Bloody Battle, is it correct?

[Fern]

My brother is angry because he lost almost a full army during our grand campaign game. I would ask if those great losses are ok.

The forces:

CSA Army of Mississippi (4-2-1) Level 7 Entrenchment, defensive attitude (blue option), sustained defense (orange option)
Army reserve under AS Johnston (Hardee division, Hindman cavalry division, small Taliaferro inf. division) (About 600 points)
E Johnson Corps (1130 points)
J.Forney Corps (544 points)
Hoke division (479 points)



US Army of Tennessee (U.S. Grant):
Attack Force:
1. Thomas BIG corps (Sherman, Hooker, Kearny, Mansfield and WHL Wallace Divisions). No command penalty, Cavalry (Kearny) and Artillery (French) bonus. (2764 points, power listed is 3275) All out attack attitude (red option), sustained attack (orange oprion)
2. Army of Tennessee Reserve under direct command of Grant (Meagher and Prentiss divisions)( about 750 points, power listed is 876) Normal attack attitude(orange option), sustained attack (orange option)

Supporting Force (in Columbus)
Pope Corps (Griffin Division) (158 points)Normal attack attitude(orange option), sustained attack (orange option)
Berry Corps (just one samll brigade and a fatigued zouave regiment guarding Columbus) (24 points) Defensive option


The result has been the anihilation of most of the Mississippi army (CSA) and half of the Tennessee one (US) including Pope's and Berry's forces in just 15 days. There were three battles, but I guess we should consider them the result of 15 days fighting in the area.


I never put my forces (US) in attack-at-all-costs mode (red option in the botton option line) and my brother did not chose to resist at all costs, but normal defense (top blue and botton orange options)

No one expected so large losses for both sides and thrfee battles in a row. Why did not AS Johnston withdraw after he lost his first or second battle?

As a side note most CSA generals involved lost seniority due to huge losses sustained by their commands but AS Johnston have won it! so he's seniority 1now.

The question is: Is it correct?

[bk6583]

[HTML][/HTML]

My brother is angry because he lost almost a full army during our grand campaign game. I would ask if those great losses are ok.

The forces:

CSA Army of Mississippi (4-2-1) Level 7 Entrenchment, defensive attitude (blue option), sustained defense (orange option)
Army reserve under AS Johnston (Hardee division, Hindman cavalry division, small Taliaferro inf. division) (About 600 points)
E Johnson Corps (1130 points)
J.Forney Corps (544 points)
Hoke division (479 points)



US Army of Tennessee (U.S. Grant):
Attack Force:
1. Thomas BIG corps (Sherman, Hooker, Kearny, Mansfield and WHL Wallace Divisions). No command penalty, Cavalry (Kearny) and Artillery (French) bonus. (2764 points, power listed is 3275) All out attack attitude (red option), sustained attack (orange oprion)
2. Army of Tennessee Reserve under direct command of Grant (Meagher and Prentiss divisions)( about 750 points, power listed is 876) Normal attack attitude(orange option), sustained attack (orange option)

Supporting Force (in Columbus)
Pope Corps (Griffin Division) (158 points)Normal attack attitude(orange option), sustained attack (orange option)
Berry Corps (just one samll brigade and a fatigued zouave regiment guarding Columbus) (24 points) Defensive option


The result has been the anihilation of most of the Mississippi army (CSA) and half of the Tennessee one (US) including Pope's and Berry's forces in just 15 days. There were three battles, but I guess we should consider them the result of 15 days fighting in the area.


I never put my forces (US) in attack-at-all-costs mode (red option in the botton option line) and my brother did not chose to resist at all costs, but normal defense (top blue and botton orange options)

No one expected so large losses for both sides and thrfee battles in a row. Why did not AS Johnston withdraw after he lost his first or second battle?

As a side note most CSA generals involved lost seniority due to huge losses sustained by their commands but AS Johnston have won it! so he's seniority 1now.

The question is: Is it correct?

There are so many variables involved in combat resolution in this game that it's very difficult to nail down exactly why results happened the way they did but here's a few observations:

First, at the bottom on the battle screen you'll see a series of icons - tell your brother that that red drum is bad - his force was not fully commanded and suffered a reduction in overall combat strength before the first shot was fired. Against the best general in the game on the Union side that's a situation you certainly don't want your defending forces to be in.

Second, the orange defend normally icon is misleading - it means you intend to stay and fight. Even when you select retreat if engaged the tool tip still says that you may fight one or two rounds before you attempt to withdraw.

Third, withdrawal from combat will generally happen if you have mediocre or lousy troops in your force and/or your losses were fairly larger than your opponent. In your screen shots, even though it said "Union Victory", fact is Grant lost more than your brother did in that first battle, so combat went on. In the second battle, again, the disparity wasn't that great, so combat went on. As Grant, you may have not chosen attack at all costs but I suspect you had normal attack as opposed to conservative or feint and probe. So in essence, both you and your brother selected combat options that almost guaranteed a big, prolonged fight. Couple that with two large forces, one entranched to level 7, the other commanded by a 6-6-4 general, and huge casulties were assured.

Can't address the seniority question as that is one aspect I don't fully understand.

[arsan]

Ouch! What a fight!
Even considering what bk6583 says, i agree that the losses and will to fight of both forces were too great.
I think after the second battle some (or both sides) should have called it quits...
Probably both were extremely lucky (or unlucky) with the the die rolls to retreat or stop fighting.
But its strange... Since some patches ago i very rarely see fights so extreme with the standard ROE setting. And rarely elements are totally destroyed in battle
Regards!

[Pocus]

The last battle, the one where Johnston should have retreated as soon as possible, given the disparity of forces, indicate a retreat attempt from the South. So I believe here that the attempt was made but failed.
The first two, given that Johnston has a level 7 entrenchment, don't surprise me, the will of giving up the position was very low because of that.

It's difficult to explain why Johnston managed to gain some ranks though, without checking in details what happened. Not the biggest problem of the CSA anyway...

So in conclusion I would say that the entrenchment level acted as a trap somehow.

[Fern]

To bk6583:

Please tell me a big ACW battle (ours was 99.000 men against 77.000 men) were the winning side lost more than 50% of the men (from 99.000 down to 48.000) while the losing side was was almost anihilated, losing about 80% of his force (from 77.000 men down to 16.000 men). A.S. Johnston had a good initiative as their corps commanders also did. He was not isolated, but could retreat into several regions and had enought cavalry units to cover any retreat (about 11.000 confederate horses against 13.000 union ones, perhaps less because some horses come from artillery units and the Union side had twice as much guns as the confederate one).

After the first battle I had about 70.000 men against 43.000 confederates, that's almost 2-1 (and 2-1 in guns, 301 to 147, most of my guns are heavies), but AS Johnston decided to fight again.

For the third battle (or third day of the big battle) I had 53.000 men against my brother's 20.000, that's more than 2-1, but Johnston decided to fight again.

It was not an objetive city (it is the one adjacent to Columbus), so there were no reasons to fight to the end and my brother did not want either. He expected a fight (like the first battle) then a retreat, as previously did Beauregard corps (from Johnston's army) in Nashville some turns before, but not three battles in a row which have destroyed his army in the region.

I think the game should take into consideration the percentage of forces lost since the starts of the turn. Three big battles in a row (we could think it was a three-day battle) may destroy almost any army no matter how huge it is.

I know I had better leaders than my brother. That's the reason I put them in that army, but I am not sure it should be the main reason for an anihilation battle like this one. As a rule ACW were not really decisive regarding destruction of opposing armies. Some CSA armies were almost destroyed when the war was almost over (Hood's and Early's one), but they were quite small by the time. AFAIK no big army (50.000+) was ever destroyed in a single battle. Pemberton army doesn't count because it was a siege, so it was an all or nothing action.

[Fern]

The last battle, the one where Johnston should have retreated as soon as possible, given the disparity of forces, indicate a retreat attempt from the South. So I believe here that the attempt was made but failed.

The last battle was a small one. Most losses were caused during the first two battles.

Anyway the event log say (I use the Spanish version):

Estados Confederados de América ha logrado retirarse de la batalla de Gibson, TN el dia 7 la hora 2, sufriendo 0 bajas

(CSA has managed to retreat from Gibson battle on day 7, hour 2, with 0 losses)

The first two, given that Johnston has a level 7 entrenchment, don't surprise me, the will of giving up the position was very low because of thatSo in conclusion I would say that the entrenchment level acted as a trap somehow.

We did not know it. Does it mean that big entrenchment levels may be a trap rather than a help bevause it induces some commanders to fight too much?

We are playing 1.10a with no mods installed. We started the campaign under 1.09e, then patched to 1.10 and finally to 1.10a.

Johnston's units under his direct command were mostly spared from the massacre as were those units under Grant direct command (in his stack). In fact I think the they lost a few hundred men, less than 1000 men in fact. All other units were anihilated or suffered catastrophic losses, so whole corps were destroyed. Pope's one was quite small, but the confederate ones were not. The remaining confederate forces are the men in Johnston stack. He fought until his corps were anihilated (I captured their wagons) then retreated with the remaining forces in his stack.

Some turns ago there had been a similar battle in Nashville (IIRC about 68.000 men against 48,000 confederates) between the Grant/Thomas team (as Summer's corps) and Beauregard. Beauregard was at Entrenchment level 6 or 7, but he retreated after the first battle (I think he lost 13.000 or perhaps 18.000 men, I don't remeber) which was what my brother expect. However that battle was fought with 1.09e

[Banks6060]

If you look at this in a historical perspective I can think of two great examples of conflicts to this grand a scale with these kinds of relative casualty amounts...

One is Stone's River...the Confederate Army of Tennessee was sliced and diced in this battle, it's strength reduced to nearly 20,000 by day 2 of battle. Same for the Union...relative to the numbers engaged....they were hit very hard....but both sides stuck around for several days after the initial engagement. Gettysburg is another example.

Part of me thinks that line infantry in this game may be a little too strong, too early. Smoothbore muskets were still largely a part of most armies even into 1862.

I think your brother just got some really nasty retreat rolls too....and if you'll look at the number of prisoners that were taken and the number of units that routed....I think that played a very large part of the overall casualty count.

You had untis whose cohesion was probably totally shot after the first day.....

Anyway...that's my 2 cents.

[Paul Roberts]

When we see what appear to be inflated "loss" numbers, it's helpful to remember that these are not all KIA. Many of the men reported lost are actually just too wounded to fight again soon. Some will be invalided home, and some of them can be considered to make up the replacements that come back into the unit over time.

Thus there is not a 1:1 correspondence between the losses reported in the game and the losses reported in a historian's account of equivalent actions.

[Fern]

If you look at this in a historical perspective I can think of two great examples of conflicts to this grand a scale with these kinds of relative casualty amounts...

One is Stone's River...the Confederate Army of Tennessee was sliced and diced in this battle, it's strength reduced to nearly 20,000 by day 2 of battle. Same for the Union...relative to the numbers engaged....they were hit very hard....but both sides stuck around for several days after the initial engagement. Gettysburg is another example.

Lee lost perhaps about 40% of his force at Gettysburg while Meade lost about 25%, but Lee was the attacker and fought a three-day battle, so he was prone to suffer heavy losses in face of the more numerous and murderous Union artillery.

I think Bragg had about 34.000 men in Stones River, so if he still had 20,00 men remaining at the end of the battle then he lost about 40% of his force which is a lot of people, but not as much as the 80% casualty rate of my brother's army in a three-day battle

Part of me thinks that line infantry in this game may be a little too strong, too early. Smoothbore muskets were still largely a part of most armies even into 1862.

Maybe units are too effective, or units are prone to fight too much.

In fact my borther lost 29.000 out of 77.000 men in the first battle. That would about 37% of the force which would be a very correct outcome not very different from Gettysburg or Stones River ones. The problem was the subsequent two battles after the first one. I think Johnston should have retreated from the region after the first battle, but he decided to stay.

I think your brother just got some really nasty retreat rolls too....and if you'll look at the number of prisoners that were taken and the number of units that routed....I think that played a very large part of the overall casualty count.

First battle: 6800 prisoners out of 29.000 men lost (btw there was just one unit not fully commandered on the CSA side. Knowing my brother I think it was an independent unit or perhaps Hoke division. All other units seemed to be fully commandered)

Second battle: 4200 prisoners out of 23.00 men lost

Thrid battle (succesful retreat at hour 2): 2.800 out of 4400

You had untis whose cohesion was probably totally shot after the first day.....

More reasons for ending the battle ASAP or not starting a new one.

[Fern]

When we see what appear to be inflated "loss" numbers, it's helpful to remember that these are not all KIA. Many of the men reported lost are actually just too wounded to fight again soon. Some will be invalided home, and some of them can be considered to make up the replacements that come back into the unit over time.

Thus there is not a 1:1 correspondence between the losses reported in the game and the losses reported in a historian's account of equivalent actions.

I already know it, but most losses suffered in that battle acannot be replaced and destroyed regiments from destroyed brigades must be created from scratch again.

I think I got about 70 manpower points for 59.000 men lost that turn (about 8000 men lost in a lost battle in Arkansas and 51.000 men lost in Tennessee). That''s enought for raising 7 regiments (or 7 inf. replacement) or about 7000 men (about 12% of the loses)

[GShock]

When i saw this post this morning i thought exactly what pocus said just a little ago.

A level 7 entrenchment is not a position you would abandon easily if not beaten. If you don't stand your ground there, where can you stand it? Johnston's troops would have been slaughtered given the disparity of forces without that level 7.

Furthenmore Johnston's forces were not set on fight and retreat but on blue+orange.
Fight and retreat probably would have been a better idea in this case as the Union forces were too numerous. In that case, if the attack is failing (and it means u're at your best in the trenches) you will stand and fight, but if the attack is winning, you don't take more losses and are helped in the retreat roll.

Again, the only issue i see is the fact that he gained seniority in such a defeat.

PS when i see such huge battles and losses, i think troops should rout more and die less.

[Banks6060]

When i saw this post this morning i thought exactly what pocus said just a little ago.

A level 7 entrenchment is not a position you would abandon easily if not beaten. If you don't stand your ground there, where can you stand it? Johnston's troops would have been slaughtered given the disparity of forces without that level 7.

Furthenmore Johnston's forces were not set on fight and retreat but on blue+orange.
Fight and retreat probably would have been a better idea in this case as the Union forces were too numerous. In that case, if the attack is failing (and it means u're at your best in the trenches) you will stand and fight, but if the attack is winning, you don't take more losses and are helped in the retreat roll.

Again, the only issue i see is the fact that he gained seniority in such a defeat.

PS when i see such huge battles and losses, i think troops should rout more and die less.

I would second these thoughts.

Certainly there should have been a retreat earlier in the second day of battle I think. Perhaps the entrenchment level did play a part in the "entrapment" though.

[Brochgale]

Given the disparity between the forces - AS Johnston is probably not the best general to have in such a fight. I think JE Johstone would have been better and even there I suspect the result would have been the same with only differnece being heavier Yankee casualties?

[GShock]

I would second these thoughts.

Certainly there should have been a retreat earlier in the second day of battle I think. Perhaps the entrenchment level did play a part in the "entrapment" though.

Pocus' explanation doesn't make a wrinkle. It's perfect and working as intended. It was the player's "mistake" in my opinion. He should have selected blue-blue. By selecting Blue-Orange, he gave more value to holding that trench.

Nothing to add, but again, it's likely that Johnston's leadership prevented the men from routing so my previous statement could be wrong due to the fact that with a big leader troops should be more motivated to fight.

[arsan]

I wasn't aware the level of trenches was even considered by the defending force when they rolled to retreat or not.
If this works like this (can you confirm it, Pocus?) It would be advisable for one to select blue instead of orange defend ROE on heavy entrenchments situations...
But it looks kind of strange...

[StatboyVT]

Part of me thinks that line infantry in this game may be a little too strong, too early.

Bingo. Infantry is way too strong early in the vanilla game. That's why I like to try to play with the Coming Fury mod. Cohesion at the beginning of the game is lower, and there is a weak unit called Volunteer for early in the game. It makes early war casualties much more realistic, instead of losing 8-10K per side in the first battle in Virginia. There's pretty much no way that could have happened. Units in both armies at that time couldn't even move from a line of column to a line of battle properly. They weren't capable of killing each other at that rate.

So yeah, the game is working properly for you Fern, but the casualty rates could use some adjusting, IMO.

[Coregonas]

LUCKY YOU FERN! CAN PLAY WITH YOUR BROTHER EVERY DAY

I understand Fern questions. I did ask some time ago about defensive positions being too much underpowered.

I can not agree at all an attack 100.000 vs 80.000 FULLY trenched can result in a tremendous disaster for the defense. If this is the way it goes, my opinion is that some thing must be done to improve.

Although seems the ratios OFF/DEF are ok to the defender, I believe results are too much helping attack.

If you have the advantage 1,3:1 or more, seems there is nearly no chance you can really be severely defeated. (Unless too suicide) ... But you can have extremely good results. (as the one you have suffered)...

At least, I ve suffered/achieved always this way!

Another explanations:
The lone CSA division did not support at all the army/corps (and/or was not supported)
Not fully commanded
Most troops on divisions were militia, too low on arty or without Sharpshooters.

Ask your brother PLEASE so it can add some ideas to the problem.

[Franciscus]

I wasn't aware the level of trenches was even considered by the defending force when they rolled to retreat or not.
If this works like this (can you confirm it, Pocus?) It would be advisable for one to select blue instead of orange defend ROE on heavy entrenchments situations...
But it looks kind of strange...

Oh, well, I am convinced that 10 years from now we will still be learning new things about this game...

[James D Burns]

As I see it there are two problems with the combat engine and the overly-bloody results it generates. First and foremost is the fact elements can be destroyed outright far too easily. There were probably less than 10 regiments per side that were destroyed outright from battle during the entire war, yet we see this many or more destroyed by the game in almost every large multi-day battle.

Second is weight of numbers appears to be too much of a casualty modifier. Think about it, even if a regiment was facing 2 full divisions, only so many enemy regiments could actually bring fire to bear on the lone regiment. But I think the game allows all elements (up to the terrains frontage limit) to fire on the lone regiment and cause casualties when only perhaps 3 or 4 (at most) regiments should be allowed to actually do the shooting due to the fact 8, 10, or more regiments couldn’t all be shooting at a lone regiment all at the same time.

Weight of numbers should apply more to preventing units from escaping than it should to producing casualties. There should also be an auto-route routine built into combat to allow individual elements to survive total destruction. 20% casualties were a lot in the civil war and elements should automatically rout (and thus be immune to further attack) if they sustain such high losses.

The route should occur before any additional elements scheduled to fire at the blooded element are allowed to fire. In other words it’s a self preservation survival mode which appears not to be in game now, and it seems to be the main reason so many elements die outright in game.

Routed elements of course should be able to then attempt a rally each day, which would allow them to re-enter a multi-day battle and thus ultimately they could suffer more than 20% total losses in big battles. But as soon as 20% losses are again sustained in a single day, they should again then auto-route to save themselves.

Jim

[W.Barksdale]

As I see it there are two problems with the combat engine and the overly-bloody results it generates. First and foremost is the fact elements can be destroyed outright far too easily. There were probably less than 10 regiments per side that were destroyed outright from battle during the entire war, yet we see this many or more destroyed by the game in almost every large multi-day battle.

Many regiments were captured en masse. To use your words; outright destroyed...

Second is weight of numbers appears to be too much of a casualty modifier. Think about it, even if a regiment was facing 2 full divisions, only so many enemy regiments could actually bring fire to bear on the lone regiment. But I think the game allows all elements (up to the terrains frontage limit) to fire on the lone regiment and cause casualties when only perhaps 3 or 4 (at most) regiments should be allowed to actually do the shooting due to the fact 8, 10, or more regiments couldn’t all be shooting at a lone regiment all at the same time.

Once again, keep in mind that casualties that you see are killed, wounded, AND missing\captured. There are frontage rules. With decent commander any two divisions going up against a single regiment could easily envelop them and force them to surrender.

Weight of numbers should apply more to preventing units from escaping than it should to producing casualties.

Preventing units from escaping and capturing them fairly similar. Once a unit can't escape they would surrender. ie become casualties.

There should also be an auto-route routine built into combat to allow individual elements to survive total destruction. 20% casualties were a lot in the civil war and elements should automatically rout (and thus be immune to further attack) if they sustain such high losses.

Rout after 20% casualties? If this were implemented it would not model civil war combat well. I believe the current system is very adequate.

[denisonh]

One thing that concerns me in this "post mortem" discussion of a single example is that there are certain expectations about an "expected outcome".

I firmly beleive that any combat model to be anywhere close to encompassing the vagaries of combat must have a fairly wide range of outcomes. This really means that analysis to evaluate a model must talk about a distribution of a number of outcomes under the same conditions, not just one.

The outcome given may not be realistic as the "expected or mean outcome" but may be so as an "outlying outcome".

I would like to this battle played out and see how often this is the outcome before trying to figure out the specific issues that would need to be addressed.

I beleive that Clovis' mod lowering the cohesion does an excellent job in lowering the lethality of early war combat, but beyond that not sure without a more thorough look on where it could be adjusted to amke it better.

[GShock]

Oh, well, I am convinced that 10 years from now we will still be learning new things about this game...

At that point in time AACW10 will probably be used at West Point Military Academy to train officers and i take bets 10-1.

Do not underestimate the difference in main leaders' factors when judging casualties. Take the Off value of Grant and compare it with the DEF value of Johnston (6-2) and you'll see how despite 7 levels of entrenchment, Johnston lost. Also count the forces on the field...the union HAD to win this battle and, historically, CSA didn't use much of an entrenchment until late in the war.

Now as a general, before a big battle, you must take your risks. These values we mentioned are fixed but all mostly still depends on a die roll. Never forget that, and the best of this game is CHOICE.

I would have been more cautious and selected defend and retreat. If it goes well we stay if not, we fall back. Another bolder general would have chosen hold at all costs and he would have been utterly destroyed...but it's easy for me to say now *after* the die roll!!!!!!

That's the beauty of the game.

I would cast a poll with the lenght of 1 month to see what the players think of Clovis' mod and see if they would like for it to be "vanillized" or keep it optional.

[W.Barksdale]

I beleive that Clovis' mod lowering the cohesion does an excellent job in lowering the lethality of early war combat, but beyond that not sure without a more thorough look on where it could be adjusted to amke it better.

And how do you explain Wilson's Creek? If that wasn't lethal I don't know what is. In 4 hours each side suffered around 1200 casualties. One third the troops involved and more than half the casualties when compared with Manassas. Not to mention that many of the troops were poorly equipped with flintlock muskets.

[Coregonas]

I disagree

I dont know of any battle 1,25 vs 1 (100k vs 80k) in wich the defender lost so much more troops than the attacker.

[W.Barksdale]

I know this is a smaller scale, however, just to give you an example.

Forrest vs. Sturgis at Brice's Crossroads...

[Coregonas]

Yes in small confrontations this did happen. But not in so big ones...

But the battle was a Full Army + FULL entrenched!

[TeMagic]

I think the best lesson learned here is, send A. S. Johnston to the Trans-Mississippi theater of war, instead of Tennessee... I allways do this in my games, having A. S. Johnston in command of the Army of the West, operating in Missouri/Arkansas/Texas/Indian terr. and good 'ol J. E. Johnston in command of the Army of Tennessee. Jackson commands the Shenandoah forces, as a corps under Beauregard (or Lee, when he's availible - Beauregard is then sent to relieve Polk, who assumes command elsewhere, like the defence of New Orleans)

I do think some of CSA stats are errenous... J. E. Johnston should have a higher defence rating (giving Sherman higher casualties in the Atlanta campaign, even though greatly outnumbered) and Beauregard should have a higher strategic rating (He was one of two Generals (the other one being Lee) who correctly understood concentration of force, as seen in the preparations for the battle of Shiloh. Unfortunately Van Dorn didn't arrive on time, and due to the horrid system of Departments, the chain of command was difficult and did contribute to confederate defeat in the Shiloh campaign)


Other than that, I recommend playing at medium delay for combatants, and using the blue+blue on defense, unless defending forts and important cities (Richmond, Norfolk, Petersburg, New Orleans, Mobile, Pensacola, Charleston, Savannah, Vicksburg, Memphis)

When I play, I tend to follow Braxton Bragg's strategic suggestion; Hold the triangle of Defence in Virginia (Richmond-Norfolk-Petersbug, and the railroad south), Jackson as a force to tie up union forces in the Shenandoah, Defend at all costs New Orleans, Mobile and Pensacola. Defend Savannah and Charleston and Wilmington, and give up Florida, Texas, Arkansas, Missouri, and concentrate forces in Tennesee. Also have A. S. Johnston in the Trans-Miss. with an army of app. 20-30 000 men to tie up union forces in Missouri/Arkansas/Texas.

This seems to be working well, the union losses are far greater than mine, and the enemies supply lines are far-stretched, which will give the union player some problems when playing with historical attrition.

[Evren]

My brother is angry because he lost almost a full army during our grand campaign game. I would ask if those great losses are ok.

The forces:

CSA Army of Mississippi (4-2-1) Level 7 Entrenchment, defensive attitude (blue option), sustained defense (orange option)
Army reserve under AS Johnston (Hardee division, Hindman cavalry division, small Taliaferro inf. division) (About 600 points)
E Johnson Corps (1130 points)
J.Forney Corps (544 points)
Hoke division (479 points)



US Army of Tennessee (U.S. Grant):
Attack Force:
1. Thomas BIG corps (Sherman, Hooker, Kearny, Mansfield and WHL Wallace Divisions). No command penalty, Cavalry (Kearny) and Artillery (French) bonus. (2764 points, power listed is 3275) All out attack attitude (red option), sustained attack (orange oprion)
2. Army of Tennessee Reserve under direct command of Grant (Meagher and Prentiss divisions)( about 750 points, power listed is 876) Normal attack attitude(orange option), sustained attack (orange option)

Supporting Force (in Columbus)
Pope Corps (Griffin Division) (158 points)Normal attack attitude(orange option), sustained attack (orange option)
Berry Corps (just one samll brigade and a fatigued zouave regiment guarding Columbus) (24 points) Defensive option


The result has been the anihilation of most of the Mississippi army (CSA) and half of the Tennessee one (US) including Pope's and Berry's forces in just 15 days. There were three battles, but I guess we should consider them the result of 15 days fighting in the area.


I never put my forces (US) in attack-at-all-costs mode (red option in the botton option line) and my brother did not chose to resist at all costs, but normal defense (top blue and botton orange options)

No one expected so large losses for both sides and thrfee battles in a row. Why did not AS Johnston withdraw after he lost his first or second battle?

As a side note most CSA generals involved lost seniority due to huge losses sustained by their commands but AS Johnston have won it! so he's seniority 1now.

The question is: Is it correct?

First of all, the generals named in the attached pics and the names you gave have differences, and i can't exactly figure who commanded who and how many by just looking at the battle screens, so i can only make guesses. If your brother gives exact information about the current status of the forces retreated, or you attach the battle log, i can say more. Also, remember that you both had numerous forces there, and the battle screen doesn't give you the exact information about what happened to every force in detail.

I'm not willing to argue about the combat modelling in ACW, but i can tell you that under the current system, the battle result seems normal (by normal i mean it can happen and it happened before). It seems like the CSA forces were hunted down one by one (which can happen and happened before). Probably AS Johnston was the only one who could retreat without major losses, so that's why he earned seniority points.

If you're willing to reveal the secret so desperately, check the battle log, so you can see what happened there.

[Fern]

Pocus' explanation doesn't make a wrinkle. It's perfect and working as intended. It was the player's "mistake" in my opinion. He should have selected blue-blue. By selecting Blue-Orange, he gave more value to holding that trench.

We should try to make the game better than it already its. I love it indeed, but IMHO blindly worshipping the game as it is right now is not the way to do things. It hads been improved over time, and it will be improved in the future. I am pretty confident at this.

Johnston had NOT the order to defend at all costs (blue-red), but just to fight a battle if the enemy attacked him (blue-orange). There was no purpose to die in the trenches just because they are an effective place to be on the defensive. Do you think a real ACW general under those orders would have resisted repeated enemy attacks until 80% of his army (61.000 men out of 77.000) were killed, wounded or missing leaving the Mississippi region open to the Union invasion? Don't you think any army would have routed much earlier? Did an ACW sizeable army ever resist so much pounding before breaking?

The problem is not the first battle. I think it is OK and as intended. The problem is the SECOND battle. Why did Johnston, who was not ordered to hold at all cost and had already fought a very bloody battle, decide to stay in the trenches and fight another bloody battle after losing 40% of his army in the previous one? Wasn't it better to withdraw to another place?

I guess the game took each battle as a different one without taking into account any previous battle in the same turn and place.

[Fern]

Another explanations:
The lone CSA division did not support at all the army/corps (and/or was not supported)
Not fully commanded

There was just one unit not fully commandered at start. My brother doesn't leave units not fully commandered if he's not forced to do so, specially if they are corps. It seems it was a reinforcing horse art. battery that he missed to order to move inside a corps.

Most troops on divisions were militia,

There was just one regiment with Taliaferro "division" (it was a "paper" unit with just militia regiment in order to avoid disbanding the division). All other units were regular troops. My brother likes buying militia then wait until it trains themselves into line units, but he doesn't send it to divisions.

too low on arty

My brother noticed it after some months ago (in campaign time), so he has made efforts to cover this gap, including printing money to get resources for buying them. In fact I think he made good use of the time I spent reinforcing my armies (I also reinforced them with lots of artillery) in order produce as much as he could. I think he has far more Columbiads and 20 pdr than real CSA armies.

For the first battle he had 21 art. batteries:
3 x 6 pdr
10 x 10 pdr Parrot
4 x Columbiad
2 x 20 pdr Parrot
2 x 12 pdr
+ the army artillery (IIRC 1x12 podr)

He favors Parrots and Columbiads because they have longer range than 12 pdr.

I had 24 batteries:
6 x Rodmans
9 x 20 pdr Parrot
9 x 10 pdr Parrot

I also like big guns

or without Sharpshooters.

He already knows that every division should have a sharpshooter unit. He and I read this forum and looked for some advice when we started our campaign. We both try to build "perfect" divisions with 4 art. batteries, one or two cav. regiments, one sharpshooter and infantry. Sometimes we may miss an artillery battery, but I think we never miss a sharpshooter unit on every division. He has told me that every division had at least 1 sharpshooter units and 4 batteries (Cheatham had three batteries but the corps had one corps one). All divisions (two inf divisions on both corps, three with AS Johnston, one cavalry, one large division and one small division) were "perfect divisions" with 4 batteries (Cheatham had three), 1 or 2 cavalry units, 1 sharpshooter and infantry up to 18 units. Hoke division had an elite brigade and Taliaferro one was just a "paper" division with just 1 militia regiment.

I also try to put an elite brigade on every division, so at least 3 or 4 of my divisions (out of 8) had elite elements. Confederates have fewer elite brigades, so most of his divisions had no elite elements.

Btw my Brother has told me that A.S. Johnston has become a 4-2-2 (he was 4-2-1) and the divisional commader in his stack has gained also 1 defensive point.