Combat Model Needs Tweaking

[Pocus]

I'm doing some tests, after having altered the formula about 'retreat will' of a general during battle (I'm not speaking of a rout there). Now it takes into account the accrued losses into battles, and the results make more sense, with a side breaking off combat much sooner if things turn ugly, even if the commander has still more troops than the enemy.

[veji1]

Great !!!

I know this game will be even bigger and greater very soon...

[veji1]

If you have done your test based on some of the saves that have been sent to you, maybe you could post the results to compare with the first outcome...

[James D Burns]

- More leaders dying.

I disagree here, the game represents less than 100 leaders from each side (91 Union and 79 Confederate). Also there is no mechanism to replace the leadership once it is killed off.

The fact you have so little leadership to work with makes the loss of even a handful of leaders a major setback. If we start killing off 1 or 2 leaders in every battle, there won't be any leaders left near the end of the war.

Were leaders replaced by generic fill-ins after their death I'd say sure kill more off. But for now unless you plan to add another hundred or so leaders per side, we should be careful about killing them off too easily.

Jim

[veji1]

So far I only had Semmes killed once... that's it... I should get a death every 6 months...

[James D Burns]

So far I only had Semmes killed once... that's it... I should get a death every 6 months...

I guess I view leaders in this game differently than most. While I agree many leaders died on both sides during the war, the armies became more efficient as the war progressed, not less. And usually better leaders rose to replace those that had died.

In game terms however if you kill off leadership the exact opposite affect occurs. Your divisions and corps become leaderless and lose 35% combat efficiency if their leadership is killed off. So as the war progresses and more and more leaders die off your armies become less and less effective when in fact they should be getting better at their jobs.

If the game had some form of generic replacement leaders then it wouldn’t be a problem. But since leadership is such a finite resource it’s a dangerous thing to start making it more vulnerable in a game with so few leaders.

I view the leadership of both sides kind of like the personality of each army. I don’t view them as an asset that should be open to destruction so much. In my view the leadership is a required part of the game to help simulate the differences between the two armies during the war.

Sure there should be that off chance that a leader is killed now and again, but even if you kill 1 every 6 months or so, that’s still about 10% of your entire leadership over the course of the war. And the net effect is still a loss of combat abilities and army personality, something that flies in the face of history. Armies become better at fighting as wars are fought, and generally only lose their expertise very near the end of a conflict.

But I don't think anyone can make a strong argument that the souths leadership failed near the end of the war, in fact they fought some brilliant campaigns. Only lack of resources and men caused their doom, not a failure of military leadership.

Jim

[Spruce]

I think that surrenders didn't happen at the brigade level. For sure regiments or companies surrendered, but that seems to be modeled already. Off course surrenders at Vicksburg - where vast numbers of brigades surrendered - are different from the open field battles.

Well I think that unit destruction in the game - or "severly depleted" brigades destruction - shouldn't happen if the losing side is not retreating. F.e. after facing Pickets charge at Gettysburg, Lee decided to organise to face a counterattack and also gave time to salvage wounded soldiers. By doing this a brigade will not be destroyed.

On the ohter hand, if General Lee had fled the battle immediately (like Pope did at second Manassas, or even better example the chaos at first Manassas), he wouldn't have had the chance to salvage the depleted brigades.

So basicly unit destruction depends on the fact if the army or corps is retreating immediately or not.

F.e. at Chickamuaga - Thomas prevented a total destruction of the Union army giving it time to orderly fall back .

F.e.

round 1 = stalemate
round 2 = defeat + no retreat
round 3 = retreat

equals no brigades destoryed due to the "organised retreat"

another example

round 1 = victory
round 2 = defeat + retreat

equals some brigades might have been destroyed due to the immediate retreat on the second round.

[Wilhammer]

The Retreat/Pursuit thing you describe to lead to mass destruction of the defender happened very rarely in the Civil War, and no army after the larger battles was completely routed and run down.

Some may have routed in parts of battles, but the other side was nearly always too exhausted to offer meaningful pursuit.

[pasternakski]

If the game had some form of generic replacement leaders then it wouldn’t be a problem. But since leadership is such a finite resource it’s a dangerous thing to start making it more vulnerable in a game with so few leaders.

I view the leadership of both sides kind of like the personality of each army. I don’t view them as an asset that should be open to destruction so much. In my view the leadership is a required part of the game to help simulate the differences between the two armies during the war.
Jim

Yes, Jim, I agree. But let's not make them generic. The "good" leaders who emerged on both sides later in the war ought to be identifiable for inclusion.

I don't want any more General Ringwraiths scourging the Shire...

[Spruce]

The Retreat/Pursuit thing you describe to lead to mass destruction of the defender happened very rarely in the Civil War, and no army after the larger battles was completely routed and run down.

Some may have routed in parts of battles, but the other side was nearly always too exhausted to offer meaningful pursuit.

no, no that is not what I said -

I mean that depleted (or destroyed) units should not be destroyed if the "loosing side" doesn't retreat immediately (flee). The destroyed units, are the ones displayed in the battle summary screen (most often max. a few units during larger scaled battles).

So only if the defeated party is going for an instant run, the depleted elements are destroyed. But only the depleted elements (the ones that you see lost in the current battles).

[Jagger]

Lee's Lieutenants is an excellent three volume source on the leadership of the Eastern Confederate Armies. IIRC, the author showed a decline in leadership beginning in 1863. IMO, the loss of Jackson marked the peak of corps level leadership in the East as well.

Many regimental, brigade and divisional leaders discussed and evaluated in Lee's Lieutenants. I believe someone did a similiar work on the Union Army leadership which I have never read. It would be a major project but their are sources for creating junior level replacement officers. Generic replacements with real names and random qualifications would probably work if leadership lost rates were increased to realistic levels.

[Heldenkaiser]

I believe both views--that the leadership of the Civil War armies was getting better and better as the war progressed, and that it was deteriorating towards the end of the war--are a bit simplistic. I would argue that it's more an up-and-down curve. First, both armies, but the North even more so, had unproven leaders in command, especially where political generals were appointed at the top. Then--about until mid-war--a weeding out process occurred that replaced the most obvious failures at the top levels while replacing them with leaders from the middle ranks who now could be picked according to their proven ability to lead. So the higher leadership was in fact getting better at least until 1863. Note also, however, that the promotion of the better ones of the West Pointers into the top ranks meant that men with no military experience except in war (which is not a bad thing of course) were advancing into the general officer ranks.

From 1864 however, as losses in battle were increasing and big battles occurred more frequently, cf. the Overland Campaign, leader losses were also mounting, and that cannot have been good for the overall quality of leadership, especially not for the south. At Franklin I believe the Rebs lost 12 general officers on a single day. So I believe what has been said before is true, that the quality peak for the Reb army was probably in 1863; for the Federals maybe 1864 (and their losses in higher ranks were lighter from then on).

So yes, quality was increasing in the early years as armies gained experience, failures were weeded out and proven officers advanced into higher positions. But on the other hand, as the war progressed, the supply of good leaders with a military background was proving limited.

Does that make sense?