The Campaign of 1863  

Go Back   The Campaign of 1863 > Campaign of 1863 > Campaign of 1863

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 02-12-2019
newengldkid's Avatar
newengldkid newengldkid is offline
Member
Private
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Land O Lakes FL
Posts: 83
Default

Good Day Banford Brothers. Let me say it is a good game and I am enjoying it. With that said Caladonia has it right my moral is very high and I also see nothing around Baltimore. Gentelman do not forget my troops did not move for 2 turns back when we had problem and you would not have Alexandria. My opinion is as Caladonia said you all moved to fast and hard in beginning and now you are going up against my brigades that are ready to fight. You also will not get Washington But good luck. Look forward to playing another game with you guys
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-12-2019
Robert Banford Robert Banford is online now
Senior Member
Corporal
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 131
Default

Good Day both!

Could be all kinds of factors, but how can you incur 3,000 casualties with the loss of two tiny units? They wouldn't have added up to 3,000 at the start of the game! Has been fun....I just don't get the casualties.....it's happened a couple of times now. Our brigades are some worn down, but others in good shape from encamping and all are in good morale. I'm not arguing the status of the troops.

The two tiny units were sent one into NW Baltimore and another further north, but I can't look at it again as I have Issued Commands. They were both aimed at an unoccupied hex and were merely intended to keep you all off balance and collect some points for occupying.

What I'm having a problem with is that when you log in and look at status and combat reports, you get one number of casualties, and then when you tot up the detailed reports from the flags on the map, the numbers are wildly divergent from the status....usually much higher.

I simply cannot understand how two very small units that added up to between 100 and 200 peeps doing some aggressive screening can get caught and sustain 3000+ casualties between them with nobody else around when they met their end. If there is some other factor in play than that, it should be clear in the manual.

We have played somewhat aggressively at times, but it has mostly been a game of maneuver. Capturing B'More the first time was simply a lightning attack based on opportunity on a vulnerable NW hex, successfully, then we ran away as the casualties sustained from there to get points every turn would not be worth the cost.. Same with worming into Alexandria the first time. Until this latest, every turn has been a steady climb in points to the edge of a Reb victory. Now it's fighting for a draw. Somethin' is not right in the casualty calcs to sustain 3,000 pts of casualties on just two tiny units that added up to squat. Would have not sent them with out assessing risk vs. reward....they were expendable I wasn't even going to attack Harrisburg, as the point accumulation was going so well... but did now after that massive and unexplained drop over two turns.

Perhaps the casualties are correct but misallocated as to where they occurred, but it's sort of important that they show up where they belong so you can assess where you're at.

Great game in any case, but this should be looked at, as it creates a morale loss on this end in playing the game.

Last edited by Robert Banford; 02-12-2019 at 08:48 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-12-2019
Robert Banford Robert Banford is online now
Senior Member
Corporal
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 131
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by newengldkid View Post
Good Day Banford Brothers. Let me say it is a good game and I am enjoying it. With that said Caladonia has it right my moral is very high and I also see nothing around Baltimore. Gentelman do not forget my troops did not move for 2 turns back when we had problem and you would not have Alexandria. My opinion is as Caladonia said you all moved to fast and hard in beginning and now you are going up against my brigades that are ready to fight. You also will not get Washington But good luck. Look forward to playing another game with you guys
LOL....snooped Washington, but, as usual, that is a tough nut to crack unless you have overwhelming and rested troops! Gave that one up long ago
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-13-2019
caledonia's Avatar
caledonia caledonia is offline
Senior Member
Major
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 513
Default casualties

YES, I see... you did take h,burg without a fight.... that isi f'd up. however it can be a good thing as now I have access to the rebs...

the status report casualty list is an up to to date figure. the combat report only shows the casualties up to the previous days return... so I thought. this accounts for the discrepancy...

the reports for today show no casualties and yet there you are in Harrisburg.. how did you do that....did I miss a turn.. did I miss a day in my life?

the result seem to show up in the status report but not in in the staff or combat reort or on the map. all I can say is nice move....
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-13-2019
Robert Banford Robert Banford is online now
Senior Member
Corporal
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 131
Default

Thank you Sir!

I did not expect to be able to take H'Burg at all, and if so, at a high cost. It was a desperate measure, if planned in advance. Beats the heck out of me on the casualties, Sir!

The overall status does seem about right....maybe it's just the Staff Reports and Battle Flags that are off? Doesn't matter as long as the totals are right, except that it would be good to know where you are taking losses or gaining ground.

I'm not trying to be a PITA (Pain In The A$$)....just was watching casualties reported not making sense and victory ratio plummeting suddenly. All is good....I did spend some time looking at the overall status, and it is well within expected margins.

My apologies if I "jumped the gun".

This has been a GREAT game, and is still a nail-biter with 8 turns to go. Let's do another and switch sides!

Or take a break and do a 1v1 or 2v2 to include the new person that was inquiring. I can't do a 5v5...travelling overseas a lot this next month or so and the coordination would be too much.

Cheers, Gentlemen.

Last edited by Robert Banford; 02-13-2019 at 09:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-13-2019
Robert Banford Robert Banford is online now
Senior Member
Corporal
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 131
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by newengldkid View Post
Good Day Banford Brothers. Let me say it is a good game and I am enjoying it. With that said Caladonia has it right my moral is very high and I also see nothing around Baltimore. Gentelman do not forget my troops did not move for 2 turns back when we had problem and you would not have Alexandria. My opinion is as Caladonia said you all moved to fast and hard in beginning and now you are going up against my brigades that are ready to fight. You also will not get Washington But good luck. Look forward to playing another game with you guys
Best Regards NEK! We did push hard initially to get y'all to react and keep forces south while I went for Baltimore. Then we withdrew and encamped a lot to regain morale and fitness. The worming into Alexandria was an unexpected run by a scouting cavalry unit, but the second time in was intentional and planned. Then the plan was to move north to take Columbia and Harrisburg from the east, while still making you worry about Washington....so far, so good, but at great cost to our hillbillies. One thing that may have hurt you guys was losing Meade and Hancock in one turn, and then every other HQ unit. I'm not quite sure how that effects the game, but it could hurt your initiative.

Anyhoo, this is one fun game, and tremendously interesting. I also enjoy playing with opponents who are challenging, kind, and courteous, which you and Caledonia are.

Best Regards,

General R.B. Lee

Last edited by Robert Banford; 02-13-2019 at 09:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-14-2019
caledonia's Avatar
caledonia caledonia is offline
Senior Member
Major
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 513
Default game

it has been a good game......but it's not over yet...
HQs are glorified scouts and have no more advantages than small cavalry units.

this would include the leaders.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-14-2019
Robert Banford Robert Banford is online now
Senior Member
Corporal
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 131
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by caledonia View Post
it has been a good game......but it's not over yet...
HQs are glorified scouts and have no more advantages than small cavalry units.

this would include the leaders.
Huh...I would have thunk that HQ units would have an effect on army initiative and morale.

Game is not over, as no fat lady singing yet, but you stomped me in H'Burg If I could have held it, we would have been in pretty good shape. Good recovery!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2010 Mutant Entertainment Studios