Question of substance or just percetpion

[cruces]

It seems that in the HPS campaign series that Southern combat results are significantly higher than Northern combat results.

EG: you watch the replay, and you lose 42 guys on an exchange of fire. Your defensive fire took out 2. During your turn, you fire and they suffer 14 KIA and thier return fire kills 7. I am aware of defensive modifers, etc., but I swear that in open terrain the Tillger game engine awards more kills to the Rebs.

Is it a true observation, a whiney response to getting my butt kiced, or I am missing something? I am ofter surprised that it seems to impact the arty results as well.

BG Elkin
3rd Div/(2nd Cav)/XVIth Corps

[Pony Soldier]

I believe that there is a SLIGHT bias in favor of Southern troops built into many of these games whether from some perception that they were better led or a romantic notion of higher morale. However, I believe that this bias can be overcome with good tactics and maximizing your odds in any given firefight.

There are many factors that go into determining the loss rate in any given exchange of fire. Terrain is a one factor. Are you in the open? Is your opponent behind an embankment, wall, abatis, in a forest square or is he on higher ground? Does he have more men engaged than you? I am currently involved in a head to head slugfest in the Peninsula Campaign. Our forces are generally evenly matched in numbers, all the forces engaged are in forest squares and the ground is fairly level. So far, I am winning the overall exchange of fire by a comfortable margin. However, once I push his infantry out of the forest, I will be facing artillery and fresh infantry behind an embankment. If I continue my attack, I fully expect to pay heavily for doing so.

One of the things that is helping me in this exchange is that I am pulling out disrupted units and replacing them with undisrupted units. I am using senior commanders in their chain of command to more rapidly bring disrupted and routed units back to peak effficiency. This improves my firepower ratio. It does not appear that my opponent is doing so. It's a pain in the neck exercise in traffic control but the results reward the effort.

Another important factor that is often ignored is "Are your units under the effective command and control of their immediate commanders. If you have a mish-mash of units from different brigades and divisions with their commanders no where near them, you will experience rapid disruption and routing adding to your losses. I do not actually know if the presence of a commander actually aids in the firepower effectiveness of a given regiment, but "A" it can't hurt! and "B" your units will remain effective a lot longer.

[J. Sheffield]

BG Elkin, I too have observed similar results, this is certainly no "whiney response " on your part. I have suffered from it many times and recently at Gettysburg I lost 20+ inf. to rebel fire from a lower level, I killed about 2 with return fire. On my turn they lost 5 with me losing 2 in return fire. This was on open ground with the Union one elevation higher. I suspect the rebels have been issued with machine guns.

[cruces]

To my esteemed fellow officers <salute>

I agree at times I tend to get slack when it comes to command and control, however, even when I am a slave to it, the numbers seem to high. I could however be too aggressive at times. I look forward to more discussion.

BG Elkin

[jlytwak]

Gen.Elkin,
How goes things in my old outfit? I to have noticed this differnece esp. in Chancellorsville which seems to be a "doomed"
module for our poor Yankees! I was losing men at a ratio of 4:1 in most exchanges across the same terrain/elevation
though unit quality fire modifers are definitely a factor (assuming they are being used which is more then likely the case)
and most likely account for these differnces. Though it does seem to be different from game to game. I think Gen.Dan's principles above are good rules to live by. To maintain good C&C is critical with our boys in blue & their lower quality.
(in an interesting side note it seems to me that the Western Union troops maintain better order then their eastern counterparts with a looser C&C structure then the "easterners") I always try to attack/defend from a postion of "advantage" either terrain,height or fire outside of an enemy's forward facing (flank/enfilade) and always try to maximize the effect of the superior Union AT. Finally perhaps one of the most important lessons is to try to avoid going toe-to-toe in a prolonged firefight with superior quality reb units. Soften them up as much as possible with AT fire & some volleys from a position of advantage(I like muskets at point blank!) and also a judicious use of melee with lower quality units esp.when you have the luxury of superior numbers.

[cameronm]

I think to some degree it is perception, however reb units with the higher morale do mean that they will hang tough that much longer. The union advantage in Artillery is more than a balance in my veiw. I have been blasted out of positions by yanks parking artillery 2 hexes away - they may lose a crew or two, but often the intimidation is enough to make move out. As a reb you soon learn to love the woods

General Cam McOmish
1/1/1
AoA
CSA

Providing un helpful advice to the Union since 1861

[Joe Meyer]

Well, that explains all of these tramped down bush and grass areas we've been discovering in the woods from time to time. And I suppose the ones that were littered with empty bottles and broken jugs belonged to McOmish's boys!