AGEOD Forums

Posted: **Sat Oct 11, 2008 7:33 pm**

I had earlier seen messages posted by other members in which they reported really disastrous battle results. It hadn't happened to me before, and so I usually accepted the answers they received (terrain, entrenchments etc.). Well, it has now happened to me. My opponent had left a single corps under Jackson in Alexandria while moving the rest of his Potomac army down to the Peninsula to contain Butler in Norfolk. I used this apparent opportunity to strike at that lone corps with my oversized corps under Hooker in Washington. If my intel was good, I had a 4 : 1 superiority in actual strength (>2000 to ca. 500), yet my attacking corps was wiped out. Wholesale. 60,000 men just eliminated in a stroke, and for a loss of a staggering 19 NM in a single battle.

Yes, I realize I was attacking over a river, and this was Jackson, and he was probably dug in over the top of his hat. But still, does this feel historical? How often, even under the worst of circumstances, was a huge force completely wiped out in a single battle? My opponent said "think Cold Harbour". But at Cold Harbour Grant attacked an army nearly the size of his own, and still he lost only 7,000 out of 60,000 engaged. And this was one of the worst historical examples of large-scale attacks on prepared positions. Other than that? Longstreet loses half of his ca. 9,000 men engaged on the third day at Gettysburg, another notorious example of a disastrous frontal assault. I can accept that the losses in the situation I described here should be really bad if the attack does not succeed (there is the river problem), but does this not seem a bit excessive? :confused:

Posted: **Sat Oct 11, 2008 7:39 pm**

Well the question is: did you use "All out attack?" If not, yes thats ridiculous. It's ridiculous either way but the actual all out battle results are a known issue being discussed now. If that's happening on orange, definitely should be addressed too.

Posted: **Sat Oct 11, 2008 7:49 pm**

Something else you mightwant to do is go back and check your orders and make sure that button wasn't accidentaly depressed or that you didn't go in by naval landing somehow, which of course is do or die.

As is, I personally don't use the green/blue buttons enough and think it might be a prudent thing to do.

Posted: **Sat Oct 11, 2008 8:01 pm**

Thank you, Daxil. I never use "all-out" except in defending Washington. Never on the attack.

I did go back and reloaded the old turn. It turns out that Jackson had the same strength as Hooker (I wonder why my intel was so badly off :confused

, so a disastrous result is probably fine.

Still, losing a third or half of the attacking force would seem disastrous enough and in keeping with historical precedent. Having it wiped out to the last man still feels a bit off to me. :cool:

Posted: **Sat Oct 11, 2008 11:18 pm**

Don't.
Attack.
Across.
Rivers.

Really, don't.

Posted: **Sun Oct 12, 2008 1:00 am**

Berto wanders off yet again shaking his head and muttering to himself his astonishment at how some players can rationalize away and excuse such ridiculous battle loss results as these... :blink:

Posted: **Sun Oct 12, 2008 1:11 am**

deleted

Posted: **Sun Oct 12, 2008 4:35 am**

i guess you would figure the "powers that be" would call of the invasion after the first 10,000 casualties. maybe this needs to be worked into the games code or something.

Posted: **Sun Oct 12, 2008 8:26 am**

1st of July 1916:

First day of the Battle of the Somme - the British army lost 60,000 casualties in one day (20,000 dead) - the vast majority before noon that day. They were making a frontal assault against an entrenched enemy.

Although your enemy didn't have machine guns or advanced artillery, you were making a frontal assault across a river in the face of an entrenched enemy commanded by a tactical genius - expect extreme casualties!!

Posted: **Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:00 am**

It is clear the game obtains excelent :thumbsup:

(probable) results in a lot of situations.

Some other situations are giving too high damage loses.

It is a must to find :sherlock:

how to improve this!

Posted: **Sun Oct 12, 2008 12:29 pm**

D_K wrote:i guess you would figure the "powers that be" would call of the invasion after the first 10,000 casualties. maybe this needs to be worked into the games code or something.

Agreed on something along these lines - despite the fact that I/we are the commander and say that we want them to attack 'at all costs' or whatever, the local commanders would surely stop if losses were so disastrous.

Also - morale should break and the fight lose momentum well before such catastrophic annhiliation takes place. The men wouldn't care less what button the commander had pressed if all the men around them were dead/fleeing.

The attack/defend at all costs buttons should not override the decision making processes that would still be made at the battlefield level by the stack commanders - influence them yes, make them slaughter all their men, no.

Posted: **Sun Oct 12, 2008 2:49 pm**

Charles De Salaberry wrote:1st of July 1916:

First day of the Battle of the Somme - the British army lost 60,000 casualties in one day (20,000 dead) - the vast majority before noon that day. They were making a frontal assault against an entrenched enemy.

Although your enemy didn't have machine guns or advanced artillery, you were making a frontal assault across a river in the face of an entrenched enemy commanded by a tactical genius - expect extreme casualties!!

I'm wondering if, after attacking across the river, the entire force was weakened to the point where they were faced with trying to retreat across a river against a much stronger force or surrender.

Any idea in this battle how many surrendered? I'll wager a lot.

Posted: **Sun Oct 12, 2008 2:51 pm**

Charles De Salaberry wrote:1st of July 1916:

First day of the Battle of the Somme - the British army lost 60,000 casualties in one day (20,000 dead) - the vast majority before noon that day. They were making a frontal assault against an entrenched enemy.

Although your enemy didn't have machine guns or advanced artillery, you were making a frontal assault across a river in the face of an entrenched enemy commanded by a tactical genius - expect extreme casualties!!

true, but it should be noted that as you said these losses happened very quickly, without time for the chain of command to react. it was also a different war altogether. you see, my main point is this....the union forces would not want to "waste" their entire army leaving the enemy so close to their capial, and nothing left to defend washington. i know lincoln wanted results(march on richmond) but he wouldnt have done what happened in this battle.
the only real excuse for this result would be if the forces all landed together and it was impossible to retreat. in which case there should have been huge pow numbers as well.

Posted: **Sun Oct 12, 2008 2:51 pm**

Gray_Lensman wrote:The original poster did not state what version he was playing. I need to know that before I can come to the conclusion that a bug remains in the game. Reason - There was an AI amphib pathfinding bug fixed recently for v1.11b and later. This bug was found in v1.11a and fixed for v1.11b and later. I certainly wish that gamers who run across bugs such as these would be more forthcoming with the details of the game version and maybe provide a saved game if they want to see such bugs eliminated.

Another question is how many days did the battle take place over? Pocus had fixed an issue that happened to me where my forces lost a battle but kept attacking for some reason. I think the release notes said something about "over-zealous".

However, I'm still going to bet on a lot of units surrendering (and as is usually the case when I bet, I'll probably be wrong:bonk

Posted: **Sun Oct 12, 2008 3:04 pm**

"Attacks across a river"--at the regional scale of AACW: Vicksburg (at the campaign's outset), Chancellorsville, Wilderness, and the quintessential "attack across a river," Fredericksburg. Did any of them result in entire-battle casualties > 20% ? NO!

In the AACW beta test forum, I have suggested:

I would argue that, whether excessive casualties happen due to game settings, or model sets, or AI predilections, or gamer choices, or bugs, or whatever, ahistorically high battle casualties should never happen (or almost never happen, unless a player who prefers an ahistorical style of play wills it, and maybe activates it via a special option choice).

I am leaning toward advising the developers to add to the battle routines a "Battle Losses Cyber Nanny," that

Limits almost all battles to 1-2 days.
Permits 3-day battles (or longer) only for battles where the daily losses have not exceeded ~10% (as with historical Gettysburg).
Places soft limits on daily losses at 25% (and the resulting battle should almost certainly end at that point).
Applies an entire-battle soft limit of 30% losses, maybe 40% tops.
Applies an entire-battle hard limit of 50% losses. Except in cases of garrison surrender, total annihilation (or nearly so) should simply never happen!

I think that these effects should be achieved, not by modders mucking about at the config file and model set level, rather by the coders adding routines to restrict battle losses as described. (Maybe better taking into account ammunition depletion? Just applying limits, in the manner described, irrespective of the circumstances? By "soft limits" I mean sliding-scale, probabilistic limits. Hard limits are exactly that--abrupt cutoffs, for example, no battle going beyond 7 days, no battle having >50% casualties.)

...

That's why I vote for applying soft and hard limits, for adding to the code a watchful Battle Losses Cyber Nanny to step in and call a halt to the carnage when the battle code begins to "misbehave".

...

The problem, as I see it from the outside, is: With each new patch, you might add some new feature, and/or a bug, that breaks the battle code in this fashion. The risk will always be there, since the battle code is undoubtedly so complex that you can never be sure quite how it all works; you can only observe its outcomes. That's why I argue in favor of some sort of soft cap on battle casualties--a separate logic check that watches over the standard battle mechanics and starts to close out the battle when it begins to go ballistic. I would also go beyond that to impose a hard cap preventing total annihilations and marathon battles--which players do see from time to time.

Yes, battle results are generally fine in most situations. But some situations (e.g., Hold at All Cost defense; there are quite evidently others) still lurk about that result in excessive and even absurdly high battle losses. The trick is to find them and report them in a way (e.g., with save game files) that Pocus & co. can act on fixing them.

Posted: **Sun Oct 12, 2008 3:49 pm**

Quote:

(...)I would argue that, whether excessive casualties happen due to game settings, or model sets, or AI predilections, or gamer choices, or bugs, or whatever, ahistorically high battle casualties should never happen (or almost never happen, unless a player who prefers an ahistorical style of play wills it, and maybe activates it via a special option choice).

I am leaning toward advising the developers to add to the battle routines a "Battle Losses Cyber Nanny," that

* Limits almost all battles to 1-2 days.
* Permits 3-day battles (or longer) only for battles where the daily losses have not exceeded ~10% (as with historical Gettysburg).
* Places soft limits on daily losses at 25% (and the resulting battle should almost certainly end at that point).
* Applies an entire-battle soft limit of 30% losses, maybe 40% tops.
* Applies an entire-battle hard limit of 50% losses. Except in cases of garrison surrender, total annihilation (or nearly so) should simply never happen!

I think that these effects should be achieved, not by modders mucking about at the config file and model set level, rather by the coders adding routines to restrict battle losses as described. (Maybe better taking into account ammunition depletion? Just applying limits, in the manner described, irrespective of the circumstances? By "soft limits" I mean sliding-scale, probabilistic limits. Hard limits are exactly that--abrupt cutoffs, for example, no battle going beyond 7 days, no battle having >50% casualties.) (...)

If it matters at all, I must say that I agree completely with Berto !

Posted: **Sun Oct 12, 2008 5:50 pm**

Gray_Lensman wrote:The original poster did not state what version he was playing. I need to know that before I can come to the conclusion that a bug remains in the game. Reason - There was an AI amphib pathfinding bug fixed recently for v1.11b and later. This bug was found in v1.11a and fixed for v1.11b and later. I certainly wish that gamers who run across bugs such as these would be more forthcoming with the details of the game version and maybe provide a saved game if they want to see such bugs eliminated.

I believe it's 1.10d. I realize this is an older version, but some months ago I was advised not to patch during ongoing PBEM games ...

BTW I, personally, did not suggest this is a "bug" in the sense of game behaviour unintended by the designer. Is it?

Posted: **Sun Oct 12, 2008 5:52 pm**

AndrewKurtz wrote:Another question is how many days did the battle take place over? Pocus had fixed an issue that happened to me where my forces lost a battle but kept attacking for some reason. I think the release notes said something about "over-zealous".

Yes, it was a two-day battle. On day one, Hooker attacked Jackson with 60,000 vs. 60,000. He lost nearly 50,000, and on day two he attacked Jackson's near 60,000 with 11,000 ...

That, at least, seems unreasonable to me. Especially considering that I had not selected "all-out" assault. :non:

Posted: **Sun Oct 12, 2008 5:54 pm**

AndrewKurtz wrote:I'm wondering if, after attacking across the river, the entire force was weakened to the point where they were faced with trying to retreat across a river against a much stronger force or surrender.

Any idea in this battle how many surrendered? I'll wager a lot.

Good point. I will launch the old turn again and try to figure that out. (Back in an hour or so ...

... my machine is six years old.)

Posted: **Sun Oct 12, 2008 6:10 pm**

[time for the inevitable (imperfect) car analogy...]

Meanwhile, over at the auto racing sim forum...

<sarcasm>

Player 1: I was just cruising along when, all of a sudden, my engine blew a gasket, exploded, and the resulting huge fireball took out my car and twenty other cars along with it! WTF?!

Player 2: Were you in highest gear by chance?

Player 3: I'll bet you were slipstreaming the car in front of you. Never ever slipstream!

Player 4: DON'T DRIVE OVER 200 KPH!

Player 1: Now let me get this straight. I'm not supposed to slipstream, in highest gear, at over 200 KPH? Is this a realistic racing sim or what? WTF?!

</sarcasm>

Posted: **Sun Oct 12, 2008 6:19 pm**

The morning after at Fredricksburg: Corp commanders refused to launch another assault!! Burn had to restrained from murdering his own IX th corp.

apy:

Posted: **Sun Oct 12, 2008 6:29 pm**

OK, about 140 companies surrendered on both days (most of them on day 1).

Given the situation, I can make sense of that.

Posted: **Sun Oct 12, 2008 6:34 pm**

Heldenkaiser wrote:OK, about 140 companies surrendered on both days (most of them on day 1).

Given the situation, I can make sense of that.

It would have made more sense if thoise 10,000 casualties on day 2 had become prisoners instead.

Posted: **Sun Oct 12, 2008 6:37 pm**

Daxil wrote:It would have made more sense if thoise 10,000 casualties on day 2 had become prisoners instead.

True. But about 30 elements were lost in regular combat on day 2 instead. They must have preferred death and glory over surrender. :indien:

Posted: **Sun Oct 12, 2008 6:39 pm**

Or maybe they were just ridden down and slaughtered as they attempted to flee like the Romans against the barbarians.

Posted: **Sun Oct 12, 2008 10:09 pm**

deleted

Posted: **Mon Oct 13, 2008 12:14 am**

i have been thinking on this situation, and although it seems unrealistic to a degree, i also think that it should be plausable that a whole army CAN be eliminated. and figuring that there were lots of pows it makes it more realistic. also considering that it was jackson, hooker was going up against. was he not famous for handing out serious defeats to the enemy? and if it is plausable, then i figure we should just consider "this" that incident. after all this game might need some very MINOR tweekng, but it is probably the best strategy game on the market. in my mind at least.

Posted: **Mon Oct 13, 2008 1:06 am**

heh. I'll take any victory I can get at the moment. Has someone been tweaking Athena btw?

(1.11d)

Posted: **Mon Oct 13, 2008 1:31 am**

deleted

Posted: **Mon Oct 13, 2008 9:08 am**

Just to add my 2 cents:

I like the idea of a 'Battles Losses Cyber Nanny' very much.
I have been thinking along these lines myself.
It looks simple (relatively) and effective.
Perhaps not the most elegant solution, but since I've had practically all my games ruined by disastrous battles where whole armies disappeared into thin air, I'm pretty desperate for a solution.

The Nanny would work.

AGEOD Forums

Disastrous battle results

Disastrous battle results