part of the game when the players were getting their leaders promoted and then moved to where they were needed (i.e. Freemont, Banks and Butler were often protecting Philadelphia). The system was about as good as you could get but it did lead to the oddity of seeking combat in order to be safe from future casualty.

(in reply to andysomers)

Post #: 19

RE: Officer Attrition - 9/22/2006 11:53:20 PM

Slick91

Posts: 269
Joined: 12/30/2002
From: Charleston, SC USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Games with leader casualties usually have a problem with the disparity in the amount of historical vs. game combat. Although there were hundreds of skirmishes in the ACW, there were few major battles (> division-level). I'm only assuming that there will be more, rather than less, combat in the game.

Good point. A gamer typically is going to be much, much more aggressive that any real person would have been in history. That begs the question that if the Civil War had played out with more major battles, would the casualties of the generals been much higher? I seriously doubt that you would lose five major generals in one battle, but through the course of the war who knows what the outcome would have been, but I�d bet that no battle would have had a 0.0% chance of something happening.

_____________________________

Slick
-----------------------------
"Life's tough, it's tougher if you're stupid."
-John Wayne

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)

Post #: 20

RE: Officer Attrition - 9/23/2006 5:43:06 AM

andysomers

Posts: 157
Joined: 9/11/2006
Status: offline

I think the proper thing here is killed in action - other than wounded. Killed in action should be still quite rare, but wounded should be common. Unbeknownst to me, I actually named previously ALL US and CS Corps and army commanders killed in action in a previous post, with the exception of Leonidas Polk. That I named those led me to think there were several others that I had not considered - I was wrong there.

If a player is more aggressive - then yes he should lose more generals. And yes, there should be battles where five or more generals are taken out (see Franklin 1864). Just because we have war games, does not mean that we fight all of the time. Management should be as important as tactics in my book.

Anyway - to quit rambling on - I guess what I am saying is that wounded generals should be fairly common, even up to the Corps, and very occasioonally the Army level. And a few should be killed from time to time I think. I think that's probably what everyone is saying here.

AS

Edit to add: I see the previous posted specifically said MAJOR generals. However, at Gettysburg, the US had at least that many casualties at division level command or higher

Reynolds - I Corps (KIA)
Hancock - II Corps (WIA)
Sickles - III Corps (WIA)
Webb - II Corps, 2nd div (WIA)
Barnes - V Corps, 1st div (WIA)
Barlow - XI Corps, 1st div (WIA, POW)

Also - the game referred to earlier - BoA. What game is that?

< Message edited by andysomers -- 9/23/2006 5:55:58 AM >

(in reply to Slick91)

Post #: 21

RE: Officer Attrition - 9/25/2006 7:10:34 PM

anarchyintheuk

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline

Birth of America. Set in French and Indian war and the Revolutionary war. Great game.

(in reply to andysomers)

Post #: 22

RE: Officer Attrition - 9/27/2006 8:04:52 PM

dh76513

Posts: 131
Joined: 9/19/2006
Status: offline

Despite the Union High Command's many tactical blunders (like the Seven Days Battles), those committed by the Confederate High Command (such as Lee's miscalculations at the Battles of Gettysburg and Antietam) were far more serious�if for no other reason than that the Confederates could so little afford the loss of experienced soldiers. The CSA put forth one hell of a fight considering the union outnumbered the Confederacy at Antietam almost 2 to 1, but the losses had a much greater impact on the South. The Union, on the other hand, could absorb the losses better as they had large pools of season troops to rally. But Gettysburg would be the straw that would break the Confederacy. Although Meade had greater losses (killed, wounded, and/or captured) than Lee at Gettysburg, the confederacy would never again be able to adequately replace their ranks with seasoned troops.

_____________________________

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)

Post #: 23

RE: Officer Attrition - 10/5/2006 6:54:56 AM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: andysomers

I think the proper thing here is killed in action - other than wounded. Killed in action should be still quite rare, but wounded should be common. Unbeknownst to me, I actually named previously ALL US and CS Corps and army commanders killed in action in a previous post, with the exception of Leonidas Polk. That I named those led me to think there were several others that I had not considered - I was wrong there.

If a player is more aggressive - then yes he should lose more generals. And yes, there should be battles where five or more generals are taken out (see Franklin 1864). Just because we have war games, does not mean that we fight all of the time. Management should be as important as tactics in my book.

Anyway - to quit rambling on - I guess what I am saying is that wounded generals should be fairly common, even up to the Corps, and very occasioonally the Army level. And a few should be killed from time to time I think. I think that's probably what everyone is saying here.

AS

Edit to add: I see the previous posted specifically said MAJOR generals. However, at Gettysburg, the US had at least that many casualties at division level command or higher

Reynolds - I Corps (KIA)
Hancock - II Corps (WIA)
Sickles - III Corps (WIA)
Webb - II Corps, 2nd div (WIA)
Barnes - V Corps, 1st div (WIA)
Barlow - XI Corps, 1st div (WIA, POW)

Also - the game referred to earlier - BoA. What game is that?

one question on this kind of thing, if you are playing the game and have a battle come up that is in effect Gettysburg, are you going to play it in detail battle or are you going to roll the die and do a quick combat ?

_____________________________

(in reply to andysomers)

Post #: 24

RE: Officer Attrition - 10/5/2006 4:43:05 PM

Williamb

Posts: 594
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Dayton Ohio
Status: offline

I think the odds should change based on the victory level of the battle and losses taken.

Most of said generals were killed trying to rally troops as I recall. Generals mostly are suppose to be planners but when things went wrong they would enter the fray to give their troops morale when it was low.

So technically it was usually only when things are going bad that generals were forced to be exposed to fire. Should reflect this in the rules.

_____________________________

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 25

RE: Officer Attrition - 10/11/2006 12:56:05 PM

Jonathan Palfrey

Posts: 535
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

one question on this kind of thing, if you are playing the game and have a battle come up that is in effect Gettysburg, are you going to play it in detail battle or are you going to roll the die and do a quick combat ?

Frankly, I anticipate using quick combat for all battles. Otherwise the game will go on forever. Furthermore, my interest is in strategy, not tactics.

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 26

RE: Officer Attrition - 10/11/2006 6:17:36 PM

Oldguard

Posts: 94
Joined: 9/15/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

Frankly, I anticipate using quick combat for all battles. Otherwise the game will go on forever. Furthermore, my interest is in strategy, not tactics.

Hopefully the results you get won't be appreciably different either way. However, I was a huge fan of sticking to the strategy until I did my first detail battle in CoG. That hooked me. I'm hoping that reinforcement arrival timing/position will somewhat reflect the strategic situation in FoF because that would make it absolutely the best 19th century combat system ever.

Nothing quite matches the thrill of massing your artillery on a dominating ridge or sending your cavalry against their flanks at precisely the right moment to start the route.

(in reply to Jonathan Palfrey)

Post #: 27

RE: Officer Attrition - 10/12/2006 2:36:53 PM

dh76513

Posts: 131
Joined: 9/19/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oldguard
Nothing quite matches the thrill of massing your artillery on a dominating ridge or sending your cavalry against their flanks at precisely the right moment to start the route.

I agree. I am looking forward to �total� control of one side in the game � playing both the tactical and strategic elements � but I was saddened to learn that the tactical level is not available in head-to-head games.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.
Yes, human opponents are certainly possible: we have hot-seat, TCP/IP, and PBEM. In PBEM, sadly (for programming reasons), the AI resolves battles for both sides, so it's a purely strategic game. But in the other options you can fight the battles yourself.

Nonetheless, it still sounds like a fantastic game!

< Message edited by dh76513 -- 10/12/2006 9:13:49 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Oldguard)

Post #: 28

RE: Officer Attrition - 10/16/2006 10:52:15 PM

spruce

Posts: 404
Joined: 9/23/2006
Status: offline

I think leader attrition should be rare on corps or army level. Perhaps a very little to simulate the chance for getting shot by your own troops (like Jackson) or even something stupid like falling from a horse or dying from contagious disease.

But in battles with higher loss ratings, the amount of killed/wounded generals, on both brigade, division and corps level should be higher. Army command would not be influenced by this I would say.

So you might lose Lee or Grant, even they might have done something really stupid like falling from their horse - or just plain bad luck like Jackson faced. If Jackson was shot on a nighty patrol in his role as corps commander, an army commander would also have been shot.

(in reply to dh76513)

Post #: 29

RE: Officer Attrition - 10/16/2006 11:38:46 PM

Jonathan Palfrey

Posts: 535
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
Status: offline

To quote a convenient Web page:

"Summer, 1863, Following a fall from a fractious horse in New Orleans, Grant spends the summer with his family in a house near Vicksburg. His leg is so badly swollen that he is bedridden for weeks and uses crutches until October."

(in reply to spruce)

Post #: 30