man am I having trouble winning a battle (Full Version)

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



Message

darthsmaul -> man am I having trouble winning a battle (12/16/2006 7:27:08 AM)

I really am having trouble winning a battle

how much bigger does the attacker need to be to actually overwhelm and win?

I'm going back to reading the manual but man I really feel sucky at this, I am playing union and it seems like so many of my units when they attack do very little damage and get hammered

any ideas for learning tactical battles for a rookie? I have COG as well but I seem to do much better and win most of my battles in that, and have gamed ACW minis forever so I thought Id have it down but boy do I feel off, any suggestion or tutoring would be fine with me.

Steve



Snydeman55 -> RE: man am I having trouble winning a battle (12/16/2006 4:31:36 PM)

Glad to see I'm not the only one.



spruce -> RE: man am I having trouble winning a battle (12/16/2006 5:53:40 PM)

let's say this forum is developing into 2 camps [;)] - one camp that's complaining they can't win Tactical battles and one camp that - was - complaining Hard Sarge was winning all his Tactical battles in the AAR. Just a joke here with full respect of the players - me too I'm struggling in detailed combat.

would be nice tough to know what settings are used - hard to compare apples and peers ...



Joram -> RE: man am I having trouble winning a battle (12/16/2006 9:06:32 PM)

I responded to Snydeman's thread with some specific tips but I'll say this here as far as size.

The size advantage you need depends almost entirely on one thing, morale. Remember that morale is a function of quality and disposition. I'll give a nod to weapons as well but with the right morale, you can overcome a weapon deficiency.

To maximize morale, keep disposition high (it runs naturally high over time with good generals as long as you are in supply and haven't been hit by disease). Keep up supply. This doesn't necessarily mean setting supply on "high". Just be in supply.

Let the enemy come to you. In provinces you control, you get a sizeable morale boost. This of course is harder for the Union but you can lure the enemy onto your territory, especially early on. Furthermore, having the enemy on attack means you can sit back in tactical battle and force him to come to you on your terms.

Buy troops when possible. These start with a higher quality then impressed or mustered troops especially if you have training grounds (though to be honest the training ground boost isn't huge).

All else fails - Fight. It doesn't matter if you win or lose, especially as the union but pick a fight, even if you have to go on the offense. Cause some casualties and if things are looking bad, retreat in good order (by which I mean move your troops away from the enemy before you hit the withdraw button). This will give a morale boost for all units involved. Even for the enemy unfortunately but at least it gives you a boost and the advantages of morale are less when everyone is high morale. Note - there is a certain battle size for this to be effective but I forget it at the moment.

With good morale, you can defeat armies up to three times as strong as you. If you have a morale disadvantage, I'd say you are the one that needs to plan to bring in three times as many troops.

In a tactical battle, read the section on rout and morale carefully. You can get chain routs against you so it actually does pay in some instances to throw your brigades in piecemeal. And don't fight a battle against enemies in a fort, period. It's not worth it. Retreat if you have no choice and go around (the MacArthur approach!)



jsaurman -> RE: man am I having trouble winning a battle (12/16/2006 9:49:16 PM)

Try to go into battle with a three to one advantage.  Choose your battles carefully. 

Upgrade weapons to the best you can afford.  Give your best troops the best weapons, give middle-morale troops middle weapons, and give lousy morale troops muskets.  That way if they surrender or drop their weapons and run away you don't lose a whole lot of good stuff.

Also, good generals are a must.   They are who keep the troops in the fight when they would normally break and run.

So, overwhelming forces, with great weapons, and good generals... stick to that plan and you will almost never lose a battle.

And yes, I know that is almost impossible to have all three at the same time, but aim for that and you will do okay.



Snydeman55 -> RE: man am I having trouble winning a battle (12/17/2006 4:14:13 PM)

Ok, see my last post in my "You're kidding me?" thread, and you'll see I've "discovered" a few things:

a) Don't enable "Unit dispositions" without enabling "Advanced buildings", because Hospitals, training grounds, etc help raise unit quality and disposition...which you desperately need.  Having low unit dispositions with only leaders and battle victories to RAISE that disposition, while playing the Union, is like asking the elephant to trample you and then thanking him for his time afterwards. You will get monkey-stomped.

b) Make sure you enable the weapon ugrades. It's really easy to do, and you WILL do a better job than the AI.

c) Personally, I also turn off European diplomacy, for three reasons: 1) It doesn't taste historical. 2) It hampers my economic growth, which was the true strength of the northern states, and 3) I can't seem to build anything like a blockade fleet in time to truly "blockade" the south. (Which is also a-historical. By mid 1864 the Union blockade was all but complete, at least with all the ports that mattered)

Of course, your results may vary, but once I turned unit disposition off (my next game I'm going the opposite route and trying the advanced buildings), turned on weapons upgrades, and disabled Euro briber...err.. diplomacy, I got MUCH better historical firefights, and much more gratifying battles. Granted, I still only won if I had great odds - I AM playing the Union in 1862 after all - but it finally "felt" right.

My only concern now is whether turning off Euro diplomacy will so hamper the South that I'll roll over them later on...only time will tell.



Titanwarrior89 -> RE: man am I having trouble winning a battle (12/17/2006 4:22:46 PM)

Alot of battles in the civilwar had winners and lossers but overall it was just a big slugging match with the armies still intact.[X(]



Hard Sarge -> RE: man am I having trouble winning a battle (12/17/2006 9:06:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: spruce

let's say this forum is developing into 2 camps [;)] - one camp that's complaining they can't win Tactical battles and one camp that - was - complaining Hard Sarge was winning all his Tactical battles in the AAR. Just a joke here with full respect of the players - me too I'm struggling in detailed combat.

would be nice tough to know what settings are used - hard to compare apples and peers ...


in my AARs I posted what setting I was using, I did win as Col and +2 for the Union (I thought that was one of the AARs)which most of my battles are HW, until you start gettings some of those odd ones (75000 to 1500)

which work is going on with the next patch, and talks about some of the complaints, statements being made by the players are being done (more then that I can't say yet)

:)

by the by, shouldn't that be HARD to compare applies and peers ???



scott64 -> RE: man am I having trouble winning a battle (12/17/2006 9:15:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

by the by, shouldn't that be HARD to compare applies and peers ???


Sure you can, they are both yummy to eat [:'(]



[sm=00000028.gif][sm=00001746.gif][sm=Crazy-1271.gif]



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.90625