new thread about massive brigade destruction

[Spruce]

so I played the latest patch 1.5a. I started a game as the confederacy in april 1861.

After a few turns, the Union is threatening Winchester VA. I chose to move Johnstons army up North to grow stronger in Winchester and hold off Union incursions. Johnstons army was not at full strength, let's say average 80% with some brigades at 75% - but most at full strength.

Battle resolution = a division scaled unit is battling wiht Johnstons force - he loses 6 brigades during the battle - oh help! A second battle occurs during this battle resolution - a second Union division seems to have joined the dance - total mayhem - and Johnston loses the remainder of his army of Shenandoah. All brigades destroyed !!!

So an entire army (or corps in reality) destroyed in one "early" game turn.

This can't be true ! Isn't there any way to tone down this massive brigade destruction ?

I had changed the chance to hit from 150 to 125 before I had this battle (but I started this campaign at 150 and later had it reduced to 125 before this battle).

- so I think this crazy battle happened with a 125 chance to hit. I still find this to be the only real game breaker in this game !

even if the setting is 150, there's really no justification that a corps is totally destroyed in an open field battle by another corps.

[mikee64]

can we get a screenshot?

[Spruce]

no I stopped that game, I will retry one more time with the coeff. at 125 from the start.

But I'm not happy with this grotesq behavior !

I must say the AI is at hard ... don't know if this turns Athena into a bloodsucking vampire - nipping every last drop of blood from my armies and corps

[McNaughton]

I would suggest a clean game of 125. What amount of cavalry did your opponent have? Cavalry can, in many cases, chase down and destroy units much better than infantry or artillery (who are weaker at avoiding destruction), so sometimes the combination of forces present can make a battle 'devestating'. A screenshot would be worth while, to see force composition.

How about reducing the value to 100? Maybe this will suit you better? Also, increasing the number of hits (slightly) may be another tag-on solution with the 125 reduced attack coeficcient value.

[Stonewall]

Better yet. Reduce the number of combat rounds from 6 to 4. Works wonders.

Addressing your basic point, however, I think you're misinterpretting the results a little bit. Johnston's Shenandoah force starts off the game an an understrength division's worth of forces. If you immediately create a division and merge the forces, you can get about 14 elements under Jackson's direct divisional command. So, after the first battle in which half of his understrength division was destroyed, the rest of it was destroyed as well. Sounds like a reasonable outcome. Don't get caught up in the whole Corps destrouction thing. What matters is how many elements were in that Corps and unless you reinforced it, there were likely not more than 14-15.

Semantics aside, its entirely possible that after engaging a significant Union force, that the exhausted, depleted CSA division (likely still in offensive posture) was then attacked by a fresh Union force and was completely overwhelmed.

Contrary to popular belief, a LOT of smaller units surrendered during the course of the Civil War. Some of them surrender to even smaller opponents.

A whole host of things could have happened, such as having an exhausted army in an offensive stance. The new attacker getting some surprise. The exhausted command simply surrendering due to mass routing of its units.

[Spruce]

"perhaps" and "suppose if etc" ... perhaps I win the lottery this evening ? mh Sorry, I'm just a little pissed off - this was my first game at hard difficulty level and wouldn't have hoped to see these crazy things. Perhaps in the next round - some black masked and caped guy with a red rod comes to Richmond with a fleet of star destroyers ...

I have problems with the fact that a stack at corps strength with many brigades gets totally "destroyed" to the last man in an open field battle. We are not talking about Vicksburg here. I can understand that a defeated corps sacrifices a brigade or 2 to delay the enemy and allow for an "orderly" retreat. Or that regiments did surrender during this course of events. But total destruction by an equal sized force - that's grotesq. This is not Iwo Jima !

I understand that a brigade can be hammered by a division and a division by a corps and a corps by an army. But not this ...

ps = the enemy had about twice as much artillery as me - for the rest it was evenly matched. No overload of cavalry on the enemy side ... the amount of battle casualties was just too high for all these rounds of battle.

[Hobbes]

It will be interesting to see what happens on your second attempt.
I'm hoping to get started on my first PBEM soon so I hope the odd combat results and disappearing generals can be sorted out.

Chris

[Spruce]

I restarted a game at normal difficulty with 125 chance and 5 combat rounds a day.

[McNaughton]

The artillery is doing a lot of damage, expecially ranged damage (where your troops cannot return adequate fire). This softens your troops up, so when the close range and assault rounds happen your forces are much weaker than your opponent.

[Jagger]

Long range preparatory artillery typically doesn't do a lot of physical damage. However it can do a lot of psychological damage. By the time, infantry finally approaches, the troops have had enough and are ready to run.

Any way for artillery to exchange some physical losses for morale losses?

[Pocus]

This is factored, each element has a number for hits done and cohesion done.

[Paul Roberts]

Is there any kind of present consensus on how these newly-exported numbers are best set for greater realism? I want to start a new game, but I'd like combat to be as good as I can tweak it. All advice appreciated!

[Spruce]

Don't even think about 150% coef to hit chance ! Use 125 - I'll probably test a lower figure still.

Others have adviced to reduce the amount of battle rounds. I don't hold anything against that.

Other parameters are "uncharted" territory for me - so others have to say this ...

But I think that something should be introduced in the model where the "depleted" units are drawn back and cycled with fresher troops. If the ratio of depleted/(depleted + fresh) is low enough, the depleted units get cycled with the fresh units. After each combat round a depleted unit gets a chance to hasty retreat - this means the container is salvaged, but casualties have been taken. A retreated unit can't be destroyed. After each battle round the chance for hasty retreat increases. If the ratio depleted/(depleted + fresh) is too high - there will be no more hasty retreats allowed and units will be destroyed if damaged further.

I know, I'm not a specialist on the engine - but something should be done to prevent the total destruction of larger units.

[Pocus]

at the element level, there is already a rule which cycle the fresh elements to melee and remove the battered ones. If not, you would get far more casualties.

[Spruce]

at the element level, there is already a rule which cycle the fresh elements to melee and remove the battered ones. If not, you would get far more casualties.

and what about hasty retreat ? I mean a "battered" container - like a corps or army that is trying to run for its life (Manassas, Chickamuaga) will start retreating the depleted brigades and more fresh units will "guard" or "block" the escape route to allow the main body of the corps or army to move out of harms way.

off course, each round or day of battle - this chance for "guarantueed escape" rises ... meaning the battered units have escaped succesfully and - altough severly depleted - won't get destroyed by the raging enemy attack.

[Paul Roberts]

Quick question:

How do I open the "combat.opt" file for tweaking?

Thanks.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Hobbes]

Any update on this Spruce? How are you finding 125 and 5?

Cheers, Chris

[Spruce]

I think it's better - 125. But I've put the rounds of battle back on 6 ... and now I'm trying to see if the generals kill ratio is better (at 400).

[Hobbes]

Many thanks I'll go 125/6 and 400 then.
Cheers, Chris

[Spruce]

I have not one general that died in my last game - altough I had some moderate combats I would have hoped to see at least one of them go down.

For the moment I'll be trying the 350 setting for generals.