Battle result - Need help understanding it

[johnnycai]

Gents,
Just had a crushing defeat at Mobile Al.
My 90,000 men under Rosecrans and Hancock went against Longstreet, and G. Smith with about 72,000men. [ATTACH]3461[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3460[/ATTACH]
The battle raged for 6 days and the battles were all losses for the Union with a net -22NM as a result.
I noticed that Hancock attacked solo on day5 even though Sync move was ordered. On day 6, Rosecrans joins in but I am shown that 62 units(out of 160) were not commanded. Rosecrans Army stack shows 20/17 (15% Penalty) so maybe 10-12 units should be uncommanded in my analysis. The subsequent battles continue to show large amounts of uncommanded units and Hancock's corps ceases to exist by the last battle on day 12. Hancock is involved in all the battles so its not like his corps is uncommanded due to him being wounded/killed.

[ATTACH]3462[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3463[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3464[/ATTACH]
See next post for those pics.

[johnnycai]

Below are the remaining battle reports.

[ATTACH]3466[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3467[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]3468[/ATTACH]
As you can see the uncommanded units increase to 62 and on day11 battle its 125 and then 95. Am quite sure this results in the large disparity in losses.
I guess I want to know why the large uncommanded units and why Hancock would choose to fight to the end. Rosecrans Army stack is intact but has suffered 10-15% casualties (iow-normal result). At the end I have lost 62,000 men to CSA losses of 26,000.
Both stack were on standard offensive ROW, but Hancock had Assault posture vs. standard Offensive for Rosecrans as I thought Longstreet might bug-out due to his supply situation and destroy the depot if I didnt assault it.
But this shouldnt account for anything as Hancock is never victorious and in position to assault the town.

Any insights??

[cobraII]

well what i can tell by that is you attacked a level 800 entrenchment that is probably the major reason why you lost so many men, plus his luck roll was higher i dont know by how much but that also hurt you. In your top picture it shows that you had hancock in the assualt position that would keep him attacking also. The uncommanded units come from the penalty i believe or if you had in stack that are not under a leader either within a brigade, or division

[cobraII]

I also just noticed you attack him in the mud so that probably reduced your coehesion by a good amount. here is a tip the little picture above the units if its a man and a trench the entrenchment level is below 5, if its a gun behind a trench entrenchment level is 5+

[johnnycai]

The 800 entrenchment is a factor in losing the battles but doesnt explain the lack of sync attack or the uncommanded units.
Plus why would Hancock continue to attack and attack??

[cobraII]

the reason is and anyone else correct me if i am wrong in assualt formation it just makes them continue attacking until place is captured.

[johnnycai]

It was Marsh terrain but fair weather. No mud I believe
[ATTACH]3469[/ATTACH]
Plus the assault posture is just offensive plus attack without seiging any town/fort in the regions, The ROE, which was standard for both stacks, govern the aggressiveness of the attack or defence...the battles never got to assaulting the town itself. Rosecrans seemed to behave normally, but not Hancock plus the uncommanded units issue is what gets me.

Pocus? any thoughts here?

[Rafiki]

(...) but doesnt explain (...) the uncommanded units.

Not uncommanded; they are suffering a command penalty. The penalty can be as little as 5% or as much as 35%, depending on the CP status of the stack(s) the oenalized units come from.

the reason is and anyone else correct me if i am wrong in assualt formation it just makes them continue attacking until place is captured.

There is no difference between assault and offensive posture, except that assault will try to capture structures in the region while offensive won't.

ROE's (and some other factors I don't have a full overview of) on the other hand do affect how willing a stack is to retreat.

[cobraII]

It was Marsh terrain but fair weather. No mud I believe
[ATTACH]3469[/ATTACH]
Plus the assault posture is just offensive plus attack without seiging any town/fort in the regions, The ROE, which was standard for both stacks, govern the aggressiveness of the attack or defence...the battles never got to assaulting the town itself. Rosecrans seemed to behave normally, but not Hancock plus the uncommanded units issue is what gets me.

Pocus? any thoughts here?

the area that you were marching from was mud so that has some effect on coehesion i believe again someone who knows better then me correct me if i am wrong

[johnnycai]

Not uncommanded; they are suffering a command penalty. The penalty can be as little as 5% or as much as 35%, depending on the CP status of the stack(s) the oenalized units come from.
There is no difference between assault and offensive posture, except that assault will try to capture structures in the region while offensive won't.

ROE's (and some other factors I don't have a full overview of) on the other hand do affect how willing a stack is to retreat.

Hi Rafiki,
Yes, I agree but the battle results show many uncommanded units...much more than are actually are. Hancock's corp was fully commanded as shown in the pics, plus initial day6 battle. Once Rosecrans shows up, yes, with a 15% malus for his stack due to me stuffing an extra division into his stack, the subsequent attack show many (more than half in battles day10-12) of the troops as not sufficiently commanded.
I didnt have a single reckless or stubborn general as you will see in the battle reports and there were no reports of my army attempting to retreat in any of the battles.
So, my questions are still out there looking for an answer....why the uncommanded units during the battles to such a degree, why the non-sync'd battle/move on day6 and why Hancock fights to the death with a standard ROE??

[Rafiki]

Once Rosecrans shows up, yes, with a 15% malus for his stack due to me stuffing an extra division into his stack, the subsequent attack show many (more than half in battles day10-12) of the troops as not sufficiently commanded.

How many units/elements are in Rosecrans' stack? If he has a 15% command penalty for his stack, each and every element of that stack will be regarded as insufficiently commanded.

[johnnycai]

How many units/elements are in Rosecrans' stack? If he has a 15% command penalty for his stack, each and every element of that stack will be regarded as insufficiently commanded.

Ahhh, ok that does make sense as Rosecrans has 71 units(but this appears to correspond with elements) it appears. Hancock on day6 battle is showing 91 units(elements in his 5divs.). On day 7 battle when Rosecrans joins, total units are now 161 and 62 are uncommanded (basically all of Rosecrans stack).
How does this explain battles in day11 and day12 when the numbers of insufficiently commanded balloons to 122 and no commanders (division or corps commander Hancock) has been injured or destroyed where their command points would be affected. Roscrans' stack was and is intact with its 4divs. so it appears Hancock's stack somehow adds to the base 62 'insufficiently commanded' from the earlier battles. It appears, 1or2 divisions from Hancock are somehow blown up and remaining units are then causing Hancock's corps to be insufficiently commanded also in the day11 and 12 battles.

I guess my beefs with this battle still centre on why Hancock didnt fight sync'd with Rosecrans and why Hancock fought to the death while Rosecrans fights normally and both with standard offensive ROE.
I have read a few of these in the forums but havent seen any to this degree myself prior.

Any further insight Gents?

[Jabberwock]

Are you using delayed commitment? That might explain the un-synched initial attack.

[soundoff]

I thought sync'd movement for army and corps ensured that they all arrived on the same day even if delayed commitment had been checked in the options. Is that incorrect?

[johnnycai]

I thought sync'd movement for army and corps ensured that they all arrived on the same day even if delayed commitment had been checked in the options. Is that incorrect?

As far as I know...yes. Yes also to delayed commitment. I believe its set to default but the PBEM host would know that for sure.
They were in same region, both activated and the order was given for sync'd move. It should be guaranteed. How can a planned sync'd move between Army/Corps not be??
But in this case, the planned orders said 5 and 6days respectively??

[Jabberwock]

I believe synched move ensures that they all arrive the same day, but delayed commitment means that they may not all start fighting together.

So Bragg (or Johnston) says: "Polk, Hardee, Hood, and the rest of you guys ... I want you to all attack together." How many times during the entire war did they actually manage to attack together?

IMHO, synched move should just make it more likely that units arrive together.

Meade says: "I've laid out this detailed schedule for our move against the Mine Run position. We should all arrive together. French, you lead off in the center." French gets to his ford and finds out that the ground is so muddy and steep that he can't get his artillery and supplies across, so he sends it all down to the next ford, causing a huge traffic jam in the center. The left wing arrives unsupported ...

The move will still show as whatever it was originally even if synched move is checked. The delay happens during turn processing.

[johnnycai]

I believe synched move ensures that they all arrive the same day, but delayed commitment means that they may not all start fighting together.

So Bragg (or Johnston) says: "Polk, Hardee, Hood, and the rest of you guys ... I want you to all attack together." How many times during the entire war did they actually manage to attack together?

IMHO, synched move should just make it more likely that units arrive together.

Meade says: "I've laid out this detailed schedule for our move against the Mine Run position. We should all arrive together. French, you lead off in the center." French gets to his ford and finds out that the ground is so muddy and steep that he can't get his artillery and supplies across, so he sends it all down to the next ford, causing a huge traffic jam in the center. The left wing arrives unsupported ...

The move will still show as whatever it was originally even if synched move is checked. The delay happens during turn processing.

The rulebook states that "· Synchronized Move: If in the same region, the Army HQ and all subordinate Corps will move together (at the pace of the
slowest Corps). Note: This is selected by default. In addition, when the Army HQ moves, all subordinate Corps in the region
will automatically synchronize without needing to use this Special Order."

I dont doubt delays could occur but practically speaking, this order is just for this purpose to force Corp/Army stacks to move together. So was the rule wrong or my interpretation of it?
Is it better to have the corps moving slower than the Army stack so that the Army stack slows down to Corps speed? In my case the Corps was 1 day quicker and arrived 1day earlier and engaged 1 day earlier. Not at all as sync move is designed I would say.

[Jabberwock]

I understand it engaged one day earlier. I think that is due to delayed commitment. What I said in my last post about rw situations was just an opinion, disregard please. The way I interpret the synched move rule is the same as you. If the rule is different, maybe Pocus can clarify. Are you sure that it arrived one day earlier?

I'm guessing that it is a coincidence that the stack that would have move quicker without synching was the same stack that engaged earlier.

[johnnycai]

Hey Jabberwock,
I did mention this a couple of posts ago. Hancock/Rosecrans were ordered via sync'd move to Mobile. Hancock shows 5day ETA, Rosecrans 6days. They each arrived on those days and not together. Hancock fought on day6 solo and day7-12 with Rosecrans until he got flattened (commitment delay of 1 day apparently!). Rosecrans fought 'normally' and didnt lose an element, but Hancock got wiped except for 2divs. with only the brigades artillery left intact so maybe 6battered arty elements from 6brigades left from 91 elements. No Hancock Corps leaders got injured (or killed) until final battle once the corps was shattered, which is why I question the variable (increasing) insufficiently commanded battle report. There were no reports of failed attempts to retreat, Hancock just continues until destroyed while Rosecrans seems to fight normally. There was no issue with suitable retreat path, fort ZOC or ZOC in general as Rosecrans is currently in that region and can move his Army stack back to his starting region. Rosecrans stack actually shows higher presence in the Mobile region than the enemy (Longstreet) army.
Rosey likely only keeps engaging due to Hancock' death wish to keep attacking with normal ROE.
It looks like a bug with sync move initially but the 'insufficiently commanded' men battle reports and the fight-to-the-death make me wonder what else it could be.
Note that Sheridan (with a cav div of 7elements) was in Rosecrans Army stack so that might explain why he is able to break off from a losing battle but why wouldnt that aid Hancock in the same battles.