Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadMike
Eric, please tell me your post wasn't an april fool's joke, that would be cruel.

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC



For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

quote:

Greetings gents!

Longtime lurker, 1st time poster on this forum.

WCS: I'm having a great (read frustrating) time playing and trying to master this incredibly deep game, well done!

My comment/question is in regards to the CSA AI's post-beta penchant for running sprints between James River and Paducah with large army-sized (110k+) formations with little or no cost and distressing regularity. If the transportation infrastructure and logistics of the day allowed this, why didn't the AoNV head off to relieve Vicksburg in a quick 3-4 month round-trip operation?

This issue has only really come to my attention post-beta, and I wondered if it had come to anyone else's attention.

My immediate reaction is to suggest that movement rates be additionally affected by container size, if not even by actual unit size. It would seem to be realistic to expect that a large army-sized formation would find it hard to keep pace with a more nimble corps-sized unit, and the same for a corps and a division.

If I recall correctly; the ACW consisted of many, many smaller engagements than large pitched battles ala Gettysburg. In fact, wasn't the ACW noted for having the most battles of any American war ever?

Possibly a simple 1-2-3 structure would suffice to reflect this dynamic, with Army units moving 1 province, Corps units moving up to 2, and Division units capable of up to 3 provinces. (this could all be affected by command, generals, supply, quality, disposition, terrain, and weather of course)

The drama and fluidity of the game would certainly be increased with the incentive to use smaller sized units for more rapid-tempo operations, while the big armies ground against each other in their wars of attrition.

How do the grognards on board feel about this idea?

Cheers,
MadMike

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzpat

     So, let me see if I understand this in game terms.  The divisions will be able to move three provinces in a turn, so if I want to move an army 3 provinces I break it up into all those independent divisions and send them piecemeal.  But the corps and army command staffs, who are all horse-mounted, and who comprise smaller groups and are therefore more mobile and more easily organized, take three times as long to travel as tens of thousands of men marching on foot.
    And to answer the objection that the baggage and supply trains would slow the staffs down, remember that the divisions themselves are accompanied by the same type of trains.  Do I have this correctly? 

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzpat

     In my HW battles my forces do show up in a nice, neat line.  And I move my first division or two based on the positions I see.  And after those troops are committed, the computer will say, "Place the third division."  Wait a minute!  I was counting on that division to present a coherent battle line/provide flank support/attack exposed enemy groups, and now I have to place them behind the others.  This surprise element probably provides a bit of the historical confusion factor.  And I can't complain too loudly.  Once or twice I have needed to screen the supply wagons from enemy forces that started too close to them, so it actually worked to my advantage.

quote:

Chris, I was hoping to hear from you on this issue.

The way it's structured now, the movement rates are Army:1, Corps:2, Divisions:3. (not sure about individual brigades)

Interestingly, that setup by default limits the amount of march attrition an Army can take to 5% due to a one province move restriction, while Corps could take up to 10%, and Divisions up to 15%, if they utilize their full movement.

Already I've seen that this mod makes it much more difficult to coordinate movement between different sized formations, arranging for different sized formations to arrive in the same province at the same time from different start points is much more complicated.

Eric, how difficult would it be to allow a high-init general to have a chance to move his Corps or Army command in an earlier phase, not necessarily be able to move it farther but just sooner?

Thanks,
Mike

quote:

about Gettysburg, isn't it more reasonable to assume that Lee would like his corp to converge near a decent town with some decent communication and transportation routes ? Anyhow, his objective was to win a decisive battle and most unlikely he was thinking about a quick dash in the woods with all of his corps scattered in the woods.

And he was unaware of Stuarts situation - so a grouped and cohesive move would be more appropriate for his army.

quote:

It seems we are both right after a fashion.

Heath had ordered two brigades to occupy what he thought was an undefended Gettysburg. 2 Brigades of Union Cavalry, supported by artillery were unseen and resisted.

The Union reinforced first and Lee decided to fight " where he found the Union". His lack of cavalry hampered his knowledge of the Union forces and conditions he faced.

Longstreet argued for a flanking move but Lee thought he could take the Cemetary Hill heights, as his forces had already taken 2 previous high ground lines.

The Union reinforced before the assault was launched, leaving them in possession of very good defensive positions.

Lee had not intended to muster his army at Gettysburg, rather his subordinates and then he reinforced a battle that was started and fought by accident. Each side reinforceing the accidental meeting.

quote:

I disagree. It has been a while since I read the history but as I recall Lee did NOT intend to gather at gettysburg and in fact had told his subordinate units to not go there.

He did not know where the Union forces were and wasnt getting good reports from his cavalry. Congregating at a town was not a good idea since he was IN a Norhtern state and those Townspeople were NOT known to be Southern symphatisers likely to simply ignore a large Enemy force organizing and passing through.

I suggest you read some of the comments Lee had about the initial fighting on the first day and his displeasure with being forced to fight a major battle without having the advantage of picking the battle field and without the scouting and screening of his cavalry forces.

Gettysburg was an accident.

quote:

NO, Longstreet argued that the battle should be a flanking manuevor on the first day. Lee thought he could take the heights then and there, to which Longstreet replied along the lines of " He wants you to attack him there, that usually is reason enough to not make the attack"

You are correct though in that Longstreets main forces and participation as battle commander started on the second day.

Ewell gets the blame for not assaulting the heights right away on the afternoon of the first day. Lee sent an order that was confusing to Ewell and he hesitated. Lee become concerned and rode forward to find out why and it was to late to attack because the Union had reinforced.

I find nothing that states Lee was planning to gather at Gettysburg until AFTER Heath began fighting. If you have any internet source, I would appreciate it, I am never quite sure how best to find what I want.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadMike
Eric, how difficult would it be to allow a high-init general to have a chance to move his Corps or Army command in an earlier phase, not necessarily be able to move it farther but just sooner?

quote:

ORIGINAL: dude
moving his armies... which basically was sending individual divisions/corps differnet routes just so they wouldn't get boged down on one trail. Then hoping they all joined up at the right place at the right time... Frequently though he'd wind up with some division marching the the wrong way and not getting to the battle that the rest of the army was fighting. This is one of the things this game does not really model that well unless you actually do use different forces to move into one battle...

In detailed combat almost all of your units show up together in one nice neat line. Didn't Lee's army at Gettysburg start off my coming in from different directions along different roads? We've gotten use to wanting things easy by grouping all of our forces togther in one nice neat army container and then they all show up together... but was that the way it really happened? (... just asking...)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

quote:

ORIGINAL: dude
moving his armies... which basically was sending individual divisions/corps differnet routes just so they wouldn't get boged down on one trail. Then hoping they all joined up at the right place at the right time... Frequently though he'd wind up with some division marching the the wrong way and not getting to the battle that the rest of the army was fighting. This is one of the things this game does not really model that well unless you actually do use different forces to move into one battle...

In detailed combat almost all of your units show up together in one nice neat line. Didn't Lee's army at Gettysburg start off my coming in from different directions along different roads? We've gotten use to wanting things easy by grouping all of our forces togther in one nice neat army container and then they all show up together... but was that the way it really happened? (... just asking...)

In our game Crown of Glory, generals make a check at the start of detailed combat. If they make their check well, their units start in a tight vicinity near the center of their setup area. If their checks are made poorly, their units are more dispersed across their side of the map. Almost all the feedback on this system (with the exception of one person who really liked this...) was negative: people wanted their units to start in nice neat lines, or to be able to place their units wherever they wanted in their setup area. In FOF, this is what they got...though the check element is still there inasmuch as making a check is a requirement for being able to set up a military group.