Scourge of War Boards

One that I just thought of. I've talked before about using cohesion in addition to morale as a unit modifier. But I think that "effectiveness" is a better way to put cohesion. Marching, fighting, taking losses, etc reduces effectiveness. Ranks are disorganized, stragglers fall out of line, commands aren't heard, officers are wounded, etc. The longer a unit is in combat, the lower its effectiveness will be. Artillery fire should predominantly lower effectiveness.

And unlike morale, effectiveness should recover very very slowly. Generally it only recovered for units overnight, as men found their unit again and commands were sorted out. It should take hours of rest away from combat to regain effectiveness.

But what should effectiveness affect? It should lower firepower, for one, and it should severely curtail melee ability if the unit has low effectiveness. It should also make movement and formation change difficult. Perhaps a unit with low effectiveness should move randomly away from where you want it to go, or face the wrong direction, or have a chance to accidentally retreat if you start giving it orders while under fire. This way, units that have been "fought out" can still fight defensively but aren't capable of anymore offensive action. I feel that this simulates the historical combat very well.

Changing formations should also carry a small effectiveness drop, which turns into a significant drop while under artillery fire and a huge drop while under musket fire. Moving from column to line was no easy task, nor would units form back into columns while under fire.

These changes would really make commanders think twice about committing troops to offensive actions. It is unrealistic to be able to micro units into column and run them out of combat, or to run units around an enemy flank quickly. It is not realistic to have one unit fight for hours and hours, changing formation multiple times and moving across country able to continue offensive actions. If you look at Antietam, the 1st Corps for the AoP was spent after its attack. Meade stated that it could probably be counted on to hold its ground but was completely incapable of any offensive movements.

These changes would make the game require much deeper thought about committing forces and would curtail "gamey" micromanagement.

Edit: My main focus on changes for the tactical aspect of the next game is adding another element besides fatigue and morale. Cohesion/effectiveness/whatever you want to call it was a major factor on the battlefield.

Um Mike, the way I model "effectiveness" in GCM is through fatigue, morale and casualties. All three combined.

Fatigue can only be recovered by resting, and is recovered faster by laying down. Casualties can never be recovered except "overnight" through returning of missing and wounded. (So basically, there is a loss of "effectiveness" that is not recovered in the course of a single battle.)

Morale is lost in slightly different ways and recovered in slightly different ways.

In GCM, morale, fatigue and casualties all affect firepower and melee ability, as well as the likelihood of units falling back or retreating without orders. (I don't consider the in-game casualties to all represent men that were hit necessarily -- it would include cowards and stragglers -- this is why casualty figures are reduced in the after-battle report.)


The effects of these losses and the way they are accrued or recovered from can be modded in a lot of different ways. I don't think adding a fourth such measurement to units would change the game much.

I do agree though that being able to have a penalty of some kind for changing formation would be really good. But that's a separate issue, and I've seen no indication that NSD thinks it's important.

Um Mike, the way I model "effectiveness" in GCM is through fatigue, morale and casualties. All three combined.

Fatigue can only be recovered by resting, and is recovered faster by laying down. Casualties can never be recovered except "overnight" through returning of missing and wounded. (So basically, there is a loss of "effectiveness" that is not recovered in the course of a single battle.)

Morale is lost in slightly different ways and recovered in slightly different ways.

In GCM, morale, fatigue and casualties all affect firepower and melee ability, as well as the likelihood of units falling back or retreating without orders. (I don't consider the in-game casualties to all represent men that were hit necessarily -- it would include cowards and stragglers -- this is why casualty figures are reduced in the after-battle report.)


The effects of these losses and the way they are accrued or recovered from can be modded in a lot of different ways. I don't think adding a fourth such measurement to units would change the game much.

Yes, but morale, fatigue, and casualties are all different entities than effectiveness. Perhaps cohesion is a better word. A unit could launch an assault, carry the position, have extremely high morale, rest for a few minutes to catch their breath, and have taken some losses, but still be an ineffective force. I don't dispute that cohesion can be modeled using morale, fatigue, and casualties but I do believe that it should be a separate entity. Once again I point to the 1st corps at Antietam - it was ready to hold its ground but was completely incapable of any further offensive action - and it wasn't because of fatigue.

I do agree though that being able to have a penalty of some kind for changing formation would be really good. But that's a separate issue, and I've seen no indication that NSD thinks it's important.

This would be a major step forward.

IMO, changing formation should take much longer. Units in the middle of changing formation should be vulnerable.

Simples !?!?!?