Prisoners

[dale]

I am wondering how the issue of prisoners will be handled in the new game. It seems that in TCSM the dynamic of taking prisoners (capturing the flag) and the inability to recapture the prisoners before they are lead off the field is clunky.

In just about every engagement involving infantry in the Civil War prisoners were taken. The larger the number of prisoners taken the more disruptive it was for the unit doing the capturing. The prisoners would have to be escorted all the way off the field of battle and then the capturing unit would have to return to its ranks. In some engagements (Globe Tavern, near Petersburg, for example) the capturing unit would in turn be captured itself, completely turning the tables. Indeed some of the units at Globe Tavern went through the issue of being captured, retaken by friendly units, recaptured and retaken about 3 times in the same afternoon!

The complete surrounding of a unit was not necessary for the unit to decide that it was in an indefensible position and it would surrendur. Factors that should influence the decision would be the experience of the commander, the troops thenselves, the fatigue of the unit, the exposure of a flank, the proximity of other units and the experience of the attacking unit. Overwhelming odds should also not be the deciding issue either for there are many instances of inferior numbers coercing the surrendur of larger bodies of troops. The more veteran units were adept at inducing the surrendur of their enemies (Iron Brigade vs Archer's troops). They would call out for surrendur before the volley would be unleashed if they thought it would avoid bloodshed.

The tactic of going into skirmish mode and literally chasing the flag down of a running unit seemed to have a disturbing arcade game quality to it in TCSM. In one sense it is accurate because of the time and distraction of getting a unit to surrendur but in another sense it was entirely inaccurate in that large numbers of soldiers would individually decide to surrendur if they were forced to route in the direction of the enemy. The whole command would not surrendur (taking the flag) but over half of the individuals would have already been rounded up. I propose that the new game should have a diffent dymanic: if the pixels of friendly units in good order (even skirmish) overlap the pixels of fleeing men there should be a rounding up effect), so that percentages of the fleeing unit would be captured.

When a unit surrendurs it has a cascading affect on the morale on nearby units. Is this reflected in TCSM? A great deal of the effect of a flank attack on large bodies of troops was that the morale was lowered on all the troops nearby. Just the sound of gunfire from an unexpected part of the battlefield was unnerving. The flight of units through the position of standing units was psychologically disruptive. This is how large armies were routed and how the commanders lost their nerve. McClelland had superior forces overall during the Seven Days battles but could not stomach the idea that Lee was attacking his flank. Hooker at Chancellorsville needs little explanation. Just the positioning of a distant battery on the flank or rear of the enemy has a huge psychological effect. (Stuart's battery at Antietam and his use of artillery during the route at Chancellorsville are prime examples.)

If engagements in the new game are going to be measured by point totals, (a whole can of worms in itself) then the value of capturing prisoners should be graded upward. I believe that capturing a whole unit is now measured just above routing it on the scale. The capture of a unit meant also the capture of its guns, flags, officers, etc. Needless to say that that unit would be removed as a fighting force for the duration of the conflict--much, much more valuable than just routing it. Indeed, the use of prisoners for exchange for others captured was a fundamental part of the war until Grant stopped the practice.

Finally, the capure of artillery was huge in the minds of the officers who fought the war. After action reports would be explicit in how many cannons were taken or lost. Whole units of infantry would be expended in the capture and recapture of cannons. The way that TCSM values the capture of a gun (20 points?) vs the routing of a gun (15?) is just ridiculous, given that the game allows for cannons just a few feet from each other to load and fire cannister at one another, thus routing it. (I have never seen an example of this in a real battle yet, nor have I seen a historical example of a line of infantry stopping 5 yards from a battery and not attempting to take it in melee. One of TCSM weakest points.)

[Gfran64]

Dale,

Every post you make, I like you more! Very interesting concepts indeed.

Greg B)

[norb]

Good stuff to think about and consider. Thanks Dale!

[Vonviper]

indeed nice topic
good ideas Dale
some other things not mentioned was the large number of soldiers who simply ran from the battle who came up missing, even just marching across a state meant afew 100 would sneak off and leave the army..

each historic battle had a lot of what would be called today as deserters
but most just couldn't take the horror of war. 1862 warfare had to be hard
it was like standing infront of a firing squad, what can be more terror then that.

to be honest though really its hard to completely be 100% accurate with computer games. just cause what it is and how data is handled and how things are made to accommodate as many people at once with difference systems vid cards etc...


Vnvpr

[ironsight]

Vonviper Wrote:to be honest though really its hard to completely be 100% accurate with computer games. just cause what it is and how data is handled and how things are made to accommodate as many people at once with difference systems vid cards etc...

I agree. Unless every single one of us had a $10K gaming PC to play the game on, tradeoffs have to be made to at least try to accomodate for the least common PC denominator. Fortunately though, some of the processing/video resource hungry features can be turned on-off depending on the particular horsepower of one's PC.

Having said that, there are things such as variables in the code for example which can be changed/tweaked to add more realism with minimal to no impact on the game's running performance. I would like to think these types of tweaks to add a little more realism to the battles are 'no brainers'.

[dale]

As a follow up on desertion...

Once a unit actually got to battle the desertion rate was not high during the civil war. Most of the attrition occured in camp or on the long marches preceding a battle. All day marches meant that the unit would arrive at the field with only a percentage of its troops present and none of them in a ready state. Marches in rain, mud, snow or at night were despised by the troops. Commanders, much to their chagrin, paid little attention to the effects of weather when planning their campaigns. Marches in a hot sun, however, were deadly. The troops were never fully hydrated, water was scarce along a line of march, and if you were not in the front ranks of the column you suffered from the dust stirred up ahead of you. During one of the August 1864 Petersburg campaigns (Deep Bottom) more Union soldiers died from the effects of sunstroke than from Confederate fire. Entire units would evaporate before they could arrive at the battle. Hancock was advised that he was about to lose an entire corps due to the effects the hot Virginia sun if he continued with the march.

On a tactical level, I would not worry so much about desertion. I am assuming that battlefield rosters were of those actually present at the battlefield (I may be wrong here). If someone is actually planning a strategic level game then the effect of marching should absolutely be factored in. Campaigns done in summer heat or winter cold or spring rains usually frustrated the commanding offensive general and quickly deteriorated the effectiveness and morale of his army.

One interesting quote I found about a unit's refusal to charge during Deep Bottom. A Union staff officer was urging his column forward to assail a fortification that looked rather tough to the men. One of the Irish in the unit called out "We would follow you anywhere, even to Hell, General, but could you just pick a longer road getting there." The whole column got a laugh at this and the commanding officer thought it best to not to do the attack after all.

[Hancock the Superb]

Bravo!

Agreeing with all accounts.