charlesonmission
Posts: 781
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 5:55 am
Location: USA (somewhere)

Why is 1 division not enough for defense

Mon May 20, 2013 6:38 pm

I remember a while back reading a post about how 1 division based in Paducah simply fled when Grant crossed the river. In my current PBEM game, a recent 3 to 1 battle beat 1 division. So, my qusetion/comment is, is 3 division to 1 more likely to win than 6 divisions versus 2. That makes sense to me. That is, it becomes increasly more difficult to win a battle (the attacker) the more division you are facing. I wonder if this works on a bell curve though.

Thoughts??

Charles

User avatar
Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne
General of the Army
Posts: 639
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 7:46 pm
Location: Kentucky

Mon May 20, 2013 10:00 pm

1 entrenched division can lose against 4-1 odds. 3-1 if facing a good commander on open ground with good weather AND no hold at all costs. 2 divisions need to be hit by 4-1 or higher. I can hardly remember losing with 3+ entrenched divisions. It takes 4 or 5 to 1 odds with good commanders and good weather/terrain. The combination of hold at all costs with the frontage/cohesion rules really make it progressively more difficult to attack and this is just assuming level 4 trenches. Needless to say, I hope battle results are more dynamic in AACW2. More meeting engagements, less trench warfare, less hold at all costs.

User avatar
Ace
Posts: 3503
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:33 pm
Location: Croatia

Tue May 21, 2013 6:03 am

Hold at all cost order, when introduced, changed this game completely. It became almost impossible to won on a attack, if not substantially stronger. I have had situations when I forgot to put the unit on hold at all cost and they fled before the battle (such was the disparity). If it was on, they would surely have won the engagement.
It would be unhistorical, if victory would be determined according to casualties (as in AJE for example), and not according to who held the field at the end since the victory was always claimed by the one who held the field at the end.

With Grant commanding your offensive stack, attacking 1 division commanded by 3-1-1 general with two-three of his own in clear terrain, you might not force him out if he is holding at all cost, but you will surely devastate defending division, completely destroying it after first day of battle. Maybe if battle lasts for more than 1 day, your initial orders could be "interpreted-changed" by your commanding officer (in role playing terms he has done all humanly possible to hold his positions, but enough is enough), resulting in retreats before 100% casualties (no division stood their ground when facing 100% casualties if they had an escape route).

Personally, I use hold at all cost a lot, because I do not want my units to leave theirs entrenchments without a fight, or without calling for MTSG. I once had one division defending an amphibious invasion. Athena landed with an Union army in Kentucky, and my division fled before the battle. Out of curiosity, I rerun the turn, put my div to hold at all cost, and they devastated the Union army inflicting 40.000 casualties.

If it would be possible, I would like retreat roles before the battle to be calculated according to expected battle outcome (including possible MSTG), not according to disparity in strength points of the two forces. Than, maybe, hold at all cost would not be so necessary.

And to allow hold at all cost units to retreat on the second day of battle. Even Lee retreated on the second day of Sharpsburg (Antietam). And you could argue in game terms he was on hold at all costs posture.

pb783
Lieutenant
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 10:32 pm
Location: Coming out of the attic-- I've finally beaten Athena

Sun May 26, 2013 3:00 pm

I wish I had understood this in my current PBEM (the AARis posted elsewhere). :bonk:

Return to “AGEod's American Civil War”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests