Bloody Battle, is it correct?

[Spruce]

nice thread. Is it possible to have a sticky file to the moddable combat file and their effects of modding parameterS.

A few months ago when I had more time I did some nice modding with those parameters that gave me more satisfying results with "big scale bloody battles".

some of the moddable parameters really helped me to enjoy the game even more. Altough I've forgotten as it has been too long and other occupations have run my life the last months.

[Norse]

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.

Yes, there were such battles. The battle of Fort Donelson is one.

Grant commanded a force of about 25k yankees, with a naval force in support.

The Confederates had a really good position at Fort Donelson. They held the high ground, overlooking the river. Layers of trenches all around, with rifle pits, prepared positions for artillery (Columbiads etc.), and a little village in the middle. No reason they (approx 20k) wouldn't hold out for ages there, possibly even defeating the incoming Yanks, given the odds.

Grant came, and sent in the ironclads first, which got totally hammered by the Confederate artillery - the federal navy couldn't get a single decent shot in at the rebels in their positions.

The infantery next, but all attacks got repulsed.

However, the Confederate leadership was messed up. Their actions can best be described as running around in circles, arms waving and bumping into each other.

4 days later and the whole shebang surrendered. (But, some Confederates escaped, such as Nathan Bedford Forest, who was totally disgusted).

If this had been in game, it would have showed the entire Confederate force as casaulties, which need to be read in this way: "these units have lost all their strategical military value and are removed from the game". The Yanks would have lost just some red men in attrition, no units lost.

And all that after just four days of fighting! SMASH!!!

Can you imagine how frustrated the Confederate commander for the western district felt at the time? Your brother may have felt that it's "unfair" or "unnatural" to have his entrenced force disintegrated like that, but hell, tell me the Fort Donelson battle wasn't a lot worse?

It's not impossible that battles turn out in ways that just make you go all leure:

Fort Donelson's prepared defences WAS a trap in this battle, even when these defences were really good. The Confederates found themselves defending a good spot, but had no way out. They did try to leave but they couldn't do it. Defences sound good, but there's a real danger in digging yourself a trap.

You should google this battle, it's really an interesting read of how awry things can go.

[soundoff]

Yes, there were such battles. The battle of Fort Donelson is one.


Fort Donelson's prepared defences WAS a trap in this battle, even when these defences were really good. The Confederates found themselves defending a good spot, but had no way out. They did try to leave but they couldn't do it. Defences sound good, but there's a real danger in digging yourself a trap.

I've been following this thread with interest but Norse I think its quite wrong to extrapolate from Fort Donelson that having 'prepared defences WAS a trap'. It was'nt the prepared defences that was the problem it was that there was no line of retreat for the defenders. With prepared positions outside of cities/fortifications its usual for the defending force to have an avenue of escape.

[Fern]

After taking Fort Henry I would consider in game terms that Fort Donelson defenders (and survivors of the first battle outside the fort region) were entrenched inside the fort. It means that if the deffender was attacked by Grant it was forced to win the combat or face total annihilation for lack of retreat path.

In Vicksburg a whole CSA army was also destroyed, but it was a siege/city assault too. Pemberton's army was trapped inside the city, so he was forced to win or face total annihilation

We are speaking here about battles in open ground where both armies can easily retreat to nearby regions.

[mikee64]

I just posted some pretty casualty heavy results here: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=8999

Thoughts on that one?

[Norse]

I've been following this thread with interest but Norse I think its quite wrong to extrapolate from Fort Donelson that having 'prepared defences WAS a trap'. It was'nt the prepared defences that was the problem it was that there was no line of retreat for the defenders. With prepared positions outside of cities/fortifications its usual for the defending force to have an avenue of escape.

You have to quote me right, otherwise you lose the meaning.

I don't say that prepared defences are a trap. I said that at Donelson they were. When making defences, you have to be careful, so you're not just digging yourself a well defended trap from which you cannot easily escape.

As far as the battle of Donelson being inside or outside in-game terms, this can be discussed.

First, consider where the main fighting took place, by the Confederates attacking the Federals outside the defences, or the Federals assaulting the defences, or other?

Secondly, the manual states that both the massive defences around Vicksburg and Washington D.C. are level 7 entrenchments, NOT forts. "Note: The highest entrenchment levels represent field fortifications, like the positions around Washington and Vicksburg. They are still trenches, not structures." Nontheless, this being a game, you need to represent Donelson one way or the other.

In big battles, where all hell break loose, everything can and will break down. Communication will fly out the window, subordinates will have to follow their original orders (defend here / attack there / don't move etc), or make their own individual judgement, which may get them removed from command later on. Level 7 entrenchments are far from being "in the open", with units jogging back and forth to engage each other. Most defenders will try to stay and defend, unless ordered otherwise. And this will not be a perfectly orchestrated effort all along the line at all times. Half the troops don't have proper command (groups of soldiers will find themselves without even a sergeant to look to) and most can't communicate with others for extended periods of time during the battle. (Fern, your brothers Confederate force didn't have adequate command.) Defences of this magnitude mean that, even though it gets bloody, chaotic and messy, some unit cohesion will remain, and surviving defenders are likely to hold on to the defences. If they're expected to do anything else, then they need to be told so, before all hell break loose and everything break down. Generals have a really hard time keeping overview of the entire situation when it gets big like this.

IMO, this wargame is a pretty good abstraction of the mechanisms of war, where you indeed have battles where the outcome is messier and crazier than what you thought they would be. Frustrating, yes, but that's the way it is. It should be this way some of the time, as that's how it is in real wars.

[aryaman]

I am not sure if you are saying they would carry it or if you are saying they wouldn't...

But if you have not spent any time with a 50+Lb ruck on your back, you always mind it.

Sorry for my poor expression, I meant they wouldn´t think about carrying 25Kgs in a rout, the individual equipment would be lost and even if the soldier came back to the ranks later he would need new equipment

[Clovis]

Yes, and in every case, whether one, two, or three days, the entire-battle, multi-day losses never exceeded 27%, for Gettysburg, the bloodiest among the ones you cited. At the Wilderness, Federal losses were 18% for the entire three-day battle, or "only" (in AACW terms) about 6% per day of battle.

In AACW, not too unsually, I am seeing single-day losses equalling the losses for two- and three-day historical battles, but after the first-day 20% losses (when the historical armies would almost always call it quits)--the AACW armies continue to fight, sometimes for days on end!

AACW puts too much emphasis on high cohesion level, so units will fight several times before routing. Lowering the cohesion level is one of the key to get more realistic loss levels.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Clovis]

In other words have battles cause more cohesion loss between battles?

The higher the cohesion level the lesser the chance to rout. The unit will stand up and fight longer, resulting in more hits taken and given.

Lowering cohesion levels shorten battles, peculiarly for unexperienced units. Most of the 1861 battles in my mod result in losses between 0 to 10 percent. With experience gains, battles become bloodier in the next years as units stay longer on field.

Here and there, I get higher results for whatever reasons I've yet to understand but never such a unhistorical bloodbath, with large number of destroyed regiment. Even lossided battles result rarely in the destruction of all units of a side.

I lowered too the cbtHitCoef to 105 in the Combat setting file. I wanted both reflect most fire volleys were made at very close range ( even if the theorical range of rifled arms was longer) and lower the losses caused by artillery.

Last, I've raised the value of cohesion losses inflicted by most units.

Until now, I'm very pleased with these modifications; bloodbaths are over. Even all-out attacks don't kill an army ( the battle resumes often some days after but losses remain reasonable) and losses are rather balanced between the winner and the loser). The defeated side often retreats and the winner army has too few cohesion points remaining to keep the initiative.

[berto]

In other words have battles cause more cohesion loss between battles?

From the AACW manual:

[Low cohesion represents] poor morale, desertions and stragglers, exhaustion, disorganization [my emphasis], inadequate training, or any other debilitating factor.

In that sense, yes, cohesion loss could accurately model why historical commanders typically disengaged when casualties reached the 20-30% range. At that point, commanders became very worried about their forces breaking.

I would suggest another factor, which maybe should be added to the calculations about persistence in doing battle: supply. In most multi-day engagements, weren't forces exhausting their ammunition after two days, three days at most, of hard fighting? Putting it another way, armies typically only had enough ammunition on hand to inflict 20-30% casualties on their opponents. They couldn't do more than that, because by that point, they'd already shot their load.

[berto]

... and losses are rather balanced between the winner and the loser...

Excellent. Fredericksburg and the like were exceptions. In most of the historical battles, for both sides, casualty rates were not widely different.

[Spruce]

nice thread. Is it possible to have a sticky file to the moddable combat file and their effects of modding parameterS.

A few months ago when I had more time I did some nice modding with those parameters that gave me more satisfying results with "big scale bloody battles".

some of the moddable parameters really helped me to enjoy the game even more. Altough I've forgotten as it has been too long and other occupations have run my life the last months.

hello I have to bump myself - is there a link or a sticky to get the details. A few months ago I was pretty good at this - but now I've been out too long.

[Bertram]

I just got to add a strange battleresult here myself.

I was Union, and I assaulted Manassas with 3 corps (yes, they finally activated).

First I got the msesages:
Corps a is committed against the enemy
Corps b is committed against the enemy
Corps c is commited against the enemy.

The enemy succeeded in retreating from the battle, suffering xx hits (large number, 60 I think).

Then the battles: I got 3 battle resolution "circles". I got 3 times: Union defeat.

After the turn resolution I looked up the numbers:
We started with 110.000 Union troops, 70.000 CSA troops.
Losses were 45.000 Union, 30.000 CSA.
I was left in posession of Manassas.

Not bad really, but:
I lost 6 NM, for the 3 battles lost.
ALL my casualties came from one Corps. The 3 divisions in the Corps were TOTALY wiped out, with exception of the artillery in the divisions. Now this is really strange. Those divisions attacked a retreating enemy, till they were wiped out to the man. I do have some trouble envisioning this....

[soundoff]

AACW puts too much emphasis on high cohesion level, so units will fight several times before routing. Lowering the cohesion level is one of the key to get more realistic loss levels.

Then should'nt this be the way to go? Or are players happy with unrealistic casualty rates.

Mind you I do see a potential problem. Given the amount of manpower in the game, unless you bleed troops somewhere there is a real danger of unrealistic numbers on both sides but that then links in to other threads on drafts.

[Pocus]

hello I have to bump myself - is there a link or a sticky to get the details. A few months ago I was pretty good at this - but now I've been out too long.

Modding forums in general and the wiki in particular. The point is that the wiki should be updated by you the modders, so that we don't rehash the same answers, always

[James D Burns]

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

I don’t believe the elements we see listed as destroyed on screen include those that were captured. If they do there should be a way to distinguish between them. Also read your history, there were not that many regiments totally destroyed or captured during the war. Far less than the game generates.

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.

Captured troops are handled separately from combat casualties. They are listed in the two boxes on the lower left and lower right of the combat screen, so those units getting destroyed are destroyed from fire combats. I also don’t think total casualties listed include captured men. They are in addition to the casualties displayed.

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

I meant as a modifier to an attempted retreat. In other words if an opponent is trying to avoid battle, the more you outnumber him the harder it is for him to get away, so he’s forced to fight.

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

Again, read your history. 20% casualties taken in one day were HUGE and not a very common occurrence at all.

A good example is Heth’s Division at Gettysburg. It suffered about 1,500 casualties out of approximately 7,000 men on the first day (about 21%). The shock of that loss meant the division was out of action for most of the rest of the battle as it tried to recover from the devastating losses on day one. Basically the division was spent, a few smaller units engaged on day three I think, but for the most part the division was done fighting.

Now I’m sure there are plenty of examples of units that lost more than 20% of their force in one day, but my point is, a 20% loss was a devastating loss that shocked and stunned the surviving troops, and not something that was easily recovered from.

Jim

[Clovis]

Then should'nt this be the way to go? Or are players happy with unrealistic casualty rates.

Mind you I do see a potential problem. Given the amount of manpower in the game, unless you bleed troops somewhere there is a real danger of unrealistic numbers on both sides but that then links in to other threads on drafts.

Introduction of new attrition model has raised recently losses in manpower.

then I've added some events for Union side for the 1864 end of the three year period. I plan to add if necessary, some events for CSA simulating desertion in the last years if the NM is too low.

[Spruce]

Modding forums in general and the wiki in particular. The point is that the wiki should be updated by you the modders, so that we don't rehash the same answers, always

ok, I will re-look at these places. It's just so that my baby was born a few months ago. And now I have the first moments of free time to dedicate to the game.

[aryaman]

I wonder, what about reducing the number of combat rounds per day, would that reduce the casualties and the happening of too bloody battles?

[soundoff]

Introduction of new attrition model has raised recently losses in manpower.

then I've added some events for Union side for the 1864 end of the three year period. I plan to add if necessary, some events for CSA simulating desertion in the last years if the NM is too low.

I'm not totally sure Clovis that the new attrition model on its own will do the trick. For starters you can limit the effects by going into decent winter quarters which in PvP at least is what tends to happen when conditions get harsh.

Similarly from the best info I can get on army sizes (and I accept all info at best is poor) it would seem that in December 62 the Confederate army size was at its maximum and with 'absentees' it was no more than 320,000 strong.

Now I reckon without significant alteration to the number of conscripts I can raise though volunteers and drafts I can hit that number quite easily and pass it in 62 even with the attrition alteration.

The dilemma for me though, playing devils advocate here, is that AGEOD is a game, a very very good one, and I'd hate though making things more historically accurate to turn it into a sanitized history lesson. None the more for that I would like to see more historical battle losses.

Regards

[Clovis]

I'm not totally sure Clovis that the new attrition model on its own will do the trick. For starters you can limit the effects by going into decent winter quarters which in PvP at least is what tends to happen when conditions get harsh.

Similarly from the best info I can get on army sizes (and I accept all info at best is poor) it would seem that in December 62 the Confederate army size was at its maximum and with 'absentees' it was no more than 320,000 strong.

Now I reckon without significant alteration to the number of conscripts I can raise though volunteers and drafts I can hit that number quite easily and pass it in 62 even with the attrition alteration.

The dilemma for me though, playing devils advocate here, is that AGEOD is a game, a very very good one, and I'd hate though making things more historically accurate to turn it into a sanitized history lesson. None the more for that I would like to see more historical battle losses.

Regards

We'll see . Anyway, volunteers and draft results are easily moddable, so adjustments are simply a question of...test and feedback.

[soundoff]

We'll see . Anyway, volunteers and draft results are easily moddable, so adjustments are simply a question of...test and feedback.

In that case Clovis I will willingly bow to your expertise. If it works though..make the mod official

[aryaman]

I was thinking, if battle are less bloody in thesense that lees elements are destroyed, then there will be less NM points lost through battles, that could be a problem, especially in NCP.
IMO the effect of battles should be less destructive (but then the lost of NM should through elements lost should be compensated somehow) but with a deeper effect on cohesion, that in turn should be tougher to regain, knocking out defeated armies for some turns.

[JamesL]

I was thinking, if battle are less bloody in thesense that lees elements are destroyed, then there will be less NM points lost through battles, that could be a problem, especially in NCP.
IMO the effect of battles should be less destructive (but then the lost of NM should through elements lost should be compensated somehow)

Then could it be made possible somehow to loose NM through the causulties rather than the destroyed elements? In any war its the causulties that hit the home front directly as each casulty is a personal tradedy to the family & community they came from. Even in a battle won your own casulties should still count against you (well maybe to a lesser degree than in a battle lost).

[berto]

Then could it be made possible somehow to loose NM through the causulties rather than the destroyed elements? In any war its the causulties that hit the home front directly as each casulty is a personal tradedy to the family & community they came from. Even in a battle won your own casulties should still count against you (well maybe to a lesser degree than in a battle lost).

Agreed. You read about this or that regiment that claims the "distinction" of having suffered the greatest single-battle or single-day losses of any unit in the War, but in no case were those units or any other units entirely wiped out. AFAIK, virtually all units fought on (or could have done so), even if some of them were reduced to just 10% of their original muster.

[aryaman]

As a temporary expedient, reducing the number of combat rounds from 6 to 4 seems to wrok for NCP, battles are less bloody, but that could affect game balance, as I said before, as units are not that easily eliminated, and NM points are not lost.

[Clovis]

As a temporary expedient, reducing the number of combat rounds from 6 to 4 seems to wrok for NCP, battles are less bloody, but that could affect game balance, as I said before, as units are not that easily eliminated, and NM points are not lost.

NM:in current state eliminating an enemy force can be reached by putting a larger and better organized forces.

In the real Civil War, elimination came from surrender after encirclment: donelson, Vicksburg, Appomatox and seizure of key cities ( Richmond, Atlanta).

I consider the current system to be flawed by allowing too easy way to eliminate enemy forces and so modifying NM. One of the reasons explaining why games against AI are shorter than the real thing.


Reducing number of rounds: I considered it but experience made by other in AACW weren't succesful but I don't remember why.

[Lonster]

I think this had been suggested by others already.....but before everyone treats this as the norm.....do you still have the turn file for this battle? If so, then rerun the turn 3-4 times and see if you get similar results, or will they be able to retreat as your brother had hoped. Seems like a good way to answer some of the questions.

Have others rerun "strange results" battles to see if they came up with similar results? What was the results. I am sure many of the real leaders were certain that something was wrong with the "game engine" to produce some of the results of their battles. (not that the AACW game engine couldn't be possibly improved)

[Coregonas]

I believe IMHO Defense power is EXTREMELY low. Lots of players say not. BUT I am absolutely sure it is.

A normal damage ratio according to my logics (historian experts can say better than me) could be something like: In a 2-1 attack versus a somewhat entrenched defender, loses should be in the 1,4 -1 ratio.

In all my games, I ve had nearly NEVER extremely bad results in an attack (both sides, several games), but I ve had a lots of EXTREMELY bad results on defense.

The problems come with the current modifiers/rules in the battle calculations, perhaps it is easy to solve.

I believe the problem is partially caused by these aspects, here are some of my ideas and proposals.

1.- Unactivated DEFENSE generals should have no penalizations at all.

Attacking generals NEVER have a -35% penalty, as no one attacks while UNACTIVATED (perhaps some crazy day.. one does). Im talking mainly on CORP sized battles, as single brigade battles are not a big problem at all.
But defending Generals are, perhaps 1/3rd of the turns on average. This means than these 1/3rd battles are to be a disaster to the defender.

I did read some time ago in a post than DEFENSIVE UNACTIVATED generals get also a -35% MALUS!!! (dont remember... I believe was one of the Philippes)... If this is YES: I am nearly sure that is the main cause of this flaw on the battle system.

Even this being not real (perhaps is not that way), they have lots of MALUS for Marching to the SOUND of GUNS.

These MALUS even are more MALUS as, some penalizations were introduced in a previous patch to avoid a rare situation marching on several battles on a day... a straight cohesion penalty (days of march, not counting a minimum...) for each battle was introduced. I dont know. perhaps was a bad idea?

2.- DAMAGE versus COHESION RATIO is too high.
Seems troops should disengage from battles with a lot less damage, according to reality.

3.- Out of command chain are absolutely cannon fodder versus full corps. Dont know, but single brigade commanders would surely fly 99% of the times once a so big force was avistated.

4.- Once ratio of troops gets a small RATIO 1,2 to 1, combination of those factors goes to total disaster for defense 1 / 3rd of the times.

This never happens on attack, if unactivated, attacker just Wait a turn more.