berto wrote:Aren't you implying therefore that we can forget about emulating historical invasions like the Gettysburg Campaign, the 1862 Maryland Campaign, Bragg's 1862 Kentucky Campaign, etc., because any step along the way one or more of the subordinate commands might become inactive?
Are we to suppose that AACW is the true historical standard, that the Real Game was just, one after another, a series of improbable outliers?
Are the activation rules sorta iffy, sure. Usually u started a campaign and "was" activated for that periode and not the "willy-nilly" on and off as it now. Tho there is a +1 if activated last turn to try help get that in the engine. Thats another discussion tho.
U in another post try find the extrem examples of long marches. If looking at what was the extrem in history, u gota equally have those extrem happen in game too else it makes no point.
U can in 5 mins find examples of the other extrem where attrition is much higher and march speed is lot slower than what is possible in game. From where u could argue that the engine is way to fast and attrition way to low.
Depence on what u look at as examples.
No engine will ever recreate history, u gota to some extend get some sorta median.
If u choose to compare the more exceptional cases u gota give the engine the benefit of having exceptional rolls.
Did u in any of ur tests use forced marches?
Could Little mac have marched into Richmond during the peninsual campaign if he had "rolled 1s on all his activation rolls".
If it has started raining 3 days into Lee's march through the valley in the '63 invasion would the campaign have been altered?
What I left out of my Gettysburg report is that, whenever it wasn't fair weather all the way, I aborted the test. Only about 1 in 4 tests presented just the "right" weather conditions. (I also aborted my 1862 Kentucky tests if mud occurred.)
i've before critized the weather matrix. By doing purely from turn to turn % rolls u can get weather that is willy nilly too.
Again another discussion. I think its fitting that in order to get the best possible test did it until u got the "right" weather.
In other words, I'm looking to recreate the historical results under the best possible conditions, but it seems I can't.
Results: Lee and Longstreet are able to reach Culpeper in 32 days, with little or no cohesion loss, and zero attrition. In line with historical performance, so far, so good.
Seems u could?
U even got 0 attrition. Thats not in line with history so not very historical, but in opposite direction.
Did u use forced marches?
i think u could easily argue that the faster marches are exactly represented by forced marches, so u might even have done it faster than historical.
But A.P. Hill is taking 47 days to reach Culpeper. His cohesion is down by almost half. Ewell, beginning at Cumberland, PA, eight days east of Lee & co.'s starting region at Franklin, PA, is taking 55 days to reach Culpeper. His forces are also nearing 50% cohesion.
Was under favorble weather conditions, but wasnt favorble activation wise. Was it favorble forced march wise?
50% cohesion sounds about right to me. I dont think the army returning from Gettysburg wasnt in particular splendit condition. It certainly used a bit of rest and refit.
If I/we can't recreate so many Real Game events even after repeated retries and under the most favorable conditions, does that not suggest that something is flawed somewhere?
Could very well be. Im not saying things arent in need of change, but u never mention if u use forced marches removing 1 of the factors that could help explain the historical longer marches. If and underling IF u never use forced marches the in engine factor to recreate historical fast marches i dont think its final profe.
2nd in the case of Gettysburg it seems to me are u able to recreate it, if the favorable conditions occur and not using forced marches.
Kind regards,
Rasmus
)
)
