Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

after reading at Wikipedia about Chancellorsville and reading about Jacksons assault of the Union XI corps - by this manoeuvre Jackson shattered a whole Union corps of 11.000 men - from which 4.000 were captured - but the rest was either killed or wounded or running for their lives.

These 11.000 men are not displayed in the casualty figure stated above. That is because they were "rallied" and back with their colors by the end of the battle. Minus the portion that was included in the "Official Returns" shown above as Killed, Wounded, or Missing. Momentarily "routed" does not mean "permanently missing". We are talking about a Two Week Turn here,,,. not two hours.

What I've learned about this discussion - is that the casualty rating in Fof - means how many soldiers are taken from your battle ready forces - after the battle is over. This also includes the 11.000 guys from the XI corps ... even a month after this horrible defeat that Union corps was not fit to fight a new battle. Based on what information? A month later the XI Corps was on the march to Gettysburg with the rest of the Army of the Potomac. Their "game unit rating" may not have fully recovered, but the troops hadn't "dissappeared". And at Gettysburg part of the Corps suffered another rout when Early's fortuitous arrival on their flank broke their position. But they were still there, and among the forces that defeated the Confederate assult on Cemetary Hill on the second day of fighting.

Losses are people who are removed from the ranks permanently, not temporarily"

quote:

ORIGINAL: spruce

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

after reading at Wikipedia about Chancellorsville and reading about Jacksons assault of the Union XI corps - by this manoeuvre Jackson shattered a whole Union corps of 11.000 men - from which 4.000 were captured - but the rest was either killed or wounded or running for their lives.

These 11.000 men are not displayed in the casualty figure stated above. That is because they were "rallied" and back with their colors by the end of the battle. Minus the portion that was included in the "Official Returns" shown above as Killed, Wounded, or Missing. Momentarily "routed" does not mean "permanently missing". We are talking about a Two Week Turn here,,,. not two hours.

What I've learned about this discussion - is that the casualty rating in Fof - means how many soldiers are taken from your battle ready forces - after the battle is over. This also includes the 11.000 guys from the XI corps ... even a month after this horrible defeat that Union corps was not fit to fight a new battle. Based on what information? A month later the XI Corps was on the march to Gettysburg with the rest of the Army of the Potomac. Their "game unit rating" may not have fully recovered, but the troops hadn't "dissappeared". And at Gettysburg part of the Corps suffered another rout when Early's fortuitous arrival on their flank broke their position. But they were still there, and among the forces that defeated the Confederate assult on Cemetary Hill on the second day of fighting.

Losses are people who are removed from the ranks permanently, not temporarily"

In Fof the battles last max. 3 days - this means if Jackson at Chancellorsville smashes an entire Union corps - the soldiers will be seen as NOT-battle ready for the upcoming battle. The camps need to bring them back into line - like Eric told. And I don't know how the model is working - are all 11.000 troopers "casualties" or a portion of them. And if you have enough camps and the right priority for your corps - the corps will be regrown by the upcoming turn - just like you claimed in your example. If supply ratings are poor or you lack camps - the troops will nog get refilled. The game turns are 14-15 days long, and as you yourself just stated, the "battles" represent at most three days. Jackson "broke" the XI Corps on the DAY of his attack..., but those not "Killed, Wounded, or Captured" were back with their Regiments the following day. The XI Corps didn't just dissappear! It was there, and retreated across the river with the rest of the army. It didn't have to return to some State in the rear to re-form. To use an historic example, Blucher's Army was routed at Ligny..., but was back in the field and deciding Waterloo two DAYS later. They didn't have to run home to Prussia for a month.

Please try to see the benefits of the game model, it's not a "historical simulation". Why not? The losing side in a "battle" should recieve enough damage to it's "quality/morale" (as well as losing arms) that it will need to "recover" before taking the field again. If it doesn't, the battle was a draw. What's the justification for killing a bunch of troops that aren't dead..., or for leaving untouched most of the "victor's" casualties? And for each "historical example" given, another counter example can be given. Please give us some. So far you have been handing out "apples" in a discussion about "oranges". Your premise seems to be that if huge amounts of people aren't "killed" then the Union will just "stomp" it's way to victory. But if an Army that has just lost a fight immediately launches into another one, it had better have had a big superiority to begin with (like Grant in 1864), or it's just going to take another beating, and shove it's side's "National Will" farther into the toilet. That seems to be a premise of the game's "system", why not trust it?

My point is that the general idea about this model is ok imho, and let's give them the benefit of the doubt - and see if further tweaking is necessary. But any Union walkover due to "balanced" casualties is not desired. And I know, this attrition war was exactly the right way to defeat the CSA - but the Union was not ready to fight this kind of war in the beginning of the ACW. Right. They didn't have the "National Will", and the South's starting troop quality and leadership were superior. That's the way it should be---so why the emphasis on one-sided killing? As has been shown in several examples, sometimes the "winners" had higher casualties than the "losers"---but the "losers" took the big "quality/morale/National Will" hit...., and THAT'S what mattered.

However, I to would like to see some ingame battles were casualty ratings are pretty similar ... but sometimes big differences are ok imho. And sometimes there WERE big differences..., with the "winner's" losses being only about 40% of the "losers". But sometimes they were 125% or more of the "losers". All we are saying is that it would be nice if the game reflected this historic fact. And from the evidence in the AAR's, it doesn't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: spruce
Please try to see the benefits of the game model, it's not a "historical simulation". And for each "historical example" given, anohter counter example can be given.

My point is that the general idea about this model is ok imho, and let's give them the benefit of the doubt - and see if further tweaking is necessary. But any Union walkover due to "balanced" casualties is not desired. And I know, this attrition war was exactly the right way to defeat the CSA - but the Union was not ready to fight this kind of war in the beginning of the ACW.

However, I to would like to see some ingame battles were casualty ratings are pretty similar ... but sometimes big differences are ok imho.

quote:

ORIGINAL: megalomania2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: spruce
Please try to see the benefits of the game model, it's not a "historical simulation". And for each "historical example" given, anohter counter example can be given.

My point is that the general idea about this model is ok imho, and let's give them the benefit of the doubt - and see if further tweaking is necessary. But any Union walkover due to "balanced" casualties is not desired. And I know, this attrition war was exactly the right way to defeat the CSA - but the Union was not ready to fight this kind of war in the beginning of the ACW.

However, I to would like to see some ingame battles were casualty ratings are pretty similar ... but sometimes big differences are ok imho.

Which historical counter examples?

It would still be possible to have historical casualty ratios and not giving the Union a walk over. Advance could be limited by
- lowering morale of troops after a defeat (requiring time to rest)
- causing a defeat to use up a lot of supply (requiring time to reequip)
- lowering national morale (is done) and introduce severe penalties if the national morale hits bottom (but allowing the national morale to go towards zero over time - motivating the Union to take a break)
- requiring lots of supply for an advance (requiring the union to use more time to build up supply)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: spruce

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

after reading at Wikipedia about Chancellorsville and reading about Jacksons assault of the Union XI corps - by this manoeuvre Jackson shattered a whole Union corps of 11.000 men - from which 4.000 were captured - but the rest was either killed or wounded or running for their lives.

These 11.000 men are not displayed in the casualty figure stated above. That is because they were "rallied" and back with their colors by the end of the battle. Minus the portion that was included in the "Official Returns" shown above as Killed, Wounded, or Missing. Momentarily "routed" does not mean "permanently missing". We are talking about a Two Week Turn here,,,. not two hours.

What I've learned about this discussion - is that the casualty rating in Fof - means how many soldiers are taken from your battle ready forces - after the battle is over. This also includes the 11.000 guys from the XI corps ... even a month after this horrible defeat that Union corps was not fit to fight a new battle. Based on what information? A month later the XI Corps was on the march to Gettysburg with the rest of the Army of the Potomac. Their "game unit rating" may not have fully recovered, but the troops hadn't "dissappeared". And at Gettysburg part of the Corps suffered another rout when Early's fortuitous arrival on their flank broke their position. But they were still there, and among the forces that defeated the Confederate assult on Cemetary Hill on the second day of fighting.

Losses are people who are removed from the ranks permanently, not temporarily"

In Fof the battles last max. 3 days - this means if Jackson at Chancellorsville smashes an entire Union corps - the soldiers will be seen as NOT-battle ready for the upcoming battle. The camps need to bring them back into line - like Eric told. And I don't know how the model is working - are all 11.000 troopers "casualties" or a portion of them. And if you have enough camps and the right priority for your corps - the corps will be regrown by the upcoming turn - just like you claimed in your example. If supply ratings are poor or you lack camps - the troops will nog get refilled. The game turns are 14-15 days long, and as you yourself just stated, the "battles" represent at most three days. Jackson "broke" the XI Corps on the DAY of his attack..., but those not "Killed, Wounded, or Captured" were back with their Regiments the following day. The XI Corps didn't just dissappear! It was there, and retreated across the river with the rest of the army. It didn't have to return to some State in the rear to re-form. To use an historic example, Blucher's Army was routed at Ligny..., but was back in the field and deciding Waterloo two DAYS later. They didn't have to run home to Prussia for a month.

Please try to see the benefits of the game model, it's not a "historical simulation". Why not? The losing side in a "battle" should recieve enough damage to it's "quality/morale" (as well as losing arms) that it will need to "recover" before taking the field again. If it doesn't, the battle was a draw. What's the justification for killing a bunch of troops that aren't dead..., or for leaving untouched most of the "victor's" casualties? And for each "historical example" given, another counter example can be given. Please give us some. So far you have been handing out "apples" in a discussion about "oranges". Your premise seems to be that if huge amounts of people aren't "killed" then the Union will just "stomp" it's way to victory. But if an Army that has just lost a fight immediately launches into another one, it had better have had a big superiority to begin with (like Grant in 1864), or it's just going to take another beating, and shove it's side's "National Will" farther into the toilet. That seems to be a premise of the game's "system", why not trust it?

My point is that the general idea about this model is ok imho, and let's give them the benefit of the doubt - and see if further tweaking is necessary. But any Union walkover due to "balanced" casualties is not desired. And I know, this attrition war was exactly the right way to defeat the CSA - but the Union was not ready to fight this kind of war in the beginning of the ACW. Right. They didn't have the "National Will", and the South's starting troop quality and leadership were superior. That's the way it should be---so why the emphasis on one-sided killing? As has been shown in several examples, sometimes the "winners" had higher casualties than the "losers"---but the "losers" took the big "quality/morale/National Will" hit...., and THAT'S what mattered.

However, I to would like to see some ingame battles were casualty ratings are pretty similar ... but sometimes big differences are ok imho. And sometimes there WERE big differences..., with the "winner's" losses being only about 40% of the "losers". But sometimes they were 125% or more of the "losers". All we are saying is that it would be nice if the game reflected this historic fact. And from the evidence in the AAR's, it doesn't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827

It seems to me that the camps represent new recruits being sent to existing units. I'd like to see casualties broken down into killed wounded and missing(missing soldiers being mostly captured). I believe about half of the wounded soldiers during the war returned to the armies. Wounded returning to duty could be used to fill up depleted units like men from the camps. Perhaps more hospitals would allow a greater percentage to return to duty. Captured soldiers could be exchanged as they were during the war. The north could at some point stop the exchanges at the cost of a national will hit. Soldiers liked the idea that they would be exchanged if captured instead of sitting out the war in a prison camp.

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827

Have the devs stated that is what camps represent or is it your opinion?

quote:

ORIGINAL: spruce

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827

Have the devs stated that is what camps represent or is it your opinion?

No I'm not talking nonsence, it would have been more approriate if people on this forum would give some more credit to others. I'm not an idiot ...

I'm just trying to explain how it works cause I've taken the trouble of reading lots of posts here in these forums. And altough the system is not perfect, I like it a lot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827

quote:

ORIGINAL: spruce

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827

Have the devs stated that is what camps represent or is it your opinion?

No I'm not talking nonsence, it would have been more approriate if people on this forum would give some more credit to others. I'm not an idiot ...

I'm just trying to explain how it works cause I've taken the trouble of reading lots of posts here in these forums. And altough the system is not perfect, I like it a lot.

I didn't say you were talking nonsence. I asked if what you said was information given by one of the devs or your opinion. I've read lots of posts too and I don't consider myself an expert on a game I don't have. That's why I ask questions. If you don't want to answer someone's question then leave it to someone else.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

don't think we seem to agree on much, perhaps we should just stop the discussion here and call it a day. I like the game like it is, and need time to play with it once it comes out. I wish you best luck to convince the dev's to change/tweak the engine.


I can live with this. The discussion is perhaps best postponed until we both have had a chance to actually play the game and discover for ourselves how well or poorly the games' systems produce a sensible historic outcome. And the dev's will do whatever they want..., I'm just hoping with enough "historic examples" they may come to want what I want. Which is combat "results" that sound like they come from the American Civil War and not Desert Storm. Hopefully we'll both have a game we can enjoy...