All Quiet On The Eastern Front

[Evren]

It all starts with Jagger's sentence: "I have never been happy with the static game in the east which is basically the norm."

I've never been happy with the static game in the eastern theater either. I've never tried to take the initiative and attack the enemy in the east as the Union (but had to develop and execute other plans in order to compensate this). I always send the old wolves to less important places, fight the real war in the west, and send the potential commanders to the east as soon as they promote, or just sit in the entrenchments and wait for better commanders' arrivals. And i find this rather unrealistic and ahistorical. Most of the important battles were fought on the eastern front, no matter how bad the Union army commanders were. And at least half of the battles started as Union advances, and many of them were fought before 1863, with the worst Union commanders (of the game).

According to me, low strategic ratings of specific commanders and leader activation settings based on the strategical ratings represents the history very well. There's one problem though, we know who will be active or inactive during a 15 day period, so who will carry out the orders and who will not, and we also know the precise number of days to move to a region and the leader stats, so the player normally acts considering all these, causing ahistorical choices and results. As a player, if i have a chance, i will never take offensive actions in Virginia with McClellan as the army commander.
This observation is based on the PBEM games i've played so far. When playing against Athena, you see more battles on the eastern front, but mainly Athena has the initiative and she plays aggressive (even reckless), thus causing her to lose most of the time. So, the following suggestions are for PBEM games, rather than the vanilla version, since it can worsen the situation of Athena.

These are my suggestions to improve the situation:

- Creating more events for the Union player, like the one in the vanilla version "Move into Virginia or lose 10 NM points". It wasn't only in the start of the war that forced Union troops to seek to end the war immediately, but during the four years, especially with an intervening and pushing Lincoln as the President. So it can force the players to make quick and bad decisions, since VP and NM points are so important in the game.

- I like the recent changes in Runyan's Leader Mod, demoting generals like McDowell, Banks and Butler to 2*, which forces the players to use McClellan as the first choice. But i think more restrictive actions should be taken. As done in choosing Army Commanders, maybe seniority should effect the choice of corps commanders also, so players have to use 3*** generals as corps commanders before the 2** generals, and removing them should have a political hit. I think this one is hard to do, since killing and losing units (not the number of troops) have the biggest impact on seniority, and i think it was so much easier to be promoted to a higher rank, especially in the Union army, only with winning minor skirmishes, without destroying units. So it can make removing those incapable generals really hard to remove, also can lead to the same game exploit with the Army Hq (sending them away without any troops, so they will just stay there doing nothing, waiting for a better commander to take the command). But limited number of corps of 3*** generals with low strategic ratings can force the player to use them.

- Increasing the VP of the cities in the east, and maybe turning more cities (or regions) into objectives. So the Missisippi theatre will have a strategical role, such as dividing the south into two, but the successes in the eastern theatre will have bigger impacts.

I'm not a modder (yet ), because i'm relatively new to this game compared to others, and i've been busy with playing it rather than diving into the world of the game coding leure: . So i'm not saying all those can be coded, and please don't tell me to "go and code it yourself if you can" . Any suggestion, opinion and criticism is welcome.

PS: The original post was written as a response to Jagger's posts under the PBEM Mod thread: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=7599&page=2

[Coffee Sergeant]

In 2 out of the 4 PBEM's I've played, the Union has taken the offensive in the East in 1861 and enjoyed at least some success.

[Banks6060]

The only thing I would suggest is some potential modification in the promotion structure.

I have been doing some reading on some of the early war developments in each army's officer Corps.

For Instance...McClellan was promoted simply because he had a lot of political friends in Ohio who lobbied for him.

Magruder and D.H. Hill won promotions for their relatively minor success in the battle of Big Bethal in early July of 1861. In total there were mere hundreds of casualties in that fight...as opposed to the thousands which are seemingly required to warrant a promotion in AACW.

I don't know if some events could trigger automatic promotions somehow...possibly using political standing...especially for Northern generals. For instance Grant is passed up by a more politically prominent J.K. Mansfield or something.

I just believe the promotion structure has yet to achieve a nice balance between playability and rigidity. The bar seems to be set too high. I remember one game I played...where I won several small victories.....I never had a single general come up for promotion the entire time. It was rough.

[tagwyn]

Commisary Banks, I presume: Mac was promoted at a low time in Federal fortunes brought about by his success in W. Va. area. He was the only light shining at that time. IMHO. apy:

[Bertram]

I am by no means an expert on this game, but as far as I understand the command rules consider this:

With the leader mod the army commanders strategic rating is 2. That means a 66% chance of a -1 modifier to the corps beneath him, and a 33% of a 0 modifier. The Corps commanders have (well into 63) a 0 or 1 strategic rating. The 0 ratings will never be activated, the 1 ratings have a one in six chance when the 0 modifier is in play, so a 1/18 chance, or about 5% chance of being activated. (the chance of two corps being activated at once is about 1/360, or one turn each 3 games).
A stack under an inactive leader suffers a % disadvantage equal to the enemy presence in the entered region, with a maximum of 35%. If the Union attacks in the east, it will have thus a 35% negative modefier.
The Union troops will have a +2 modifier for the attack at best. The confederates have usually a +5 modifier at defence. 3 points difference leads to 15% difference in troop strenght modifiers.
So, the Union has to bring twice as much troops to have equal strenght. Now it is stated somewhere that at the attack you need a 3-1 advantage to entrenched troops. That means the union needs a 6-1 advantage in troop strenght, considering the penalties.
That means the Union has to bring 6 divisions, if the Confederates have one division dug in.
But the Union has (usually) a maximum of 16 CP for a stack. That means another 35% penalty due to not enough CP (24 needed for the 6 divisions).
Makes the number of divisions needed on the Union side nine, to dislodge a single confederate (dug in) division.
And that is not counting the better troop quality on the Confederate side, not counting the special abilities of the Confederate officers, and not counting the fact that the Union has to attack acros the river (and forget marching to the guns, with the strat ratings of the commandes in the East the Union troops just wont do that).

With odds like that, you really cant expect a Union attack at all.

[Banks6060]

Commisary Banks, I presume: Mac was promoted at a low time in Federal fortunes brought about by his success in W. Va. area. He was the only light shining at that time. IMHO. apy:

Indeed, however I was referring to his promotion to General in the Regular Army before his campaign against Garnett in the West Virginia mountains.

Technicality of course. You understand my point though I assume...it just seems like it takes a miracle, especially for the north, to get leaders promoted. I suppose I should do a better job of putting them in the right place at the right time....like "Little Mac" was in WV.

[Evren]

I am by no means an expert on this game, but as far as I understand the command rules consider this:

With the leader mod the army commanders strategic rating is 2. That means a 66% chance of a -1 modifier to the corps beneath him, and a 33% of a 0 modifier. The Corps commanders have (well into 63) a 0 or 1 strategic rating. The 0 ratings will never be activated, the 1 ratings have a one in six chance when the 0 modifier is in play, so a 1/18 chance, or about 5% chance of being activated. (the chance of two corps being activated at once is about 1/360, or one turn each 3 games).
A stack under an inactive leader suffers a % disadvantage equal to the enemy presence in the entered region, with a maximum of 35%. If the Union attacks in the east, it will have thus a 35% negative modefier.
The Union troops will have a +2 modifier for the attack at best. The confederates have usually a +5 modifier at defence. 3 points difference leads to 15% difference in troop strenght modifiers.
So, the Union has to bring twice as much troops to have equal strenght. Now it is stated somewhere that at the attack you need a 3-1 advantage to entrenched troops. That means the union needs a 6-1 advantage in troop strenght, considering the penalties.
That means the Union has to bring 6 divisions, if the Confederates have one division dug in.
But the Union has (usually) a maximum of 16 CP for a stack. That means another 35% penalty due to not enough CP (24 needed for the 6 divisions).
Makes the number of divisions needed on the Union side nine, to dislodge a single confederate (dug in) division.
And that is not counting the better troop quality on the Confederate side, not counting the special abilities of the Confederate officers, and not counting the fact that the Union has to attack acros the river (and forget marching to the guns, with the strat ratings of the commandes in the East the Union troops just wont do that).

With odds like that, you really cant expect a Union attack at all.

Oh, my good old friend Bertram apy: . Your post is a little bit out of the topic, but i'm gonna answer your desperate call for crushing me .

First of all, it is true that most of your army commanders have a strategic rating of 2 (not McClellan though, he is number one ). So 66% of the time they will pass a -1 to the corps commanders, and 33% of the time they won't pass anything, although they can pass a -2 sometimes, but it is a slight chance. But if you check your corps commanders again, most of them have a minimum strategic rating of 2 (except some), nearly 2/3 of the time they will have a strategic rating of 1, and nearly 1/3 of the time they will have a strategic rating of 2, and every point means 1/6 chance they'll be active. And once they are active, they have a better chance, so on. So the chance of two corps being active in the same turn is much higher than 1/360 (if they both have one, you still have nearly 1/36 chance, and don't forget that you can have more than two corps). And inactivity doesn't necessarily mean a 35% penalty, but more like a stall in the offensive. The leader won't be able to attack, but still they can retreat and defend themselves. So you don't need to bring 6 divisions to defeat 1 division, if your commander is inactive, you won't be able to attack anyway. And if they are active, you can beat them with two divisions (even one, all depends, you have to know your strong and weak points).

Actually my concern has nothing to do with the calculations above, but the players' unwillingness to start an offensive considering all these, which causes ahistorical results. The Union attacked with those commanders anyway, successfull or not. The main concern was not their leaders' activation ratings, but to defeat the South as soon as possible.

[Coffee Sergeant]

I am by no means an expert on this game, but as far as I understand the command rules consider this:

With the leader mod the army commanders strategic rating is 2. That means a 66% chance of a -1 modifier to the corps beneath him, and a 33% of a 0 modifier. The Corps commanders have (well into 63) a 0 or 1 strategic rating. The 0 ratings will never be activated, the 1 ratings have a one in six chance when the 0 modifier is in play, so a 1/18 chance, or about 5% chance of being activated. (the chance of two corps being activated at once is about 1/360, or one turn each 3 games).
A stack under an inactive leader suffers a % disadvantage equal to the enemy presence in the entered region, with a maximum of 35%. If the Union attacks in the east, it will have thus a 35% negative modefier.
The Union troops will have a +2 modifier for the attack at best. The confederates have usually a +5 modifier at defence. 3 points difference leads to 15% difference in troop strenght modifiers.
So, the Union has to bring twice as much troops to have equal strenght. Now it is stated somewhere that at the attack you need a 3-1 advantage to entrenched troops. That means the union needs a 6-1 advantage in troop strenght, considering the penalties.
That means the Union has to bring 6 divisions, if the Confederates have one division dug in.
But the Union has (usually) a maximum of 16 CP for a stack. That means another 35% penalty due to not enough CP (24 needed for the 6 divisions).
Makes the number of divisions needed on the Union side nine, to dislodge a single confederate (dug in) division.
And that is not counting the better troop quality on the Confederate side, not counting the special abilities of the Confederate officers, and not counting the fact that the Union has to attack acros the river (and forget marching to the guns, with the strat ratings of the commandes in the East the Union troops just wont do that).

With odds like that, you really cant expect a Union attack at all.

The Union has the advantage of choosing the point of attack, and the CSA has a large border to defend, and can't be everywhere at once.

You'll have to learn the hard way to never attack across the river, ever, unless you have those overwhelming odds. Or if the enemy is heavily dug in (hint, if the same force has been there for a few turns, don't attack). There are always open areas. In the immortal words of Nathan Bedford Forrest(I think) "Hit 'em where they ain't"

Here's a battle report from a recent PBEM.



My opponent had left Fredericksburg open, which I grabbed with Milroy's corps. That forced Bearegard south, and he left Jackson alone to defend Manassas. Notice I only had a 2-1 advantage in manpower, It was a 'defeat', and I lost some units and morale. However, Jackson's corps retreated the next day.