Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Defense vs Offence

 
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] >> Gary Grigsby's War Between the States >> Defense vs Offence Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Defense vs Offence - 9/4/2008 9:24:15 AM   
Doc o War


Posts: 345
Joined: 8/14/2008
From: Northern California
Status: offline 		I am noticing that defenders in this game often take much higher losses than Atackers? I look at all the modifiers and I am stumped as to why I so often see the Defender get pounded- with only light Attacker casualties? In the CivWar attacking was always very bloody business- yet in this game I notice the defender seems to get the worst of most battles?
Not sure why?- and my buddy the beta tester thinks Im wrong on this (Thought I did notice Tempest posted a bug warning onth etech suport forum about the Army commander not adding in on the defense when the rules say they should.)- But something just feels odd- the battle casualties seem to favor the attacker in most of the battles? While in the real civ war the majority of the battles favored the defenders? Is anyone else noticing this?
At first I thought it was just bad luck- but it seems to happen with great regularity? Defenders in Fortifed position- all sorts of CSC leader mods- army commander present- all sorts of advantages- many hidden units- the enemy crossing a river sometimes- or attacking into bad terrain- yet most of the battles show the defender getting trashed harder- why is that? And is anyone noticing this also- or am I just having incredible bqd luck in multiple games? Doc

_____________________________

Tell me the story of the common foot soldier, and I will tell you the story of all wars.
... Heroditus.
Post #: 1
RE: Defense vs Offence - 9/4/2008 9:47:38 AM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Doc o War

I am noticing that defenders in this game often take much higher losses than Atackers? I look at all the modifiers and I am stumped as to why I so often see the Defender get pounded- with only light Attacker casualties? In the CivWar attacking was always very bloody business- yet in this game I notice the defender seems to get the worst of most battles?
Not sure why?- and my buddy the beta tester thinks Im wrong on this (Thought I did notice Tempest posted a bug warning onth etech suport forum about the Army commander not adding in on the defense when the rules say they should.)- But something just feels odd- the battle casualties seem to favor the attacker in most of the battles? While in the real civ war the majority of the battles favored the defenders? Is anyone else noticing this?
At first I thought it was just bad luck- but it seems to happen with great regularity? Defenders in Fortifed position- all sorts of CSC leader mods- army commander present- all sorts of advantages- many hidden units- the enemy crossing a river sometimes- or attacking into bad terrain- yet most of the battles show the defender getting trashed harder- why is that? And is anyone noticing this also- or am I just having incredible bqd luck in multiple games? Doc


I've been noticing this, too, and wondering. In my battle database, the American Civil War (ACW) tended not to have unbalanced outcomes--the winner of a battle, as during other periods, was usually the side with the lower percentage casualties. In the ACW, casualty percentages were fairly high and the winner often had higher total casualties, yet the game comes up with some strange outcomes.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Doc o War)
Post #: 2
RE: Defense vs Offence - 9/4/2008 11:33:14 AM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline 		I haven't seen this - are you scouting properly as the defender to make sure attacking forces are attacking you through scouted areas?

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC



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

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 3
RE: Defense vs Offence - 9/4/2008 11:52:05 AM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

I haven't seen this - are you scouting properly as the defender to make sure attacking forces are attacking you through scouted areas?


Oh, yes. I also maintain a reserve to ensure at least some of the defenders are unscouted.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 4
RE: Defense vs Offence - 9/4/2008 2:50:50 PM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline 		Hi Doc,

As one of your opponents, I can tell you what the main problem is. You are not making effective use of your cavalry, and not rotating your spotted units.

Your cavalry missions in our game have been limited almost exclusively to raiding missions. I think in some 50-75 missions, you have only run one, maybe two scouting missions. My attacks against your forces have been with *completely* unspotted forces, against your completely (or almost completely) spotted defenders. This is a significant bonus for my forces.

Rotating your spotted forces out of the front lines is recommended until the point where entrenchment is common. Forces should, whenever possible, be sent to a region that does not border an enemy controlled region, yet still within reaction range of your front line pickets. At the end of their turn, they will become unspotted. Navigable rivers break spotting, too. Front lines should be held with just enough force to prevent overruns. How do you "know" how much is enough to prevent overruns? Well...that's where the cavalry *scouting* comes in.

Raids are all well and good, not to mention a lot of fun, but unless they are reducing depots below the amount necessary to grant initiative bonuses, then they are of less importance to scouting missions. I find as the Confederates, my scouting missions run about 75% of my missions, on a turn by turn average. If my opponent has his armies mostly scouted out, sitting in frontline depots, then I'll shift over to raids, to try and impede his gaining of initiative. Otherwise, scout, scout, scout.

Also in our game, you are getting some CDC mods, but I can also tell by looking at the detailed battle report that your corps are not fully staffed with CSC's. The Confederate player, IMO, has a more difficult time of it with the CSC rule, as many of his CSC's are penny-packeted out to garrisons, and used as decoys, but your main armies, should be as fully staffed, as possible.

< Message edited by JAMiAM -- 9/4/2008 2:53:07 PM >

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 5
RE: Defense vs Offence - 9/4/2008 3:00:32 PM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

I haven't seen this - are you scouting properly as the defender to make sure attacking forces are attacking you through scouted areas?


Oh, yes. I also maintain a reserve to ensure at least some of the defenders are unscouted.

It will not ensure the reacting force is unscouted, if the attacker has properly scouted the target region the turn that he attacks. Keep in mind that with the latest patch, scouting is working properly and that the scouted percentage of a region will last until the start of the player's next turn. This means that if you scout a region in your turn, then initiate a battle in it, any reacting forces must roll against this scouted level to see if they are scouted, as they move into the region. So, even if your reacting forces started unscouted, they will become spotted if the attacker has scouted the region on the turn he attacks. It is important to watch the replay, or read the "E" report, make note of whether attacked regions were scouted, then look at the percentage of your units in the region that were spotted before you move. This will let you know what sort of unspotted status your reacting forces will retain.

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 6
RE: Defense vs Offence - 9/4/2008 7:33:34 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline 		Yeah, that would do it. I can't emphasize how important it is to really understand the importance of scouting and how to use it. Also, if you're playing with CSCs and you leave some CSC slots unfilled, it will make a difference and you will suffer if you face an opponent who has managed his CSCs properly.

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC



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

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 7
RE: Defense vs Offence - 9/5/2008 4:19:00 AM   
Doc o War


Posts: 345
Joined: 8/14/2008
From: Northern California
Status: offline 		Indeed I had not realized that my scouting ratio was off- but I shall correct that- Though I went raiding to gain points to build something last turn. - things got weak in the winter for the confeds supply wise- that will improve in better weather.
  As to spotted unit rotation- I did try to rotate where I could- It was the rotation level I thought I needed- When You scouted me your scouts were often turned aside- especially by my better CSA Cav leaders- I had assumed much of my force was unspotted in our prior engagements, especially the reserves who came up from the Interior lines.
  I usually left a basic force of spotted guys supplimented by unspotted- and I was trying to buck up my main corps with CSC shifts- we shall see if this improves- especially in regards to the scouting modifiers.

No the thing that seemed odd to me was several battles in which the defender lost 10 to 1 ratios of losses to the attacker- and yet started dug in and behind a river with near even numbers of men? This is the war in which battles were won by plunging waves of men into one spot until the enemy broke- or you did- Think Antietam- Gettysburg-  Also the Assaults at Cold Harbor, Fredricksburg, or the early assaults at Vickburg, just to name a few-  blood baths all- for the attackers- and often with even losses percentage of forces wise- a war of attrition-  I cannot think of very many battles- certainly not early in the war- where the Defender had 10 to 1 loss ratios? (Say 11500 to 1860) It just seemed that something was amiss- and I thought I would ask if anyone else had experienced that as a defender? I think someone said they had? 
 
And I dont think it could be just an off balance of scouting, that should effect the larger play by myself- but the battles sort of run themselves once all the modifiers are in place-(though frankly I will admit It could be my play) , in the set ups of these things- but I dont think I am that far off my opponnents setups. - but I maintain that in a defense battle in the civil war- defenders took out lots of attackers- at least matched them in losses-and that it should be rare that the defender would lose by a serious disproportional level-  say 10 to 1 ratio.
  
Or was it horrible repeated bad luck? That is why I asked.

I will rethink my use of cavalry on this suggestion Jam.. thank you.    


< Message edited by Doc o War -- 9/5/2008 5:13:22 AM >

_____________________________

Tell me the story of the common foot soldier, and I will tell you the story of all wars.
... Heroditus.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 8
RE: Defense vs Offence - 9/5/2008 8:41:18 AM   
Doc o War


Posts: 345
Joined: 8/14/2008
From: Northern California
Status: offline 		Well I have to admit even old dogs can learn new tricks- Tonight I got my ass handed me in three seperate games - and it suddenly became clear that my pre concieved ideas on defense in this game were wrong- I was failing to use the powerful tools that are available to me- the reaction force and scouting- I looked back over my lost battles and realized the enemy was getting the all important 3 point modifier for being unseen- and I was putting too much force on the line and not making better use of reaction moving in as the defender.

I sounds simple- and it is- but I was putting too much force into the front line where it was unable to shift. And was spotted.

So after an evening of getting my ass kicked badly,  I am reassessing how I defend in this game- perhaps If I do this right I wont see these lop sided casualty rates. I am not dismayed by this- it was just a wicked learning curve- and it certainly makes more sense now - I was not seeing the right way to defend- but I believe that is going to change.

Damn all the godlings of war for blinding me to the Obvious- and happily- thank the Goddess of Luck for opening my eyes to the better way.

_____________________________

Tell me the story of the common foot soldier, and I will tell you the story of all wars.
... Heroditus.

(in reply to Doc o War)
Post #: 9
RE: Defense vs Offence - 9/5/2008 6:50:42 PM   
Harvey Birdman


Posts: 143
Joined: 1/8/2006
Status: offline 		Napoleon allways hid his armies behind a calvary screen. The purpose of the calvary screen is to hide your intentions and figure out the enemy's intentions.

Because of the game mechanics the calvary screen consists of calvary in a region or calvary and a few infantry in a region to slow down overrun attacks. Preferably in forts.

Unless a human player wastes scouts by scouting into the 2nd line of regions where you've hidden your AC's and corps they won't have a clue where your AC's and corps actually are. That means less scouting in the front line regions so your corps can react into frontline regions that have lower scouting percentages.
Assuming the frontline region doesn't get overrun.


< Message edited by Harvey Birdman -- 9/5/2008 6:58:05 PM >

_____________________________

Indirect tactics, efficiently applied, are as inexhaustible as Heaven and Earth, unending as the flow of rivers and streams; like the sun and moon, they end but to begin anew; like the four seasons, they pass away but to return once more. Sun Tzu

(in reply to Doc o War)
Post #: 10
RE: Defense vs Offence - 9/5/2008 7:07:12 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Harvey Birdman

Napoleon allways hid his armies behind a calvary screen. The purpose of the calvary screen is to hide your intentions and figure out the enemy's intentions.

Because of the game mechanics the calvary screen consists of calvary in a region or calvary and a few infantry in a region to slow down overrun attacks. Preferably in forts.

Unless a human player wastes scouts by scouting into the 2nd line of regions where you've hidden your AC's and corps they won't have a clue where your AC's and corps actually are. That means less scouting in the front line regions so your corps can react into frontline regions that have lower scouting percentages.
Assuming the frontline region doesn't get overrun.



A screen of calvary--that is, a screen of skulls???

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Harvey Birdman)
Post #: 11
RE: Defense vs Offence - 9/5/2008 7:53:39 PM   
Harvey Birdman


Posts: 143
Joined: 1/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

A screen of calvary--that is, a screen of skulls???


I meant a screen of hills that look like skulls.

cavalry? I prefer to spell it the way I pronounce it.


_____________________________

Indirect tactics, efficiently applied, are as inexhaustible as Heaven and Earth, unending as the flow of rivers and streams; like the sun and moon, they end but to begin anew; like the four seasons, they pass away but to return once more. Sun Tzu

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 12
RE: Defense vs Offence - 9/5/2008 8:54:45 PM   
Pford

 

Posts: 235
Joined: 11/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM


Rotating your spotted forces out of the front lines is recommended until the point where entrenchment is common.


Well, no argument that such a policy will get better results in the game. But this raises a question. Did the armies in the CW really engage in this kind of manic shuffling? Enquiring minds want to know.

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 13
RE: Defense vs Offence - 9/5/2008 9:01:11 PM   
Doc o War


Posts: 345
Joined: 8/14/2008
From: Northern California
Status: offline 		Pford- on a daily basis each Civ war army had major formations rotating into the front line as pickets-  and units rarely stayed in one location long- except in winter.

_____________________________

Tell me the story of the common foot soldier, and I will tell you the story of all wars.
... Heroditus.

(in reply to Pford)
Post #: 14
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Gary Grigsby's War Between the States >> Defense vs Offence Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

6.156