Coordinate Attacks??

[frank7350]

Ok...playing I was as the Americans, in the 1776 Campaign, I had just about wiped out the British.... They had one large army left under Clinton in New England. I had 2 armies in the general area, one American under GW, and one French under Rochambeau. Both my armies were about 85% of the size of the British army, but due to command problems I could not group them together to attack. So I tried to send them on a coordinated attack of the Brits. The American army was 14 days away from the Brits, and the French army about 17 days away. I marked both armies with the orange aggression tab (not sure which one thats called), and sent them after the British, hoping that they'd attack at the same time. Regretfully they didn't...and both were wiped out....

Is there a way to ensure that armies will coordinate an attack? If not, wouldn't it make more sense to load them all up into one large army and command problems be damned? Thanks.

[Sol Invictus]

You could place them both in a Defensive posture until they are both in the same region, then next turn have them in a Offensive posture so they attack together. Or, GW can usually avoid battle, so put GW in Passive posture until the French catch up. It is a very tricky problem certainly. I would probably just combine the armies before entering the British controled area. I think Pocus said if the Command penalty will be over 50%, it is better to keep armies apart.

[[FS] Feltan]

Not only is this a game problem, it is a real life problem too. Coordinating units, especially during the time frame of this game, is an extaordinarily difficult proposition.

Just ask Burgoyne.

Regards,
Feltan

[Pocus]

As Feltan says... there is no, on purpose, delay move order, as for the timeframe it would not be realistic (its coded in fact).

But, if your 2 armies are in the same region, combining them will not give you a penalty, if none had one, so you should combine them.

Remember even in 1815 how hard it has been for Napoleon to not have Grouchy by his side

[frank7350]

I agree that if the armies were to move a considerable distance there are numerous problems that could occur and defeat a coordinated attack. But both armies were in the same province and were moving to an adjacent province in Conn., during the summer months. There was a 3 day delay that allowed the Brits to defeat both armies seperately. I disagree that the lack of coordination under those circumstances is historically accurate. We're not talking about crossing a mountain range or river, or even bad weather.

I've enjoyed BoA tremendously so far, but to me a delay attack option in these circumstances is essential. We're talking about hypothetical provinces and the ability to only issues orders once per month. Theres no reason why GW couldn't have delayed his attack pending the arrival of the the French. If the French never arrived, he could have either attacked alone, or withdrawn. Thoughts??

[Feralkoala]

There is a way to coordinate them--combine them and take the command hit. What you are arguing for, essentially, is a way around the command rules. If you think this bothers you now, I'd give a future ACW game a pass....at least as the Union

Otherwise, what you have is two armies--not marching together--regardless of how many different provinces you come from. There is a small window for the British to defeat them in detail and, unfortunately, that occurred.

The other alternative, as was noted, is to not use the aggressive tabs and hope Washington avoids the British until the French are up.

[Gargoyle]

Attack coordination is possible in this game. It is not GUARENTEED! Responders above have shown ways to possibly coordinate your attack. Pocus has already stated that delayed orders are deliberately NOT in the game.

This is a game FEATURE, not a bug. Find a way within the rules to coordinate your attack. Anything else would be unrealistic and cheating.

[Pocus]

Frank, why you dont want to merge the two of them together? Its the most convenient way to have all your units fight together.

[frank7350]

I didn't combine the armies because I was trying to avoid a command hit. Next time, I certainly will. Either that, or I'll try putting both armies in the defensive posture until they're ready for attack. Thanks.

[[FS] Feltan]

...But both armies were in the same province and were moving to an adjacent province in Conn., during the summer months. There was a 3 day delay that allowed the Brits to defeat both armies seperately. I disagree that the lack of coordination under those circumstances is historically accurate. We're not talking about crossing a mountain range or river, or even bad weather...

Look at your history closer. A prelude to Saratoga was the Battle of Bennington. It was comedy of errors and triumphs with regard to this issue. Reinforcements that were due did not show up for the Brits, and unexpected reinforcements showed up in the nick of time for the Americans.

All of these forces were in close geographic distance, but poor communication lead to multiple difficulties.

When you are playing the game, it is easy to get into the mindset of "pushing counters" around the map. You can get too detached from historical realities of transportation, communication and the military art of the time period.

Regards,
Feltan

[Gargoyle]

Feltan']When you are playing the game, it is easy to get into the mindset of "pushing counters" around the map. You can get too detached from historical realities of transportation, communication and the military art of the time period.

I absolutely agree. I would go further in saying that it is to BoA design's credit that this is so well simulated.

[Johnnie]

Who made the statement to the effect that coordinating more than one force to converge at a definite place at a given time was one of the "most difficult accomplishments in the art of war." This coordination "problem" should not be fixed and is not a bug, but rather a realistic simulation of communication difficulties of this, and also latter periods. The two American armies, even if the distances (and numbers of days on the road) are small, run the very real risk of being defeated in detail by one slightly larger (or better quality) army. See, Burgoyne's campaign, Tannenburg, Napoleon's attempt during the Hundred Days, etc.

This problem is, often as not, ignored by simulations and games where the player in control has unlimited intelligence and perfect control and coordination of units.

[frank7350]

Thanks to all those who responded.... Obviously I should have grouped my armies together- I didn't. I was looking for a way to avoid a command penalty, and thought that I could march both armies together. Next time I'll either group the armies into 1 force, or use the agression tabs differently.

But that said, I still disagree with those of you (ie, all you ) who are arguing that what happened was realistic. The fault was mine for misusing the aggression tabs, but what I expected to happen, and what I think could have reasonably happened was for the 2 armies in the same town to march to a seperate town and arrive at the same time. If one army was lagging, then the other would delay. They should have acted as one force. The reason that they didn't, was my misuse of the game, but if I had hit the proper buttons and tabs in the game, it would have happened, and I think thats a perfectly reasonable outcome.

Anyway it doesn't matter..... that games over...and now I'm trying my hand in the smaller scenarios. Thanks.