Strange battle result

[Brausepaul]

Please take a look at the attached screenshot from my current game. I have to add that Halleck is not active and his stats (is 1-0-1 his normal rating?) are bad, but the other side had no leader at all. For the heck I can't imagine a battle result like the one I got. This is a game started under 1.08d after I upgraded to 1.09. Any comments?

[Coregonas]

Halleck to prison!

Perhaps the 108 to 109 upgrade went wrong..

The strange thing is that you lost 1000 troops, but 8 regiments is 8000.

Were them fully depleted before the battle??? They fought a big battle before? In case not, this seems a bug


In case the units were very depleted Well seems really incredible... but ?

Reel is a SWAMP- WILD, NO ROAD, CROSSING a RIVER, the CSA line infantry is 4 - Entrenched

Frontage is very small---

troop has only -5% to fire (so 19 points), and very entrenched (perhaps 20% protection)

every CSA shot has for sure make a rout.

[Brausepaul]

I can't tell if they were depleted, but they should have had enough supply for several turns and their last battle must have been around May 62. I'm not sure how frontage works, though.

[arsan]

I´m with Coregonas...
The results are plausible, considering the difficult terrain and adding a little bad luck.
An the losses (number of men) seems reasonable.
But losing eight elements means that:
- or you attacked with a very depleted force, which explain the results by itself.
-or Its a bug.

Also, How can Halleck be unactivated and on offensive posture??
Cheers!

[arsan]

I can't tell if they were depleted, but they should have had enough supply for several turns and their last battle must have been around May 62. I'm not sure how frontage works, though.

The battle occurs on day 3.
It would be fairly easy for you to go back one turn and check the stack situation on looses and supply before processing the turn.
Cheers!

[Rafiki]

Also, How can Halleck be unactivated and on offensive posture??

Enter a region that's (almost) entirely under enemy control, and you get switched to offensive posture no matter what.

As for the battle, there are many things that could cause the result:
- Low cohesion
- Command penalty
- Terrain
- Entrenchment
- Inactive leader
- Etc

You can see form the scales (the ones weighing men) that the CSA had more power than you when the battle started; a mouseover tooltip on it provides exact numbers. I'd take a look at them in addition to checking out other stuff

[Tordenskjold]

CSA lacks war supply almost permanent. I've tried to do something about it but can't say it seems to work. The blockade runners seems to bring in nothing (Transports). At least is no message about it displayed.

My Briggs are sinking a lot of enemy ships in the Shipping Box and hence make money, but it brings me no war supply. Is there any other way than building industry (which also takes war supply) and try to brake the blockade? Any hints are welcome.

[Brausepaul]

By the way, I just noticed that my switches / buttons for ROE are gone. Seems like something went awry during upgrading (though I don't know what I could do wrong by double-clicking :siffle .

Edit: Pocus just posted that it was an error in the patch, never mind.

[Jagger]

NO...that looks like a potential bug and possibly the retreat problem I have been seeing.

I cannot imagine 8 regiments destroyed before retreating unless the regiments were extremely understrength. But I could see them destroyed if they continued suicidal attacks without attempting to retreat when the battle was obviously going against them. Which could happen if Halleck's troops were using all out attack.

I have seen some very similiar results...very, very different from expected results. I saw Lyon with 6 regiments, against Price with 6 regiments, wiped out to the last man. Neither side was usually all out attack or defense. And saw one other very unusual battle with an entire small force destroyed when in the past they would have retreated.

Bausepaul, do you still have the battlelog available for that turn? If you do, would you attach it to a post here?

[Brausepaul]

Jagger, where would I find it? I have to add that after some comments here I didn't find the battle results as strange as before. I rolled back one turn and noticed that (for whatever reason) several brigades were absolutely depleted. But I will post the battle log anyway.

[Jagger]

Jagger, where would I find it? I have to add that after some comments here I didn't find the battle results as strange as before. I rolled back one turn and noticed that (for whatever reason) several brigades were absolutely depleted. But I will post the battle log anyway.

Go to the logs folder in your ACW game folder. You will find the battle log there.

Were the brigades depleted in men or low on cohesion?

[Brausepaul]

Unfortenately, the !Main.log is already a new one since I opened the game in the meantime. But my brigades were depleted by men at least, cohesion I don't know.

[Jagger]

Unfortenately, the !Main.log is already a new one since I opened the game in the meantime. But my brigades were depleted by men at least, cohesion I don't know.

Yes, you need the battle log instead of the main log. Once its gone, its gone.

Try the turn again and see if you get similiar results.

[arsan]

Unfortenately, the !Main.log is already a new one since I opened the game in the meantime. But my brigades were depleted by men at least, cohesion I don't know.

Then, i would say everything looks OK.
You had a lot of elements but only with a handful of men inside, attacking on horrible terraina gainst an entrenched full health enemy.
And Halleck unactivated would account for a -35% penalty (i think). leure:

It seems the army retreated in due time, but too late to save some of his extremely vulnerable elements...

Rafiki: thanks for the explanation. Don't know what i was thinking about

Cheers

[Brausepaul]

When exactly is the battle log deleted?

[samwise]

What is the difference between "ranged" casualties and "assault" casualties?

And since they both represent lost units, does it matter?

[DirkX]

What is the difference between "ranged" casualties and "assault" casualties?

And since they both represent lost units, does it matter?

ranged is casualties inflicted by artillery and musket fire
assault casualties are close combat losses