Is Polk Worthless

[charlesonmission]

It seems I just made a huge mistake in my PBEM. Massive NM loss despite more than 2 to 1 odds. I wonder if it is because Polk was in command with is 4-0-1 settings. Is he worthless on the attack with a 0 offense? Check out these battle logs. I'm just totally stunned.

[ATTACH]15765[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]15766[/ATTACH]

[Oldman]

He is not useless overall as CSA is hard pressed to have enough ** generals in the West to form enough supporting defensive lines (strategic rating 4 is so much better than 3 also). And defensively he is not worse than Bragg and Hardee when they got promoted (isn't it sad for CSA?).
On offense though - if you have to take it - both Bragg and Hardee got stat 3 if I recall correctly - you should use them (and even avoid using Polk in support if he is more senior corps commander and there is no army commander nearby - as he will take overall command).
Regarding those 2 particular battles:
1st one:
1. You've got good numbers, and even more artillery. But the majority of your artillery was horse, 6 and 12 pounders - all quite bad at assault.
2. That coffee mill gun could cause huge havoc also - but this could be seen from battle logs only.
3. Forest terrain severely restricted your ability to use superior numbers due to frontage limitations. While Grant's superb stats allowed him to deploy the majority of is forces at once (see wiki http://www.ageod.net/aacwwiki/Frontage for additional details).
4. You got unlucky (your luck roll was lower than your opponent's).
2nd one:
Almost the same as above:
1. More, but inferior arty;
2. Assaulting in wood terrain against opponent with very good defensive stats;
3. You got unlucky again :/;
4. Possibly assault at all costs setting versus defend at all costs resulting in lots of destroyed elements.

It could not be seen from screenshots, but possibly some adjacent US corps could have participated in the battle via MTSG (sometimes it is not reflected in battle screen, but could be seen from their diminished power ratings after the battle).

[Ethan]

Hi Charles!

I think that Oldman's observations are all good. But as far as I'm concerned I'll make a remark. Have more of a fight in the same turn is dangerous and not recommended, if you can avoid it, of course. I don't know how much cohesion you had before the first battle, but what is clear is that most likely you came to the second battle with a very poor cohesion, nearly minimal, and that is crucial to determine the outcome of a fight.

[Fingolfin]

He is not useless overall as CSA is hard pressed to
3. Forest terrain severely restricted your ability to use superior numbers due to frontage limitations. While Grant's superb stats allowed him to deploy the majority of is forces at once (see wiki http://www.ageod.net/aacwwiki/Frontage for additional details).

In fact, forrest terrain didn't allow Grant to use his awesome frontage bonus, but the battle was in effect fought at 1vs1, with identical frontage on each side, which cleary favors the defender, as long as he has enough men to fill the line.

From my experience, the only way to repel an entrenched division sized force or better from non clear-terrain without cutting its suply is to bring overwhelming numbers, in order to force a retreat before battle.

Otherwise, battle will usually be fought on the defender's terms in these conditions.

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

In my first 2 pbems I remember ending him with 3-4 xp with a bunch of unexpected wins. The fighting bishop, hero of the confederacy. This game can be unpredictable is what I'm saying.

[Fingolfin]

Yeah, he also tends to easily rise to army command in my game, as he performs well at corps command as long as he keeps close from his army leader, but after being given an army, he usually ends up on second rate theaters

[Longshanks]

Reading "Company Aytch" memoirs by Sam Watkins... he loved Polk and detailed his impression of what he did, both for the individual private and as a general. I don't know much about Polk's career, but Sam Watkins liked him plenty.

As for the battle... what were the respective NMs? If you're 80 and he's 120, you were asking for it.
What was the weather? General Mud is your enemy when attacking.

I see Thomas' corps is nearby ... he is vicious on defense, esp if he has a Gatling. Perhaps he MtSG. Fingolfin is right though.. never assualt an entrenched defender unless you've starved him first. Better to manuver, if you can.

Polk is alright if you have low expectations for him. Putting him in charge of 35,000 CSA is not my idea of low expectations. Bring Jackson over and try that again and see what happens.

But I agree with you in this sense: It's horribly demoralizing to the player's Personal Morale.

[charlesonmission]

My NM was 108 or 109, his was about 100. There was no mud. Such is life....

Charles

Reading "Company Aytch" memoirs by Sam Watkins... he loved Polk and detailed his impression of what he did, both for the individual private and as a general. I don't know much about Polk's career, but Sam Watkins liked him plenty.

As for the battle... what were the respective NMs? If you're 80 and he's 120, you were asking for it.
What was the weather? General Mud is your enemy when attacking.

I see Thomas' corps is nearby ... he is vicious on defense, esp if he has a Gatling. Perhaps he MtSG. Fingolfin is right though.. never assualt an entrenched defender unless you've starved him first. Better to manuver, if you can.

Polk is alright if you have low expectations for him. Putting him in charge of 35,000 CSA is not my idea of low expectations. Bring Jackson over and try that again and see what happens.

But I agree with you in this sense: It's horribly demoralizing to the player's Personal Morale.

[Jim-NC]

Technically, you won. He retreated both times.

The problem is you lost 6,000 men as prisoners (between the 2 battles). He also had entrenchments (level 1, but it helps).

In the 2nd battle, you did not face Grant but another force (I guess a corps). Notice that all the militia disappear.

So you had a tired CSA force fighting a fresher union force, and had lots of dead elements.

I believe you crossed a river (or part of your force did). That usually leads to massive casualties (hence the large discrepancy in ranged damage).

[charlesonmission]

What is the best artillery to assault with the CSA? 20 lb parrot?

Charles

He is not useless overall as CSA is hard pressed to have enough ** generals in the West to form enough supporting defensive lines (strategic rating 4 is so much better than 3 also). And defensively he is not worse than Bragg and Hardee when they got promoted (isn't it sad for CSA?).
On offense though - if you have to take it - both Bragg and Hardee got stat 3 if I recall correctly - you should use them (and even avoid using Polk in support if he is more senior corps commander and there is no army commander nearby - as he will take overall command).
Regarding those 2 particular battles:
1st one:
1. You've got good numbers, and even more artillery. But the majority of your artillery was horse, 6 and 12 pounders - all quite bad at assault.
2. That coffee mill gun could cause huge havoc also - but this could be seen from battle logs only.
3. Forest terrain severely restricted your ability to use superior numbers due to frontage limitations. While Grant's superb stats allowed him to deploy the majority of is forces at once (see wiki http://www.ageod.net/aacwwiki/Frontage for additional details).
4. You got unlucky (your luck roll was lower than your opponent's).
2nd one:
Almost the same as above:
1. More, but inferior arty;
2. Assaulting in wood terrain against opponent with very good defensive stats;
3. You got unlucky again :/;
4. Possibly assault at all costs setting versus defend at all costs resulting in lots of destroyed elements.

It could not be seen from screenshots, but possibly some adjacent US corps could have participated in the battle via MTSG (sometimes it is not reflected in battle screen, but could be seen from their diminished power ratings after the battle).

[Fingolfin]

On the paper yes, rifled art have an edge over smoothbores in offensive ops, but in truth I don't remember a single situation where having one or the other had an influence in my decision path, while wondering if I should attack or not

Artillery purchases are rather a matter of economical optimization in my book, as you really want smoothbores before blockade runners start to kick WS skywards, whereas parrots become more valuable as the war goes on and conscripts numbers fall...

Finally columbiads become an asset when you want as much firepower as possible with army HQs, as you transfer lighter batteries in support of corps fending for themselves in the endwar