STRANGE COMBAT RESULTS??

[XLegion]

Hey, I know it is often the case where the designer may 'pad' the Combat Results a little in favour of the AI in order to make the game more interesting but I have witnessed some battles that really don't make any sense. Luck of the die, well maybe but as often as I'm seeing it?

Case in point. I had a Union defense force in Murfreesboro entrenched. The AI doesn't often counter attack, but in this case it did, and I was able to react with a good force under William T. Sherman. The total attack from the Confederates was 5 veteran Brigades supported with 1 Artillery unit. For defense I had 16 Veteran Brigades, 1 Militia, and 1 Artillery unit. So the attacking Confederates were outnumbered about 3:1 or they were making an attack of about 1:3.

I expected to win the battle (which I did) but the casualties????

2,160 men lost for the Rebs and 10 guns lost

3,240 men lost for the Union and 20 guns lost

Eh! I don't get this. This does not fit the profile of any Civil War Battle. Even in some of Lee's greatest victories he too MORE casualties than the Union. Nearly any Civil War battle resulted in the attacking force taking more casualties than the defender, even if they won.

I'm seeing this over and over again in my AI games and it is getting a little 'tiresome' to say the least.

What are other players discovering?

[Erik Rutins]

Did you look at the actual combat results and die rolls? How many forces were committed on each side?

[Treefrog]

Eric has a point. I have been disappointed many times in attack and defense, then checked the battle to find:
1. my units were not commited to the extent I had anticipated;
2. my enemies, with much better leadership, were commited as much or more as I feared;
3. the combat modifiers for my troops were typically -6 while my adversary's modifiers were typically +3 or +something
all of which contributed to a disappointing result.

In the old Avalon Hills CRT days 3:1 odds was the gold standard, the worse you got was an "exchange". In GGWBTS 3:1 odds are nominal and merely a point of departure for what happens next (and perhaps best thought of as "all things being equal you have 3:1 odds", but of course all things are never equal). The devil is in the details, what JAMiAN correctly describes as "the steep learning curve" (even if JAMiAN didn't say it, I'm sure he agrees [:)] ).

[JudgeDredd]

I think alot of my moaning about combat results and not making sense is really down to my lack of understanding of the combat engine.
 
As an example, When I put forward forces, I count 20000 infantry (10 inf units) and 80 guns (4 gun units) and I think the enemy with their 4000 inf (2 inf units) and 20 guns (1 gun unit) will be a walk over...but probably bigger scale than this...and then I get mya ass kicked and I just can't see how that's possible. But learning things like ratings for leaders making a difference on what units get committed is a big hit and welcome knowledge for me...I just assumed all 10 of my infantry units and 4 arty units were committed...
 
So whilst I was angry about combat results and the lack of results going my way, I most certainly put it down to lack of knowledge of the combat system and look forward to bettering my knowledge of it.
 
That's not to say what you are experiencing isn't happening, just that I felt very similar to you, but now know that I just can't rely on numbers to get me through a battle...I need to take into account commanders ratings...I think they also affect who shoots first...so I will be reading up on that before my next game.

[Treefrog]

In response to this part of what the Judge said:

"That's not to say what you are experiencing isn't happening, just that I felt very similar to you, but now know that I just can't rely on numbers to get me through a battle..."

reminds me of the observation, "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't really out to get you." Maybe the gremlins in the combat genie don't like you.

[wdboyd]

Salutations All,

I've been lurking around these forums while considering to purchase a couple of your offerings, including this one.

The recent frustrations from some players concerning battle results is problematic in my mind.

"When I put forward forces, I count 20000 infantry (10 inf units) and 80 guns (4 gun units) and I think the enemy with their 4000 inf (2 inf units) and 20 guns (1 gun unit) will be a walk over...but probably bigger scale than this...and then I get mya ass kicked and I just can't see how that's possible."

I have to agree with Dredd. Gomer Pyle should be able to win with such overwhelming odds.

Are all the ins and outs of the games command workings(mechanics) clearly and simply covered in the game manual(s). It seems they are not. Correct me if I am wrong or are players simply guilty of not reading or knowing the manual?

Thanks.

[Joel Billings]

They are covered in the game manual, in the in-game tutorials and in the 1 hour of video tutorials. However, there's a lot to know, and some of it is stuff that may be knew to even experienced wargamers. The manual is thorough, but long, so there's a lot to digest.

The combat issue mentioned above with the unit count could be 1 of 2 things. Either the confederates used the reaction phase to reinforce the position so that it wasn't as outnumbered as the player thought, or the larger Union force was poorly led (could be a poor army commander attack rating) and was not full committed. The player is shown how many units are actually committed to the battle and I can guarantee it wasn't 10 to 2 infantry or the attacker would have won. Players often don't realize that not all units in an area are actually in any battle in the area (something that is clearly discussed in the manual), and this is obviously a key factor. Also, beginning players don't often realize how important it is to scout enemy forces before a battle, or how important leadership ratings are to battles. History is full of large poorly led armies being defeated by smaller better led armies. The people that have posted these notes usually end up realizing how much they don't know or assumed they knew about the game. The game can appear deceptively simple to play, but it's deeper than it at first appears.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

They are covered in the game manual, in the in-game tutorials and in the 1 hour of video tutorials. However, there's a lot to know, and some of it is stuff that may be knew to even experienced wargamers. The manual is thorough, but long, so there's a lot to digest.

...

...The people that have posted these notes usually end up realizing how much they don't know or assumed they knew about the game. The game can appear deceptively simple to play, but it's deeper than it at first appears.

The documentation, tutorials, and video tutorials are exceptional. The best I've seen for a game in a long, long time. The problem is that many gamers expect to start playing without first reading them, and understanding them. A failure to RTFM, essentially. Now, there is incredible depth behind the easy to play facade, and there is a bit of a learning curve involved in playing, reading, playing some more, asking questions, playing some more, reading some more, etc. Many people forget the reading part of the iterative learning process...[:D]

Of course, the devs and publishers can't just up and say that though without ruffling feathers. As an unaffiliated party though, I don't feel the least inhibited in saying so...[;)]

[JudgeDredd]

ORIGINAL: wdboyd

Salutations All,

I've been lurking around these forums while considering to purchase a couple of your offerings, including this one.

The recent frustrations from some players concerning battle results is problematic in my mind.

"When I put forward forces, I count 20000 infantry (10 inf units) and 80 guns (4 gun units) and I think the enemy with their 4000 inf (2 inf units) and 20 guns (1 gun unit) will be a walk over...but probably bigger scale than this...and then I get mya ass kicked and I just can't see how that's possible."

I have to agree with Dredd. Gomer Pyle should be able to win with such overwhelming odds.

Are all the ins and outs of the games command workings(mechanics) clearly and simply covered in the game manual(s). It seems they are not. Correct me if I am wrong or are players simply guilty of not reading or knowing the manual?

Thanks.

I can honestly say, hand on heart, that I have not read the manual in any depth and so I have to put down my misgivings to my lack of knowledge of the rules.

I was just taking it on a "there's 20,000 against your 10,000...easy peasy" look...in fact it's much more complicated than that, with (if I understand it correctly) not necessarily ALL my 20000 troops being comitted due to command issue with the leaders. Also the leaders I was attacking with had attack rating 2 whereas some of the CSA leaders had attack ratings of 3. And I also had a bad selection of Army commanders and Theatre commanders.

If I could just add...whilst I had frustrations, it's mainly aimed at the "battles" being taken behind a curtain, so to speak...but that is a fact of strategic gaming...the numbers are crunched behind the scenes. WBTS actually gives you a combat results screen at the end so you can see specific engagements and their results and modifiers...it's simply my lack of understanding of that screen that gives me this feeling of hopelessness when I enter a battle.

Rest assured, I've just had my arse kicked, but it was great to learn and I will be doing battle again...and again.

I can't take you off the fence...you'll do that...I just wanted to rectify the damage I may have done with a misguided post in the heat of depression! Things were not going well and have gotten a whole lot worse...but I've learned many things and will try again.

[JudgeDredd]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

They are covered in the game manual, in the in-game tutorials and in the 1 hour of video tutorials. However, there's a lot to know, and some of it is stuff that may be knew to even experienced wargamers. The manual is thorough, but long, so there's a lot to digest.

...

...The people that have posted these notes usually end up realizing how much they don't know or assumed they knew about the game. The game can appear deceptively simple to play, but it's deeper than it at first appears.

The documentation, tutorials, and video tutorials are exceptional. The best I've seen for a game in a long, long time. The problem is that many gamers expect to start playing without first reading them, and understanding them. A failure to RTFM, essentially. Now, there is incredible depth behind the easy to play facade, and there is a bit of a learning curve involved in playing, reading, playing some more, asking questions, playing some more, reading some more, etc. Many people forget the reading part of the iterative learning process...[:D]

Of course, the devs and publishers can't just up and say that though without ruffling feathers. As an unaffiliated party though, I don't feel the least inhibited in saying so...[;)]

And you described me perfectly [&o]

[dakjck]

This lack of commitment of the entire force drives me up the wall.  I plan a great attack with overwhelming force, only to see my commander not commit half of it to the battle and lose.  Then I remember Antietem, where a large part of the Union army sat around and did nothing, and I realize just how nefarious the designers are.  What a great design.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: dakjck

This lack of commitment of the entire force drives me up the wall.  I plan a great attack with overwhelming force, only to see my commander not commit half of it to the battle and lose.  Then I remember Antietem, where a large part of the Union army sat around and did nothing, and I realize just how nefarious the designers are.  What a great design.

Indeed, and something that people seem to constantly overlook is that the turns are monthly, the scale is regional. The 'battles' can only be assumed to be the overall results of the campaign within the affected regions, over the course of a month. Thus, a proportionally small commitment would be the deciding encounter that blocked this avenue of approach, or irreparabily opened that flank, or spooked the attacker/defender into retiring, inspite of (or perhaps because of) their "overwhelming odds".