American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

ACWGC Forums

* ACWGC    * Dpt. of Records (DoR)    *Club Recruiting Office     ACWGC Memorial

* CSA HQ    * VMI   * Join CSA    

* Union HQ   * UMA   * Join Union    

CSA Armies:   ANV   AoT

Union Armies:   AotP    AotT

Link Express

Club Forums:     NWC    CCC     Home Pages:     NWC    CCC    ACWGC
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 11:13 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2022 10:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2021 4:14 pm
Posts: 75
Quaama wrote:
You are, of course, correct in saying that "The fatigue rules are vague to some extent In the Manuals Folder" - I assume you are referring to the main manual named 'user' in the manuals Folder for each game.
However, there is also a file in the Manuals Folder named 'cwb' that may help shed a little more light on the issue in respect to the Optional Rule 'Higher Fatigue Recovery Rates' (afterwards referred to as HFRR).


I read both manuals. And I understand there are black boxes in computer games more or less.

"The fatigue rules are vague to some extent In the Manuals Folder" I mean the concept of the rules, 'fatigue', in specific rules is a little disordered and inconsistent, and works not well enough on some points in games now. It is a design problem.

Quaama wrote:
Ashdoll Ren is also correct in saying that "fatigue is irrelevant to march" and then goes on to mention a need for it. I generally agree that there should be something along these lines but feel that it would be problematic to introduce.
Should such a thing be introduced equally for all or on an army or unit basis? There are many instances where some armies could easily endure forced marches better than others (e.g many of Napoleon's campaigns, Jackson's 'foot cavalry').
Should it be related to unit quality?
Should it be related to the location of the battle? For example, one aid to Jackson in the Shenandoah was his excellent mapmaker who could not only provide Jackson with details of paths unknown to the enemy but their carrying capacity under different conditions.
Should terrain effect it?
Should it be an Optional Rule or built into the game system as a given?
So, in an ideal world we should probably have such a thing but I foresee many problems in introducing it. There are already other, more unrealistic issues, that should probably be addressed ahead of that one. Is it realistic to be able to set up 20 guns across the 125 yard width (of a hex) and begin blasting away? The obvious dangers are apparent to say nothing of the smoke that would obscure any sighting after one firing of such a line of artillery. Is it realistic for units (sometimes very large ones) to utilise the benefits of road movement and then cramming up to a thousand of them (in road column) in a 125 yard stretch of road before setting off again next turn in perfect order to continue to march in road column to wherever they're going? It'd be complete chaos [see here for a (non-JTS/WDS) discussion on road column length (http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=505514)].
I think we'll have to live with no fatigue for marching around the battlefield (although you can't recover from fatigue while doing so [WDS v4.0 excepted]).

Another Optional Rule can also come into play where Fatigue is concerned, Rout Limiting. This is another rule that I've found is checked as a matter of course. Never any arguments, it is just done. I believe that, from a simulation viewpoint, it is better to have it unchecked (although I can recall playing one game where this was the case - at the prompting of my Union opponent). I consider it more historically accurate to have it unchecked. I also believe that having it unchecked often benefits the CSA side over the USA side because the CSA generally has better rated leaders and higher quality units which can assist in rout recovery.



I am also a board wargamer. I think most issues you mentioned have better solutions in the boardgames I've played. At least, better than JTS/WDS. (I have not played a game having special rules for the smoke in the linear tactics era. Or it has been taken into consideration in the firing charts and resolution? But there are some proper restrictions for over-stacked infantry and artillery indeed. Like, you can stack a lot of infantry and artillery in one hex. But only limited little strength can fire because of the front width. )

The unique features of JTS/WDS are automatical calculation and (directly and easily implemented) Fog-of-War. But I think JTS/WDS still have points of absurd in simulation at both tactical level and strategic level. Boardgames do better now. I did worry that board wargames may be replaced by computer wargames. But I don't worry about that temporarily now. JTS/WDS do have the potential to do better than boardgames in all aspects, including playability and simulation. But there is still a far way to go, which really needs much heavy effort to improve.

---

Really want to experience Jackson's 'foot cavalry' in games! '其疾如風' (Let your rapidity be that of the wind)

Image

_________________
BG Ashdoll Ren
3rd Division
II Corps / Army of Northern Virginia


"Days and weeks of sheer boredom, interspersed with times of stark terror!"

Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2022 2:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 11:28 am
Posts: 71
I was sure it was * 2 * 1.5 for the loser, because I tested it in 3.0 when I put a lot of effort into making a combat calculator. Yet when I tested in 4.01, I replicated your result, indicating the loser gets x2 fatigue.

Ok, so the manual wording is vague. But I was sure...so I reinstalled 3.0 and tested. Going by the manual and by my interpretation of how it works for losing in melee, I expected fatigue ratios of:

Winner: 1 through 4.5
Loser: 2 through 9

Actual results:

Winner: Min = 2.8; Max = 8.6; Average = 5.9
Loser: Min = 5.8; Max = 11.5; Average = 8.6

WTF?

I also tested fire combat and found that the 1 to 6 fatigue per casualty has been around since at least 3.0. It's just the manual that was updated for 4.0. I don't see any entry in the change log to indicate when it was actually changed.
I actually remember noticing something odd about the fatigue amounts in 3.0 but never bothered to look further into it.

Ashdoll Ren wrote:
Logrus Pattern wrote:
I agree a nonlinear fatigue progression is an interesting game mechanic but, if you consider fatigue to be equivalent to strain, the analogy can be understood to be the exact opposite of what happens with the High Fatigue Recovery optional rule. Metals generally behave linearly in elastic bending and nonlinearly in plastic deformation, while simultaneously gaining strength under plastic deformation. Under the optional rule, low and medium fatigue behaves nonlinearly and it is harder to increase fatigue past those thresholds than it is when the unit has high fatigue; high fatigue units lose resistance to fatigue. Granting high fatigue units faster recovery than lower fatigue units would make the metals analogy more applicable.


Nope.

In low and medium fatigue, it is in the elastic region so it can recover faster when pressure disappears.

In high fatigue, it is in the plastic region so it recovers very slowly and remains high fatigue for a long time even if the pressure disappears.


Yes. There is no time axis on the strain / stress diagram you posted. And plastic deformation doesn't recover over any period of time. I am talking about strain (firepower) vs stress (fatigue) like in the diagram you posted. Even then my version isn't a 100% fit. I think we should move away from this analogy. It doesn't seem to be a helpful comparison when discussing abstract representations of civil war regimental cohesion with computer game rules.

_________________
WDS: Antietam, Chickamauga, Gettysburg, Overland


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 10:42 pm
Posts: 668
Ashdoll Ren wrote:
Quaama wrote:
You are, of course, correct in saying that "The fatigue rules are vague to some extent In the Manuals Folder" - I assume you are referring to the main manual named 'user' in the manuals Folder for each game.
However, there is also a file in the Manuals Folder named 'cwb' that may help shed a little more light on the issue in respect to the Optional Rule 'Higher Fatigue Recovery Rates' (afterwards referred to as HFRR).


I read both manuals. And I understand there are black boxes in computer games more or less.

"The fatigue rules are vague to some extent In the Manuals Folder" I mean the concept of the rules, 'fatigue', in specific rules is a little disordered and inconsistent, and works not well enough on some points in games now. It is a design problem.

Quaama wrote:
Ashdoll Ren is also correct in saying that "fatigue is irrelevant to march" and then goes on to mention a need for it. I generally agree that there should be something along these lines but feel that it would be problematic to introduce.
Should such a thing be introduced equally for all or on an army or unit basis? There are many instances where some armies could easily endure forced marches better than others (e.g many of Napoleon's campaigns, Jackson's 'foot cavalry').
Should it be related to unit quality?
Should it be related to the location of the battle? For example, one aid to Jackson in the Shenandoah was his excellent mapmaker who could not only provide Jackson with details of paths unknown to the enemy but their carrying capacity under different conditions.
Should terrain effect it?
Should it be an Optional Rule or built into the game system as a given?
So, in an ideal world we should probably have such a thing but I foresee many problems in introducing it. There are already other, more unrealistic issues, that should probably be addressed ahead of that one. Is it realistic to be able to set up 20 guns across the 125 yard width (of a hex) and begin blasting away? The obvious dangers are apparent to say nothing of the smoke that would obscure any sighting after one firing of such a line of artillery. Is it realistic for units (sometimes very large ones) to utilise the benefits of road movement and then cramming up to a thousand of them (in road column) in a 125 yard stretch of road before setting off again next turn in perfect order to continue to march in road column to wherever they're going? It'd be complete chaos [see here for a (non-JTS/WDS) discussion on road column length (http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=505514)].
I think we'll have to live with no fatigue for marching around the battlefield (although you can't recover from fatigue while doing so [WDS v4.0 excepted]).

Another Optional Rule can also come into play where Fatigue is concerned, Rout Limiting. This is another rule that I've found is checked as a matter of course. Never any arguments, it is just done. I believe that, from a simulation viewpoint, it is better to have it unchecked (although I can recall playing one game where this was the case - at the prompting of my Union opponent). I consider it more historically accurate to have it unchecked. I also believe that having it unchecked often benefits the CSA side over the USA side because the CSA generally has better rated leaders and higher quality units which can assist in rout recovery.



I am also a board wargamer. I think most issues you mentioned have better solutions in the boardgames I've played. At least, better than JTS/WDS. (I have not played a game having special rules for the smoke in the linear tactics era. Or it has been taken into consideration in the firing charts and resolution? But there are some proper restrictions for over-stacked infantry and artillery indeed. Like, you can stack a lot of infantry and artillery in one hex. But only limited little strength can fire because of the front width. )


I've also played a lot of boardgames. I doubt that it is taken into consideration in firing charts as they remain static and do not change as firing explosive weapons continues from the same position. I've never seen smoke represented in boardgames although it is often a factor in miniature wargames.
The main reason that you would never have more than eight Civil War artillery pieces across 125 yards (specified in field manuals of the time) is the sheer danger of doing such a thing [eight guns would be a maximum, six (or less) would be the norm]. Guns move when they are fired and explosions were not unknown.
Here's (https://youtu.be/EL13quhcUMw) some old guys firing off some civil war cannons. It shows the guns moving, the spacing between them and gives an indication of the smoke from casual firing of the weapons. Firing would be more rapid and movement more frantic during battle conditions.

_________________
Paul Swanson
Lieutenant-General
First Division
First Corps
Army of Northern Virginia


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2022 11:43 am
Posts: 565
Location: Ireland
Gentlemen Sirs, <salute>

I started following this apparently interesting thread but I regret it has way surpassed my admitted very limited ability to comprehend or even understand. It's a game I thought, not a math class or metallurgical thesis but there again, as I remarked above, what would I know of such things anyway. In my own "old fashioned wargame manner", I will continue to follow the principle that if a unit gets seriously fatigued, I'll withdraw it from the line, if possible, and hope that it recovers somewhat to rejoin the fray. It will probably continue to be a cause of my defeats, but what's new lol lol lol.
.
Thank you Gentlemen, nonetheless, for the very deep insights into fatigue.

_________________
Karl McEntegart
Brigadier General
Officer Commanding
Army of Tennessee



Image


Make my enemy brave and strong, so that if defeated, I will not be ashamed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2022 9:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2021 4:14 pm
Posts: 75
Logrus Pattern wrote:
WTF?

I also tested fire combat and found that the 1 to 6 fatigue per casualty has been around since at least 3.0. It's just the manual that was updated for 4.0. I don't see any entry in the change log to indicate when it was actually changed.


It is a pity to hear the program is not in accordance with the manual. Though it won't shock me anymore, we can hardly check if all things go as manual said...

Logrus Pattern wrote:
It doesn't seem to be a helpful comparison when discussing abstract representations of civil war regimental cohesion with computer game rules.


Yes, an analogy is usually dangerous for serious discussion. And I've given my direct feedback on our issue without analogy in the former posts. And still insist on my thoughts. But the analogy is interesting.


Quaama wrote:
I've also played a lot of boardgames. I doubt that it is taken into consideration in firing charts as they remain static and do not change as firing explosive weapons continues from the same position. I've never seen smoke represented in boardgames although it is often a factor in miniature wargames.


No experience with miniature now. I saw cotton (?) seemingly was used to indicate fog in ACW and naval miniature, but first heard that they have rules on fog indeed. Interesting.
The whole fire results may have been lowed down because of fog. (?) More complex and dynamic fog rules may be costly for boardgames, which needs more rules, more maker counters, and more space. Some WWII tactic boardgames do have rules for smoke, including floating away and dissipating.


Karl McEntegart wrote:
In my own "old fashioned wargame manner", I will continue to follow the principle that if a unit gets seriously fatigued, I'll withdraw it from the line, if possible, and hope that it recovers somewhat to rejoin the fray. It will probably continue to be a cause of my defeats, but what's new lol lol lol.


LOL. The discussion here is just some of the minor details. It is one of my funs in wargames to consider and to discuss the mechanics and math. But, anyway, just drop the tedious posts, and enjoy games, Karl! I agree with your "old-fashioned wargame manner".

_________________
BG Ashdoll Ren
3rd Division
II Corps / Army of Northern Virginia


"Days and weeks of sheer boredom, interspersed with times of stark terror!"

Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2022 10:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2022 11:43 am
Posts: 565
Location: Ireland
Ashdoll Ren wrote:
Logrus Pattern wrote:
WTF?

I also tested fire combat and found that the 1 to 6 fatigue per casualty has been around since at least 3.0. It's just the manual that was updated for 4.0. I don't see any entry in the change log to indicate when it was actually changed.


It is a pity to hear the program is not in accordance with the manual. Though it won't shock me anymore, we can hardly check if all things go as manual said...

Logrus Pattern wrote:
It doesn't seem to be a helpful comparison when discussing abstract representations of civil war regimental cohesion with computer game rules.


Yes, an analogy is usually dangerous for serious discussion. And I've given my direct feedback on our issue without analogy in the former posts. And still insist on my thoughts. But the analogy is interesting.


Quaama wrote:
I've also played a lot of boardgames. I doubt that it is taken into consideration in firing charts as they remain static and do not change as firing explosive weapons continues from the same position. I've never seen smoke represented in boardgames although it is often a factor in miniature wargames.


No experience with miniature now. I saw cotton (?) seemingly was used to indicate fog in ACW and naval miniature, but first heard that they have rules on fog indeed. Interesting.
The whole fire results may have been lowed down because of fog. (?) More complex and dynamic fog rules may be costly for boardgames, which needs more rules, more maker counters, and more space. Some WWII tactic boardgames do have rules for smoke, including floating away and dissipating.


Karl McEntegart wrote:
In my own "old fashioned wargame manner", I will continue to follow the principle that if a unit gets seriously fatigued, I'll withdraw it from the line, if possible, and hope that it recovers somewhat to rejoin the fray. It will probably continue to be a cause of my defeats, but what's new lol lol lol.


LOL. The discussion here is just some of the minor details. It is one of my funs in wargames to consider and to discuss the mechanics and math. But, anyway, just drop the tedious posts, and enjoy games, Karl! I agree with your "old-fashioned wargame manner".


Colonel Ren Suh, <salute>

Indeed I understand, I too love the mechanics but the math just gets beyond my simple mind lol, although a figure of 2.56 minimum ratio for melee purpose seems to have stuck in my head for some reason lol lol lol.

_________________
Karl McEntegart
Brigadier General
Officer Commanding
Army of Tennessee



Image


Make my enemy brave and strong, so that if defeated, I will not be ashamed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2022 1:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 11:28 am
Posts: 71
Karl McEntegart wrote:
Indeed I understand, I too love the mechanics but the math just gets beyond my simple mind lol, although a figure of 2.56 minimum ratio for melee purpose seems to have stuck in my head for some reason lol lol lol.


Why that ratio? Because it's roughly a 75% chance of winning?

I made a calculator that can tell me the expected results from any combat. As soon as I finished it, I barely used it. The most important thing I learned in doing so was the actual rules of the game. Now I can pretty much eyeball a given combat and tell whether it's a good outcome for me or not.

A quick reference sheet would help newcomers learn the game math well enough to compete on a level playing field. I consider making one myself. But the lack of common PDT values between games, especially artillery values, makes me think it may not be worth it until the PDTs are standardized and sanitized.

_________________
WDS: Antietam, Chickamauga, Gettysburg, Overland


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2022 2:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2022 11:43 am
Posts: 565
Location: Ireland
Logrus Pattern wrote:
Karl McEntegart wrote:
Indeed I understand, I too love the mechanics but the math just gets beyond my simple mind lol, although a figure of 2.56 minimum ratio for melee purpose seems to have stuck in my head for some reason lol lol lol.


Why that ratio? Because it's roughly a 75% chance of winning?

I made a calculator that can tell me the expected results from any combat. As soon as I finished it, I barely used it. The most important thing I learned in doing so was the actual rules of the game. Now I can pretty much eyeball a given combat and tell whether it's a good outcome for me or not.

A quick reference sheet would help newcomers learn the game math well enough to compete on a level playing field. I consider making one myself. But the lack of common PDT values between games, especially artillery values, makes me think it may not be worth it until the PDTs are standardized and sanitized.


It's a ratio quoted to me, as a Cadet, as a VERY basic minimum for melee. I am most interested in your % chance of winning a melee and the unexpectedly high level you state. I understand what you say about the rules of the game. I agree the Mark I eyeball is a powerful tool although I have more often than not been surprised, nastily I might add, at the outcome of melees. Troop quality, hex side mods and actual numbers accepted, there still is an element of uncertainty which to my admittedly inexperienced eye I would never have rated at 75% chance of success.

A quick reference sheet for newcomers would be a very useful tool and particularly from the point of view of understanding some of the inner workings of the game. As a newcomer I put together a quick reference sheet to aid in my game play but solely for movement, elevations and facing & formation costs along with the most often used hotkeys. Nothing fancy just a one page sheet drawn from the PDT dialogue but it works for me. As you noted, I have to create one for each game though, given the different values in the PDT between games. I would be most interested in seeing your quick reference sheet on the math if ever you decide to develop it. Forgive my lack of knowledge in this regard, but if an overall framework reference sheet was developed for a specific game would it not just be a case of tweaking and replacing the relevant PDT values for other specific games. I ask on the basis that I would have reservations that a standard/sanitized PDT is an imminent possibility.

_________________
Karl McEntegart
Brigadier General
Officer Commanding
Army of Tennessee



Image


Make my enemy brave and strong, so that if defeated, I will not be ashamed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2022 3:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 11:28 am
Posts: 71
That melee ratio seems like a good rule of thumb to me and I use it as well. It may seem like good odds. But the penalties for losing melee are too painful for me to justify trying with poorer odds unless the broader circumstances say otherwise. If I am desperate I will even melee just to cause the morale check for the disruption and hopefully a rout. I've also been surprised by losing melees with good odds. But that random element is important for the game. In fact I prefer extreme fog of war because it greatly increases uncertainty and thus the risk of melee because the enemy unit sizes are harder to determine.

I only have three of the games, but I think the PDTs can generally be described as either Gettysburg-like or Overland-like, since other games seem to share those basic PDTs. So you might be able to get away with 2 ref sheets. The artillery firepower differs drastically between some games so that would be the biggest difference between them.

The other disincentive for a quick ref sheet is that most of the info I would include is already out there in the forum or the academies. I have felt it might be stepping on toes or duplicating effort to make one and give it out. Maybe having it all in one place would be worth it.

The artillery section could probably be cut down to the most common pieces: Napoleon, the 3 inchers, the Parrots and 12# and 24# howitzers. Maybe the 6# SB. That would be manageable.

Most times the only thing I turn to the calculator for is how likely I am with my artillery salvo to get some gun kills. If I can kill a gun on a coin toss, I'll take those odds. Any worse and I'd rather cause infantry or cavalry casualties.

_________________
WDS: Antietam, Chickamauga, Gettysburg, Overland


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2022 9:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2021 4:14 pm
Posts: 75
I think the ratio Karl wants to mention is 1.67 (5:3).

Compare the total modified attackers' strength to the total modified defenders' strength and express a ratio. If the ratio is more than 5:3, the attackers will have an advantage. In other words, the probability of attackers winning will be more than 50%, if the ratio is more than 5:3.

So, yes, it is easy to judge if the probability of winning a melee is more than a coin toss in JTS/WDS ACW. But I will still avoid a just 50-50 melee in most conditions. :mrgreen:

_________________
BG Ashdoll Ren
3rd Division
II Corps / Army of Northern Virginia


"Days and weeks of sheer boredom, interspersed with times of stark terror!"

Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2022 9:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2022 11:43 am
Posts: 565
Location: Ireland
Ashdoll Ren wrote:
I think the ratio Karl wants to mention is 1.67 (5:3).

Compare the total modified attackers' strength to the total modified defenders' strength and express a ratio. If the ratio is more than 5:3, the attackers will have an advantage. In other words, the probability of attackers winning will be more than 50%, if the ratio is more than 5:3.

So, yes, it is easy to judge if the probability of winning a melee is more than a coin toss in JTS/WDS ACW. But I will still avoid a just 50-50 melee in most conditions. :mrgreen:


Colonel Ren <salute> Suh,

I stand corrected Suh, :o

Still.....to us Southern Boyz, who play against the odds everyday, 5:3 odds may leave those Big Yankee stacks...hangin out thar ! Cmon n get it :lol: :lol: :lol:

_________________
Karl McEntegart
Brigadier General
Officer Commanding
Army of Tennessee



Image


Make my enemy brave and strong, so that if defeated, I will not be ashamed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 110 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group