Forums

I am playing a Chickamauga PBEM game now as the Union.  I selected various options, with my opponents agreement, after reading recommendations and the forums .  One option we are using is the Flank Morale Modifier.  I find the option appealing because it encourages the historic tactic of using Brigade/Division lines.

Unfortunately, I am now having serious reservations about the Flank Morale option.  My opponent put together a very nice, well coordinated attack by three CSA brigades.  My Union regiments are definitely struggling to hold.  It is a solid line around 6 hexes long.  As I scanned the CSA regiments adjacent to my defenders, I noticed every attacking CSA regiment except 2 were B morale.  And then it struck me that due to the Flank Morale Modifier, I wasn't facing an attack of B quality rgts but instead a substantially stronger attack of A quality units-except on the flanks.  B quality units are tough but A quality units are almost unstoppable. 

So what is the problem?  IMO, the Flank Morale Modifier is increasing morale for units using historical tactics.  Yet the scenario morale ratings are already based on use of historical tactics.  Basically the Flank Morale Modifier is substantially inflating morale beyond the originally intended morale.

If initial morale ratings already assume you are using historical tactics, then morale should not be increased for using historical tactics.   Instead, morale should be decreased if you don't use historical tactics.   It seems the effects of Flank Morale Modifier should be reversed.  If a regiment doesn't have units on each flank, then that regiment should suffer a -1 morale penalty due to their flank vulnerability.

If I am right, maybe John Tiller could change the effects of the option.  Right now, I would not recommend using the option with current OOBs unless you prefer inflated morale. You definitely do not want to use it against an army with large numbers of B quality infantry. 

Personally I like the option and I have created a new Chickamauga OOB in which I reduced the morale of all infantry and cavalry units by 1.  Now if you use the Flank option, units with adjacent flank support will have morale matching the original OOB morale.  Units without adjacent units will now have a -1 morale penalty when matched against the original OOB morale. 

Unfortunately, it isn't a completely clean solution.  The Flank Morale Modifier only increases morale for disruption and rout purposes.  Other game functions which use morale based on the new OOB would now use morale one lower than the original OOB.  For example, you would see units slower to rally from rout.  The new lower morale values would also affect the optional quality modifiers.  Undoubtably there are some other effects as well.  In general though, armies would be more fragile but with historic line tactics strongly encouraged.

Any thoughts or comments?  Am I missing anything?
 
If anyone is interested in trying out Chickamauga with the new OOB, PM me and I can send you a copy.  Also anyone who wants to change morale in any OOB for any ACW game, it is a very easy process.  I used the free version of Notepad++ and it took me around 10-15 minutes to reduce the morale of every infantry/cavalry unit in the Chickamauga OOB.  Very quick and easy process.  PS: The files are labeled OOB within the game folder.

I always thought that the morale modifier only applied to morale checks as a method to reduce routing.  I'll have to read the rule again.

(05-28-2017, 10:50 AM)KG_RangerBooBoo Wrote: [ -> ]I always thought that the morale modifier only applied to morale checks as a method to reduce routing.  I'll have to read the rule again.

KG, that is correct.  Here is the description from the cwb.pdf:

[Q] Flank Morale Modifier to have the morale of units increased by 1 for Rout and Disruption determination when they have friendly non-Leader units on both flanks.[/Q]

It seems a significant, and in some cases unbalancing, option.  If the whole objective of combat is to achieve the rout of units, then combat becomes less decisive because routs/disruptions are harder to achieve.  Since a battle line can be very long, the great majority of troops will now enter combat with inflated morale vs the intended OOB morale.  In game terms, both armies should see less disruptions and routs, so a more static battle. 

And one danger is the tipping of large numbers of units from morale "B" to morale "A".  "B" morale units have a 16% chance of firepower disruption/rout without modifiers.  "A" morale units have 0% chance.  To have any chance of firepower rout/disruption of "A" units requires either enfilade, low ammo or medium/high levels of fatigue.  So basically, "B" units become the Old Guard when placed within a battle line with supported flanks as per the flank modifier option.  And the OOB has already determined those units are not Old Guard. So why should "B" units become the Old Guard when all they are doing is using historical tactics?

So the option definitely increases the staying power of armies but can also become unbalancing dependent on army composition.

From the reality perspective it seems rather realistic that a unit that is "anchored" on both sides to be more steadfast.

From the gaming perspective one shouldn't forget that even a failed assault will lead to the defender being at least disrupted and that leads to the moral being one level lower again so the next turn that unit is more vulnerable.
I don't mind the flank moral bonus because there are many modifiers that can lower the moral but few that can raise it, right ow I can only remember flank moral and having a leader in the same hex giving a raise of moral, all other things lower it.

(05-30-2017, 02:48 AM)BigDuke66 Wrote: [ -> ]From the reality perspective it seems rather realistic that a unit that is "anchored" on both sides to be more steadfast.

From the gaming perspective one shouldn't forget that even a failed assault will lead to the defender being at least disrupted and that leads to the moral being one level lower again so the next turn that unit is more vulnerable.
I don't mind the flank moral bonus because there are many modifiers that can lower the moral but few that can raise it, right ow I can only remember flank moral and having a leader in the same hex giving a raise of moral, all other things lower it.

BigDuke, actually I chose the option because it encourages realistic tactics.  And yes, units anchored on both flanks should be more steadfast in most cases.  The big question is whether a unit should be rewarded for using historical behavior or penalized for not using historical behavior.

In my Chickamauga PBEM, we are around 1400 hours, day 1.  So we have played around 18 turns, enough turns for me to see the impact of the flank morale option with standard OOB.   Basically we have long static lines in firefights.  His assault divisions are primarily B morale units, A with the FM option.  So far, I have only disrupted one B morale unit which was on a flank-thus no +1 morale bonus.  The interior B units have been invulnerable which is to be expected with a +1 morale bonus.  However what is interesting is that my Union line is holding.   My units also receive the +1 morale bonus.  Even though I have units regularly disrupt and periodically rout, so far I have always had enough reserve units to replace and maintain my line.  The improved Union morale has kept my lines from breaking.  The rebels are making very, very little progress.  Basically we have static lines because unit morale is too high.

Anyway, I decided to create a new OOB with morale of all infantry/cavalry reduced by one.  I kept the Flank Morale option on but now units are penalized for not using historic tactics.  Then I started a new game against myself and decided to compare the results to Peter Cozzins highly detailed Chickamauga book.  

Historically, the Chickamauga was a very fluid, see-saw type battle with many quick and decisive clashes settled within minutes to an hour.  The new OOB with -1 morale and Flank Morale option is producing far more disrupts and routs which is similar to the fluid, back and forth clashes of the actual historic battle.   The PBEM battle with normal OOB morale and flank morale modifier is giving a very static game unlike historic Chickamauga.  IMO, the results, at least for Chickamauga, are convincing that the Flank Morale option is best used with a modified -1 morale OOB.  

In the future, I will no longer use the Flank Morale option except with a modified -1 morale OOB.  It just gives a better game.

Do you play in phases or turns?
Do your have the optional rule "Rout Limiting" turned on?

(06-02-2017, 03:43 AM)BigDuke66 Wrote: [ -> ]Do you play in phases or turns?
Do your have the optional rule "Rout Limiting" turned on?

We are playing in Turns with "Rout Limiting" turned off.

Well that explains something, the rules used can have a lot impact on how a scenario plays out.
In turn gameplay the defensive fire is trigger or not, and even if triggered it is only 50% of what you get in the defensive fire phase. Less fire will lead to less casualties that will lead to less disruption and that will lead to less routs what overall makes the line too static.

Do you have the optional rule "Higher Fatigue Recovery" on? That one helps too to achieve lulls in the battle as the commanders take some hours to rest their units before engaging again.

(06-02-2017, 04:16 AM)BigDuke66 Wrote: [ -> ]Well that explains something, the rules used can have a lot impact on how a scenario plays out.
In turn gameplay the defensive fire is trigger or not, and even if triggered it is only 50% of what you get in the defensive fire phase. Less fire will lead to less casualties that will lead to less disruption and that will lead to less routs what overall makes the line too static.

Do you have the optional rule "Higher Fatigue Recovery" on? That one helps too to achieve lulls in the battle as the commanders take some hours to rest their units before engaging again.

Yes, I have never played the phased game or with rout limiting on.  I haven't really investigated the phased game primarily because I assume it means more emails to play out a PBEM.  Regardless, the difference between regular OOB and -1 morale OOB is significant using turn gameplay.

On rout limiting, I considered it but I decided against it because routs were often contagious.  It wasn't unusual for whole brigades/divisions  to break basically simultaneously. Panics are contagious.  Maybe with more play, I will see situations that may make me reconsider rout limiting.  Time will tell. 

Also, yes, I do have "Higher Fatigue Recovery" on.  That is one I am watching closely.  It is amazing how many units were basically out of the battle after one bout of heavy fighting.  Units could no longer stand the strain of combat after significant losses of officers and NCOs.   And I am not sure which of the fatigue recovery choices reflects that situation best but I am going with "Higher Fatigue Recovery" at the moment.

In the past year I have almost always played in phased play and, with automatic defensive fire (not the best but a good compromise since all units get to fire at 100% defensive fire), it is still one email per turn. I like it because I think it strengthens the defense to its historical strength.

Regarding the question at hand, I like Flank modifier on and rout limiting off, for reasons listed above. It has been 5 years since I read Cozzens, but the Battle of Chickamagua 2 day historical scenario is one of my 3 favorite scenarios in the whole series and I have played it three times (a win as each side, a draw as the Rebs).

One thing that makes the scenario play out differently, regardless of optional rules, is the power of hindsight. Each player knows the approximate location and strength of the enemy and knows his reinforcement schedule. The first day of Chickamagua was a battle of poorly coordinated and disjointed blind lunges (day two was better but was not like the well coordinated, corps level moves of say, Gettysburg or Chancerlorsville). Human players, while sometimes force to commit reinforcements off the march, play a much more coordinated battle and therefore are less vulnerable to the sorts of surprises and chaos of the real battle.

my 2 cents.