AGEOD Forums

Difficult is not at hard ... I was defending

Hi!
I suppose that USA had all those men in more than one stack.
Several stacks on a region need to pass a roll to support each other in combat. Somo stacks can never arrive to the actual battle position or arrive late.
Bear in mind the region sizes are huge. Units may need several days to go form one side of HF area to another
The problem (a limitation of the engine display that hopefully will be solved in the future) is that on the report you see all the units on the region. Not only the ones that participate in combat.
Confusing i know
It looks like Longstreet stack just fought a little part of your force and bleed them white until forced to retire by the arrival at the battle of other stacks.
Check the losses of your USA stacks as probably you will see that the 7000 casualties are concentrated in just one stack.
By the way, looking at the report, no one was defending. Both USA and CSA were attacking.
Cheers

ok thanks. ill take a look more closely at more similar battles in the future

Ok how about this one:



I was on the attack, but the numbers alone ...

same turn. is it just me?

Looks to me like those fights in the east took place in Mountain terrain. This will severely reduce your frontage and allow a vastly smaller force to effectively defend.

With Grant. That IS puzzling. 200 entrenchment doesn't help THAT much. Forrest terrain hurts frontage for sure, but wave after wave should have forced the defenders out eventually with higher casualties.

I have to think you somehow overlooked the stacks' cohesion values....either that or you didn't have them all under Grant's command.

hmm cohesion possibly, i dont move them or engage without decent cohesion but i cannot say I know what it was.

Thanks for the response

It would be useful to know if the attackers had one or more stacks.
Certainly, the Grant image is puzzling... if all the USA troops were stack together...

This is what i cant get my head around-you can micro manage the campaign
but when it comes to battles the variables are endless and unseen until 2 weeks later.
I might be missing something as a "newby" and i dont want to be to critical of this great game,im sure the game designers are working on a way to give us more info before we commit to battle.

Is there any way of getting more info about opposing tabs?

nilam wrote:This is what i cant get my head around-you can micro manage the campaign
but when it comes to battles the variables are endless and unseen until 2 weeks later.
I might be missing something as a "newby" and i dont want to be to critical of this great game,im sure the game designers are working on a way to give us more info before we commit to battle.

Is there any way of getting more info about opposing tabs?

Hi nilam

Not sure if you know that all the icons on the bottom of the battle report have very informative tooltips.
In any case, sure the reports could be more informative. I think some important improvements on this are scheduled for the future games.
To get full info on the battle, you can check the huge and ultra detailed battlelog file the program saves on the logs folder on the game installation.
There you have recorded nearly each shot fired on the battle
Having part on this info presented on an improved battle report would be great.
But the detail is so big that its difficult to think a way of showing all that data on an intelligible in game display
Regards

Thanks for that Arson
i will have a look.

Yeah, we can't say accurately what's going onw/out the tooltips. In the Grant battle I'm guessing some units weren't part of his corps because usually damage is spread evenly, and in that case some units were destroyed. What very well could have happened is that an independent command did all the fighting and Grant's corps never actually participated, although he was present in the province.

Daxil wrote:Yeah, we can't say accurately what's going onw/out the tooltips. In the Grant battle I'm guessing some units weren't part of his corps because usually damage is spread evenly, and in that case some units were destroyed. What very well could have happened is that an independent command did all the fighting and Grant's corps never actually participated, although he was present in the province.

I think this is probably what happened. Somehow you didn't have all of those divisions in the same stack as Grant and they didn't support each other when battle was joined. It's happened to all of us starting out.

Just know that even with a nasty command penalty (possibly 35% eek) it's still better to have your force stacked all together under one leader than split between several. That is until you have enough troops and leaders to form the proper Army, Corps, Division structure.

But you probably knew all of that already.

Well it was a few days ago now, and my memory is notoriously poor. But I am almost positive they were all divisions in Grants corp. At most, one divison was independant.

Thanks either way for the advice

ctwino wrote:Well it was a few days ago now, and my memory is notoriously poor. But I am almost positive they were all divisions in Grants corp. At most, one divison was independant.

Thanks either way for the advice

Then probably an under-sized dvision did all the fighting in mountain terrain. You would have to look at the state of the other divs in the corps to find out. You can tell if you have a bunchof healthy divs and one mauled one which that is. I think if a divisional leader is innactive its possible that div doesn't participate even though their corps is fighting.

Heck! In my last game, Grant appeared in Louisville. I moved L'l Mac to Washington and replaced the general in charge there. Then ... Grant would not move, even after being signficantly reinforced!! AoP took off for Ft. Tobbaco and Rebs attracked
Washington fortifications, in force, and won!!! Before Mac could assume command!! SNAFU! Not much enjoyment there?! T