Combat Model Needs Tweaking

[denisonh]

I know it has been mentioned before, but would have to ask that the combat model be looked at for seriously unbalanced wholly ahistorical outcomes: See attachment

Losing 26 Infantry, 6 artillery, 2 cavalry, 3 div HQ (essentially a Corps) for 1 HIT in exchange.

A bit much IMHO. I expected to lose, but how could anyone expect those kind of results?

[Paul Roberts]

But it's Jackson, baby... JACKSON!

Just kidding. That indeed looks odd.

[jimwinsor]

Lordy what a shellacking!

I do notice Jackson had an entrench level of 541, which might help explain things.

[Pocus]

something like a snowballing effect of various parameters I would say. Level 5.4 trenches for Jackson artilleries, with Artillerist trait and the terrain is open, basically they mowed your infantry at the same speed your troop advanced upon him.

A thing which is very important to know for open terrain: the terrain contingency (the number of troops that can fire during a given round) is majorly increased by the general stats. So Jackson had no problem firing with most of his army.

This is very lopsided I concur, but it is not that surprising to me.

[runyan99]

Okay, but explaining the game mechanics misses the point here.

Is this something that possibly could have happened during the Civil War? 20,000 casualties versus less than 700? Can we imagine some scenario in reality which would bring this about?

No.

It looks to me like another example of the willingness of AACW/BoA armies to bash themselves silly, far in excess of what real armies and real commanders were willing to tolerate.

[DennyWright]

I have also had some odd results, but anything is possible in war - look at Pickett's charge, the Union slaughter at Fredricksburg, etc.

OK, I admit it: I've just bought Gods & Generals and Gettysburg, inspired by the great joy of AACW.

[Pocus]

You can send me the save, so that I can check what is the parameter which is instrumental in the victory. Perhaps entrenched artilleries are too nasty, perhaps this is something else.

It reminds me of the assault done against Petersburg, or the fruitless and countless trench assault done during WW I... as such the game models correctly for me the situation. mcDowell ordered his army to attack an extensive network of trenches, manned by numerous men under the responsability of a talented general. And a slaughter followed.

[Primasprit]

It looks to me like another example of the willingness of AACW/BoA armies to bash themselves silly, far in excess of what real armies and real commanders were willing to tolerate.

Maybe real commanders wouldn't order their troops to attack highly entrenched artillery on an open field which are under command of an excellent general?

[Stonewall]

It reminds me of the assault done against Petersburg, or the fruitless and countless trench assault done during WW I... as such the game models correctly for me the situation. mcDowell ordered his army to attack an extensive network of trenches, manned by numerous men under the responsability of a talented general. And a slaughter followed.

Even the most lopsided of Civil War frontal assaults on entrenched troops did not result in losses like the ones in the game. The most famous example is Grant's headlong assault into entrenched Confederates at Cold Harbor in 1864. 2 hours of fighting resulted in 13,000 Union losses opposed to 2,500 Confederates.

The trenches seen during the ACW were effective defensive positions, but not like WW1, where advances like the bolt action rifle and machine gun nests mowed down oncoming infantry.

In general, its not the amount of casualties that is concerning, its the ratio of casualties from one side to another. As long as the ratios are balanced, the absolute numbers don't matter much.

I think that having field armies being able to achieve a 500+ level of entrenchments is perhaps the problem. Perhaps it should take much longer to reach that level or the protection bonuses for lower levels should be lowered. But overall, the ratio of casualties is way off when dealing with attacks on entrenched positions.

[rasnell]

What were the casualties on both sides during Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg? Could they really have hit any Union forces from their position?

[Pocus]

I'm unsure it is the time needed which is too small, or the advantage given to trenches... perhaps both.

Here is the formula for entrenching:

(Current Level +1) x BaseTime in days

BaseTime is 7 in clear, +1 in non clear, +2 in bad weather

overall result decreasing by 1 for each strat rating of the leader (has a tremendous impact on the first level, and is less important after)

To take an example, a leader with 5 to strat rating will need 2 days to get the first level, but will need 30 days to move from level 4 to 5. In bad weather this would be 40 (just for the fifth level)

[Childress]

Maybe real commanders wouldn't order their troops to attack highly entrenched artillery on an open field which are under command of an excellent general?

Or, if they did, would have called it off before reaching the 20k level. And the figure of 689 for Jackson's force is hardly credible since the Feds had significant artillery assets themselves. Even in a battle as futile as Fredericksburg, the Federals still managed to inflict 5k+ in causualties on the rebels.

The British put up numbers like these in some of their colonial campaigns.

[Alan_Bernardo]

Maybe real commanders wouldn't order their troops to attack highly entrenched artillery on an open field which are under command of an excellent general?

This is an excellent point. If the user is expecting historical results from a wargame, then he or she has to play the game historically. A commander, as you said, would not have attacked such a position. Ahistorical actions will get ahistorical results. To expect otherwise is asking for too much.


Alan

[Heldenkaiser]

Maybe real commanders wouldn't order their troops ...

Would they not? I tend to think this is exactly what happened at Marye Heights. Or the Angle at Gettysburg. Or at the cemetery of St. Privat, to take an example where even a professional military did such a thing.

[Flashman007]

The point, I think, is the ratio. Sure the slaughter of the Union forces may have been appropriate but the almost total lack of damage to the defending forces is unrealistic.

Also, as has been repeated many times in different threads the willingness of the AI to continue its ATTACKs in the face of a lopsided slaughter is unrealistic.

I wonder if in the example starting this thread, were some of these causalties actually slackards who show up back in the army later?

[Primasprit]

Would they not? I tend to think this is exactly what happened at Marye Heights. Or the Angle at Gettysburg. Or at the cemetery of St. Privat, to take an example where even a professional military did such a thing.

Actually my knowledge about the ACW is far to small to know if these kind of battle results are possible or not, if some kind of 'stupid' attack is carried out.
I just wanted to point out what Alan_Bernardo said: The player will always be able to behave unhistorical (or this would be a simulation and not a game) and thus create unhistorical results.

[Primasprit]

The point, I think, is the ratio. Sure the slaughter of the Union forces may have been appropriate but the almost total lack of damage to the defending forces is unrealistic.

How often does these kind of results occur?
Can't it be that in this case the attack started, then after taking a lot of hits the cohesion of the attacking force dropped so that they break and rout and thus hardly deal out any damage?

Also, as has been repeated many times in different threads the willingness of the AI to continue its ATTACKs in the face of a lopsided slaughter is unrealistic.
[...]

This is another problem, not connected to the battle mechanic. I don't think that we have to worry about this, Pocus will enhance the AI as soon as possible!

[caranorn]

I think the issue at hand is indeed that even the worst Civil War general would have broken off that attack before the 20,000 casualties for nothing were reached. Even if it was only because his subordinate officers or troops would have mutinied.

If you look at the results you will notice that most casualties occured in ranged combat which I think is entirely realistic. The Union Artillery won't be very effective against a well entrenched position like this, the Confederate Artillery on the other hand will pick off the Union troops long before any can charge the battlements. The fact that 1/3 of the casualties actually occurred in Assault is astonishing to me, though that might just be the final phase of point blank fire. It's only in that last phase that the Union would actually have been able to inflict casualties on the Confederates, by temporarily taking a few positions (like Pickett's charge which also reached the top of Cemetary Ridge, but in no shape to keep it for longer then a few minutes). Though one should note that Pickett's charge was against at most level 1 entrenchments in AACW game terms, not the level 5+ encountered here.

In short, in a situation like this, a force should break off combat before it's entirely destroyed. This combat should have let to 3 extremely battered divisions, not to three destroyed divisions. But I see no problem in the Confederate Casualties per se, or the Union if the attack was really sustained.

One added note, looking at that screenshot I believe the Confederates also achieved some surprise, maybe concealed batteries hitting a major Union column in the flank... The Union might also have had a pretty low supply of ammunition (only two Supply units for 6 Divisions) which directly affects combat results.

[James D Burns]

I know it has been mentioned before, but would have to ask that the combat model be looked at for seriously unbalanced wholly ahistorical outcomes: See attachment

Losing 26 Infantry, 6 artillery, 2 cavalry, 3 div HQ (essentially a Corps) for 1 HIT in exchange.

A bit much IMHO. I expected to lose, but how could anyone expect those kind of results?

The main thing that concerns me with this particular battle is the amount of destroyed regiments. It appears elements stay far too long in a fight or take too many casualties in the battle engine routines. Regiments that take in excess of 20% casualties should have a very high likelihood of routing, long before their destruction is even a possibility. I think the battle engines casualties caused needs to be tweaked down considerably.

While regiments did get destroyed in the civil war, I can’t think of any examples where an entire regiment was wiped out of existence in one single engagement. I’m not saying destruction of regiments shouldn’t be possible in the game, I’m just saying it should not be a common occurrence like we see currently unless the regiments went into the battle considerably under strength to begin with.

Usually troops would route long before casualties reached a point where an entire regiment was in danger of total destruction.

The other thing that concerns me is the fact that in addition to 20k+ casualties, the Union also saw 7,400 of their troops surrender. I’m not sure anyone can point to an example of mass surrenders to an entrenched defender by assaulting forces during the entire war.

Sure a few hundred men may have surrendered in a battle of this size, but more than likely any disheartened troops would simply have fled as the defender was sitting in his entrenchments and pursuit wouldn’t be likely. An open field meeting engagement is one thing, but an assault on heavy entrenchments is another.

Jim

[Pocus]

The battle could have been called off by the Union general (= the low level AI which decides when to stop attacking) before... and this can be done rather easily by tweaking how the trench level impacts the relative power of both side.

Now if the battle is not called off, are the losses realistic? This is the first question.

[AndrewKurtz]

The battle could have been called off by the Union general (= the low level AI which decides when to stop attacking) before... and this can be done rather easily by tweaking how the trench level impacts the relative power of both side.

Now if the battle is not called off, are the losses realistic? This is the first question.

If I had to compare to a real Civil War battle, it reminds me of Cold Harbor, considered one of the bloodiest and most lopsides battles in American history. Here were the real-life results:

Forces:
USA: 108,000
CSA: 62,000

Casualties:
USA: 13,000
CSA: 2,000

Now, if the battle had been broken off earlier, which I think makes sense, it is realistic to think the USA would have had less casualties. If the USA were cut in half to 10,000, it makes sense to assume the CSA casualties would have been also. This would bring them to about 350 which is 1/6 of the Cold Harbor casualties.

All that said, I'll let others decide if the losses are realistic.

[caranorn]

If a charge is carried through against a well entrenched Force with Artillery and an ample stock of ammunition? I'd say yes. Though there is the factor of routing troops, even the most popular General has only so much control over his troops. If these charges were in stereotypical (stereotypical as the column doesn't seem to have been used in that way) Napoleonic assault columns the mass momentum might actually be sufficient to carry the formation to a point where few would escape unscathed (particularly with a concealed battery (I've just read up a bit on Wilson's Creek where Sigel's up to that point victorious brigade routed away when fired on by a single battery that was either concealed or thought to be friendly (lots of friendly fire and problems of friend or foe identification in that engagement). But the Civil war linear system I believe would break down long before that situation (in linear formation the individual soldier can easily slip back, while in a tight column (again rarely happened) the pressure from the following ranks would carry the same soldier forward).

[James D Burns]

The battle could have been called off by the Union general (= the low level AI which decides when to stop attacking) before... and this can be done rather easily by tweaking how the trench level impacts the relative power of both side.

Now if the battle is not called off, are the losses realistic? This is the first question.

I think what needs tweaking isn’t whether a general breaks off a combat or not (though the AI needs to be able to recognize the effects of entrenchments so suicide assaults never get launched in the first place) so much. Rather what needs tweaking is when individual elements break off from fights due to excessive casualties.

A good example of what I mean his what happened to Heth’s division at Gettysburg. While their casualties from the first days fighting were high, their casualties did not see the utter destruction of any regiments. Yet his division remained out of the fighting for most of the rest of the battle.

The game needs to reflect this kind of stunned effect battle casualties have on individual regiments that suffer 20% or more losses. Individual elements should be basically out of the rest of a fight once they get *stunned*.

What the engine seems to be doing currently is continuously throwing elements into the fight until they get eliminated or the army commander decides to route. Elements that retreat in the battle routines should be able to rally and re-enter the battle routines, but ones that retreat due to high casualty percentages (assuming this is added to the game) should get stunned and locked out of any more of the fighting that might occur.

There should also be an automatic retreat routine for Generals, perhaps modified by their strategic rating. If their army suffers x% of casualties, an automatic retreat should be ordered. X could be 10% per point of strategic rating or something.

Jim

[Walloc]

I've had my share of results i wonder about too. Especially in regards to superior in numbers vs smaller armies where it seems by default u take much higher casulties as superior no matter if defending or attacking.
Doesnt always happens, but more than 50% of cases of fieldbattles in my experience. Ofc this could happen, but at this rate i do some times wonder.
1 particular item is i've seen the first 25 cases of a single or 2 element impose from 25 to 1 up too 800 to 1 casulty rate, if the large force is on defensive posture. Note defensive, not passive.
This is both the single element attacking and defending.
Ofc is can happen that a single element suprise a part of a large force taking some POWs and such, but equally i would think so a large force would have the oppotunity at times just to overwhelm that single element. I've never seen that happen.
I wonder if casulties code wise are done in fashion of % of forces. I hope not.
If so it would remind me of some of the very early versions of TAOW where u could have a division attack a company and litteraly lose a regiment, cuz casulties was determained as a % of forces with no correlation to actual forces involved. Formular apparently ending up with. You attacking a entrenched position u will lose 33% of ur forces, being a regiment, regardless if u were only attacking a company. This cant really be said to be the norm in WWII but it did happen in early version of TAoW.

In regards to the example sparking this thread i notice 1 thing.
The US side 2 to 1 superiority in artillery, prolly higher in weight of guns.
It was common pratice to precede any assult on fixed / entrenched postition by a good artillery bombardment. The one pre Picketts charge, since that has entered the discussion being a good example.
The idea was to supprese the enemy, especially their artillery. To cut back on own casulties in the moving up and assult phase by suppresing enemy artillery.
This even if intended didnt always happen and should be noted.
Like wise u do find examples of attacking going in with out such a bombardment, even if the side had the means.
The open terrain should work as much to the advantage of a attacking bombardment in this case. Being able to bring all the guns to bear, hopefully using the advantage of superior numbers and possibly the superior weigh in guns.

I dont know how the combat engieen uses this if at all. While my point isnt to make ACW into tactical battles. ill play FoF for that. That the fact that such bombardments found place, giving the possibilty of suppresion and inflicting casulties.
If it always isnt in the combat resolution already, would it be possible to, in some situasion, having a pre assult bombardment phase within the combat resolution?
and if deemed succesfull to actually ease attacks on entrenched position.
Apart from as a side effect equallying the casulties a bit.

Assuming its an idea liked and agreed on.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[veji1]

I think the actual confederate losses are OK, assuming the Union broke before reaching melee... but since the union took so many casualties and kept advancing, by the sheer force of inertia it should have reached the trenches and then losses in the 2-3000 for the rebs would make more sense...

That said I think the main issue here is frontage : An entrench army is a way deeper body than a field army, this means that far less troops are on the first line... the same applies for an army attacking trenches... So I think the main issue here is the fact that the Jackson army being entrenched its frontage should have been shortened a lot, and therefore the Union's as well... Which means that 6 divisions attacking means actually 3 attacking in the first wave and 3 in the second, which means that under these conditions the second wave should never have actually made it to the fight, because of the stream of survivers rooting from the first 3 Divs...

So I say the devs should try to reduce the frontage of an army the more it is entrenched...

[denisonh]

One thing to keep in mind is that the entire Corps "disappeared".

There are few examples of entire Corps level formations literally disappearing. I am not talking about a division, I am taking about a 3 Division corps plus.

Casualties are going to be severe in this case, but at what point does the Corps Commander (who was set to defensive posture btw) continue the fight and die to the last man? An general forced to attack with a posture set to defense should most certainly not prosecute that vigorous of an attack.

I would have seen a loss of a division and a half, maybe even two, with one rebel hit as not far from the truth, but the entire formation? There is a point when the unit is non combat effective, and both the leadership and the troops will tend not to prosecute the attack.

Dieing to the last man is a very unusual case (particualry in an attack on enemy held territory), particualy for an entire Corps. Even Pickett had more left the Hunter did after this battle.

[caranorn]

Do I understand that correctly? You had two "forces", McDowell with Army HQ's or as a Corps, set on offensive. Hunter as a Corps set on defensive. I actually had a very similar situation in one of my games, though it was Hunter on offensive and McDowell on defensive (failed to activate), in that case Hunter's Corps was also entirely whiped out while McDowell with the Army/Corps didn't participate in the battle at all (0 visible casualties, no loss of cohesion, no used up ammunition). In my game I put this down to lack of cohesion (I tend to try and rationalize combats results) between the two forces and McDowell taking a nap somewhere in the Woods (Bull Run 2 style).

Anyhow I'm rambling now. Pocus does this change the situation, I mean it's rather odd to have two forces with defensive orders (no Confederates in Denisohn's image would have been in offensive stance as that screen shows the most aggressive stance of any on a side) go at each other like this while the single force set to offensive action sits on the sidelines.

More questions to Denisohn, did your force move during that turn (move onto Alexandria, possibly across the Potomac)? Or did you notice a Confederate move (reinforcements triggering the fight)?

With the added information of Hunter's Corps being in defensive stance this seems weirder.

[gbs]

I just want to say that I find this discussion fascinating. If some of the things mentioned here can be implemented into the AI engine therefore adding even more realism, then I would say that this game will go far beyond anything I could have immagined. Keep it up.

[denisonh]

McDowell (Army) on defensive and Hunter's Corps on defensive moved from Loudon to Alexandria and arrived the same day.

McDowell's forces were untouched, not unexpected, and Hunter's Corps "disappeared under Jackson's guns". A similiar situation, but both leader's were inactive. I full expected to either be attacked and share Alexandria with Jackson, or execute an uncoordinated attack, losing a couple of Divisions in an uncoordinated fight, and be repulsed.

Hunter's Corps died to a man and Jackson vacated Alexandria.

A Phyrric defeat?

It was a good illustration of what not to do and I had not only no expectations to win but suffer heavy casualties. I was just not quite prepared for the results.

[jackfox]

I just experienced a pretty costly battle. Just thought this might add to the discussion.