Does national Morale level affect battles ?

[Captain]

I am plaing PBEM North.
I just lost a decisive battle at Winchest JUN62.
Current morale levels are STH-148, NTH-80, so things arn't going great. A debacle NO invasion etc.

But look at these results for winchester;
-both sides led by a 3-1-1 leader
N-34000, 5500 horse, 115 canon entrenched to 120
S-22000, 2100horse, 100 canon

My leader was set to defend and hold. The nth was full cohesion, entrenched and defending behind a river. Also spted by other Corps.

So the south attacks at 2:3 and takes Winchester results;
N-10200dead, 1700horse
S-7800dead, 550horse

This was a very solid nthern line.

So we have the sth attack at 2:3 at win decisively !
Now everyone knows you need at leasdt 3:1 for standard attacks unless the enemy is starving or fatigued or out of ammo etc.

This was a prepared line ready for assualt and it was simply rolled with ease by the sth.

So what am i doing wrong?

My opponent thinks it is due to the large NM difference between us and so my troops are demoralised.

In this case i might as well surrender, because once you reach a certain NM differential your troops are essentially useless no matter how well prepared.

Comments or enlightenment anyone?

[ohms_law]

I'm almost positive that your opponent is correct.
That being said, there's no reason to surrender. Go defensive, but be active at the same time. Defend tactically, but look for openings. When you see an opening, strike.

It takes patience, but your'e far from defeated. That last 50 NM is next to impossible to get, but getting yourself back up to 100 NM is relatively easy. It'll go up on it's own, and any good victory will make it go up real fast.

[Captain]

OHMS,

Thanks for the moral boost LOL !

However it still doesn't address the central issue. Obviously I am already in defence. However even the best defensive position would seem irrelevant if the NM difference is too much?

[ohms_law]

Nah... I've been on the other side a couple of times now (admittedly against the AI, but still). Point being that I can tell you from personal experience that it's tough to run that "last mile"...
It's a lot easier to screw up then the early game, believe it or not.

Regardless, if you play it through you'll at least learn something. That and I guarantee that the Confederates won't win every battle. That's actually the hardest challenge of leading a winning South is reigning yourself in, not over extending. Supply becomes a huge issue moving into the North.

[nilam]

Hi,Captain.

Im in a PBEM game as the south and i"ve just Had Lee beaten-up bladly
in Stafford,Hoods div taking most casualties.
The strange thing being i was defensive mode (blue) but Lee attacked anyway-reason,Both Lee and Hood have reckless traits and took some serious
long range damage by cannon fire which my recon failed to see anyway.
I"m learning the hard way there is a lot of variables in this game so keep going.

PS. im definately going to split Lee and hood up,they are a bad influence on
each other.

[Pocus]

National Morale does affect combativeness yes.

[anarchyintheuk]

It increases max cohesiveness . . . I think.

[Captain]

Thanks Pocus and evryone else, whilst there is obviously multiple variables, the NM factor has a central affect on the battle environment.

Given that Pocus has stated this as fact, the discussion then must revolve around what are suitable strategies for either side that is facing a 2:1 or 3:2 morale differential. It would seem in reality a large NM gap is akin to having a few extra armies in the field.

So a side on defence with a large NM gap does what ?
Dig in prepare? In all likelihood the line will crumble.
Counterattack ? The demoralised troops are likely to be butchered
Maybe the answer is simply withdraw and rebuild? i.e-give up territory whilst rebuilding shattered divisions.

I am keen to see what ideas players have for this situation, as it is a topic previously not discussed.

[tagwyn]

Pocus: ANV killed more Union troops during the 1864 campoaign than Grant had at the start of his final campaign. They must not have any morale problem. Hood's Army of Tennessee fought like banshees in hopeless engagements. Joe Johnston's troops would have marched off a cliff if he had ordered it in last part of the war. I fail to see what kind of correlation could be made here? Thanks. apy:

[ohms_law]

Pocus: ANV killed more Union troops during the 1864 campoaign than Grant had at the start of his final campaign. They must not have any morale problem. Hood's Army of Tennessee fought like banshees in hopeless engagements. Joe Johnston's troops would have marched off a cliff if he had ordered it in last part of the war. I fail to see what kind of correlation could be made here? Thanks. apy:

In game terms, their National Morale wasn't low.
I think that it's easy enough to argue that the Confederacies' National Morale was never low in real life. They didn't surrender until the very end, after all.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Captain]

I think NM does an adequate job in terms of overall nation manpower etc.

What we are focusing on here is its battlefield application.

Also it does not actually mean either side has to have low NM. The important factor is the differential !

In my example my morale was around 80 as the nth but the sth was around 150. 80 may not be great but I wouln't call it very low. The issue is the differential.

I think this thread creates 2 related issues;

1st- A debate on whether this NM differential has suitable application on the battlefield across the board. Bearing in mind the effect is fairly significant.

2nd-If it is the right application for NM effect, then strategically I am intrigued what advice you old hands have for someone caught in this position.

So I'd like to guide the discussion in those 2 fields if I may.

NM has truely awesome effects on the game, as it probably should. However the effect on the battlefield is more decisive than generalship, supplies or indeed any other factor that I can see.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[nilam]

Hi Captain,
Since my last two pence worth i have lost a whole corps to Grant,funny
enough in Winchester and took a 10 point nm hit in the process.
So i am very interested in the answers to your thread.

I think in yours and now my game the last thing you want to do is give up ground, a well lead small force is better than a depleated large force-so
re-group your divs with new brigs and arty.
i"m sure you not to do with cav,i"ve even let myself to be besieged in Winchester with TAOP (whats Left of it) because i want to tie up Grant
While i move up Lee"s army.

I have never played as north but i am struggling to replace my losses,so its last chance saloon for me with Lee"s army.

Good luck and to me-i"m going to need it......

[W.Barksdale]

I think in yours and now my game the last thing you want to do is give up ground

I never worry about giving up ground UNLESS it involves giving up key counties, cities, or rail lines. In fact, it may even be advantagous to give up ground.

To the original poster, be sure to give isolated commands like this solid leaders.

[Jabberwock]

I never worry about giving up ground UNLESS it involves giving up key counties, cities, or rail lines. In fact, it may even be advantagous to give up ground.

I couldn't agree more. Excellent use of a pseudo-Jominian strategy in your game against soundoff. Joe Johnston would be proud. I hope we get to play in the tournament.

[Captain]

Gray Lensman, thanks for the useful link. Pocus clearly explains the situation there.

However I don't see that this alters the debate/ discussion.

Let me than summarise the discourse to date:

1. NM has major effect on the fighting ability of troops (also cohesion, although in my Winchester incident my troops were at full cohesion). This is confirmed by Pocus.

2. As to the debate of whether NM is appropriate to affect battlefield results to this extent;
-Those who say it shouldn't and cite southern battlefield morale as an example
- no other relevant submissions to date

3.Suitable tactics for a player faced with a large NM differential;
-sacrifice territory for rebuild time

Some further factors from my observations;

-Isolation has nothing to do with the topic. we are talking about standard mainstream defence lines from a nation that has a large NM differential

-I am not sure than sacrificing territory will work as a tactic, I suspect the retreater will simply be overrun

-This sort of major NM effect is akin to the great italian defeats in north africa to British and Australian troops in WWII. Situations where tens of thousands who were demoralised simply threw down weapons to a force far numerically weaker without much of a fight.
I don't know of to many civil war examples of this.

-throughout history many demoralised nations in wartime, whilst crumbling on the homefront have still managed to field well performing front line units. In AACW this seems impossible. To me this seems ahistorical.

Anyone else with opinions?

[ohms_law]

NM affects cohesion, it doesn't directly affect the strength of your units. Basically, low NM makes your units brittle, but they still fight... which happened historically.
It also increases attrition... which happened historically.

Strategically, as your NM falls you need to be more "tactically" defensive... which is also historical.
I don't see what the problem is.

[Captain]

ok ohms,

First, we are not necessarily taliking about low morale simply a high differential between morale levels.

Secondly no-one is debating the greater effects of NM attrition or otherwise, eg;attrition, replacments etc.

thirdly, this thread began with an unexplained result from a full stregth multi-divisional corp with spt in very good defensive terrain getting rolled at odds of 2:3, and there being no extraoneuos circumstances (supply etc). so the problem it is normal for the aacw community to analyse anomalies such as this.

fourthly, given Pocus' and gray lensmans input we have established the below as fact........

"National Morale directly affects the cohesion of your units which impacts on how fast they move and how well they fight"............

fifthly, Brittleness is a replacment issue and not and immediate effect on a battlefield outcome.

sixthly, the repercussions of this far outweigh and simply 'tactical' application of defence. The Winchester example was a 'very' good defence postion manned by good troops in perfect order. The point being once a magic NM differential is reached the lower NM nation will have bugger all chance to stop his opponent no matter what he does ! thus the purpose of this thread is to discuss the effect of NM differential and/or strategies to combat it.

seventhly, according to Pocus NM affects cohesion. This is irrelevant in the Winchester example as they had Full cohesion. Brittleness isn't mentioned nor would it be relevant except in terms of replacement problems. Pocus clearly states NM effects how well they fight ! What I am saying given the best possible play, a player who is faced with a big NM differential will not be able to do anything to combat such demoralisation, eg;-Winchester, full strength, full cohesion, great terrain , outnumbered the enemy and still got overrun

eigthly, Other than the Italians in Nth Africa in WWII I don't see many examples of this is history let alone in the civil war. This I find ahistorical. If however someone would like to point out historical examples of well prepared positions with superior numbers and equal generalship doing the bolt, I am welcome to hear them , especially if they are from the civil war.

[Jarkko]

Captain, I believe the veterans would find it easier to analyse if you provided a screen-shot of the battle screen, and perhaps even a screenshot of your involved troops before and after the battle?

[Captain]

Unfortunately I am not the host.
The stats are as above anyway.
As Pocus has confirmed the principle, specific examples are a somewhat moot point. I have simply used my Wincester example to reinforse an established fact by Pocus.
The discussion now is how we deal with those factual realities.

[ohms_law]

seventhly, according to Pocus NM affects cohesion. This is irrelevant in the Winchester example as they had Full cohesion. Brittleness isn't mentioned nor would it be relevant except in terms of replacement problems. Pocus clearly states NM effects how well they fight ! What I am saying given the best possible play, a player who is faced with a big NM differential will not be able to do anything to combat such demoralisation, eg;-Winchester, full strength, full cohesion, great terrain , outnumbered the enemy and still got overrun

This is exactly what I was addressing when talking about "brittleness" (which is a descriptive term which I made up on the spot, by the way).
NM affects maximum cohesion. The higher your NM, the more cohesion units have. Lower NM leads to lower maximum cohesion. National Morale affects the 100% level of cohesion. In other words, a unit will normally have 0-100 cohesion. If NM falls to 80 then the unit will have 0-80 cohesion. If NM rises to 110 then the unit will have from 0-110 cohesion.
(note that I have no idea what the actual algorithum for this is. I made up all of the numbers above for ease of description. I'm certain that there isn't a direct ratio, but I'm certain from personal experience that the effect described above is correct)

The battlefield effect of this is the same as any cohesion difference. The unit with higher cohesion will last longer (more hours) in combat before deciding to retreat. Since the side with higher national morale will start with units who have more cohesion to "spend", they will naturally be less "brittle" then units on the side with less NM.

Tactically and strategically, the solution is the same. With low national morale, consolidate your forces so that your are protecting strategic positions with overwhelming force. Go defensive and avoid anything other then a defensive posture at all costs. Foster entrenchments. Use the Rules of Engagement settings on your units to your advantage. Larger forces should use Defend, while smaller units should use the Defend and Retreat or Retreat in Engaged options. Be willing to retreat, and position your units strategically for it (in other words, don't defend only the areas that are strategic, but defend the area's around them).

Use Raids tactics.

eigthly, Other than the Italians in Nth Africa in WWII I don't see many examples of this is history let alone in the civil war. This I find ahistorical. If however someone would like to point out historical examples of well prepared positions with superior numbers and equal generalship doing the bolt, I am welcome to hear them , especially if they are from the civil war.

Chattanooga.

[Jarkko]

Unfortunately I am not the host.

You don't have to be the host to take screen-shots of the battle-screen... Just double-click the (coloured in red) line in your turn log to open up the battle screen.

[Captain]

OHMS,

Thanks, much clearer.
The clarity you brought means we all now know what we are talking about.

So this is not an issue of low morale but that differential is a real whammy !

re strategies I pretty well assumed the same as what you said, let's face it what else can you do.

As for an example Chattanooga may have had the positioning (and I may stand corrected) but I don't believe the CSA outnumbered the union there did they?

[Jarkko]

As for an example Chattanooga may have had the positioning (and I may stand corrected) but I don't believe the CSA outnumbered the union there did they?

Not the whole Union force, but the entrenched CSA defenders at Missionary Ridge did outnumber the Army of Cumberland forces climbing up the ridge.

[nilam]

Hi all,

Very intersting replies,can some one explain to me how the north giving up
ground from Winchester is going to help Captains nm position.
I dont know what Generals or forces he has in the area,but if your CSA you would be looking at Manassas and Harpers Ferry.

From a norths NM point of view surely it would be best to make a stand
in enemy territory....IMHO

[Captain]

At Chattanooga the US had 56 359 and CSA had 44 010
In the Winchester battle the CSA attacked at 2:3

At Chattanogga US led by Grant CSA by Bragg
In the Winchester battle both sides had a 3-1-1 commanding

On the flank at Chattanooga Cleburne with a mere DIV+ held off Sherman with 2 corps!

Thomas' command got hammered. Their final assault was more a case of nowhere else to go than an oraganised assault.

Quote, "Bragg had not provided for a tactical reserve his defenses being a thin crust"

Even though Missionary ridge was a reasonable position, the rifle pits were laid out horribly and not mutually supporting at all ! Essentially this is why the position fell. So the entrenchment level in AACW terms would be very low.

From a distance Grant may have assumed it to be a tough nut, but once Thomas got over the initial bloodletting he received he realised there were major gaps in the layout.

So no I wouldn't agree that Chattanooga is a comparable example to the Winchester battle, or where NM was a greater factor than bad generalship by Bragg.

[Captain]

Nilham,

For what its worth, in that particular game, the south just kept rolling and took Washington 4 turns later. I guess simply "their blood was up"

Anyway the issue is not particular to the Winchester game and that is the point.

OHMS has hit the nail home by showing that NM levels correspond to cohesion levels.

Given this I would argue this correlation is vastly more critical than supply, replacments whatsoever.

In simple terms if you are going to commit to battle, you really need to have a close look at your NM/cohesion level.

[Manstein]

Hi all.

I said to Captain that I thought that the result was not estrange. I hope clear your ideas:

National Morale:



Attack to Winchester:



South Gustavus Smith Corps:



South adjacent forces:



Union Situation:



Union Dix Corps:



Union adjacent forces:



Winchester battle result:



Alan, I have enteres at the backups for see this things. If you need some more things, say to me.

[ohms_law]

Yea, there you go. That wasn't a lopsided battle by any means. The Confederate side won based on better overall cohesion, but the Union hardly rolled over and allowed them to win.
That looks like a perfectly legitimate victory, to me.