gwgardner wrote:For understanding the battle results, a more detailed battle report would go a long way towards helping players. It's been asked for quite often. Wonder why it hasn't been provided after all the patches.
Banks6060 wrote:3. This was actually something I was going to bring up awhile ago. NM never seems to be awarded or taken away unless a battle is a massacre for one side or the other. I wonder if NM adjustments as the result of battles could be adjusted to reflect the significance of the engagement rather than the casualties inflicted. Perhaps any engagement between two forces of power 800 or more could swing NM....I dunno. I also would like to see battles have a little more impact on Foreign Intervention.....as they historically did.
StatboyVT wrote:I strongly agree with this. Take 1st Manassas for example. Just a few thousand casualties total, yet the victory skyrocketed Southern morale.
It should not only be about wins and losses, but about casualties. For example, if you win a battle, but lose 20,000 men in the process, I'm not sure that should be positive for NM. Take Grant's drive on Richmond for example. He was taking the war to the South, like he should have, but he was losing so many men in the process that the morale of the North was going down. Mothers in the North hated him because his total war style was costing them many loved ones.
Total battle casualties and NM changes from battles need major tweaking in vanilla, IMO. Sometimes it seems like I have to destroy half an army to get a NM increase. Sometimes not. Seems to be no rhyme or reason to it. That's not historically accurate, besides the fact that losing half the army isn't historically accurate either.
Clovis' mod does a great job with casualties, among other things, but that NM needs some tweaking. Just my 2 cents.
Clovis wrote:I partly disagree on that.
First anassas was a very special case; the first major battle in a time when both sides believed in a short war. The boost here was tied not on the losses ratio but on the victorious or defeat status in what was seen as the almost definitive statement of the success of the secession move. Interestingly, one year later, CSA morale was very low after several failures.
But these failures weren't tied too to the losses. First, because losses by fire were just a minor portion of the military losses, plagues and illness being the major cause. So the decrease in morale didn't really come from losses on the battlefield but from all these deaths on the long run.
Secondly, real loweringsin morale was created by the capture of key or symbolic locations: Atlanta, Richmond, Vicksburg or yet invasion then repulsing of CSA invasion of Pensylvania.
Taking the 1864 example, low US morale came partly from losses but the primary cause was the incapacity to seize Richmond. On the contrary, Confederates kept resolution in spite of high loss ratio because Lee protected Richmond.
In the West, Atlanta capture gave to Union a boost.
So the AGEOD system may certainly be perfected and I partly agree on N question. BUt not to the point to transform battle losses to the primary factor in NM variation. This Clausewitzian point of view is irrelevant.
SojaRouge wrote:Of course, there must be some randomness, else we should play chess , but not that far, a 3 vs 1 engagement at same conditions (moral, supply, leaders, etc...) should lead to victory of the bigger side, with maybe a small percentage of chance that it's a draw and very little that it is a defeat, because sometimes it is not the day. But currently I don't find normal that the game is that random, I feel like just rolling dices with my opponent.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 23 guests