pasternakski wrote:1) In agreement with several posters, it seems that casualties in large battles are excessive, and that forces tend to "fight to the death" to an extent that exacerbates the problem. When studying the major battles of the Civil War, one notices that the winning army becomes disrupted to a crippling extent almost always before being able to destroy the losing force completely (or even come close to it). I cite Chancellorsville and Gettysburg as primary examples. The usual result was that one side would lose some thousands of men, the other side would lose a fairly similar number, and the armies would go dormant for awhile to recover, with subsequent historians declaring who was the "winner."
Perhaps, but how much of that was actually due to the disruption of the armies, and how much was due to the leadership not wanting to risk anything further? The AoP never went on the offensive immediately after a defeat until the right leadership was in place. Once Grant was put in charge, casualty lists that would have sent any previous commander scampering back to Washington for the next 6 months were brushed aside and the campaign continued.
The ANV quite often followed up fairly disastrous (as far as losses go) victories with an offensive within what in game turns would be a single turn or two. Solution for this problem? Well, one way would be to put a significant penalty on the activation roll the turn after a casualty threshold is reached. That way, generals with low strat ratings will be more inclined to pull back after a large battle rather than bull ahead, but if you have an aggressive general (high strat rating), then you could continue with an offensive even after you suffer large casualties. The game already simulates cohesion loss for both sides, regardless of who won and who lost, so something different is needed.
Queeg wrote:jimwinsor's analysis of the posted battle is spot on. The worrisome issues, though, are (1) the huge size of the Union army at the outset of the series of battles (150,000+ in 1862!) and (2) that the AI fought its army to destruction instead of retreating.
You're counting support units into your total there, if you do that, then the Union had well over that number of troops in the Eastern theatre in 1862. Difference is, you're seeing them concentrated more in the game than they ever could be in the war. How many people actually keep 20,000+ men defending the Washington area? I doubt anyone does, yet, that was the minimum requirement Lincoln and Stanton placed on McClellan. Plus troops in the Valley, plus quite a few garrison forces in lower Pennsylvania and Maryland. To put it bluntly, the issue isn't with the game, it's with the player. Because if the game simulated the number of places you had to put troops in a real war, I guarantee every single one of you would be screaming about it.
Since they can't do that, everyone is able to assemble large front line armies.
.. i had my biggest battle so far. A small Division of Lee's "Army of the potomec" btw .. (why not Army of nothern Virginia??) got attacked near manassas by the federal main army. I had 2 corp's on aggresiv in the next province, so i think they marched to the sound of guns.. and reached the potomec army around may 20th - 1862.
).
