Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Battles - Never a Draw

 
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 >> Battles - Never a Draw Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Battles - Never a Draw - 3/19/2009 8:15:13 PM   
Capt Cliff


Posts: 1791
Joined: 5/22/2002
From: Northwest, USA
Status: offline 		I noticed there is never a draw for battle results. Why? How does the game simulate the Wilderness campaign? Shouldn't there be draws where each side still occupies the area after so many rounds, you can continue the battle next turn or retreat or reinforce?

_____________________________

Capt. Cliff
Post #: 1
RE: Battles - Never a Draw - 3/19/2009 10:29:16 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline 		Each turn is a month long, so that's generally enough time for some kind of decision as you're basically representing a campaign rather than just a single battle. Note that the range of possible battle results also means that you can have an inconclusive battle in which the attacker or defender is victorious, but both armies are still in good shape and able to immediately fight again in the same area.

_____________________________

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 Capt Cliff)
Post #: 2
RE: Battles - Never a Draw - 3/20/2009 7:39:32 AM   
Doc o War


Posts: 345
Joined: 8/14/2008
From: Northern California
Status: offline 		This game is really about large campaigns and strategic points- - that is all these regions with various political points attached to them- the more strategic the higher the point value---
  From Peter Cozzens book- <<the Darkest Days of the War- the Battles of Iuka and Cornith>>...Page18...;;Sept 1862
         >>General Halleck exaggerated its significance( discribing Cornith, Miss). The primary purpose of his offensive was not the destruction of Beauregard's army but the capture of Cornith. Enamored of Eighteenth-century theories of "Strategic points" as the keys to victory and Baron Henri Jomini"s emphasis on movement over annihilation, Halleck hesitated to give battle. He believed that "Richmond and Cornith are now the great strategic points of the war, and our success at these points should be assured at all hazards."
   
These regions are the strategic points we fight over in the course of the month. It gives us control of the region at the end of the month- one side or the other clearly controls the area each month- and the other side falls back.  They did this all through the war.  Jumping from region to region.

During the overall month there may well have been a battle that was a draw or several battles- or a rout- or a bloody stalemate. Or a victory- or a defeat..But these Civil War Generals would know at some point- Did they control the strategic point in the region - or not?  Perhaps they would think- I can't sustain my presence here any longer- and would fall back.
Most of the senior commanders were West Point trained or were of that mold.  This is what they were trained to believe, and mostly they all thought this way in the mid 19th-Century. It was a war of strategic points.  
   
Bragg - the CSA commander of the Army of Tennessee from 62 to 64 - was notorious for fighting tough battles and then throwing away the seemingly good results with a bad followup. - Especially in Kentucky in the fall of 62, and at Stones River, and most famously- at Chickamauga- and Chattanooga, There he was damned over and over for thinking he had lost the battle for the strategic point, when he probably had won it, and so would hold back the final blow or even retreat- when it was likely if he had pushed on just a bit more he might have won decisively.
  
So the month is an abstract of all the fighting- big and small- that took place in the region. It may have only been one big fight- those I call the Major and Strategic Victories.  but more often was many smaller minor battles.
     The important thing is who saw themselves as the victor- and thus held the ground.

_____________________________

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 #: 3
RE: Battles - Never a Draw - 3/23/2009 7:11:29 PM   
Capt Cliff


Posts: 1791
Joined: 5/22/2002
From: Northwest, USA
Status: offline 		I still feel contested areas should exist. These are very large areas where two opposing armies could be not engaed in battle but still confronting each other. It might happen once or twice in the whole game but it does add another dimension.

_____________________________

Capt. Cliff

(in reply to Doc o War)
Post #: 4
RE: Battles - Never a Draw - 3/24/2009 2:30:40 PM   
Treefrog


Posts: 702
Joined: 4/7/2004
Status: offline 		Capt,



You mentioned a jointly occupied contested region. Consider this: region boundaries in the game are arbitrary. If you have a big maneuver force in "region one" and your opponent a big force just south of it in "region two" haven't you both contested the general area?

_____________________________

"L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace."

(in reply to Capt Cliff)
Post #: 5
RE: Battles - Never a Draw - 3/24/2009 4:56:53 PM   
Mike Parker

 

Posts: 583
Joined: 12/30/2008
From: Houston TX
Status: offline 		Treefrog,

Very good!  I was thinking the very same thing but couldn't put it into words. 

(in reply to Treefrog)
Post #: 6
RE: Battles - Never a Draw - 3/24/2009 7:00:57 PM   
Capt Cliff


Posts: 1791
Joined: 5/22/2002
From: Northwest, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Treefrog

Capt,



You mentioned a jointly occupied contested region. Consider this: region boundaries in the game are arbitrary. If you have a big maneuver force in "region one" and your opponent a big force just south of it in "region two" haven't you both contested the general area?


So how do your recreate the seige of Vicksburg or Atlanta or Petersburg??? Each of those were contested areas occupied by both armies after one month.

Oh and to counter your argument who says the turns are one month ... why not 6 weeks or 7 or 8, but that's two months. An area should be considered contested if neither side can eject th eother or a siege is in place. How do we handle seiges??

_____________________________

Capt. Cliff

(in reply to Treefrog)
Post #: 7
RE: Battles - Never a Draw - 3/24/2009 8:52:21 PM   
Treefrog


Posts: 702
Joined: 4/7/2004
Status: offline 		Capt,

The defenders were free to leave Atlanta and Petersburg (and Williamsburg, Chatanooga, and Corinth) so I don't know that those are seiges as much as combatants in close quarters, neither willing to leave.

On the other hand you make a good point as to the roughly month long true seige of Vicksburg and as to any situation where the combatants are holding positions eye to eye over a period of time and blocking ingress/egress to/from the region along certain axis [sp? what is the plural of axis, anybody know?].

The ACW was a war of maneuver over large areas. GGWBTS does a good job of simulating that. GGWBTS does not do as good a job with micro (as to time and space) events such as seiges at a particular point or trying to simulate a particular specific time such as the Seventh Battle of the Widow's Drawers, July 11 through 13, 186*.

However, for most regions you can lay a traditional seige by blocking ingress/egress through the railroad lines that supply the region from the defender's LOC, i.e. you beseige Vicksburg just as Grant did: block the western approaches with troops and riverine craft and block the approach from Jackson, Ms.

Enjoy!



_____________________________

"L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace."

(in reply to Capt Cliff)
Post #: 8
RE: Battles - Never a Draw - 3/24/2009 10:18:43 PM   
Mike Parker

 

Posts: 583
Joined: 12/30/2008
From: Houston TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Treefrog


On the other hand you make a good point as to the roughly month long true seige of Vicksburg and as to any situation where the combatants are holding positions eye to eye over a period of time and blocking ingress/egress to/from the region along certain axis [sp? what is the plural of axis, anybody know?].



axes is the plural of axis. its pronounced different from the plural of ax however.

axes plural of axis is pronounced ax-ease

(in reply to Treefrog)
Post #: 9
RE: Battles - Never a Draw - 3/25/2009 7:05:28 PM   
Capt Cliff


Posts: 1791
Joined: 5/22/2002
From: Northwest, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Treefrog

Capt,

The defenders were free to leave Atlanta and Petersburg (and Williamsburg, Chatanooga, and Corinth) so I don't know that those are seiges as much as combatants in close quarters, neither willing to leave.

On the other hand you make a good point as to the roughly month long true seige of Vicksburg and as to any situation where the combatants are holding positions eye to eye over a period of time and blocking ingress/egress to/from the region along certain axis [sp? what is the plural of axis, anybody know?].

The ACW was a war of maneuver over large areas. GGWBTS does a good job of simulating that. GGWBTS does not do as good a job with micro (as to time and space) events such as seiges at a particular point or trying to simulate a particular specific time such as the Seventh Battle of the Widow's Drawers, July 11 through 13, 186*.

However, for most regions you can lay a traditional seige by blocking ingress/egress through the railroad lines that supply the region from the defender's LOC, i.e. you beseige Vicksburg just as Grant did: block the western approaches with troops and riverine craft and block the approach from Jackson, Ms.

Enjoy!




Interesting ... then maybe we need a seige option. But only when there's a major city involved ... Vicksburg or Petersburg. Gettysburg would not do. The defender has the choice of retreating into the city forcing the attacker to assault his fortifcations or lay seige. Grant tried an direct assault at Vicksburg and got beat back. Blocking the areas around "The area" really isn't the same as what Grant did at Vicksburg and Petersburg. That wouldn't work at Petersburg.


_____________________________

Capt. Cliff

(in reply to Treefrog)
Post #: 10
RE: Battles - Never a Draw - 3/25/2009 8:24:20 PM   
Treefrog


Posts: 702
Joined: 4/7/2004
Status: offline 		Seige option would be cool.

In the old papermap cardboard counter Empires at Arms you could move into an area and the defender could stand outside and fight or retreat and be beseiged.

However, attempting to do that this late might involve coding and other problems so severe that in the parlance of the time, "the game is not worth the candle".

_____________________________

"L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace."

(in reply to Capt Cliff)
Post #: 11
RE: Battles - Never a Draw - 3/26/2009 9:11:47 AM   
Doc o War


Posts: 345
Joined: 8/14/2008
From: Northern California
Status: offline 		Indeed- too late to recode something that grand- basically you lay siege by trying to enter the area. If you repeatedly fail to enter and hold the area- your siege is not successful. If you enter the area and make the enemy leave- your siege worked.

In the reference to certain points being besieged.  You can surround an area and then try to move into it- That is what Grant did at Vicksburg- he manuvered around the city first - North- to West to South to East taking all the regions around the city- cutting it off and when the regions around the city were held- then he moved into the Vicksburg region- technically it took him two moves to successfully take out the city once he had it surrounded- the first assaults were thrown back, the second round won. That would be the May & June turns 1863- it fell July 4th.

Petersburg was never surrounded- It was besieged region to region. Port Hudson was surrounded and then moved into as Vicksburg was- Fort Henry/ Donalson fell each in one month so that is covered by the normal action in a single month. Atlanta was manuvered arround- like Vicksburg.  Charleston SC and Willmington NC were laid seige too navally and assaulted from the coast several times- but they were never surrounded. Mobile was laid siege too in about a month at the end of the war. Even the long "siege" at Chattanooga-in late '63 -3 months- while both armies sat in the same region- the effect was the Union held Chattanooga ( the region's Strat point) and was never cut off- and the South was trying to move in- but couldnt- control technically to the north.  Same for the Siege at Knoxville in 1863- the Union was never really in any danger of loosing - they held the city and the Rebels never really could take it. Yorktown in spring 62- again never cut off- abandoned in a month. I think that was about it for CW sieges-

What I'm getting at here is the classic Seige you are thinking off- really doesnt exist in most of the civil war- one side or the other always controlled the Strategic Point of the Region- and the other side either took that away eventually or fell back and tried again the next month.   

< Message edited by Doc o War -- 3/26/2009 9:13:16 AM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Treefrog)
Post #: 12
RE: Battles - Never a Draw - 3/26/2009 7:16:12 PM   
Capt Cliff


Posts: 1791
Joined: 5/22/2002
From: Northwest, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Doc o War

Indeed- too late to recode something that grand- basically you lay siege by trying to enter the area. If you repeatedly fail to enter and hold the area- your siege is not successful. If you enter the area and make the enemy leave- your siege worked.

In the reference to certain points being besieged.  You can surround an area and then try to move into it- That is what Grant did at Vicksburg- he manuvered around the city first - North- to West to South to East taking all the regions around the city- cutting it off and when the regions around the city were held- then he moved into the Vicksburg region- technically it took him two moves to successfully take out the city once he had it surrounded- the first assaults were thrown back, the second round won. That would be the May & June turns 1863- it fell July 4th.

Petersburg was never surrounded- It was besieged region to region. Port Hudson was surrounded and then moved into as Vicksburg was- Fort Henry/ Donalson fell each in one month so that is covered by the normal action in a single month. Atlanta was manuvered arround- like Vicksburg.  Charleston SC and Willmington NC were laid seige too navally and assaulted from the coast several times- but they were never surrounded. Mobile was laid siege too in about a month at the end of the war. Even the long "siege" at Chattanooga-in late '63 -3 months- while both armies sat in the same region- the effect was the Union held Chattanooga ( the region's Strat point) and was never cut off- and the South was trying to move in- but couldnt- control technically to the north.  Same for the Siege at Knoxville in 1863- the Union was never really in any danger of loosing - they held the city and the Rebels never really could take it. Yorktown in spring 62- again never cut off- abandoned in a month. I think that was about it for CW sieges-

What I'm getting at here is the classic Seige you are thinking off- really doesnt exist in most of the civil war- one side or the other always controlled the Strategic Point of the Region- and the other side either took that away eventually or fell back and tried again the next month.   


Sorry Doc but I don't see it your way. It's a rationalzation to show the game system is ok. Your way off base in your thinking. The areas are too large to do what you say, beseige the area. A retreat into the city defenses option should be considered. You double the fort factor, but your opponent can move through the area but your stuck in the city. You do have a option to break out so your opponent must maintain the seige or end up with a large force in his rear area.

But back to the main point areas should be contested if you didn't win big enough in the main battle.


_____________________________

Capt. Cliff

(in reply to Doc o War)
Post #: 13
RE: Battles - Never a Draw - 3/26/2009 8:09:31 PM   
Treefrog


Posts: 702
Joined: 4/7/2004
Status: offline 		Cliff, as to your main point about armies ending in a stalemate, that would be cool too. I don't know that I've ever seen a simulation that addressed that point. However, I suspect the coding issues would be too much to attempt in a patch. The simulation would probably have to be developed with that concept as one of the central concepts the designed wanted to model.

I wonder if games about WWI or France, June/July 1944 do that very well?

_____________________________

"L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace."

(in reply to Capt Cliff)
Post #: 14
RE: Battles - Never a Draw - 3/26/2009 9:21:24 PM   
Mike Parker

 

Posts: 583
Joined: 12/30/2008
From: Houston TX
Status: offline 		This problem has existed in most every wargame ever made.  Its just the concept of 'areas' wasn't used much in the glory days of board game wargames it was almost always hexes (with some nice naval games that were not hexes).

But even in Hex games it was VERY rare that a hex could be contested, now that we are using areas we have the same quandry, a single area is never occupied by more than one side.

It would be good if it were I think, but it it what it is I suppose.

(in reply to Treefrog)
Post #: 15
RE: Battles - Never a Draw - 3/27/2009 12:13:27 AM   
New York Jets


Posts: 2087
Joined: 6/25/2001
From: St. Louis, MO but stuck in Bremerton,WA
Status: offline 		While the actual mechanics of what Mike is talking about would be problematical, I have to agree.
Especially with sieges.

While I can see that co-existing forces in regions without any fortifications might be inadvisable. Otherwise it makes sense. Especially at cities. Fortificaions "in the field" might not merit enemy units co-existing, as it were, in the same area, cities do, in my opinion.

I'm not sure how the actual mechanics would be worked out but, it is missing from the game.

_____________________________

"There comes a time in every man's life, and I've had plenty of 'em."

- Casey Stengel -

(in reply to Mike Parker)
Post #: 16
RE: Battles - Never a Draw - 4/21/2009 9:18:23 AM   
Heartland

 

Posts: 105
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Karlstad, Värmland, Sweden, Europe
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Treefrog
I don't know that I've ever seen a simulation that addressed that point. ...
I wonder if games about WWI or France, June/July 1944 do that very well?


Yes, Guns of August has this concept, although it does not happen very often - mostly when the defender is heavily fortified IIRC. In my most recent game, I know my poor Serbs in Belgrade were eventually ground down by a combined German/Austro-Hungarian assault, but it took several impulses of heavy fighting. Belgrade was contested for this period, allowing me to reinforce the area with the pitiful category C reserve formation the Serbs had left, for all the good it did them...

_____________________________

"Spare some change for a homocidal maniac..."
-- Homeless guy in the London subway

(in reply to Treefrog)
Post #: 17
RE: Battles - Never a Draw - 4/21/2009 4:25:07 PM   
KyleK


Posts: 52
Joined: 1/3/2009
Status: offline 		create a new 'area' . the larger cities become an area inside an area with no movement cost to enter the surrounding region.... off to the code I say!

edit, you could use this same idea for the forts too.

< Message edited by KyleK -- 4/21/2009 4:26:07 PM >

(in reply to Heartland)
Post #: 18
RE: Battles - Never a Draw - 4/21/2009 7:11:28 PM   
Capt Cliff


Posts: 1791
Joined: 5/22/2002
From: Northwest, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: KyleK

create a new 'area' . the larger cities become an area inside an area with no movement cost to enter the surrounding region.... off to the code I say!

edit, you could use this same idea for the forts too.



I don't think a new area is necessary. It's just that one army retreats into a city and is flagged as being in the city. The besieged army can't be attacked unless by assault but it also can not move. As the seige wears on units in the city that are damaged go away and are not placed on the production track. A depot helps the defenders survive. There was only 3 truw seiges during the war, Vicksburg, Atlanta and Petersburg. Where Atlanta bearly qualifies. Seige warfare has been with us for centuries if not eon's!! From Alexander at Acre to Lennigrad or Stallingrad. It's a missing pierce to this fine strategic simulation.

_____________________________

Capt. Cliff

(in reply to KyleK)
Post #: 19
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Gary Grigsby's War Between the States >> Battles - Never a Draw 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

2.391