Historical Attrition Unclear to Me

[GraniteStater]

The wording of the Historical Attrition option is unclear to me. Replacements need a Depot, but 'hits can be restored as usual' (i. e., not necessarily on a Depot: that's the implication, afaics)? What exactly does that mean? What is your understanding, observations and experience? What do I fail to see here?

I ask because it can make a difference on when and where to build Depots.

To be absolutely clear, this has mostly to do with 'getting the red out' - you have elements 'in the red', in the field. Can they get the red out in place, or do they need to go to a Depot?

And I finally have understood that a hit is a hit - it reds you, whether from weather, bombardment, or combat. AFAICS, this means that one can get the red out in the field, no Depot needed, if stationary. If so, what's the big deal about replacements, then, and how do they differ from hit recovery?

Ships need a level 3 Port to recover hits, IIRC.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Hits (getting the red out) recover in place in the field at a rate determined by posture and the structures you have present (depot is the fastest); you recover a percentage of the element's maximum number of hits each turn but exact percentages are a bit murky (the two old wikis disagree with each other and are unclear on whether the bonuses stack, what the max is, etc.) Elements must be fully supplied (the supply bar must be all the way to the top) and stationary (I am pretty sure) to draw replacement hits. The CSA recovers at twice the rate as the Union. You can recover hits in open regions (no structures) albeit slowly, and you can recover in regions with low loyalty, but you must be supplied no matter what.

If you lose a complete element and it has disappeared from its brigade/division then you will need to be in a depot for that element to be replaced (under historical attrition) which will cost an entire replacement chit (you cannot stop it from replacing it unless you combine the remaining brigade into a 17 element division with no room for the replacement). Without historical attrition, these full elements can be replaced outside of depots.

A good example of this is Floyd's WV force in the April 1861 Campaign. Without historical attrition, all of those under strength Volunteer Brigades add their Light Infantry elements wherever they are as soon as enough replacements are available. Under Historical attrition they must retreat to or build a depot to receive them.

The biggest effects of historical attrition come when operating away from cover. In some cases you still take attrition hits from the terrain and weather even when stationary. It is easy to miss this if you bring a lot of wagons since they get traded for wagon supplies. Some unit types suffer less attrition than others (irregs).

The depot is the fastest way to get the red out. In-field replacement rates for the Union are so slow that you will need to retreat to depots regularly after large battles. Note: AFAIK Medical Corps do not affect replacement rates, only cohesion recovery.

[GraniteStater]

Thank you for your explanation - it's about what I figured and had observed, in AACW and in CW2. The CSA recovering twice as fast is a good thing to know (why?).

Elements must be fully supplied (the supply bar must be all the way to the top) and stationary (I am pretty sure) to draw replacement hits.

This is what aggravates me, though. The tooltip makes a distinction between Replacements and hits. Now, please, it's really bad enough that whoever has been doing the English editing in AACW and CW2 leaves something to be desired (the lack of clarity and just, I'm sorry, substandard and poor English just ends up confusing readers), please don't compound it by mixing terms. I'm pretty sure I get your point, ACG, but the phrase 'replacement hits' can mean 'hits that pertain solely to replacements', which, in the context of the tooltip and this discussion, muddies things further.

As someone with a mathematical bent, not to mention a Describer of Things, I'm sorry, my first impulse is to Define Thy Terms. As we said back in Tech Writing 001, when you call something a widget on page 4, don't start calling it a wadget on page 20.

This is not addressed to you, ACG, it's just a gripe in general.

So we have Replacements - yes, those guys whose arrivals are displayed in the Messages, and we have Hits - red stuff, from any source. Replacements arrive because the brigade in question wants to flesh out its TOE, what it should be. Once you're along in the game some, these happen, pretty much, only when an entire element gets whacked and is gone entirely. Hits can be alleviated or obviated anytime, anywhere (wait a minute - gotta be in Port for ships, and I think one needs size 3; unsure), but location, structures, circumstances in general, can keep these to a crawl or speed them up.

And the South gets a 2:1 advantage in this - why? Some Big Historical Reason of which I know not? Or is it more 'balance'?

This veers off topic, but see my latest thread on the experience I'm having with havi. No wonder I can't get past entrenched 4000 PWR posts - he can take the beatings all day long and recover twice as fast. In the meantime, the Union essentially stops building units just to replace casualties and by the time they're ready again, they might as well not bother.

Hey, I know, just turtle entirely and build everything you can and then march in March 1864. Can't lose then.

Sorry to sound bitter, but starting to wonder if the Union has any advantages left.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Yes, naval units need to be in size 3+ harbors to Replace hits or Replace elements (and also must be in passive posture AFAIK).

Some of the names of game-terms are ambiguous or sound too much alike. Another example is the Activation Rule and the Activation Bonus in the Settings screens. In the case of Replacements and Hardened Attrition it is very confusing.

Disambiguation:

Replacements: New troops that report directly to damaged elements to "get the red out." This is measured in hits, AKA hearts; the red portion of an element represents the hits it has lost. If an entire element is missing from the TOE (white chevron on the units panel icon), it will also get new men via Replacements (think of the element as being 100% red) and it will cost an entire chit. I never look at the number of "men" lost in battle, only the number of hearts, because hearts are what you actually pay in Replacements. Single element units (cavalry in particular) that are destroyed must be rebuilt as reinforcements unless they were combined into a division, in which case they use a Replacement chit to come back on the map.

Replacement hits: Visine drops: they Get-the-Red-Out. The quantity of hits Replaced each turn is determined by structure and posture.

Replacement element: An element of a larger unit that was destroyed (zero hits remaining) and Replaced. This consumes a full chit and happens all at once if conditions are met.

reinforcements: New units built from the gear menu, or otherwise brought in from elsewhere on the map. The term is not capitalized since it is not an official game-term.

Compare a 20 hit element with 1 hit remaining to one that has been completely destroyed. The 1 hit element will draw Replacement hits if conditions are met and will take several turns to return to full strength. The destroyed element consumes its chit and is Replaced on the next turn (I think low on cohesion though) if the conditions are met. The 1 hit element will probably also consume a full Replacement chit over the course of Replacement, but maybe 0 or 2+ chits depending on luck. The Replaced element return with zero experience (and may even be a conscript). The 1 hit element keeps its experience (AFAIK). Replacing full elements requires a Depot under Historical Attrition; hits (the red) replace the same way under all settings.

The Union draws Replacements hits at a slower throughput for some historical organizational reason (according to the manual; I guess the Union was in the habit of forming fresh regiments instead of sending new recruits to fill in damaged regiments). The rates listed in the Wiki/manual are for the CSA, the Union draws hits at half that speed.

Besieged units are not supposed to be able to draw Replacement hits or receive Replacement elements (harbors need to be blockaded), but I am not sure this is actually the case.

A Replacement chit being used to Replace hits (the red) is good, on average, for the number of hits normally in the element, but can give more or less randomly. The percentage chance of using the entire chit is 1/(#hits in the full strength element) rolled each time a hit is sent to a red element. So for a 20 hit element like infantry you can expect to replace roughly 20 hits per chit, distributed to whatever elements the replacement algorithm gives them to (a chit can contribute to getting-the-red-out of more than one element).

[ArmChairGeneral]

Sorry to sound bitter, but starting to wonder if the Union has any advantages left.

Well, the CSA IS supposed to be slightly superior in the field at start, and this is one aspect of that. The Union has plenty of advantages (resources, rail capacity, geography, starting Navy, depth of Force and Replacement Pools, better leaders late-game etc.) but CSA combat formations are more resilient.

This leads to Union players regularly cycling damaged units away from the fighting back to depots. The CSA can recover in the field more effectively and needs to do less depot-shuffling overall, especially when on defense. The Union is disadvantaged in cases where battles occur in quick succession.

I am pretty sure the Replacement rates were the same in AACW.

[GraniteStater]

First, thanks for buying me a beer, so to speak, ACG.

Ships in G/G, too? Definitely write that down - no wonder they've taken forever.

I'm going to have to read your mini-essay a few times before I get it all straight. Right now, all I know is that it gets real old real fast staring at 1280 hits to paid in Line Inf in War Production.

[GraniteStater]

Two more things:

This leads to Union players regularly cycling damaged units away from the fighting back to depots

You don't play the Union much, right? The Union hasn't got the time to do this. Much better to build Depots in place, as needed. You really don't have the time to do this, plus, how would you do it? Take Gibbon out of the front, along with his beat-up Div? Not bloody likely, mate, is all I can say - I ain't gonna do it, that's for sure. Leave Gibbon there with one Bde that ain't so bad? Maybe, 'cuz that's how you have to do it, unless you want to risk him losing Div status and spending another initial Turn at 1-0-0 or whatever. Shuffle in fresh Bdes and re-org the Divs? Now, there's a way, maybe the only good way, but the point is the Depot, right? Plus, all the Experience of the new Bdes is at Initial - granted, the renewed Bdes with Replacements lose Experience, but, if you're fortunate, not all of it and some is better than none.

Which is why I just end up building s***loads of Supply units. I'm building Depots anyplace I need to and can't keep all my Corps up with my preferred two Wagons per Corp. Also, not moving can be important - my last attack against AS Johnston at Covington, TN with Grant and two Corps - building the Depot in place was more than a little helpful, I think, a 'Turn and a half' and I attacked - and won an important battle.

Second point - I am aware that the Union did not send replacements to regiments, but, rather, 'bled them white' until no longer effective; they just raised new regiments. Now, the CSA did follow more of the modern practice and the idea was that the vets would teach the rookies - but how does that affect the rate? I don't buy it really - it seems more like a developemnt decision to me, for 'balance' and I'm not sure it's really justified. It may seem nudgy, but 2:1 is too high a ratio, if one must have it. I could live with 3:2; 4:3 would be better, IMHO, unless someone wants to make the Historical Case for 2:1.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Yeah, that's 64 elements worth of hits, very expensive. (A chit is approximately equal to a full element, exactly equal if you have to replace the entire element).

BTW, an artillery Replacement chit is good for Replacing approximately 8 hits. Good thing artillery doesn't usually take a lot of casualties! (And I think Heavy artillery uses a totally different number, each chit seems to be good for a lot more hits than a single Heavy has, 20+ rather than the 10ish you would expect. This may account for why Heavy chits are so expensive.)

[ArmChairGeneral]

I never play the Union, I don't even know what they have for scripted forces other than what I have seen when scouting them. I based that on other people's (yours among them if I recall, although that goes back a long time, possibly to AACW) posts advising rotating damaged troops away from the front to recover at depots. I assumed that since it is impractical and unnecessary to do this as the CSA (I very rarely do it) that it was recommended because of the Union's slow replacement rate.

Elements that draw replacements lose some experience? I was not sure of that, although it makes sense.

I think the difference in rate is how they abstracted the difference in replacement philosophy (that's what the manual says anyway). What that difference SHOULD be, I have nothing to base an opinion on.

[GraniteStater]

It basically comes down to how I literally play the game. The central VA campaigns by havi & I in our PbeM should be posted, Turn by Turn, for about the last 20 Turns. Not that they're dazzlingly brilliant, but just good solid playing, good 'movemanship', if you will, by both sides. I have discovered a couple of subtle positional moves and some In Your Face moves, and so has he. It's been highly instructive.

AACW/CW2 is very, very much like chess 'over the board'. Sometimes just one unit to one Region changes the landscape. All of which is why I hate to yield position, at all, to the slightest degree. As chess masters say, 'position, position, position.' Thus I have ended up carting umpteen Wagons with me, not just for Supply, but for Depots in place. BTW, lone Depots spawn auto-garrisons, just FYI.

[Jim-NC]

The replacement rate was a developmental decision (this is a carryover from AACW). The discussion centered around the fact that the south did a better job with replacements, whereas the union didn't do such a good job (as you say, union units were bled white, then new formations added to the units).

[GraniteStater]

I find that 'reasoning' highly specious. The North chose method A; the South, B. In effect, the North didn't replace; what the South did is somewhat akin to modern practice, but, I would be willing to bet, varied hugely from it. Were these replacements, uh, trained before they went to the 44th Alabama? Methinks not, it was OJT.

The South had a persistent manpower and morale problem throughout the war that only worsened as time went by. Every southern state, except SC, raised regiments for the North - that is a fact that speaks volumes. The South employed the draft much earlier in the war and was remarkably limited in its success, shall we say. Portions of the south were actively hostile to the so-called Confederacy, more so than any resistance in the North.

Those who stayed and fought in the ranks for the South were very good troops, indeed. Just not enough of them.

Sounds to me like a very questionable 'justification' to get more goosing for the CSA in-game. To some degree, I can't blame them - a truly representative game would have the CSA player resigning in frustration by mid-63, probably. Against Athena. On Private.

[Ol' Choctaw]

I would disagree with that. In several regards the game is tilted toward the Union.

That is no huge deal, as the Union won. There was hostility in the north toward the war as well.

Using the northern replacement system would mean that no Union units would return to the force pool, you know.

From what I have seen, the southern force pool only has about one third of its actual units, where the northern pool is just about complete.

The whole issue is complex. The game can’t be 100% historical in every regard anyway. No one would play it.

Overall, I would say the south had very slim chances from the start but did a hell of a lot with almost nothing at all. In several cases they beat themselves rather than losing to the Union. Even winning after four years involved a lot of luck on their part and a lot of stupid errors on the southerner’s part. But there was plenty of stupid to go around on both sides.

Training in the civil war consisted of mostly school of the soldier. Both sides used the same books. Southern troops were usually more familiar with weapons and how to use them giving them a major advantage in that area. So a raw recruit in the south might well be much better than his northern counterpart.

In the area of cavalry, the southern cavalry should be the equal of late cavalry from the beginning. Their tactics never really changed much.

Northern cavalry was usually the pits because the farm boys who used horses every day knew how much trouble they were and went to the infantry. City boys with grooms and others to look after their horses joined the cavalry and got a real awakening. It took them that long to get a handle on what they needed to know.

[GraniteStater]

Uh, the point being what, if I may ask? I see what you mean, but do not see any central theme knitting these statements together. You differ with my assessment? Okay, I think that's what you're saying, but it gets a tad unclear here, trying to keep it all in focus.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's very Faulkneresque. A liitle more humdrum linear exposition could help the reader, though, at least this reader.

[Jim-NC]

@ GS - the general consensus was that the south did a better job getting replacements into it's units than the north. A model was choosen (which some may disagree with - including you). So how would you propose to hanlde replacements/reinforcements? Remember also that some of the hits that a unit suffers are considered wounded, and come back to the unit eventually. So how do the game designers model the wounded from the dead, while giving the south a bonus for getting new boys into their units? How do we handle the union's practice of merging skeleton companies together, and adding new fresh companies to the unit?

[Ol' Choctaw]

Ok, you state the reasoning is specious.

The Northern method of replacements was just to roll depleted units together. That works and insures a level of combat experience is maintained but it is disruptive to unit cohesion overall. These things are not done in the field and would require some safe place like a depot. Southern solders were more likely to fit into a unit than a northern recruit and live in the field and largely off the land. Bringing new men into a unit would have some derogatory effects but would more rapidly recover once the troops were integrated. It worked better for the south because of the life experiences of their troops had them better trained for that environment and familiar with arms and shooting. If you don’t see this part and want examples we can go into lots of folksy antidotes about possums, coons, hunting, and visiting relatives living 300 miles away.

The south had less of a morale problem but more of a manpower problem than the north. The unrest in the north was just as bad, if not worse, than in the south. Both had draft systems that were unfair and both sides had peace movements. But in the south they were being attacked, so wanting peace only gets you so far.

Many of the advantages given the north in the game are themselves specious. As in the part about the force pools, cavalry penalties etc. There are others, but it is not what the thread is about.

[GraniteStater]

@ GS - the general consensus was that the south did a better job getting replacements into it's units than the north. A model was choosen (which some may disagree with - including you). So how would you propose to hanlde replacements/reinforcements? Remember also that some of the hits that a unit suffers are considered wounded, and come back to the unit eventually. So how do the game designers model the wounded from the dead, while giving the south a bonus for getting new boys into their units? How do we handle the union's practice of merging skeleton companies together, and adding new fresh companies to the unit?

I think one could probably get a Master's thesis on the subject and that 2:1 is highly questionable. I don't think, as far as I know, there's the research to be done, that A is better than B. Gee, why not 1:1? Indeed, why not, very much, why not?

I really don't think, as a business decision, as a design decision, that they spent 400 hours wrangling with this. It's more than a little arbitrary and I think there are factors other than historicity that went into it.

The reasoning, X did A, Y did B, therefore, Y's way is better is, obviously, I should hope, specious. One must show much more than that simple pair of statements (it's not a syllogism, even) to assert anything at all. This should be crystal clear as a matter of elementary logic.

Arbitrary does not mean 'necessarily bad'. Obviously, they wanted to do something other than 1:1; I don't think we have the time to debate the entire matter from an historical viewpoint, I feel it's much too deep as an historical debate or point alone, and I am sure there were other factors involved, more to do with design than historical fidelity.

[GraniteStater]

Ok, you state the reasoning is specious.

The Northern method of replacements was just to roll depleted units together. That works and insures a level of combat experience is maintained but it is disruptive to unit cohesion overall. These things are not done in the field and would require some safe place like a depot. Southern solders were more likely to fit into a unit than a northern recruit and live in the field and largely off the land. Bringing new men into a unit would have some derogatory effects but would more rapidly recover once the troops were integrated. It worked better for the south because of the life experiences of their troops had them better trained for that environment and familiar with arms and shooting. If you don’t see this part and want examples we can go into lots of folksy antidotes about possums, coons, hunting, and visiting relatives living 300 miles away.

The south had less of a morale problem but more of a manpower problem than the north. The unrest in the north was just as bad, if not worse, than in the south. Both had draft systems that were unfair and both sides had peace movements. But in the south they were being attacked, so wanting peace only gets you so far.

Many of the advantages given the north in the game are themselves specious. As in the part about the force pools, cavalry penalties etc. There are others, but it is not what the thread is about.

See my reply above.

The unrest in the north was just as bad, if not worse, than in the south.

Really? I think you'd have to demonstrate that. AFAIK, no one in the North was raising regiments for the South, border states aside. Did South Indiana become a separate State? Were entire counties so bad that Federal officers dared not go? On the contrary, the US was able to suspend the privilege of a writ throughout the nation. I'm sorry, but I think you have the burden of proof to meet with the above.

[Ol' Choctaw]

Interesting you should ask. We just past one anniversary of an incident in Indiana on March 28th.

The democrats were holding a political rally that day. I forget the town. Anyway Union troops were in town drinking. Name-calling and fights ensued. Guns came into it. I think about 6 were killed that day and quite a few more wounded. Then troops stationed near by were rushed in and more people died.

It was just not that uncommon. Why did you think Lincoln ended up declaring martial law and turning matters over to military tribunals? Because it was the American way or something?

Read up a bit on Northern opposition to the war. It is not real easy to find a lot but it is there.

There is just a lot you don’t get from history class.

Northern Regiments were raised in the south after occupation. The south didn’t occupy the north, if you haven’t noticed. Still there were a few units raised. Recruiting methods were not always pleasant either. And as a bonus, most were for local service and garrison duty.

Most of your points are fairly specious, it would seem.

[GraniteStater]

Take it to the History forum, please. But my points aren't specious. Holding plebiscites with armed guards at the ballot box - that's specious. Lincoln speculated that, with the exception of SC, there was not a majority of the voting population in any state that, in an open and free election, would choose to leave the Union.

Did you really read the post, wherein I explained my reservations? I said the reasoning was specious, that one must demonstrate, historically or otherwise, that A is better than B. It is illogical, as is plain to see, to just assume that A must be better, absent some buttressing or proof.

2:1 is a bit much, IMO. but I hardly think the devs are gonna change it. Basically, it just shocked me. Remember, the North has a Lot to Do - A LOT. The Union just can't pump out 150 PWR UeberBrigades and play D with the Seattle Seahawks for a line, and Belichek, Rockne and Lombardi for coaches.

I'd love to see the meeting notes for the case why the South should get anything other than 1:1, but I don't think I'm gonna see that email.

[Ol' Choctaw]

Take it where ever you like.

Look on your fist point, A and B do not equate to good and bad but the south could replace losses in the field with their method where the north had to have orders and reorganization. The south resorted to that also at the end of the war, when they were no longer receiving replacements.

The outcome was better for the north in their method and better for the south with their method. It is just that one took longer and required different circumstances.

[GraniteStater]

All I am left to conclude is that you don't understand what logical reasoning is. My point has to do with logic - the statements. as a pair, aren't even a syllogism, for crying out loud. We do know that logic is a subject, a discipline, ne c'est pas?

Historical buttressing or criticism is something else entirely. My point about speciousness has nothing to do with historical reality or the lack thereof, but with a statement as a point of logic.

And specious doesn't mean invidious, either.

And if you don't understand what I have said in this post, then I give right up, I'm as plain as day.

[Ol' Choctaw]

No, you seem to understand ad hominem, just fine.

Don’t blame others for your lack of clarity. Where do the Seahawks come into it?

What I replied to is not exactly what is there now.

If you are having a bad day take it out on some one else. Take a pill and watch your meds and come back when you are rational.

[GraniteStater]

I didn't say one thing against you, sir. I have hardly been unclear. The Seahawks - that's called an analogy.

Keep it up - I'm sure you'll get a PM from the mods.

**********

And so all can know - as much a I like to learn about CW2, there are more important things.

It's Opening Day!

The World Champion Boston Red Sox, first team to win three World Series in this young century, begin the defense of their title and a quest to repeat as World Chmpions.

GO SOX GO SOX GO SOX

[Ol' Choctaw]

nice edit. guess I need to quote everything you say.

bye.

[minipol]

In the latest patch, it's more difficult for the CSA. Having played both sides a few times, against Athena, the CSA isn't easy. Off course human play is different but the same restrictions count.
Having said that, the way the replacements are done might be open for debate but in general, all things considered, I feel the overall balance is quite historical. It's very difficult to model all parts correctly, and when you change parts of the model, other things might be unbalanced.

[GraniteStater]

Came back for a quick visit.

With some of my posts lately, in a couple of threads, we might as well start a "Is the game balanced well" thread.

***

O'C - you sent me a PM, I haven't read it. It's remarks like "nice edit" that do you little good. FYI, I didn't edit a thing - when I do edit, it's for punctuation & grammar 99% of the time.

If anyone should take umbrage, it's Jim-NC, but I think he understood I wasn't being personal, I was just pointing out that the logic of "A does X, B does Y; therefore one is better," is not logical on its own merits - it needs further information and explication.

It's that simple. Why, O'C, you felt the need to take this somewhere else, I don't know. As far as an involved historical discussion of why the CSA should get 2:1 goes, I'm all ears, although, at a certain point, it might be better on the History forum.

Comprehension is not only understanding implications - it's also understanding what is not being said.

[soundoff]

And so another thread turns bitter. How sad. My one hope is that the moderators close this ASAP.

[lycortas2]

GraniteStater,

I understand your reservations over the 2:1, but within the context of a game that is a military simulation, not a political simulation 2:1 is accurate.
The only other way to handle this is to have a brigade building requirement as the north and if you do not build enough you either lose NM or loyalty.

I have always found it fascinating the limitations both presidents had in the political theater; both had huge limitations but in different areas.

Soundoff, i don't think this is getting that bad, those two just need to take a step back and take a deep breath. It's all good.

Mike

[GraniteStater]

I understand your reservations over the 2:1, but within the context of a game that is a military simulation, not a political simulation 2:1 is accurate.

This would have to be explained to me. OTOH, it can only be a 'nice to know' and for historical understanding only - they ain't gonna change the code.

I can see a geographical reason more than any other - possibly because the South had fewer miles to go to the front. That wouldn't justify 2:1, though, to my mind.

The methods of both sides could be debated a number of ways, I would imagine. One would need to convince me that it should depart anywhere near seriously from 1:1 on historical grounds alone.

Game design is another issue - and one that I think had the most impact on the decision.