Bye bye

[SojaRouge]

I have been talking about it in another thread, I was very annoyed of the crazy results some battle were leading to.
Grant got all his troops with full cohesion, divisions perfectly organized with 1 sharp shooter, 1 cav, 4 artilleries, generals leading them are not complete crap either.
I got 1,5 more troops than the defender, but I'm counting on the 2 adjacent corps to come in game. Thing that they never do while it is always happening for my opponent. About marching to the sound of the gun, that is indeed a bit strange in this game. Corps teleport, not being subject to cohesion loss, cross rivers but without the effect of rivers crossing and other bad things, fight, then teleport back. They can even do a 50 days travel in one turn (a move that would cost 25 days in one way and 25 days to return).
Not talking about the teleportation on the original area. Beam me up Scotty.

I am sorry to say that, but I cannot accept to lose 70% of my main army (90% of my troops) while the other army (less than one half of his troops) loses less than 10%. I play strategy games, not lottery.






Add to this, the same turn, the St Louis battle, where my corp had a fighting value of 26 (thank you epidemy, tempest and little battle which drove it from 700 to 26 in 1 turn) and my opponent, sitting in town had a fighting value of 280. I had of course no control around and retread was leading to complete destruction (100% control for him in all surrounding areas, except across the bridge, were retreat was impossible because he had 4 boats on his part of the river). Add to this that his general was quite good (4-3-2) while mine was a crapy one (2-0-1). Forces ratio was > 10/1.

He attacked me. He lost. One general killed for him, his stack wiped.

There is no use to play something which is completely random. So as long as you don't change something in the game, do not count me anymore as one of your customers.

[GShock]

I understand your concerns but you should be a little more open-minded on the abstraction behind even such a detailed wargame such as AACW is.

The fact a Corps is in a neighbouring region doesn't mean he's 20 km away, it means it could also be on the border between the 2 regions involved and arrive in time for battle just when your lazy general is waiting for his coffee coming with his lazy and slow assistant.

There is an enormous amount of variables to take in place inside this "abstraction umbrella" and they don't always work as intended. Most of the times it's mistakes made by players but a few times we also discovered some bugs and they get promptly squashed...one after the other.

The screenshot you produced does not show the entrenchment level of the confederate troops, also do not forget the ROE buttons (with Grant, if u selected all-out-assault, the troops would fight almost to the death) and, ultimately, that perhaps your corps generals might have gone inactive and fought with severe penalties. You also seemingly attacked in the open. A devastating combo if the defender is supplied, has arty and is entrenched well. It's just a few of those hundreds of variables out of the player's control...and there's also luck involved in the rolls.

When you have issues and doubts, such as the one you have produced, make sure to send the saved game to support@ageod.com

Generally, if there's a bug, it is called for and work starts to fix it, if there isn't, there's *always* an explanation. Send the turn, and let's wait for the answer.

[arsan]

Well, i don't know about that St Louis battle you talk bout... but looking at the screenshot...
Attacking 50.000 rebels commanded by Jackson with only 62.000 Federals while the southern troops has level 7 entrenchments and being whipped is not my idea of "lottery". It's just common sense.
I can concede to you that USA losses % on battle are too high but the result (a complete defeat for you) is 100% fair.
Common military wisdom advice a 3-1 odds (or at least a 2-1) strenght advantage to the attacker if he want to be successful. And if the defender has huge fortifications (700 entrenchment value are nearly WWI kind of trenches) a 5-1 or more is strongly needed. leure:
Whats more, against that force with than leader and that entrenchment level any attack, no matter the odds seems very risky. Better to try to maneuver him out of their trenches.

Sorry, i can understand your frustration, but your reaction seems a little too extreme...
Regards!

[bigus]

There is no use to play something which is completely random. So as long as you don't change something in the game, do not count me anymore as one of your customers.

I understand your frustration Soja. I think the unusual battle results is a topic that is being looked at and discussed by a few people right now. If you can, try and send a saved game to Pocus to look at.

Bigus

[GShock]

I understand your frustration Soja.

Who doesn't...we all more or less were in his shoes...sometimes, i still am!

[Pocus]

For the first loss, it is normal for me. You are attacking a level 7 entrenched position at 1.5 vs 1. It is like attacking the ring of fortifications that the Union built around Washington.

For the battle where you miraculously won, I would like the saved game please.

[Clovis]

TO be one to have pointed out problems tied to losses in AACW, I find your conclusion a little too harsh.

I agree with everyone on the first battle: the reslut is logic. You made with a whole army the same error Grant made at Cold Harbour ( and possibly worst considering level 7 of entrenchment is representing something like the Washington or Richmond semi-permanent defensive works).

Unfortunatly AACW in the vanilla version is converting such a high level of losses to large destruction of units. I remedied as much of possible to this point but I must confess I get yet here and there very high level of losses.

But, more importantly, even if the model is IMHO partially flawed by favouring higher levels of losses than historical, I can't agree to the lottery metaphor: the battle system produces logical results in phase with the essential trends of the period, by example the tremendous impact of fortification on battle results. To take another example, the crack French troops were almost unable to conquer the fortified city of Puebla during the contemporary French expedition to Mexico against a Mexican defense mostly formed from rabble militia unable to fight in open ground.

[Banks6060]

to the original poster

Patience. It's obvious you're still learning about this game...as others have pointed out...because if you look at the battle report...you should now know why you lost so badly. The casualties are, again as others have said, too high. But attacking an enemy...commanded by JACKSON no less, in the open...in HEAVILY entrenched positions....it's just inviting failure.

Now...use this as a learning experience and...Don't do that anymore!! lol. But seriously. Use the ability to flank his position, force him out of his trenches and into the field...use military thinking my man. You'll get it eventually.

As far as the March to Guns...I agree to a small degree on the "teleportation" ability of Corps, but here's what you've got to learn about that. Corps will not just automatically March to Guns...especially as the Union....

March to Guns probability is calculated using several variables, including in large part...a general's STRATEGIC RATING. So...use this knowledge to guage which armies to keep close together...and which ones you can afford to spread out a little.

FOR INSTANCE.

Say Grant is in Nashville, with two Corps...a third Corps (with a say, 2-x-x leader) is just south of Nashville, the enemy army is in Murfreesboro and you're looking to attack. DON'T attack assuming that you're crappy (2-x-x) leader is going to March to guns....in fact...chances are he's not. So get him into Nashville first....THEN use the "coordinated movement" special order....and send the entire army...from the same region...against the enemy the next turn. Only not if he's in level 7 trenches...hehe.

I am not a proponent of spreading my armies over several regions...as the Confederates it's do-able in the east because your leaders' strat ratings are so high....but everywhere else....save perhaps Grant's army....you really just can't. Because against a solid opponent...you open parts of your army up to destruction. If you've got a Corps sitting in a region all by itself, with the nearest MTG Corps consisting of a crappy leader....(as many times you do especially as the Union) you can bet that Corps is going to get attacked by your opponent....and probably owned.

[AndrewKurtz]

A possible causes of the losses to consider:

1. There was an ambush
2. The troops attacked across open ground against a
3. VERY heavily entrenched enemy
4. led by one of the enemy's top generals
5. at odds of only 1.25-1

I noted that a lot of troops surrendered, which probably makes sense because they never want to be sent into battle by that leader again

Seriously, as others have noted, perhaps the casualties where too high, but they were high on both sides. The losses where only in a 3-1 ratio. Let's compare that to Pickett's Charge, which IMHO, this attack was actually a worse attack than that.

In Pickett's Charge, the CSA had 50% casualties. Total CSA losses in that one charge where over 6500 compared to 1500 for the union, a ratio of greater than 4-1. So the casualty ratio of your attack, which was actually against a stronger entrenchment than Pickett's Charge, had a smaller casualty ratio.

So while there is (and will always be room for improvement), I think those results where very predictable and not random at all.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Pocus]

The Battle Screen can indeed receive some enhancements. We do hope to add some novelties in it in our next game (not VGN, another secret one, the next project of HOK in fact ).

About the things which can be instrumental in the result of a battle: Yes, a battle is made of thousands of rolls and exchanges, but it can have a weird outcome in the end because of that:

a) you fail the end of round morale check and goes routing.

b) you have several stacks and some fail to engage the enemy, so in effect even if in superiority, you can be fighting the first 1-3 rounds at 1 against 3. The Battle report don't show you that, because it shows all forces present in the region.

[GShock]

I've always wondered not in this but in all games why the results must be so dependant on the element of probability whereas all the moves, the strategies, the "man factor" are not depending on probabilities but on choices.

I think there's no game that has so far, in the history of videogaming, established a correct ratio between the importance of factors not depending on chances and the importance of factors depending on chances.

The current philosophy of assigning a chance to almost everything has diminished the importance of the "man factor". I think this engine is modern enough to tip the scales towards the non-chance elements of warfare.

[richfed]

Back to the original post ...

Rules of Engagement! Use those buttons judiciously. Keep supplied, rested, and organized. As so many have stated ... there are many, many variables, as there should be. Sometimes, things just go awry.

If you are steady and careful most all results will be pretty realistic in game terms. I just completed 1 1/2 Campaigns as the CSA. Not a single out-of-kilter result. First game was a methodical win where I caught all the breaks. The 2nd is a different story. Union has disrupted everything and I am having extreme difficulty getting things in place.

You are missing out on a great game by saying, "Bye Bye"!

[Drambuie]

I recently posted some similar thoughts as the OPs on the apparent randomness of battle results. While the example here is rather extreme and the result seems totally fair I do have a few questions:

Does the engine make allowances for concentrated attacks on heavy fortifications - ie. in the case here massing batteries to try to punch through fortifications, concentrating on small areas - or does it simply 'line up' units against each other and fight them as it would an open field battle, simply giving big defensive bonuses to defenders?

Similarly - do all units in the battle on the defense benefit from whatever pluses 700 fortification value gives? In reality only a part of the units defending would be in the 'frontline' trench system so does it allow for rotation and skewed heavy damage to those units in initial contact?

Also - in this example 20 units have achieved an ambush - what in this battle does this mean - how when they are defending a trench system and are essentially static can they 'ambush'?

I must admit some of the movement the AI seems to get from its units far outweighs mine - and cohesion loss etc form this seems far too little as they still march several regions and win battles where I believe I should have won.

[arsan]

Don't know about the battle and trenches details, sorry.
But the 20% ambush is caused by the Surpriser special ability of one of the leaders.
About explanations for this kind of "surprise"... even defending on trenches it's very possible, IMHO...
For example hidden batteries than open up at short range on unsuspecting assaulters, hidden reserves on reverse slope, false main line trenches with real ones hidden a little to the rear so the attacker waste his artillery on empty positions... all this kind of tactics were or could have been used then.
Even the famous dummy guns Beauregard used after first Manassas could be considered like a 20% surprise! Imaging using 20% of your assaulting troops attacking or covering bogus positions with logs for guns instead of using your strength on the real ones.
Regards

[GShock]

Does the engine make allowances for concentrated attacks on heavy fortifications - ie. in the case here massing batteries to try to punch through fortifications, concentrating on small areas - or does it simply 'line up' units against each other and fight them as it would an open field battle, simply giving big defensive bonuses to defenders?

More than just bonuses there's also frontage rules to cope with so that the attacker can attack with less units at the same time than the defender, which of course, causes on him more losses than the ones caused to the defender. It's very complex and the real mechanics are still hidden to most of us.

Similarly - do all units in the battle on the defense benefit from whatever pluses 700 fortification value gives? In reality only a part of the units defending would be in the 'frontline' trench system so does it allow for rotation and skewed heavy damage to those units in initial contact?

But in reality the units in the rear would fill the gaps in the trenches as soon as the original defenders routed. This you mentioned is possibly a good, though very difficult, idea for the trench mechanics that many found so hard to beat. The team has moved instead on a variable limit to the maximum entrenchment value changing periodically which still mitigates the power of high level entrenchments.

Also - in this example 20 units have achieved an ambush - what in this battle does this mean - how when they are defending a trench system and are essentially static can they 'ambush'?

The logics behind the computerization of battle call for abstraction. The ambush achieved could come from a side assault for example. Nothing can be excluded. Don't forget night attacks or, for example, enemy popping out from the woods behind your position and you need to counteract quickly. The negation of your defensive bonus counters the ambush values expressed.

I must admit some of the movement the AI seems to get from its units far outweighs mine - and cohesion loss etc form this seems far too little as they still march several regions and win battles where I believe I should have won.

There's generally an explanation behind every defeat and still chance plays its role in battles. In order to really understand, you must pay extra attention to each and every icon in the battle screen and to each and every cohesion value expressed by all units who participated in combat. Some factors are also hidden...for example, you do not see the bonuses given by each supply unit to the artillery hits. There are countless factors involved, thats why when a weird result is produced it takes lot of analysis to find out whether there was a bug involved or, as you may have guessed, it was a player's mistake (as most of the cases so far have proven).

I admit, i am in control of basically only half of these mech factors, i follow my sense of judgement more than the calculations involved after combat i rely on calculations made before combat and, at least to my eyes, 99% of times i've been satisfied with the combat results even when i'm beaten heavily. Learning this game is a very long but rewarding process.

[Drambuie]

Those sound like fair enough answers to my queries ... thanks. I think a lot of my issues are indeed the 'hidden' nature of some combat calculations. Anyway, off to start a campaign on the latest patch!

[Brochgale]

Back to the original post ...

Rules of Engagement! Use those buttons judiciously. Keep supplied, rested, and organized. As so many have stated ... there are many, many variables, as there should be. Sometimes, things just go awry.

If you are steady and careful most all results will be pretty realistic in game terms. I just completed 1 1/2 Campaigns as the CSA. Not a single out-of-kilter result. First game was a methodical win where I caught all the breaks. The 2nd is a different story. Union has disrupted everything and I am having extreme difficulty getting things in place.

You are missing out on a great game by saying, "Bye Bye"!

Players have to learn to play the game - Attacking level 7 entrenchments is suicidal? Trapping your own troops inside them if a vastly superior beseiging force lays seige is equally suicidal.
If the player is going to do nutty things then nutty things will happen. If aplayer refuses to learn from mistakes then there is not a lot you can do about that!