Realistic Numbers?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Realistic Numbers?

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 >> Realistic Numbers?

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Realistic Numbers? - 11/19/2006 12:51:59 AM

Queeg

Posts: 495
Joined: 6/23/2005
Status: offline

I'm seriously excited about this game from reading the AARs. But I do have one question. The battle and intelligence figures reported in the AARs sometimes seem a bit extreme: Intelligence reports of opposing armies with more than 1,000,000 men. Or battles with 1800 losses on one side and 0 on the other.

I know the intelligence reports are just estimates (and Pinkerton dreamed up some pretty fantastic numbers in real life), but million-man armies, even as estimates, seem wildly unrealistic. Could the ranges be tweaked a bit more realistic levels?

As for the battle losses, I know a score of 1800 to 0 is intended to reflect an ass-whipping, but wouldn't 1800 to 200 seem more realistic and have the same impact on game play? Again just a tweaking of how the numbers are reported.

It probably doesn't really matter in the end, so long as the relative figures make sense, but seeing numbers like this does destroy the immersion factor of what otherwise appears to be a wonderfully detailed game.

Any way to tweak them to more realistic ranges?

Post #: 1

RE: Realistic Numbers? - 11/19/2006 1:31:36 AM

Bungo_Pete

Posts: 9
Joined: 11/18/2006
Status: offline

I agree seeing alot of numbers in aar's like 6200 vs 2300 dead an wounded and the like.

(in reply to Queeg)

Post #: 2

RE: Realistic Numbers? - 11/19/2006 3:05:35 AM

Hard Sarge

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

Well, once hassle with a game, is it is a game, the numbers will not match the real war, unless the battles are fought the same way

and overall, I got to agree with the losses, but the game is fun to play and gives a decent feel for the time

_____________________________

(in reply to Bungo_Pete)

Post #: 3

RE: Realistic Numbers? - 11/19/2006 3:14:59 AM

Queeg

Posts: 495
Joined: 6/23/2005
Status: offline

I don't really have a problem with the mechanics of the battle calculation, just the display. In the example from the AAR, I'm fine with the game calculating a score of 1800 to 0 in terms of adjusting the combat strength of the opposing armies. But in a game with units of this size, there should never be a "0" reported. I'd be happy if they just programmed it so that "0" gets reported as a random number between, say, 50 and 99.

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 4

RE: Realistic Numbers? - 11/19/2006 3:27:42 AM

marecone

Posts: 469
Joined: 7/31/2006
From: Croatia, Europe
Status: offline

I agree with Queeg.

_____________________________

"I have never, on the field of battle, sent you where I was unwilling to go myself; nor would I now advise you to a course which I felt myself unwilling to pursue."

Nathan Bedford Forrest

(in reply to Queeg)

Post #: 5

RE: Realistic Numbers? - 11/19/2006 4:07:35 AM

regularbird

Posts: 161
Joined: 10/27/2005
Status: offline

I believe most battles were usually pretty even in loses between the winner and loser. Frank Hunter did an excellent job portraying that in his old game. Maybe a patch will address this issue at a latter date.

(in reply to marecone)

Post #: 6

RE: Realistic Numbers? - 11/19/2006 4:30:35 AM

Grifman

Posts: 156
Joined: 7/6/2002
Status: offline

Agreed. Even the victors in most Civil War battles were hardly better off than the losers. That's one reason that there were so few armies destroyed in battle - the winners were generally in no position to pursue an enemy to its destruction. As a whole the war was an attritional affair.

That's why I said that battle results should be based on some historically based table. Battles results should be something like decisive defeat, minor defeat, tie, minor victory, major victory - all of which is determined by the number of troops, generals, experience, upgrades, etc. Then depending upon the battle result a die is thrown and the number of casualties for each side should be pulled from a table of historical loss percentages based upon the victory type.

That's how I'd do it.

< Message edited by Grifman -- 11/19/2006 4:37:43 AM >

(in reply to regularbird)

Post #: 7

RE: Realistic Numbers? - 11/19/2006 4:52:41 AM

AU Tiger_MatrixForum

Posts: 1606
Joined: 10/9/2006
From: Deepest Dixie
Status: offline

Agreed. Even totally lopsided battles like Fredericksburg had a surprisingly large number of Confederate casualties. Something was said a while back about losses including straggler losses, desertion, and other misc causes were included in the game numbers - making the loss figures disproportionally higher for the loser. I wonder how accurate that is because casualty counts were made after the battles, sometimes well after a battle, and losses from straggling etc. would have been included in the 'Missing' category of reports.

_____________________________

"Never take counsel of your fears."

Tho. Jackson

(in reply to Grifman)

Post #: 8

RE: Realistic Numbers? - 11/19/2006 5:00:04 AM

chris0827

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline

Apart from the slaughter at Marye's Heights the rest of the battle of Fredericksburg had fairly even losses. The Majority of confederate casualties were on the right flank in Jackson's command. If I recall correctly Meade found a weak spot in the confederate lines and caused some damage before he was driven back. Jackson couldn't follow up the repulse because of the Union advantage in artillery.

(in reply to AU Tiger_MatrixForum)

Post #: 9

RE: Realistic Numbers? - 11/19/2006 5:03:01 AM

AU Tiger_MatrixForum

Posts: 1606
Joined: 10/9/2006
From: Deepest Dixie
Status: offline

Exactly my point. Even though one-sided slaughter occured at one part of the battlefield, things were more even in others, so overall, even though the battle was a resounding victory for the South, the casualty count was comparatively close overall.

_____________________________

"Never take counsel of your fears."

Tho. Jackson

(in reply to chris0827)

Post #: 10

RE: Realistic Numbers? - 11/19/2006 1:03:45 PM

spruce

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

Intresting thread =

1. About intelligence numbers - the 1.000.000 mark for an Union army is too high - might need tweaking this - cause this would mean 100 army corps in one army ... (taken that Union army corps roughly leveled 5.000 - 15.000 soldiers - source battle of second manassas). But the general idea on intelligence is very very very good ! I like it a lot.

2. About casualty numbers - hm, guys I will take a different stance here - I must say that Eric has shed some light on the casualty numbers. Please note that he refers to "lost" soldiers and not "dead" soldiers. Eric is trying to give us an idea how many troopers are substracted after the battle is over - this includes =

- dead soldiers (off course),
- deserted soldiers,
- wounded soldiers left behind,
- stragglers (out of command but lost to support the army),
- surendered units,
- captured units (small regiments�or companies�could be captured, while the main brigade ran off ...

Now the defeated forces will get this nasty "penalty" imposed on them ... if you ran off you'll lose much more guys to desertion, stragglers, wounded left behind etc.

In this way the reinforcing effects of the camps are mainly directed to gather the "clutter" of lost units and put them back in the army as good as possible.

I support this approach very much.

However based on the PBEM AAR, I think we must not judge too quickly - cause few major battles were fought.

But - important - we should see battles that are a "draw" with no real winning party - meaning those nasty side effects for the losing party do not have effect - and as such a more balanced result in "lost" figures.

< Message edited by spruce -- 11/19/2006 1:06:48 PM >

(in reply to AU Tiger_MatrixForum)

Post #: 11

RE: Realistic Numbers? - 11/19/2006 1:33:05 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

Fredricksburg, Cold Harbor, and Nashville are the three examples of large "battles" in which the loser suffered more than twice as many casualties overall as the winner. The Seven Days and Chicamauga are two that come to mind where the "winner's" losses EXCEEDED those of the "loser". So based on the overall statistics of large "battles" the winners casualty rate should run from 40-115% of the loser's. A somewhat wider "spread" in smaller battles is indicated by the real results. But there is no historic justification for the endless stream of "one-sided massacres" which the game seems to be producing in this AAR.

(in reply to spruce)

Post #: 12

RE: Realistic Numbers? - 11/19/2006 3:02:05 PM

spruce

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

Like I said, the result might be due to the fact that few battle outcomes in Fof are "draws" ... but on the clear victories - I agree with the Fof figures.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 13

RE: Realistic Numbers? - 11/19/2006 3:15:22 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spruce

Like I said, the result might be due to the fact that few battle outcomes in Fof are "draws" ... but on the clear victories - I agree with the Fof figures.

WHY? The FOF numbers shown in the AAR aren't even right for the most one-sided of historic outcomes. Gettysburg is counted as a "clear" victory for the North---but Union casualties were over 80% of the Confederates? In the AAR's I've seen so far, they would be more like 15-20%. At Chancellorsville (argueably Lee's greatest triumph) the South suffered over 70% as many losses as the North. Why defend obviously inaccurate results in the game? Let's at least lobby to get them into "the ballpark".

(in reply to spruce)

Post #: 14

RE: Realistic Numbers? - 11/19/2006 3:43:29 PM

marecone

Posts: 469
Joined: 7/31/2006
From: Croatia, Europe
Status: offline

Hmmm... I really don't like when report says union 5,000 dead, CSA 0. That one pisses me the most. Everything else is ok but you can't kill 1,000 or more men while not loseing a sigle solider.

_____________________________

"I have never, on the field of battle, sent you where I was unwilling to go myself; nor would I now advise you to a course which I felt myself unwilling to pursue."

Nathan Bedford Forrest

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 15

RE: Realistic Numbers? - 11/19/2006 4:01:11 PM

Grifman

Posts: 156
Joined: 7/6/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: marecone

Hmmm... I really don't like when report says union 5,000 dead, CSA 0. That one pisses me the most. Everything else is ok but you can't kill 1,000 or more men while not loseing a sigle solider.

Yeah, there needs to be a minimum percentage of the loser's losses that the victor takes. That would "seem" to be a fairly "simple" change, but I'm no programmer

I would like to see at least this changed for immersion purposes.

(in reply to marecone)

Post #: 16

RE: Realistic Numbers? - 11/19/2006 4:03:12 PM

Grifman

Posts: 156
Joined: 7/6/2002
Status: offline

At to my post about battle results, I'd aven be willing to put the table of results together. I've got a table somewhere with all probably over 100 Civil War battles and casualties. Though I expect something like if implemented would be pretty major.

< Message edited by Grifman -- 11/19/2006 4:06:56 PM >

(in reply to Grifman)

Post #: 17

RE: Realistic Numbers? - 11/19/2006 5:28:19 PM

Hard Sarge

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: spruce

Like I said, the result might be due to the fact that few battle outcomes in Fof are "draws" ... but on the clear victories - I agree with the Fof figures.

WHY? The FOF numbers shown in the AAR aren't even right for the most one-sided of historic outcomes. Gettysburg is counted as a "clear" victory for the North---but Union casualties were over 80% of the Confederates? In the AAR's I've seen so far, they would be more like 15-20%. At Chancellorsville (argueably Lee's greatest triumph) the South suffered over 70% as many losses as the North. Why defend obviously inaccurate results in the game? Let's at least lobby to get them into "the ballpark".

still think you got to go with the fact that, the commander in the game is not some guy who fought back then, the player has better control and command over his troops then they did, and there is little chance of total screw ups, plus we got the chance to stop the battle when we know the battle is won, how many of these troops that were lost were lost trying to do more then was needed ? when the battle was over

Eric can model as much as he can. he can not model the player to play as the real guys did

_____________________________

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 18

RE: Realistic Numbers? - 11/19/2006 5:30:49 PM

Hard Sarge

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: marecone

Hmmm... I really don't like when report says union 5,000 dead, CSA 0. That one pisses me the most. Everything else is ok but you can't kill 1,000 or more men while not loseing a sigle solider.

those are Quick battle results, one hassle with fighting quick battles :)

plus you get a lot of 0 to 0 losses in quick battle, where the one side decides the battle is not a good idea and runs away, that also gives the chance to onesided losses as they can lose troops on the runaway

_____________________________

(in reply to marecone)

Post #: 19

RE: Realistic Numbers? - 11/19/2006 6:02:44 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
WHY? The FOF numbers shown in the AAR aren't even right for the most one-sided of historic outcomes. Gettysburg is counted as a "clear" victory for the North---but Union casualties were over 80% of the Confederates? In the AAR's I've seen so far, they would be more like 15-20%. At Chancellorsville (argueably Lee's greatest triumph) the South suffered over 70% as many losses as the North. Why defend obviously inaccurate results in the game? Let's at least lobby to get them into "the ballpark".

still think you got to go with the fact that, the commander in the game is not some guy who fought back then, the player has better control and command over his troops then they did, and there is little chance of total screw ups, plus we got the chance to stop the battle when we know the battle is won, how many of these troops that were lost were lost trying to do more then was needed ? when the battle was over

Eric can model as much as he can. he can not model the player to play as the real guys did

True.., but as these are the "quick results" battles from PBEM, and the player's only input is to move the forces into the same province, one would hope that Eric would model his results on general historic outcomes. Even if the "model" only picked a TOTAL number of casualties (based on the size of the forces involved) and automatically assigned 60% of them to the loser and 40% to the winner it would still be 10 times as historically accurate as it is now. And with PBEM being a good-sized market of players, it would seem worth some effort to get it closer to historic results.

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 20

RE: Realistic Numbers? - 11/19/2006 6:27:29 PM

Jonathan Palfrey

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

still think you got to go with the fact that, the commander in the game is not some guy who fought back then, the player has better control and command over his troops then they did, and there is little chance of total screw ups, plus we got the chance to stop the battle when we know the battle is won, how many of these troops that were lost were lost trying to do more then was needed ? when the battle was over

Eric can model as much as he can. he can not model the player to play as the real guys did

I appreciate your comments, which are worth considering in the context of the game. However:

1. What we're talking about here is a PBEM game, with quick battles, so the player's tactical ability doesn't come into it. The quick battles should give the same kind of results that the real war did.

2. Even in a solo or network game, with detailed hex battles, is the player in his armchair really any better than Lee or Grant? I don't think so. If the player gets better results, it's because there's something unreal about the simulation. For instance, typically the player in a battle game has too much control, more than the real generals ever had.

For me, this is just one of the reasons to avoid the detailed hex battles. This is not really a simulation, it's just fairy-tale stuff. You may be really skillful at playing this kind of game; but if you think you're facing the same kind of challenge that the real generals faced, you're kidding yourself.

The strategical game isn't reality either, but it has the potential to be a bit closer to reality. In the strategical part of the war, there was more time to think, and there was genuinely more control. There were no mobile phones on the battlefield, but the telegraph and the railways permitted relatively fast strategical communications.

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 21

RE: Realistic Numbers? - 11/19/2006 6:45:51 PM

Hidde

Posts: 81
Joined: 5/1/2005
Status: offline

I have followed this game with great interest but not posting anything. I must say that it looks fantastic at the strategic layer. Maybe I'm a bit sceptic about the tactical part but it's a minor problem. I write this because I fully support the opinion that the casuallty numbers as seen in different AAR's looks odd. IMHO that's a huge negative impact on the immersion factor.

(in reply to Jonathan Palfrey)

Post #: 22

RE: Realistic Numbers? - 11/19/2006 7:48:27 PM

chris0827

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline

Perhaps the battles with no losses on one side are the result of one side being hopelessly outnumbered and unable to retreat and the commander surrendering without a fight. I'd also suggest the word killed being replaced by casualties.

(in reply to Hidde)

Post #: 23

RE: Realistic Numbers? - 11/19/2006 8:10:08 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827

Perhaps the battles with no losses on one side are the result of one side being hopelessly outnumbered and unable to retreat and the commander surrendering without a fight. I'd also suggest the word killed being replaced by casualties.

..And perhaps the Sun will rise in the West tomorrow.... Seriously, look at the battle results in the AAR currently being posted. The results of EVERY battle are hopelessly one-sided. It's a problem inherant in the programming, not an isolated anomoly.

(in reply to chris0827)

Post #: 24

RE: Realistic Numbers? - 11/19/2006 8:15:13 PM

chris0827

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline

I wasn't addressing all battles just the ones where one side had no losses. I agree that there is a problem with disproportionate losses in most battles.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 25

RE: Realistic Numbers? - 11/19/2006 8:47:59 PM

spruce

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: spruce

Like I said, the result might be due to the fact that few battle outcomes in Fof are "draws" ... but on the clear victories - I agree with the Fof figures.

WHY? The FOF numbers shown in the AAR aren't even right for the most one-sided of historic outcomes. Gettysburg is counted as a "clear" victory for the North---but Union casualties were over 80% of the Confederates? In the AAR's I've seen so far, they would be more like 15-20%. At Chancellorsville (argueably Lee's greatest triumph) the South suffered over 70% as many losses as the North. Why defend obviously inaccurate results in the game? Let's at least lobby to get them into "the ballpark".

I don't get the impression you are listening to what I said earlier. Did you read my previous post - and more important did you read Erics comment in the other thread about casualties - or lost troopers?

The game models a penalty for the loosing side - which I fully support. But what is the loosing side ? And when does this penalty kicks in ? Does the loser run like a chicken with no brains ... or is it due to lack of supply ... or due to not holding or taking the victory hexes. We simply don't know.

PBEM game is different from the standard game, we simply have too few feedback or info from the AAR - why a certain battle is lost ... to draw the conclusions.

Now people are saying they don't like the numbers, which is something Eric has commented on - and the difference is justified based on historical facts imho.

The only thing I'm not happy with is that few games in PBEM are actually draws ... where neither side goes running like a cray chicken ... so an organised retreat ... and the severe penalty is left out of the equasion.

To give you a quick example - second Manassas is seen as one of Lee's best wins - but still the Union army retreated in a fairly orderly way without losing his enormous amount of guns ... without putting his battered divisions in harms way. I've seen threads in these forums that stated that after second Manassas the Union was broken and totally routed.

The only thing I learned so far is that the casualty number is saying how many troopers were taken from your army - very straigthforward I must say - and I like the way they modeled it. This blends in quite well with the concept on camps and " ??? free ???" reinforcments.

< Message edited by spruce -- 11/19/2006 8:52:49 PM >

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 26

RE: Realistic Numbers? - 11/19/2006 8:59:25 PM

Bungo_Pete

Posts: 9
Joined: 11/18/2006
Status: offline

does'nt make much sense to me in a war where numbers were tatamount,they seem to be paying lip service to those very numbers.

(in reply to spruce)

Post #: 27

RE: Realistic Numbers? - 11/19/2006 9:40:29 PM

jchastain

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

In testing, the devs have shown a willingness to adjust numbers based on feedback.��I'm not the historian here and I am sure the realism discussions will continue, but I would like to touch on a few points from a game design standpoint.

First, as spruce indicated, the losses shown are meant to include not only battle losses but also withdrawal losses.� While there were orderly withdrawals, please keep in mind that there is fairly significant march attrition when moving between provinces without any enemy activity.� The cost for withdrawal certainly should be greater than the cost for doing an ordered move between the same locations.

And attition is meant to represent many things - really anything that causes troops to be anything other than "combat ready": in the hospital recovering from injuries, captured and in an enemy prison, deserted and heading for home, or simply lost and not sure what to do.� The camps, meanwhile, abstract the return to duty after recovering, prisoner exchanges, the capture of deserters, and the the reestablishment of contact and control.

Would some feel more comfortable if the reports were more explicit and actual combat losses were reported separately from attrition losses?� Perhaps, though I suspect there would still be discussions about those numbers.

What I like about the system though is�that it seems to capture the feel of the period.� Brigades - even when there are few clashes - are almost never at full strength.� Attrition, not combat, represents the biggest losses.� Supply losses (the need to reorganize and reequip) are more significant following a loss than are troop losses.� The civil war is not transformed into a blitzkieg campaign - stopping to rest and resupply actually has its place.� Logistics are modeled far more effectively than in CoG and yet with less complexity.

As I said at the start, I am not a historian. And perhaps that is why the numbers really do not bother or offend me. But I suspect that the devs would be willing to tweak them a bit if anyone could propose a historically accurate way of computing losses that gave proper credit for the strategic elements of the game.� More importantly though, I personally feel that the "bones" that form the framework of this game are pretty solid in capturing the proper feel.� Again though, that's just my own opinion as one player among (hopefully soon to be) many.

< Message edited by jchastain -- 11/19/2006 10:56:14 PM >

(in reply to Bungo_Pete)

Post #: 28

RE: Realistic Numbers? - 11/19/2006 11:57:36 PM

Grifman

Posts: 156
Joined: 7/6/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jchastain

Would some feel more comfortable if the reports were more explicit and actual combat losses were reported separately from attrition losses? Perhaps, though I suspect there would still be discussions about those numbers.

s

I would. That would at least restore some of the immersion for me.

But I would add, if this is what camps do, then they should be adding more troops per turn. If the losses seen are signficantly due to lost AWOL troops, then the camps should be sending back alot more than they are. 5000 men per turn that we're seeing now isn't enough given the "retreat" attrition that we are seeing.

That said, other than this, the game looks great and I am looking forward to it.

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 29

RE: Realistic Numbers? - 11/20/2006 1:05:35 AM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spruce

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: spruce

Like I said, the result might be due to the fact that few battle outcomes in Fof are "draws" ... but on the clear victories - I agree with the Fof figures.

WHY? The FOF numbers shown in the AAR aren't even right for the most one-sided of historic outcomes. Gettysburg is counted as a "clear" victory for the North---but Union casualties were over 80% of the Confederates? In the AAR's I've seen so far, they would be more like 15-20%. At Chancellorsville (argueably Lee's greatest triumph) the South suffered over 70% as many losses as the North. Why defend obviously inaccurate results in the game? Let's at least lobby to get them into "the ballpark".

I don't get the impression you are listening to what I said earlier. Did you read my previous post - and more important did you read Erics comment in the other thread about casualties - or lost troopers?

The game models a penalty for the loosing side - which I fully support. But what is the loosing side ? And when does this penalty kicks in ? Does the loser run like a chicken with no brains ... or is it due to lack of supply ... or due to not holding or taking the victory hexes. We simply don't know.

PBEM game is different from the standard game, we simply have too few feedback or info from the AAR - why a certain battle is lost ... to draw the conclusions.

Now people are saying they don't like the numbers, which is something Eric has commented on - and the difference is justified based on historical facts imho.

The only thing I'm not happy with is that few games in PBEM are actually draws ... where neither side goes running like a cray chicken ... so an organised retreat ... and the severe penalty is left out of the equasion.

To give you a quick example - second Manassas is seen as one of Lee's best wins - but still the Union army retreated in a fairly orderly way without losing his enormous amount of guns ... without putting his battered divisions in harms way. I've seen threads in these forums that stated that after second Manassas the Union was broken and totally routed.

The only thing I learned so far is that the casualty number is saying how many troopers were taken from your army - very straigthforward I must say - and I like the way they modeled it. This blends in quite well with the concept on camps and " ??? free ???" reinforcments.

YES, read your previous posts. And I found your (and Eric's) comments thoroughly unconvincing. Please post historic examples of these "massive losses" and "lost troopers". I've cited a number of examples defending my thesis..., please post your rebuttals.

As to your "quick example", the actual casualties fit my thesis well, and your's not at all. The Army of Virginia/Army of the Patomac was defeated, sullen, and demoralized following Seccond Manassas. But the didn't suffer massive desertion and straggling---and responded quickly when Lincoln reappointed "little Mac" and shipped the detested Pope to the Northwest. Their numbers were intact as they marched to Sharpsburg. It was actually Lee's victorious Army of Northern Virginia that suffered massive straggling on this campaign. Thankfully for Lee, McClellan proved as incompetant as ever at Antietam..., and managed to snatch a bloody draw "from the Jaws of Victory".

I stated previously that there is exactly ONE example among the major battles of Civil War of the kind of one-sided disaster the game model tosses out over and over. And the battle of Nashville took the incompetance and stubbornness of Hood on one side, and the patient preparation of Thomas on the other, to accomplish.

So please, cite your historic "examples", and forget the "pronouncements" and "platatudes". I'm quite willing to listen to well-backed historic arguements. Present some if you can.

(in reply to spruce)

Post #: 30