"Realistic Attrition"

[Coffee Sergeant]

If you want some idea of what the pre-World War One U.S.Army Staff College was teaching its cadets, try -

www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/archival/lectures.asp

Under "Miscellaneous",
"The Army On The March"

Here's an interesting tidbit

Code: Select all

An army corps, (reckoned only as two division s
of infantry and the corps artillery), occupyin ;
some twelve and a half miles of road in column PE
route, and leaving for the time, all trains, etc., 1
tLe rear, would, when advancing by one road, requ j-2
from twelve to twenty hours, according to circun+
6 T-HE ARMY ON THE MARCH
stances, to march a distance of fourteen miles (one
day’s march) and deploy into line of battle. This,,
then, at once gives about the maximum force that,I
can be moved by one road (the troops, etc. z being at
full war strength), if it is to immediately engage the
enemy, or be drawn up, in position ready for battle.
The following has been. found to be the times
taken to perform a march of about fourteen miles;
A battalion of infantry          A  B   C   D
or a field battery ____         5  8   10  12,
A regiment of cavalry or a
battery of horse artillery---   4  6   7.5 20
A train, etc., of a column ____ 6  10 16  20
An infantry division __________ 6  9  11  14.
A cavalry division ____________ 4  7  9    12
Add for every additional
infantry division on the
same road          ----- ------ 1 2  3    4

(These figures represent only the time taken
by the head of the column of route in question to
cover the distance. )
Column “A ‘ ‘, means on a good road under favorable
conditions.
Column “B”, .on a bad road under favorable conditions.
Column ‘ ‘C “, on a bad road under unfavorable
conditions.
Column “D”, under very unfavorable conditions

[berto]

Getting realistic march rates and reasonable cohesion loss should be the priority. Coding variance adds complexity.

Yes, but isn't variance, chance occurrence, the very heart of warfare?

Why is it that, in almost every war game, basic movement rates are predictable, fixed and unvarying?

So much else varies by random chance: Combat results (obviously). Weather (which does affect movement rates; but what about other random factors affecting movement? see below). Morale loss and recovery. Routing. Leader deaths. Activity vs. inactivity. Programmed events...

Why not also movement in and of itself?

--What about that unexpected rain-swollen river?
--Chancing on an unmapped river ford?
--The delayed promised pontoon bridges?
--The unanticipated destroyed bridge?
--The train locomotive breakdown? Or the gunboat engine failure?
--Ornery mules?
--Ambiguous, garbled orders? Marches, and counter marches.
--High morale? Dejection?
--Second wind?
--Traffic jams?
--Bad maps?
--Bad directions? (It's in the back of my mind, I can't recall the details, but in one or more incidents slaves or seemingly sympathetic locals gave Union forces bad advice about the whereabouts of roads and river fords.)
--Simply getting lost?

AACW already models these chance factors to some extent, when you see the occasional message about this or that delay. How about making these messages more than occasional? How about events and messages announcing, not just delays, but also speedups such as "your forces have marched unexpectedly fast and arrived at their destination five days sooner than anticipated"? (Pardon me if I have missed these or underestimated their frequency of occurrence in the current game version.)

Yes, activity/inactivity and weather currently impact rates of march. But, in conjunction with upping average speed and lowering cohesion loss, should rates of march otherwise, somehow, by some fashion, be made more variable?

[AndrewKurtz]

\
If you must have forces arrive in the same condition that they left base, take a train!!!! ... or play chess....

Or have an option which is the opposite of Forced March...a move slower/lose less cohesion option or Cautious March option. The option could be set that, if a moving force reaches some cohesion value (X), it will stop moving until it recovers enough cohesion (Y) (assuming X and Y would be mod values).

In fact, as I write this, what if this was simply the norm and forced march stopped this "stop and rest" function? The movement values in the tables would be the forced march values, but these would not be used as units would automatically stop as needed to recover cohesion. Leader attributes which reduce cohesion loss would then automatically impact sped.

The result would be that , unless forced march was set, units would never move so fast/far that they lose too much cohesion. They would rest when needed.

[Clovis]

Yes, but isn't variance, chance occurrence, the very heart of warfare?

Why is it that, in almost every war game, basic movement rates are predictable, fixed and unvarying?

because players don't like random movements. Sad but true fact. Any game removing too much control over units to players has generally got high praises in critics and a commercial failure.

You're right about AACW is partially simulating this point. I guess too more should be optional. But options can't be multiplied without taking the risk to disrupt AI. And AI performance remains essential to the commercial success of computer wargames.

[Dan]

In fact, as I write this, what if this was simply the norm and forced march stopped this "stop and rest" function? The movement values in the tables would be the forced march values, but these would not be used as units would automatically stop as needed to recover cohesion. Leader attributes which reduce cohesion loss would then automatically impact sped.

The result would be that , unless forced march was set, units would never move so fast/far that they lose too much cohesion. They would rest when needed.

I like the sounds of this. Would it be possible? Perhaps something along the lines of 'troops will march until cohesion for the stack drops x%'. Troops will then rest and will begin to march once some cohesion is regained. Even if this would be possible, I think the overall march speed needs to be adjusted as I do think the march times now are a little slow.

This would give the player some more choice. Do I want my force to get to point X as fast as possible and perhaps not be fit to fight, or do I want to make sure my force reaches point X in fighting condition, even though it may take a week or two longer.

[Jagger]

The last few days, I have been working on a fix for realistic attrition.

Basically I have reduced the movement cost in mud substantially. On average, mud costs have been reduced 40%. Mud is the situation in which I typically experienced extraordinary attrition loss. Lower movement costs produce less cohesion loss and thus less attrition loss.

I have also tweaked movement in clear weather. On average, movement into a region in clear weather requires one day less than in original files. Frozen and snow conditions are basically the same as original with some tweaking. Blizzard costs have been reduced such that most units can move one region per turn except mountains but at very heavy cost in cohesion/attrition.

These changes result in far less cohesion loss in mud conditions and slightly less cohesion loss in clear conditions. These changes produce less attrition in clear and mud because less cohesion is lost. Marching in frozen, snow and blizzard conditions continues to produce high cohesion loss and high attrition loss.

From observation, it appears attrition loss becomes fairly heavy when regiments have cohesion of 40 or less. Disastrous attrition occurs when a unit has 25 cohesion or less and must still march several days further. A safe march should include rests to maintain regimental cohesion at 50 and above. If any of your regiments have very low cohesion, it is better to allow them to rest before marching further.

To use the fix, first use copy/past to create a copy of your terrain folder in your gamedata folder and store in a safe place. Then upload the attached zipped file into your "original" terrain folder in the gamedata folder. Unzip within your terrain folder and overwrite old files.

In the attached file, I also included the Xcel file which contains the cost in days per terrain type and ground condition. Although the terrain matrix does not include any change in movement costs due to road type within the region.

The fix will also be available in the PBEM mod here: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=7599

Any feedback will be used for future changes as necessary.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jagger]

This goes against almost every historical simulation that I have had experience with. MUD movement is always worse than snow or frozen snow movement. This would seem to me to produce twisted game results. Had you altered Frozen, and Snow movement in relation to your changed MUD movement effects, it would be of more interest to me.

Unfortunately, the current modifiers are producing twisted results.

First point, very little campaigning took place during winter snow, blizzard and frozen conditions. The extreme weather conditions, in addition to the ground conditions, not only reduced marching times but increased attrition of men and horses. Thus extensive campaigns were not carried out in snow, blizzard or frozen conditions unlike during periods with rain.

And what exactly are mud conditions? Is it 15 days and nights of heavy rain producing the famed mud march of Burnside? Or is it a few days of decent rain reducing ground conditions? The 15 days and nights of heavy rain, totally flooding the countryside, is very rare event. However mud conditions are extremely common in the game for every month except summertime which means mud cannot represent 15 days and night of heavy rain. So I am assuming mud is a few days of decent rain with drying out for the remainder of the 15 days rather than the far less common, non-stop heavy rain for weeks on end. Thus 3 or 4 or 5 days of bad marching due to rain still leaves 10 or 12 days of good marching. Unlike snow and frozen conditions which are commonly on the ground for a full 15 days if temperatures are low enough.

Considering the prevalence of mud within the game, mud cannot represent 15 days and nights of heavy rain.

Second point. The impact of rain varies tremendously with ground composition. Some ground types absorb rain well and still leave good surfaces. Others like parts of Virginia are notorious for poor rain absorbtion and produces abnormally bad marching conditions. Unfortunately, we have to go for an average rather than use a worse case such as Virginia.

Finally because terrain type and ground conditions impact marching days, cohesion and attrition losses simultaneously, a balance has to be reached between the interaction of all three factors. In particular, the greater attritional impact of snow, frozen and blizzard vs rain must be taken into consideration. If we make mud conditions worse than snow, frozen and blizzards, we will see the odd situation in which it is more logical to campaign during the winter than during rains. Historically, more campaigning took place in spring and autumn than during winter despite the potential rains/mud of spring/autumn.

For the reasons given above, IMO the changes are logical producing more realistic and playable results with realistic attrition than the current terrain modifiers. The current terrain modifiers are not working with mud conditions.
Ideally, the game would have light mud and heavy mud conditions to account for the rare 15 days and nights but we don't. And do we really have to have the rare Burnside mud march?

Of course, if you have a better solution supported by logical reasoning, I am open to other alternatives.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jagger]

I agree the current modifiers are skewed somewhat, and your attempt to accomplish a modification that accounts for it is quite ingenious. I'm only pointing out that to lighten the penalties for MUD movement without correspondingly adjusting Frozen, Snow movement is also skewed. The weather matrix is supposed to take into account the difference between light rain and heavy rain, but even in the case of light rain, in the absence of paved roads, any rain at all resulted in a rather difficult morass to move thru especially on roads. It was much more difficult to move in MUDDY weather than Frozen, snow.

My logical reasoning has nothing to do with the way you are attempting to modify the attrition effects. It has to do with the relationship between Mud, Snow, and Frozen movement effects.

edit: The weather matrix has higher percentage chances of Mud during the Spring and Fall, just as I thought. This in affect is accounting for the differences in heavier rain periods, so your justification for MUD periods not being caused by heavy "Rain" doesn't hold water.

Also this thread should probably be moved to the AACW MODs sub-forum

I am not sure what is the problem here although I am a bit disappointed that you are pronoucing my mod dead on arrival without any testing or a convincing argument. Arguing that other historical simulations always models mud as worse than snow, frozen or blizzards is not a convincing argument. Convention is often wrong or not applicable to specific situations if analyzed closely. :

Currently campaigning in spring or fall with historical attrition is a very bad idea for the Union particularly, but also the CSA. Mud is everywhere during spring and fall, as well as winter in the south. Currently with historical attrition, summer is the only time to carry out campaigning without armies dissolving on the march and powerless upon arrival at their destination.

There are three ways to mod the attrition results-as I understand a feature which is largely vague. One is to change movement costs which reduces cohesion losses and consequently attrition. Second is to reduce the prevalence of mud within the weather files. Third is to reduce the attrition factor which only AGEOD can do at this point. I choose the terrain route as changing the weather files is a lot more work and very difficult to simulate correctly. And I know as I have modded the weather files in the past. Although if you wish to modify the weather files, you are welcome to it.

I would suggest ensuring that heavy mud conditions are rare enough that campaigning in the spring and fall, as well as winter in the south, are reasonably possible without such attrition that it is not a logical choice. Typically extended heavy rains are produced by stalled fronts. Usually one or two stalled fronts occur during the spring or fall normally but only in one section of the country at a time. Although much lighter and shorter periods of rain occur, with the more common fast moving fronts, which leaves periods of good weather and drying. If you could work these details into the weather tables, we would be getting close to a solution.

In the meantime, I am curious how you reached the conclusion that mud conditions are definitively caused by "heavy rain"? My conclusion to higher frequency of rain in the spring and fall weather tables is that rain is more common in spring and fall. Which is the way it should be. That still does not define whether we are talking 15 days of rain or 2 or 3 days of rain. Although I am absolutely certain that 15 straight days of rain is fairly rare and 2, 4 or 5 days is not rare. So I assume that mud conditions are not caused by 15 days of rain considering how prevalent mud conditions are in the weather tables.

And if there are only 2, 4 or 5 days of rain, then there are 10, 11 or 13 days of drying and improved marching. Which is significantly different from snow or frozen conditions under a large cold air mass which often extends over a 15day period...even if interrupted with short periods of melting...which often produces heavy mud.

I am curious about your reference to a differentiation between heavy and light rains in the weather matrix as there is none. Unless I misunderstand you, only mud exists within the weather matrix-not heavy or light rain.

This mod ensures the best campaigning season with the attrition option is summer. Spring and fall campaigns are doable but a bit more difficult than summer. Winter snow campaigns are not a good idea. Historically, these are the results which make sense. I feel the logic behind the changes are supportable and have provided my reasoning. I won't say the mod is perfect but it achieves my objectives with the tools available. And I am open to feedback and tweaking from those who try the mod.

And remember, if you wish for mud to continue to have a greater impact than snow or frozen conditions over a 15 day time frame, then winter campaigning will make more sense than fall or spring campaigns in the snow climes as a winter campaign will produce less attrition and loss of cohesion. Those results would not be historical. And in the south, the winter mud conditions will prevent us from carrying out the historical winter campaigns of Grant or Sherman without our armies falling apart. Remember campaigning takes place during summer, spring and fall...not during winter snows and blizzards. Winter destroys armies, not rains and mud. The game results must reflect that reality. I think the mod accomplishes these results without adjusting the weather tables.

But if you do a weather mod, I will test it out and reserve comment until I see the results. I will assume you have spent the time thinking out the problem, reaching and implementing a solution, done some testing and are satisfied enough with the results that you are ready for others to test it out.

Then I will give you constructive feedback and any questions about inconsistencies or problems I may have spotted during testing. It seems fair to me to give it a reasonable shot for the time and work you put into creating the mod....before shooting it down.

Does that sound fair to you? Sounds fair to me.

[Evren]

Here is my suggestion: Perhaps we can simulate a historical operation like Bragg's Kentucky action by making a division, or corps, or just a normal stack ready for a "deep penetration operation", locking the forces in a nearby city for a few rounds depending on the scale, paying extra supply and ammunution
points (or perhaps war supplies, even VP and NM points, the cost must be extreme though, since the player will try to execute this strategy all the time, making it gamey), by like clicking on a button "prepare forces for offensive". And when the forces are unlocked, they would be able to move faster with less cohesion loss for a certain period of time. I'm not sure if these can be coded, but i think it would be a nice addition to the game.

Since all the "BIG" players are writing posts under this topic, i would like to make a comment also. I very much agree on Walloc's 90%-10% and Berto's "varying and unpredictable movement rates" ideas. The average player is already using all the game features so effectively (such as creating divisions with a sharpshooter+4 artillery, use of supply wagons, transporting generals,creating depots and distributing supplies etc..), the A.I. cannot be competent even in very hard difficulty without the fog of war (i still managed to beat her without losing a single divisional level battle, as the CSA or USA, even with some Mods), and it is not so different when playing against human players that doesn't know the game mechanics very well, or who cannot make calculations that fast, hence turning the game into a mathematical contest more than a strategy game (Please don't take it wrong, i'm not defying or underestimating anyone here, this is still a computer game, and i'm sure there are lots of playes who can beat me out there,but that's not the case) . As Walloc said, the player will do this 10% thing everytime, turning it into a 90% thing. So, if it only will help the player, tweaking cohesion losses in difficult terrain, or giving more generals the fast mover trait wouldn't do much to increase the game quality. For Berto's opinion, not knowing the precise dates of force arrivals would do a lot to increase the quality, since you would have to revise your decisions every turn, and it would turn your actions into total victories or total disasters as in real life, but i'm not sure if the idea can be coded over the existing ones.

In brief, my goal is to enjoy the-best-game-of-all-times more, by making it more challenging and more realistic, if possible. I'd rather pray to god for victory than making all the (un)necessary calculations.

PS: Apologies to Jagger for getting out of the topic. I'm an admirer of your mod anyway. I always use the historical attrition setting, and i never experienced such men losses as you mentioned. And in case of moving in muddy terrain, yes the cohesion loss hits the forces so hard, so i try to overcome it by using riverine transports, railroads whenever possible. If not, it is up to my luck about the weather, i prefer not moving through muddy terrain unless i'm sure there's not a big opposing force waiting to slay me in a city. So it is more like wait and hit tactics for me. But it think it never effected the game that much. If there's mud for me, than there's also mud for the opponent. Also, i think heavy and light mud is a good idea.

[Jagger]

Here is my suggestion: Perhaps we can simulate a historical operation like Bragg's Kentucky action by making a division, or corps, or just a normal stack ready for a "deep penetration operation", locking the forces in a nearby city for a few rounds depending on the scale, paying extra supply and ammunution
points (or perhaps war supplies, even VP and NM points, the cost must be extreme though, since the player will try to execute this strategy all the time, making it gamey), by like clicking on a button "prepare forces for offensive". And when the forces are unlocked, they would be able to move faster with less cohesion loss for a certain period of time. I'm not sure if these can be coded, but i think it would be a nice addition to the game.

Since all the "BIG" players are writing posts under this topic, i would like to make a comment also. I very much agree on Walloc's 90%-10% and Berto's "varying and unpredictable movement rates" ideas. The average player is already using all the game features so effectively (such as creating divisions with a sharpshooter+4 artillery, use of supply wagons, transporting generals,creating depots and distributing supplies etc..), the A.I. cannot be competent even in very hard difficulty without the fog of war (i still managed to beat her without losing a single divisional level battle, as the CSA or USA, even with some Mods), and it is not so different when playing against human players that doesn't know the game mechanics very well, or who cannot make calculations that fast, hence turning the game into a mathematical contest more than a strategy game (Please don't take it wrong, i'm not defying or underestimating anyone here, this is still a computer game, and i'm sure there are lots of playes who can beat me out there,but that's not the case) . As Walloc said, the player will do this 10% thing everytime, turning it into a 90% thing. So, if it only will help the player, tweaking cohesion losses in difficult terrain, or giving more generals the fast mover trait wouldn't do much to increase the game quality. For Berto's opinion, not knowing the precise dates of force arrivals would do a lot to increase the quality, since you would have to revise your decisions every turn, and it would turn your actions into total victories or total disasters as in real life, but i'm not sure if the idea can be coded over the existing ones.

In brief, my goal is to enjoy the-best-game-of-all-times more, by making it more challenging and more realistic, if possible. I'd rather pray to god for victory than making all the (un)necessary calculations.

PS: Apologies to Jagger for getting out of the topic. I'm an admirer of your mod anyway. I always use the historical attrition setting, and i never experienced such men losses as you mentioned. And in case of moving in muddy terrain, yes the cohesion loss hits the forces so hard, so i try to overcome it by using riverine transports, railroads whenever possible. If not, it is up to my luck about the weather, i prefer not moving through muddy terrain unless i'm sure there's not a big opposing force waiting to slay me in a city. So it is more like wait and hit tactics for me. But it think it never effected the game that much. If there's mud for me, than there's also mud for the opponent. Also, i think heavy and light mud is a good idea.

I agree with the more unpredictability, the better concept. There is already a lot in the game and is part of the attraction. Although I like your ideas, I suspect they would require some significant engine upgrades on the side of AGeod.

As to attrition losses, I think it depends on the game, location and the situation. In one of my current Union PBEM's, I have over 70,000 men in Missouri trying to control the state in mid 1862. They have to do a lot of marching as railroads are not available in most of the state. Mud conditions were absolutely killing my formations until I realized not to campaign in mud conditions. Basically only clear conditions are good if marching longer distances. My opponent stated he lost 18,000 men due to the weather. I assume he lost an entire formation and I am not surprised. Although I think it happened in Kentucky instead of Missouri.

However in the east or if I simply move by rail interspersed with very short marches, I don't have a problem. I can campaign almost anytime.

But if my troops have to march longer distances in Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, the southwest or swamplands along the coastlines, I will wait 8-9 months for the clear weather of summer rather than lose my armies from marching. But it is not much fun waiting around. That is why I put the mod together.

[runyan99]

Jagger, I'm not sure whether I agree with you or not. The record is a bit mixed. Grant took Donelson in February. Burnside fought Fredericksburg in December, as was the battle of Franklin. While armies generally went into winter quarters, there were also winter campaigns.

I don't know of any instance where snow or blizzards had any impact on a campaign. Maybe the winters of 1861-1865 were comparatively mild. I'm sure it got cold, but sever winter weather never seems to be a factor during the war.

Armies marched in the rain, but it is also clear that soggy roads caused a lot of problems. McClellan seemed particularly fond of waiting for dry roads. I don't think moving troops in mud should be a viable option.

Over all, cold weather and solid roads seem to have been preferable to campaign in rather than warmer weather and muddy roads. Can you give me an example of a long march in rain or muddy conditions?

It seems to me that muddy weather should be destructive to cohesion, but cold winter months should cause more attrition from sickness. Winter hits are already part of the game.

If you want to argue that the weather matrix currently generates mud conditions too often, that is a seperate issue.

I'm not sure that what the game currently does is flawed. Cohesion loss in good weather may be too high, but I am not convinced that bad weather is overdone in the game.

[Bertram]

One factor that is also not covered in the game is the size of the unit(s) or the number of units marching/moving and he fact that planning/starting a march should take more time then keeping a march going. My impression is that the examples earlier about armies in Tennesee not being able to keep to historical scedules is due to the averaging needed to keep the model managable.

As to the size and number of units:
If I move a general from Washington to Harpers Ferry (for example) and use rail, this takes 4 days. This is a bit long, as he can hop on the regular service (after receiving orders), and be there in an afternoon. If I send a militia unit it takes the same time. Seems a bit long, but with some confusion, and getting all the stuff aboard it might be realistic. If I keep sending units along the same track, it still is 4 days for each unit (as long as I have rail capacity). That means sending 10.000 men, or even 100.000 men along that same rail line still takes 4 days. That might be a bit optimistic... The only thing I need to make sure of is that I dont use that railcapacity elsewhere (like in Kentucky - which in reality would not make a lot of difference).
So in general the railroad is to effective if using large numbers of troops.
The same goes for roads, for the game it does not matter if you have a single unit or an army marching along a road, while (as seen in the tables above) the larger a unit, the longer it should take to get it started and the longer it should take before the last unit has joined the main body again. Of course it is not as clear cut for road movement, as larger units can spread out a bit when moving (especially in more civelized country). But the effect (or lack of effect) is essentially the same.

An other factor averaged out is preparation time. If you decide to march a division a few regions over, it should be able to start pretty quick. If you decide to march over an army, it should take a much longer time to prepare. The game is much to forgiving in this. On the other hand, having done the planning and preparation, it should not matter as much how far you are traveling, and once travelling the speed should be higher. The travelling speed only should break down agai after a certain time/distance, when the men get tired, or the logistics break down.
In the above cited example where the game army could not match the historical army, time started to run for the historical army *after* preparation, when they started to march. For the game army time started to run the moment the march order was given. Preparation time is factored in in the speed of the march. For a certain size of army, for a certain distance this will be correct. For a different size of army, for different distances it will be not. And for very large or very small sizes, for very long or very short distances, you might get odd results...

I dont think you can solve this by tweaking the existing parameters. Tweaking the parameters gives you an other average, which will be right/realistic under different circumstances, but also will break down if the circumstances differ (of course you can try to get it closer to reality for more common, or more relevant occurances). To get this closer to reality, you would need to factor in variables as preparation time (for different sized units), congestation (for different regions, and probably other factors I am forgetting now. The question is of the added complexity (and work) is worth it in terms of the game played.

(long post, I will edit and revisit later to clarify and correct errors )

[Jabberwock]

Bertram -
If I understand you correctly, CP would be the controlling factor.

[Bertram]

Jabberwock Bertram -
If I understand you correctly, CP would be the controlling factor.

It would be a good way to measure troop density. But only using the CP would be to simple I am afraid. It would be factored in calculating the delay of the movement at the start of a move order (after which the movement could be faster then now). But the delay (for which there is, as far as I know, no option in the variables now-nor a calculation in the move routine) would maybe also have to factor in other variables - troop quality (symbolizing lower echelon leaders and training); leader initiative; leader organisational skills; distance to the higher level command; maybe some or none of the previous and others I didnt think of...
It would also be the controlling factor for the delay due to congestation of the roads or the rail, but that factor would have to take in account ALL the CP that move along that road, through that region or over that stretch of rail. That would make it necesairy (sp?) that there is a counter for those things in each region (at least).
And how do we implement the effects? If there are to much troops moving through a region, would all troops be delayed? Or would the first troops go through at regular speed, and the subsequent troops more and more delayed? Another variable you need to calculate, keep track of and apply.

What I was trying to say (I think ) was that if you ask for the next level or realism, if you want to take a simulation one level closer to reality, you double the variables you need to use in the model, and you raise the complexity exponentially.
The existing varables are an average in a number of situations (as example: the road speed under different troop desities) Tweaking the existing varables only get you so far. At some point you get the end results better in one situation, but worse in others. Upping the speed of travel might enable you to simulate the campaign cited earlier, but it very well could lead to blitzkrieg raids at other places.

Maybe the above sounds as if I am saying that you should not try if other values fit better. That is not my intention. The tweaking has made this game a lot better then when it was released. I do think you are running into the limit what (at least in regard to troop travel speed) can be done to make it better, withouth introducing new variables.

But maybe you should just disregard my post and keep tweaking

[marecone]

Jabberwock Bertram -
If I understand you correctly, CP would be the controlling factor.

It would be a good way to measure troop density. But only using the CP would be to simple I am afraid. It would be factored in calculating the delay of the movement at the start of a move order (after which the movement could be faster then now). But the delay (for which there is, as far as I know, no option in the variables now-nor a calculation in the move routine) would maybe also have to factor in other variables - troop quality (symbolizing lower echelon leaders and training); leader initiative; leader organisational skills; distance to the higher level command; maybe some or none of the previous and others I didnt think of...
It would also be the controlling factor for the delay due to congestation of the roads or the rail, but that factor would have to take in account ALL the CP that move along that road, through that region or over that stretch of rail. That would make it necesairy (sp?) that there is a counter for those things in each region (at least).
And how do we implement the effects? If there are to much troops moving through a region, would all troops be delayed? Or would the first troops go through at regular speed, and the subsequent troops more and more delayed? Another variable you need to calculate, keep track of and apply.

What I was trying to say (I think ) was that if you ask for the next level or realism, if you want to take a simulation one level closer to reality, you double the variables you need to use in the model, and you raise the complexity exponentially.
The existing varables are an average in a number of situations (as example: the road speed under different troop desities) Tweaking the existing varables only get you so far. At some point you get the end results better in one situation, but worse in others. Upping the speed of travel might enable you to simulate the campaign cited earlier, but it very well could lead to blitzkrieg raids at other places.

Maybe the above sounds as if I am saying that you should not try if other values fit better. That is not my intention. The tweaking has made this game a lot better then when it was released. I do think you are running into the limit what (at least in regard to troop travel speed) can be done to make it better, withouth introducing new variables.

But maybe you should just disregard my post and keep tweaking

Fantastic idea ! If this would be possible that would be a great addition to realisam in this game. Moving a regiment through a region is not the same as moving a division or army.

Hope somebody will find a way to implement this in this great game.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Clovis]

The fact is between Henry and Donelson, Grant had to wait because of mud which made impossible to move artillery and resumed operation when temperature became very cold...( Gallagher, Struggle for the heartland)

[Jabberwock]

Pope: Commerce, MO -> New Madrid, MO
Sherman: Savannah, GA -> Columbia, SC

I suppose you could call those "swamp marches" instead of mud marches.

[bigus]

The last few days, I have been working on a fix for realistic attrition.

Basically I have reduced the movement cost in mud substantially. On average, mud costs have been reduced 40%. Mud is the situation in which I typically experienced extraordinary attrition loss. Lower movement costs produce less cohesion loss and thus less attrition loss.

I have also tweaked movement in clear weather. On average, movement into a region in clear weather requires one day less than in original files. Frozen and snow conditions are basically the same as original with some tweaking. Blizzard costs have been reduced such that most units can move one region per turn except mountains but at very heavy cost in cohesion/attrition.

These changes result in far less cohesion loss in mud conditions and slightly less cohesion loss in clear conditions. These changes produce less attrition in clear and mud because less cohesion is lost. Marching in frozen, snow and blizzard conditions continues to produce high cohesion loss and high attrition loss.

From observation, it appears attrition loss becomes fairly heavy when regiments have cohesion of 40 or less. Disastrous attrition occurs when a unit has 25 cohesion or less and must still march several days further. A safe march should include rests to maintain regimental cohesion at 50 and above. If any of your regiments have very low cohesion, it is better to allow them to rest before marching further.

To use the fix, first use copy/past to create a copy of your terrain folder in your gamedata folder and store in a safe place. Then upload the attached zipped file into your "original" terrain folder in the gamedata folder. Unzip within your terrain folder and overwrite old files.

In the attached file, I also included the Xcel file which contains the cost in days per terrain type and ground condition. Although the terrain matrix does not include any change in movement costs due to road type within the region.

The fix will also be available in the PBEM mod here: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=7599

Any feedback will be used for future changes as necessary.

I'll check this out with the Kentucky scenario and get back to you..

bigus

[berto]

I'll be so pleased if you modder types fix this rate of march/cohesion loss/attrition issue, and even happier if it all becomes official. This is the one issue that has irked me the most about AACW.

(The second is the after-battle reports. Stating opposing forces and their losses in terms of men, horses, and guns is a great advance. Even better would be embellishing the after-battle reports with textual narrative. Best of all would be a full-game battle log that one could reference throughout, and at the end of, the game.)

[gbs]

Bertram -
If I understand you correctly, CP would be the controlling factor.

Guys, what is CP? Command Points??

[PhilThib]

Yes

[bigus]

@ Jagger.....Your numbers for Movement are looking really good!

I've done about 5 test scenarios (Kentucky Invasion)and Managed to get the Army of Mississippi/Tennessee back to Knoxville before it was attritioned to death.(poor weather)
I also managed to get the Army in and around Louisville in good time (in fair weather).
I'll still have too check it out with the other scenarios this weekend and get back too you.

bigus

[Jagger]

@ Jagger.....Your numbers for Movement are looking really good!

I've done about 5 test scenarios (Kentucky Invasion)and Managed to get the Army of Mississippi/Tennessee back to Knoxville before it was attritioned to death.(poor weather)
I also managed to get the Army in and around Louisville in good time (in fair weather).
I'll still have too check it out with the other scenarios this weekend and get back too you.

bigus

Good to hear! I am testing in a PBEM as well. So far I have been very happy. Although we have been playing through the good weather of summer. We are just now reaching Autumn, Late September, and the rainy season. So the next few turns should give my opponent and I more appropriate feedback than the good weather campaigning. I know I have a lot of troops deep in the boondocks. Should be interesting to see what they can and cannot achieve with mud conditions.

Another aspect I have noticed is that cohesion recovery is very slow outside of towns/forts, etc. which I believe is a feature of realistic attrition. If I put a unit on passive in a town, it recovers cohesion much, much quicker than when in the field. On the other side, recovering cohesion while sieging and in offensive mode is very painfully slow. I am wondering if recovery is too slow outside of towns and in offensive mode even when stationary. But that is something players cannot mod.

Another point I have noticed is that Marines and Sailors, with the pontooner capability, are much more useful in swamps than regular troops. They hold their cohesion much better than regular infantry in swamps.

Finally I am not sure but I think discipline may be tied to cohesion. Lower cohesion "appears" to produce lower discipline. Which then makes me wonder if low discipline, low cohesion or both impacts attrition. I need to watch unit discipline closer.

Definitely keep us updated on your results with your other scenario tests!

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jabberwock]

Without quoting the whole thing -
I would like to point out that while Friday was a mud issue, Thursday was a CP and inexperience issue. I would model CSA forces at Shiloh as five stacks, rather than four corps plus an army, or four divisions in one stack.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[berto]

IIRC, in Tennessee and Kentucky the summer and autumn of 1862 were exceptionally dry, and the Battle of Perryville was fought in part to seize nearby creeks for their drinking water.

Maybe the rates of march that Bragg, Smith, and Buell achieved during the 1862 Kentucky Campaign should be contingent on an unbroken string of fair weather periods. Mud anywhere and at any time along the way should therefore render the historical fast rates of march impossible, or at least unlikely.