"Realistic Attrition"

[Jagger]

Is it possible to turn off "realistic attrition" once a PBEM has begun?

I am in a second PBEM with the same opponent and we both had major problems as the Union with "realistic attrition".

I just marched a division of 9,000 men (pwr 224) with 100% cohesion and fully supplied towards a target two regions away. It took seven days to enter the first region which was movement from woods/fair terrain to forest/fair terrain. I lost 200 men leaving 8800 men (pwr 182) and unit cohesion was reduced by 10-12 points per unit. The division recovered cohesion during the 8 days of rest after the 7 days march into the region.

The next turn, my remaining 8800 men marched from Forest fair to Hills mud to reach the objective town. The march was 15 days. Upon arrival, my troops drove off a single CSA cavalry regiment losing 92 men. So after this march and small skirmish, the division was now down to a strength of 6000 men (pwr 33). Cohesion for units not involved in the skirmish was reduced by approximately 40 points.

So a 22 day march over a 30 day period of 40-60 miles covering 2 regions resulted in 3000 of 9000 men lost in division starting fully supplied and at 100% cohesion. The best units were left with cohesion in the range of 35 and the worst with cohesion around 10. Power dropped from 224 to 33. Some small part of the power loss was due to losing 92 men in the skirmish with the cavalry regiment but not much.

Considering the slow recovery rate, it is going to be three or four or five turns before the division is back to full cohesion. This short, slow march has severely damaged a division leaving it too weak to even attack the single CSA militia regiment barricaded in the town.

Finally, I don't think the division can even return the two regions back to its base before it starves considering the slow movement of low cohesion units.

These results seem really extreme. A fully supplied, full cohesion division should be able to march 40-60 miles in 30 days without losing 1/3 of its strength and most of its cohesion even in rainy weather. Although even worse, it is unbalancing the scenario in the west.

I don't see this problem with units moving along rails and halting in towns. The problem is in the west where movement by the Union is often by physically marching. Mud is a real killer.

My opponent mentioned the problems he was having in the west after we halted the game in 1862. I looked at his divisions in Mo, Ky, Tn and they were barely skeletons. Now I am now seeing the same problems as the Union. The Union is badly hurt by this rule in the west.

I didn't have the problem playing as the confederate nor is my opponent having the problem as the confederates. I assume because the CSA has a higher base level of cohesion for their units and does far less marching since they are on the defense.

Is anyone else having problems with the realistic attrition rule as the Union (or the confederates) when marching consecutive turns-not while using rail?

And is there a way to turn off realistic attrition once a PBEM game begins? I feel it is unbalancing the scenario. Or should we just start another game?

[runyan99]

I assume you can easily turn off attrition at any time by simply changing the setting on the host computer.

Interesting observations. Considering the debilitating effects of Burnside's "Mud March" I hesitate to call the effects of mud in the game as too extreme. I need more experience playing with the attrition option in 1.09 myself. Historically, asking any division to move for 15 days in mud would probably ruin the division. My advice for now is - don't do that.

[Pocus]

yes all options are dynamics.

Please check & verify Historical attrition, I'll rely on you, multi-testers and veterans of the games on that and tweak it down if needed.

[soloswolf]

Moving on passive seems to help with the effects as well.

While shuffling troops in my rear, or moving them in transit to the front I always have them on passive.

Really, unless I am moving aggressively I move in passive. And as far as the mud, I will rarely move more than one region in a turn. You limit your losses and can often dig in to a level one entrenchment.

I always play with this on and I have never been surprised or annoyed by the losses with it.

[berto]

Is anyone else having problems with the realistic attrition rule as the Union (or the confederates) when marching consecutive turns-not while using rail?

I have tried 1.09 with bigus' work-in-progress Kentucky scenario, and I too am observing horrendous cohesion loss and attrition.

In The Real Game, Bragg left Chattanooga in early September and marched across Tennessee and half-way into Kentucky, reaching the Perryville area by early October. There, the Army of Mississippi fought and (tactically) won a major engagement with Buell's Army of the Ohio on October 8.

In AACW, ignoring for the moment that it is impossible to move an entire army that far that fast, by the time they reach central Kentucky, I am seeing my game Army of Mississippi suffering very bad cohesion and attrition losses. (I can't provide detailed figures, since 1.09a broke the Kentucky scenario on my system, and I have reverted to a Kentucky-less, reverted-1.09 patched-to-1.09a installation.) There's no way my game Army of Mississippi could fight (much less win) a major engagement in central Kentucky. I am moving my forces in passive mode. (This is during the September-October 1862 time period, by the way, when Tennessee and Kentucky historically were in drought conditions (IIRC), so I don't think that weather or mud are factors, though I'm not certain about this.)

So, for what it's worth, in my limited experience, I would agree that maybe attrition and cohesion losses seem to be excessively high. This bears closer observation.

[Walloc]

I dont have a solid opinion on if realistic attrition is to hardin AACW. I've only played with it on in NCP. Yup u lose alot but so should u in bad weather. If i compare to historical figurs they at leased in my opinion far off in the game. That said i cant say they not in need of tweeking as i've not played that much and doesnt have a large base to form an opinion on.

2 notes tho. U regain 66% of the men, so while they "lost" in the unit they not all lost to the side.

2nd note. Off the bat im thinking that i the % which unit regain men needs to be tweeked in realistic attrition rules, since it was originally % designed for a lower attrition rate.
So that the base % which units regain men is different whether u play ordinary or realistic. To simulate that the straggler return to a stationary unit at about same pace. Since u now lose more if u going to get them back in same amount of time as it would have in ordinary, the % would have to be higher.

How does that sound Pocus?

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[lodilefty]

Let's be careful. This was added at the users [us'ns] request....

1. The attrition loss is an option, put in to try to slow down the stampede of Armies and raiders all over the map.
2. It's an option. Turn it off if the losses displease you.
3. It's an option. I like the way it beats you up if you try to march 200 miles in the mud through the mountains. That's why there are railroads, riverine transport, variable weather and different terrains to march through.
4. Make the loss rate moddable values [if it isn't already... ]

Its really a bear to march in the winter..... like in the AWI....

[Ethy]

Is it possible to turn off "realistic attrition" once a PBEM has begun?

I am in a second PBEM with the same opponent and we both had major problems as the Union with "realistic attrition".

I just marched a division of 9,000 men (pwr 224) with 100% cohesion and fully supplied towards a target two regions away. It took seven days to enter the first region which was movement from woods/fair terrain to forest/fair terrain. I lost 200 men leaving 8800 men (pwr 182) and unit cohesion was reduced by 10-12 points per unit. The division recovered cohesion during the 8 days of rest after the 7 days march into the region.

The next turn, my remaining 8800 men marched from Forest fair to Hills mud to reach the objective town. The march was 15 days. Upon arrival, my troops drove off a single CSA cavalry regiment losing 92 men. So after this march and small skirmish, the division was now down to a strength of 6000 men (pwr 33). Cohesion for units not involved in the skirmish was reduced by approximately 40 points.

So a 22 day march over a 30 day period of 40-60 miles covering 2 regions resulted in 3000 of 9000 men lost in division starting fully supplied and at 100% cohesion. The best units were left with cohesion in the range of 35 and the worst with cohesion around 10. Power dropped from 224 to 33. Some small part of the power loss was due to losing 92 men in the skirmish with the cavalry regiment but not much.

Considering the slow recovery rate, it is going to be three or four or five turns before the division is back to full cohesion. This short, slow march has severely damaged a division leaving it too weak to even attack the single CSA militia regiment barricaded in the town.

Finally, I don't think the division can even return the two regions back to its base before it starves considering the slow movement of low cohesion units.

These results seem really extreme. A fully supplied, full cohesion division should be able to march 40-60 miles in 30 days without losing 1/3 of its strength and most of its cohesion even in rainy weather. Although even worse, it is unbalancing the scenario in the west.

I don't see this problem with units moving along rails and halting in towns. The problem is in the west where movement by the Union is often by physically marching. Mud is a real killer.

My opponent mentioned the problems he was having in the west after we halted the game in 1862. I looked at his divisions in Mo, Ky, Tn and they were barely skeletons. Now I am now seeing the same problems as the Union. The Union is badly hurt by this rule in the west.

I didn't have the problem playing as the confederate nor is my opponent having the problem as the confederates. I assume because the CSA has a higher base level of cohesion for their units and does far less marching since they are on the defense.

Is anyone else having problems with the realistic attrition rule as the Union (or the confederates) when marching consecutive turns-not while using rail?

And is there a way to turn off realistic attrition once a PBEM game begins? I feel it is unbalancing the scenario. Or should we just start another game?

you have a good point on how annoying it is sending divisions out fully supplied to march only 2 regions away and finding by the end of there march there too damaged to fight. however i would like to bring to your attention a number of facts...

1. in real life if a division was to march 60 miles for lets say 8 hours a day (which they often did) getting up at 6am unpacking camp for an hour or two marching with full equipment only to stop briefly for lunch they would get tired fairly quickly.

2, mud is an armies worst enemy besides cold, mudd slows you down and makes logistics near impossible. even in WW2 German and Romanian armies invading russia by october where finding conditions pretty hard with all the heavy rain and mud it made advanceing very hard indeed

3. in real life your divisions would have surcummed to exhaustion, disease and general fatigue. these arent panzer divisions you know

so if you ask me, the game is kinda realistic in how your men suffer... so give the poor guys a chance when there marching off to fight a battle, they do try hard! haha

[soundoff]

Will altering the attrition make any difference?

Now I know I'm probably a half penny short of a shilling on this one but I have 1.09 loaded and in the options menu, converting from Historical to Standard attrition, according to the tooltip info, only stops attrition losses
for those units that do not move. Or am I misguided?

[Walloc]

As far as im aware No. Unless some thing passed over my head too, historical attrition makes movement attrition much "worse"/realistic too. This is my experience and how i understod it to be in NCP and assuming since engine basicly the same that it so in AACW too.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[soundoff]

Walloc,

In 1.09 ACW the attrition tooltip says something like the following (with apologies for non total accuracy)

Standard Attrition - non moving units will not suffer attrition or desertion

Historical Attrition 1 - Player units will suffer attrition and desertion even if not moving.

Historical Attrition 2- Player and AI units will suffer attrition and desertion even if not moving.

Now thats the gist of it as far as I can make out and there are only the three options to choose from. So.....not that I want to.....but how would I turn attrition 'for movement' off if I wanted to?

[soundoff]

OH, silly me, I should have added that nowhere in the tooltip info does it say that movement attrition is less severe under any option selected. Sorry for the omission

[Clifford]

I'm the one playing Jagger in the PBEM he mentions. I totally agree that you should be abused if you decide to campaign in adverse conditions. The problem I was seeing was that it was causing all of the Union conscripts to be used as replacements rather then new units and the CSA ends up outnumbering the Union. The effect didn't seem to be equivilant for both sides. Basically if I understand how this tread is going you need to do the following:
- Have a supply wagon in every stack to alleviate weather hits.
- Try not to move in poor weather.
- Watch moving into areas not under your MC.
- Utilize rail and river where-ever possible.
- Move one area at a time to give some time to recuperation.
Anything I might have missed would be great to hear.
Also it was mentioned above that 66% of the hits are not lost? Do they come back as replacements? I really didn't see that in my game as the Union, and I was taking some major attritional hits.

[Walloc]

I'm the one playing Jagger in the PBEM he mentions. I totally agree that you should be abused if you decide to campaign in adverse conditions. The problem I was seeing was that it was causing all of the Union conscripts to be used as replacements rather then new units and the CSA ends up outnumbering the Union. The effect didn't seem to be equivilant for both sides.

Since u only lose cohesion moving into provinces where u dont have military control, and attrition cohesion hits is based on lost cohesion. Then the US player which is much more going to advance into enemy territory. He/she will be hit alot hard. Logic dictates that. Read CSA if never advancing could in theory totally avoid these particular hits. While there still is attrition if not.

I guess this could be up for debate. I think these rules was designed and to me work alright using "normal" attrition rules. Whether they get too biased in historic attrition rules could possibly be debated. Historicly both sides suffered attrition marching and while provision is there as i understand for that to happen, it could be that the ratio from marches in non military controlled provinces vs those that are, are too high. I dont think Pocus has gotten much feedback on this since the feature is new and doesnt seem much used.
I've only played the AI with this feature on which doesnt give u a picture of both sides. So i would think reports from PBEMs would be very importand.

Basically if I understand how this tread is going you need to do the following:
- Have a supply wagon in every stack to alleviate weather hits.

Reduce it and cohesion attritional hits by 10% and it all helps so less u really need to move fast yes its an good idea.

- Try not to move in poor weather.

In general yes, and in winter try stay inside strucktures to avoid those harsh weather hits, but yes the cohesion attritional hits is larger in all types of "bad" weather. Naturally avoid moving in that will cause u less attrition, but its always a situasional decision.

- Watch moving into areas not under your MC.

Yes be aware of doing that. U below, ur self come with the IMO best possible solution. If u making a broad general advance. Do 1 province at a time, giving time to rest of the lost cohesion.
U can here spred a corps out possibly, if its fairly safe so u advance each division into a enemy province on a broader front to convert more provinces at once. Remember to gather for battles
There is some "gamey" ways to cut down on ur attriton by cohesion hits.
If u dont advance on a broad front, or even if u do. Use an advance guard of lesser quality troops that is just big enough to convert the military control.
Then move ur main force in after the control has been reverted. Since its now under ur control u dont take any cohesional attrition hits on ur main force. This cuts back overall on the hits.
This doesnt come with out risks. Its essential if using this much that u have the main force so close, read in general 1 province away so that it can possibly assist the advance guard if its attacked.

- Utilize rail and river where-ever possible.

Absolutly. US can afford the RR use it!!!

- Move one area at a time to give some time to recuperation.

In general a good idea, see above.

Anything I might have missed would be great to hear.

If i remember more ill get back to ya.

Also it was mentioned above that 66% of the hits are not lost? Do they come back as replacements? I really didn't see that in my game as the Union, and I was taking some major attritional hits.

[/QUOTE]

They should come back as replacement companies just as if u had drafted and so on. U ofc then have to use that to buy the actual replacement unit.

I would watch for that. Some thing easy to miss if there is a bug in that. Not that im saying there is, just that would be one ppl would really have to look for, to spot.
If u from turn to turn get lets say 60 men in recruitment and u had no battle, but alot of attrition u might in actual numbers get lets say 80 or 100 if its really bad. Those 20 to 40 in this case is the 66% comming back.
In order to check this for a bug i would write down the numbers from turn to turn. What did u have a END of last turn, what u got at START of new. Compare that to number of men u suppose to get, from just the turn to turn recruitment. If its bigger, as i suspect it will be, this is the 66% attritonal hit comming back. Assuming no battles since u get back from those too.


Hope it helps else ask away,

Rasmus

[Jagger]

They should come back as replacement companies just as if u had drafted and so on. U ofc then have to use that to buy the actual replacement unit.

I would watch for that. Some thing easy to miss if there is a bug in that. Not that im saying there is, just that would be one ppl would really have to look for, to spot.
If u from turn to turn get lets say 60 men in recruitment and u had no battle, but alot of attrition u might in actual numbers get lets say 80 or 100 if its really bad. Those 20 to 40 in this case is the 66% comming back.
In order to check this for a bug i would write down the numbers from turn to turn. What did u have a END of last turn, what u got at START of new. Compare that to number of men u suppose to get, from just the turn to turn recruitment. If its bigger, as i suspect it will be, this is the 66% attritonal hit comming back. Assuming no battles since u get back from those too.


Hope it helps else ask away,

Rasmus

I lost most of those 3000 men on one turn. 3000 men is equivalent to 30 conscripts.

I am pretty certain I didn't receive 20 extra conscripts, 2/3, back the next turn. And I watch my conscripts per turn fairly closely. 20 extra conscripts would have been a significant bump from the normal conscript level.

[Walloc]

If u have / get a save of it. i'd send it off to pocus. See what he says. Could be things u or I are missing.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Big Muddy]

I use standard, I moved Sumner one county, before:2250, after:1884, total lost:366, that's still too high for me.

[AndrewKurtz]

you have a good point on how annoying it is sending divisions out fully supplied to march only 2 regions away and finding by the end of there march there too damaged to fight. however i would like to bring to your attention a number of facts...

1. in real life if a division was to march 60 miles for lets say 8 hours a day (which they often did) getting up at 6am unpacking camp for an hour or two marching with full equipment only to stop briefly for lunch they would get tired fairly quickly.

2, mud is an armies worst enemy besides cold, mudd slows you down and makes logistics near impossible. even in WW2 German and Romanian armies invading russia by october where finding conditions pretty hard with all the heavy rain and mud it made advanceing very hard indeed

3. in real life your divisions would have surcummed to exhaustion, disease and general fatigue. these arent panzer divisions you know

so if you ask me, the game is kinda realistic in how your men suffer... so give the poor guys a chance when there marching off to fight a battle, they do try hard! haha

What I think the above misses is that when moving a unit to other regions, the march should not necessarily always be at full speed. In the above, to move 60 miles more slowly would require two four week turns.

Maybe there should be an option that is the opposite of forced march that allows a force to move more slowly but suffer less? For example, I want them to move at 60% speed to reduce attrition. If normal movement would be 8 days, instead I'll arrive near the end of the two weeks?

[lodilefty]

I use standard, I moved Sumner one county, before:2250, after:1884, total lost:366, that's still too high for me.

Terrain? Weather? Was he active? Was there any out of command%? How many days? What kind of troops? [These losses are coded in the models]

[Clovis]

I lost most of those 3000 men on one turn. 3000 men is equivalent to 30 conscripts.

I am pretty certain I didn't receive 20 extra conscripts, 2/3, back the next turn. And I watch my conscripts per turn fairly closely. 20 extra conscripts would have been a significant bump from the normal conscript level.

That's exactly the point: attrition is realistic. what's maybe not is the fact a notable part of stragglers should join again their units after a few days...

And in this sense, I fear the current system, penalizing US replacements would create unhistorical side effects as Union would recover less easily from march than Confederates. What would be needed is a system where a resting force would recover part of its initial men without having to get replacements...

[Ethy]

What I think the above misses is that when moving a unit to other regions, the march should not necessarily always be at full speed. In the above, to move 60 miles more slowly would require two four week turns.

Maybe there should be an option that is the opposite of forced march that allows a force to move more slowly but suffer less? For example, I want them to move at 60% speed to reduce attrition. If normal movement would be 8 days, instead I'll arrive near the end of the two weeks?

i agree with you slightly there. such an option to reduce the speed of your units could be a good way of maintaining units in ways of attrition.

however realistically an army marches on its stomach, marching slower to a target area would then imply more supplies being consumed by your troops and then having more of an affact on your supply wagons as an army needs 3 meals a day so if you where to get an army there in 16 days but more tired would cost you less in supplies than if an army where to march at a lower pace taking 22 days, having a knock on affect on attrition due to lack of supplies... then my friend you may find yourself in a position with all you food gone and a stranded division in a town with little supplies to restock your wagons and the result being the same, a lack of man power.

just my thoughts on the matter

[Jagger]

What I think the above misses is that when moving a unit to other regions, the march should not necessarily always be at full speed. In the above, to move 60 miles more slowly would require two four week turns.

Beyond losing one out of three men that started this two region march (40-60miles), is the time frame required for the march.

An average force can march 20-24 miles a day without much of an effort on flat terrain with Ok roads. So a 40-60 mile march should take 2-3 days.

My troops were on the march for 22 days. Now the march was first in forest/fair and then hills/mud. So a march of 40-60 miles in 22 days with 8 days rest is not a demanding march from any perspective. The distance covered is only 2 to 3 miles a day at this rate. And the march was not in mountains or swamps tramping through a blizzard.

I think the problem lies with the excessive cohesion loss in mud conditions. The high cohesion loss both slows the unit down and increases attrition loss in mud to unrealistic levels.

I could accept excessive cohesion loss in harsh weather such as snow, frozen or blizzards but not mud conditions. Of course, it all depends on what exactly mud conditions represent. Mud conditions are very common all year long except the few months of summer.

[runyan99]

An average force can march 20-24 miles a day without much of an effort on flat terrain with Ok roads. So a 40-60 mile march should take 2-3 days.

I have read that the marches in the Gettysburg campaign were around 20 miles per day, but I hesitate to take that figure as 'normal' for the entire war. I have also read that the army of the Potomac averaged only 6 miles a day in 1862.

Anybody have a handy study on marching speeds, marching distances, straggling, sickness and desertion? We need good historical data before we can decide if attrition is too extreme in the game or not.

[bk6583]

Bear in mind that of the total losses on both sides somewhere in the neighborhood of 600,000, 400,000 were from "attrition", i.e., disease, sickness, desertion, rotten medical care, etc. Nine months of siege at Petersburg had reduced Lee's army to 25,000. WWI was the first war in history where battle deaths outnumbered deaths from "attrition". So ACW attrition should be nasty. If you go stomping about in mud without supply wagons and medical detachments in your corps, you will suffer. If you throw in moving in less civilized regions or regions w/o a rail line or 4 or 5 regions from your nearest depot, you'll really suffer.

[LMUBill]

I have read that the marches in the Gettysburg campaign were around 20 miles per day, but I hesitate to take that figure as 'normal' for the entire war. I have also read that the army of the Potomac averaged only 6 miles a day in 1862.

Anybody have a handy study on marching speeds, marching distances, straggling, sickness and desertion? We need good historical data before we can decide if attrition is too extreme in the game or not.

I know the perfect person to ask (Dr. Earl J. Hess) but I won't be able to get hold of him for a day or two.

[Big Muddy]

Terrain? Weather? Was he active? Was there any out of command%? How many days? What kind of troops? [These losses are coded in the models]

356 loses and I'm complaining , I can live with that. Too bad the toolbar don't show how many lost for both the player and the AI.

Do you know what % the AI loses per turn compared to the player, same, more, or less.

[Pocus]

That's exactly the point: attrition is realistic. what's maybe not is the fact a notable part of stragglers should join again their units after a few days...

And in this sense, I fear the current system, penalizing US replacements would create unhistorical side effects as Union would recover less easily from march than Confederates. What would be needed is a system where a resting force would recover part of its initial men without having to get replacements...

Wow, you are all writting too much for me to follow

yup, Clovis is right, the hits lost should be stored in each elements perhaps. To be done

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[veji1]

To be honest I think the problem here isn't the number of men lost but the Cohesion loss.

When a fresh, rested division of 9000 starts campaigning, it doesn't strike me as abnormal that it should fairly quickly go down to 7500 men or so, but what I find and have always found excessive in this game is the way the cohesion factor is handled.

when a division goes from 75 cohesion to 15, this to me indicates a routed demoralised rabble of a force on the verge of surrender, ie Appomatox or Prussians after Iena, not a force that is a bit worn down by campaigning...

the loss of cohesion due to move should be far slower, If the division had gone from 9000/75 to 8400/69 and 7800/60 in those two turns I would have said brilliant, but from 9000/75 to 6000/15 in two turns without a fight this is ludicrous.

The cohesion parameter is fantastic, plays and should play a central role in the way the game is played, but its changes are way wacky sometimes... A grid should be :

85 and Above : Very efficient and High morale force
70 to 85 : Efficient and good morale force
55 to 70 : Average quality and morale
40 to 55 : Tired/Worn force, mediocre efficiency in battle, likely to rout if attacking a strong force, needs some rest, still able to put up a good fight on defensive conditions.
25 to 40 : Badly shaken force, needs to rest behind the frontline, could not withstand any strong fight
25 and below : This force is a mess, one determined attack and it will desintegrate, not in combat condition at all.

Except for the worse kind of campaign in the Russian winter, movement alone should not be able to drop a force below 40. The process should be slower, forces should drop pretty fast to around 50 and stabilize there somewhat, only campaigning combined with actual battle damage should bring it below 40... except supply problems of course.

[Walloc]

I have read that the marches in the Gettysburg campaign were around 20 miles per day, but I hesitate to take that figure as 'normal' for the entire war. I have also read that the army of the Potomac averaged only 6 miles a day in 1862.

Anybody have a handy study on marching speeds, marching distances, straggling, sickness and desertion? We need good historical data before we can decide if attrition is too extreme in the game or not.

I know the perfect person to ask (Dr. Earl J. Hess) but I won't be able to get hold of him for a day or two.

I would ove to see statistical material on ACW on this and compare to Nappy age. I've done studies in the attritional effects on the different armies in mostly the 1812-14 periode and could come with lots a info on that. Since the technology read human legs hasnt changed much in those 50 year when marches are done by foot and not trains. i cant help think that statistical material would show roughly the same. Ofc I cant be sure, but the evidence that shows around 2/3 of overall casulties in ACW was attritional based. So at leased overall the numbers seems comparible.

Kind regards,

Rasmus