RE: AAR II

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: AAR II

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 >> RE: AAR II

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 6 [7]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: AAR II - 10/30/2006 7:20:04 PM

dh76513

Posts: 131
Joined: 9/19/2006
Status: offline

On April 14th 1861, men of the 18th South Carolina regiment raised this Palmetto flag over the captured fort. The Palmetto flag, the Flag of the Palmetto Guards, confirmed the start of the dreaded Civil War. Just out of curiosity, is this flag in the game?

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 181

RE: AAR II - 10/30/2006 7:53:07 PM

genie144

Posts: 60
Joined: 1/5/2005
Status: offline

Thank you for the screens with explanation and such.� I am looking forward to this game as well as everyone else, but I do have some reservations.�� It seems to me when 53000 Union troops run into 10000 of CSA it should be a close battle.� Casualties of 6k on Union 3k for you.� But then the follow up battle which is much closer in numbers, you once again win.� Follow up battle where you are again outnumbered 3-1 and have been engaged in 2 (or 3?) previous battles, and you win again.� I don't doubt your skill, but I question the reality of the situation...� My favorite civil war game was Civil War Generals 2.� And the AI was so dumb, it was entirely possible to achieve outrageous results.� To me it seems this game on the tactical scale is very similar, and the same exploits available on that game (dumb AI) seem to be in this game...� I know you said you don't prepare for a battle or fight ones that you aren't prepare for.� That is fine, but how many battles do you lose?� And how outnumbered do you have to be in order to lose a battle?� if 5-1 and 3-1 aren't enough...

Sam

< Message edited by genie144 -- 10/30/2006 7:56:53 PM >

(in reply to dh76513)

Post #: 182

RE: AAR II - 10/30/2006 8:43:32 PM

dh76513

Posts: 131
Joined: 9/19/2006
Status: offline

Hi genie144,
Interesting points in modern warfare, but there are numerous examples of units facing such odds on both sides during black powder history in general and the American Civil War in particular. One of my favorite examples is that of Brice�s Crossroads:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Brice's_Crossroads

or the Battle of Fredericksburg:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fredericksburg

Also, I hope you noticed the differences in actual numbers entering the battle as well as those casualties.

_____________________________

(in reply to genie144)

Post #: 183

RE: AAR II - 10/30/2006 9:41:33 PM

spruce

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

I also agree on the big difference between casualty ratings. Something doesn't feel right.

from the tactical game "Take Command Second Manassas" I've learned that engagement on division or brigade level might result in casualty ratings where one side might win a major�victory in spite of overwhelming enemy numbers�- if one side has the right conditions (artillery, good defensive positions, cavalry).

but another thing I learned is that corps or army scale battles most often lead to a high casualty (or in contrast low casualty) figure on both sides. This is explained by the fact that armies and corps most often have cavalry and lots of artillery and the scale is just too big for "continuous exploit" - where a single division or brigade might exploit excellent conditions - at army and corps level this is less likely to exploit this for the "whole army".

F.e. at second Manassas you can easely see why Jackson could hold out so long - the unfinished railroad track bank was an excellent defensive position. In the first day, this advantage is omnipotent. On the other hand, if you play the Union you can easely break the line by converging 2 divisions at that line - on the second day - and from there on Jackson is doomed. One of the scenario's is about this assault - Butterfield and Sykes - on this defensive line. If you converge the 2 divisions and break the confederate line where the artillery is positioned ... it will cost you much blood initially ... but the whole confederate line will be removed.

So I don't support the fact that some special edge resulting in huge difference in casualties is lasting troughout a whole set of battles - or even troughout the whole war.

I still think FOF is a great game, but it seems too easy to cause heavy death toll on the Union and avoiding casualties yourself.

< Message edited by spruce -- 10/30/2006 9:52:43 PM >

(in reply to dh76513)

Post #: 184

RE: AAR II - 10/30/2006 9:50:27 PM

Joram

Posts: 3198
Joined: 7/15/2005
Status: offline

Regarding the casualty ratio, I think what would be interesting to see would be an AAR like this from the Union perspective. Despite Hard Sarge's skill, it seems reasonable that the generally higher elan troops of the Confederacy could inflict more casualties than they received, even if outnumbered. Not enough of a history buff to know how true that is though. But anyway, it's hard to say if it's truly that or just Hard Sarge's skill versus the AI.

Hopefully this is a reasonable request sp if Hard Sarge would be willing to post another detailed AAR from the Union side, this would help answer those questions?

(in reply to spruce)

Post #: 185

RE: AAR II - 10/30/2006 10:44:22 PM

USSLockwood

Posts: 543
Joined: 8/16/2002
Status: offline

One factor, I believe, is that Sarge is usually fighting from defensive positions. Units in close formation assaulting prepared positions, manned by resolute troops, armed with rifles, and backed by artillery, are going to suffer disproportinate losses.

Dave
San Diego
Home of the World's Busiest Radar Approach Control

(in reply to Joram)

Post #: 186

RE: AAR II - 10/30/2006 11:35:35 PM

Joram

Posts: 3198
Joined: 7/15/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: doktor

One factor, I believe, is that Sarge is usually fighting from�defensive positions.� Units in close formation assaulting prepared positions, manned by resolute troops, armed with rifles, and backed by artillery, are going to suffer disproportinate losses.

Dave
San Diego
Home of the World's Busiest Radar Approach Control

That's a really good point. My experience in CoG though was that the AI never played defense unless you seriously outnumbered it or if it was in a province with a high level of fortifications (but even then not always). So you could almost always trick the AI into forcing an attack. How does FoF work in this regard. Does the AI have VP hexes they need to guard if you attack one of their provinces?

Still would like to see a Union based AAR though. :)

(in reply to USSLockwood)

Post #: 187

RE: AAR II - 10/30/2006 11:51:37 PM

genie144

Posts: 60
Joined: 1/5/2005
Status: offline

DH - thank you for the response. I am a Civil War buff, but it has been quite some time since I have read anything. I read both entry in wikipedia, and think that neither really is the same scenario as the experienced by Hard Sarge. Brice Crossroads was an example of a 2-1 ratio and Fredricksburg was a 1.6ish-1 ratio. In addition Brice Croassroads was a single engagement. What Hard Sarge described was his force being caught by a larger attacking force, (5-1), succesfully defending, than an equal number engagement, than his force being assaulted by a force 3 times his with 66% of the troops as being fresh. Those are the numbers Hard Sarge reported as being involved in the battles ( I don't know if that is the numbers that actually showed up). And I realize the Union troops were mostly green. It is still hard to think that this scenario is plausible. If it is the AI, like it appears by the screens and descriptions, than you would be able to duplicate the same against the CSA as the Union. Like I said earlier, Civil War Generals, you could do this on every battle, surround the enemy or very least get to the flanks and assault from the side to achieve victory. If you held 1 or 2 units in front the computer wouldn't move any troops to the flank. It sounds like the tactics Sarge is describing is the same exploit that was available in that game.

Like I said, am still very interested (primarily because CWG2 won't work on my computer...) in FoF, it is just a concern about the AI...

Sam

(in reply to Joram)

Post #: 188

RE: AAR II - 10/31/2006 12:14:15 AM

spruce

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: doktor

One factor, I believe, is that Sarge is usually fighting from�defensive positions.� Units in close formation assaulting prepared positions, manned by resolute troops, armed with rifles, and backed by artillery, are going to suffer disproportinate losses.

Dave
San Diego
Home of the World's Busiest Radar Approach Control

in the example I gave about second Manassas, it's an advantage but NOT A LASTING advantage troughout battles at corps or army level during following days. If you screen the enemy lines more in depth, there's always some point of intrest for a fierce charge ... like Pickets charge Gettysburg style.

I played the Buttefield + Sykes scenario's in TC2M and I found out that any orderly attack on the confederate positions was a no-go.

Then I was thinking out of the box and decided to charge to one weak point in Jacksons line and it crumbled. 30 minutes later - Jackson was defeated.

Having the edge may happen, but not all the time. I'm a bit worried that the AI isn't taking the edge during the tactical battles. But I think the AI will be improved later on.

I must confess, when we were playing HOI2-doomsday from Paradox the AI was a whiz-kid compared to the lobotomized AI from HOI2-vanilla. Off course, I'm exagerating a little here

but AI has a big impact on gameplay.

< Message edited by spruce -- 10/31/2006 12:21:00 AM >

(in reply to USSLockwood)

Post #: 189

RE: AAR II - 10/31/2006 12:35:51 AM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

I'm finally catching up on this thread, and should make two points.

First, the reason that Hard Sarge is fighting defensive battles is that whichever side controls a province is the defender in detailed battles, and the nature of this game is that usually the CSA will be defending. Defenders, among other things, get a bonus. So if Hard Sarge had been fighting these same battles in USA provinces everything would have been very different.

Second, regarding the issue of the USA being a "paper tiger," I should point out that the battles in question are very early in the game, and we've deliberately programmed the USA to have low morale in the standard (= post-Bull Run) scenario. So, Hard Sarge is being helped by the fact that his troops have on average much higher morale, and that makes an enormous difference. As the war goes on, the USA's morale will have a chance to improve, and it will then be harder to beat. (We programmed it this way both to reflect the historical reality of the Union army's condition after its defeat, and because the game is better if the Union has an initial disadvantage that keeps it from using its superior numbers and resources to steamroller the Confederates right away.)

(in reply to spruce)

Post #: 190

RE: AAR II - 10/31/2006 12:46:08 AM

spruce

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

I'm finally catching up on this thread, and should make two points.

First, the reason that Hard Sarge is fighting defensive battles is that whichever side controls a province is the defender in detailed battles, and the nature of this game is that usually the CSA will be defending. Defenders, among other things, get a bonus. So if Hard Sarge had been fighting these same battles in USA provinces everything would have been very different.

Second, regarding the issue of the USA being a "paper tiger," I should point out that the battles in question are very early in the game, and we've deliberately programmed the USA to have low morale in the standard (= post-Bull Run) scenario. So, Hard Sarge is being helped by the fact that his troops have on average much higher morale, and that makes an enormous difference. As the war goes on, the USA's morale will have a chance to improve, and it will then be harder to beat. (We programmed it this way both to reflect the historical reality of the Union army's condition after its defeat, and because the game is better if the Union has an initial disadvantage that keeps it from using its superior numbers and resources to steamroller the Confederates right away.)

Eureka !

thanks for bringing us the light Gil ...

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 191

RE: AAR II - 10/31/2006 3:49:35 AM

Joram

Posts: 3198
Joined: 7/15/2005
Status: offline

Hey Hard Sarge, go on the attack so we can see how well you do then! :)

I thought the morale thing, while making sense, wasn't especially applicable since it was already '63 in his latest battle.

(in reply to spruce)

Post #: 192

RE: AAR II - 10/31/2006 2:47:13 PM

Hard Sarge

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

LOL
I didn't get to post yesterday (wife got out of the hosp and by time all was back to normal, it was a few hours past bedtime)

Had a good turn, yesterday, went on the attack, into Cinci and drove the Union out of Tenn-Miss-River Area and had a surprise for them when they retreated away

but as to the AI and what not, if you play like I play, use my tactics and style, you should do well, but as I have seen in a lot of other games, not many people can play the style that I do

ahhhh, do not really like the idea of a Union AAR, I been testing the CSA side since testing started, and the way things are going, it will be more a challenge to show off my style, then a AAR to show off the game, which is not the point

which, okay, but what is the goal of the AAR, to see if the Union can win in battle ? or how the Union plays ?

_____________________________

(in reply to Joram)

Post #: 193

RE: AAR II - 10/31/2006 3:50:53 PM

dh76513

Posts: 131
Joined: 9/19/2006
Status: offline

Gil and genie144,
Good points and in principle I do agree with genie144 that this outcome seems to lack plausibility. While Gil�s points do shed light on this subject by his two examples noted below, these results remind me a bit of the Battle of Chancellorsville where incompetent leadership was the basis of a USA defeat despite the fact that the Union had a better equipped, well-supplied, superior force (2:1) that had limited if any fatigue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.
First, the reason that Hard Sarge is fighting defensive battles is that whichever side controls a province is the defender in detailed battles, and the nature of this game is that usually the CSA will be defending. Defenders, among other things, get a bonus. So if Hard Sarge had been fighting these same battles in USA provinces everything would have been very different.

Second, regarding the issue of the USA being a "paper tiger," I should point out that the battles in question are very early in the game, and we've deliberately programmed the USA to have low morale in the standard (= post-Bull Run) scenario. So, Hard Sarge is being helped by the fact that his troops have on average much higher morale, and that makes an enormous difference. As the war goes on, the USA's morale will have a chance to improve, and it will then be harder to beat. (We programmed it this way both to reflect the historical reality of the Union army's condition after its defeat, and because the game is better if the Union has an initial disadvantage that keeps it from using its superior numbers and resources to steamroller the Confederates right away.)

As such, the Battle of Chancellorsville brings to light another interesting possibility: Leadership! Gil, could this have also been a factor? Hard Sarge, just out of curiosity, who was in charge of the opposing forces or does the player even know the opponents he faces on the battlefield in this game?

_____________________________

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 194

RE: AAR II - 10/31/2006 6:23:28 PM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

I can't speak for Hard Sarge, but superior CSA generals could also have been a factor (as was intended to be the case). I know that when I was testing the other day at three different points I had Lee's superior leadership rating prevent a unit from panicking that otherwise would have panicked and run off.

(in reply to dh76513)

Post #: 195

RE: AAR II - 10/31/2006 6:24:22 PM

Hard Sarge

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

you can tell, with in reason (not sure if that is part of FOW) but as the units flash by on the bottom of the screen you can if leaders are attached

not really sure who was in charge

in my battles yesterday, I killed 5 and wounded 1 (and POWed a Arty)

_____________________________

(in reply to dh76513)

Post #: 196