Naldiin

I am fairly sure I noted an awareness of the low casualty figures for charging attacks in my first post, and I suspect a moderately careful reading of the original post would suggest that I am not advocating for a 'charge-a-thon' - the method I assumed was encouraged would be one in which the charging unit was supported, and delivered (by virtue of covering units and flanking attacks) in near perfect condition and morale to the enemy, which had already been weakened. That's hardly CSA untis charging everywhere, but instead careful, prepared and relatively rare shocks to capitalize on local superiority. As it stands, what you are essentially arguing for is problematic on two levels, both historically, and in terms of gameplay. The key problem is that charges are high-risk, beause they involve being very close to enemy units, and the damage inflicted by fire is heavier the closer you are - close range volleys are a lot more devastating than long-range ones, and while close-range flanking vollies are astoundingly devastating, charging into an enemy unit's flank results in exactly the same pointless 'unit-ball' as charging the front or rear. If charging attacks are neither decisive, nor do they inflict high losses, then the charge button is simply, "Do not press this at any time, execept against isolated artillery." From a gameplay perspective, this is deeply silly - not only is there a feature that is basically pointless, but it's also a feature upon which, at least in theory, the game's balance (as a game, rather than a historical simulation) depends - CSA are supposed to have stronger charges, and tougher morale in order to carry out those charges, while Union forces are supposed to be stronger in ranged exchanges. So on a gameplay level, a high risk, low reward mechanic is a dead mechanic - and balancing a faction around a dead mechanic is a little silly. On the historical level, commanders continued to charge in the ACW. Hancock ordered a charge of the 1st Minn. at the Wheatfield, Armistead's Brigade made it into close-combat during Pickett's Charge, three union regiments charged Davis at the unfinished railroad cut, and that's what I have off the top of my head at Gettysburg alone. In short, this method of attack, while not excatly common, did happen both in the ACW, and in this battle, which makes reducing the infantry charge to a dead mechanic is also a-historical. Someone on both sides clearly thought that there was a time and place to charge. And they were not always wrong, as per the Chancellorsville example. So we return to the question, "What is the circumstance where this button is worth pressing?" You advocate for only situations where the charging unit can strike a flank or rear, which is fine, but not in any way simulated in the game mechanics and it also fails the historical-tactics test, since commanders did charge frontally as well. It seems to me that the three circumstances where a charge was seen as a valid option were, 1) attacks on an enemy in such high quality cover as to make fire-exchange pointless, 2) spoiling attacks to prevent an enemy advance (see Wheatfield example above) or 3) attacks on an enemy unit expected to be unprepared to retaliate, either due to heavy barrage or flanking. I would submit that the current mechanics do not effectively encapsulate any of these scenarios. Charging a weakened unit with a strong unit merely produces two weakened units, even if the charge is delivered on the flank, or without intercepting fire. One problem with the charge is how unclear the situation is once the 'unit-ball' forms - it probably ought to not be immediately clear who is winning until one side runs, but it's also not clear which side is even 'running' given the jumbled nature of the unit-ball. Now Blunt's guide over in the support forums recommends slamming the 'halt' button the moment the defending unit breaks, which is something I do, but it seems like that is a function that ought to be something that the unit-awareness AI does all on its own, since (due to the very low casualties) there is basically no reason to continue a melee after the target unit falls back - and one would assume the decision to get back into firing order would not be made by the commanding general. That change alone, at the very least, produce attacks that the player can make some sense out of, either Charge -> Crash -> I now hold the ground, or Charge -> Crash -> My unit is wrecked, or Charge -> Crash -> Inconclusive result, both units reform for another go.

I'm still relatively new at this, but I wanted to ask about how charges actually work in game. What I have generally been doing, as the CSA, to try to 'shock' the enemy out of a position, is to first take weaker brigades, ideally with artillery support, and start a shooting match - then move a strong, high-rank brigade in and charge it through the gap. My thinking is that the shooting contest happening prior shields the incoming brigade from fire, and weakens the target. The thing is, the charges have very little impact - when they work, they seem to just produce a moving ball of soldiers, with the impacted unit taking very few losses, while the attacking unit loses so much Condition that its basically out of the fight. These are charges where I am reaching 'melee' without substantial losses, so I'm a bit confused - given the descriptions of Union/CSA strengths, having a high rank, high condition, high morale CSA brigade of large size hitting almost any union brigade short of the Black Hats should produce a very decisive and favorable result. As it stands now, I can inflict more losses on the target with rifle-fire at max range than I can with a point-blank charge. Am I doing this wrong, or do infantry charges just produce very low casualties? It seems to me that the way this probably ought to work is a fairly large burst of losses on both sides on impact, with the proportion based on unit skill, with a CSA bonus, rather than the current slow-and-steady-bleed. A unit physically shoved out of position by a charge also probably ought not be able to (as I tend to see) immediately reform and be combat effective - you'd expect a successful charge like that to send a unit to the rear in some haste. I've also noticed, post-patch, that union artillery can cannister-shot into the mixed union/CSA unit-ball, without causing friendly-fire losses, which strikes me as strange, and further seems to weaken the impact of a charge. I want to stress, i am not charging units over long distances - these are units with 85+ morale and condition on impact (when the units enter melee), attacking with plenty of friendly units covering their flanks. So, am I using this feature wrong, or are charges just very weak? Edit: I suppose I might clarify what I mean here. I am aware that historically bayonets accounted for a very small proportion of wounds inflicted in the ACW, however, this is because, as Jomini notes, few units would withstand a bayonet charge, meaning that one unit would break and run before impact. In that case, the current mechanic, with the tendancy to produce a mixed-up unit-ball of melee still doesn't seem to encapsulate that well, even if the casualties are realistically low. Given the high risk of the manuver, the benefit of it in this context should be, it seems to me, the ability (if the charge is succesfully delivered) to scatter and rout a brigade very rapidly. So right now, what seems to happen is Charge -> Low Casualty Impact -> Disorganized Unit-ball, which then continues until the player orders the charging unit to halt. The unit ball causes a steady drip of casualties, and typically slowly pushes forward, as the defending unit tries to 'fall back' out of melee. It seems to me that, instead of this, the defender should either stand their ground, resulting in very rapid, sudden casualties to both sides, favoring the higher rank, larger unit and csa, or else (and this in most cases) the defending unit should break up, as per the Union XI Corps at Chancellorsville. That would then put the onus on the defender to break up a charge before it arrives, or get their units out of the way well in advance.

This strikes me as fairly problematic, given the differences in the armies here and the design decision to strongly favor the defender. Essentially, as the game seems set up now (I played a bit post-patch), the CSA's progression is a series of assaults on wooded hill-tops - which I get. I understand using that as the baseline scenario-set, because of the battle. But if that is the only progression the CSA can achieve, then you create a problem. The CSA essentially has to storm a series of progressively more difficult hills - first Oak Ridge (fairly easy), then Cemetary Hill and Culp's Hill (tough), then the Round Tops. That offensive mode is enforced by the victory-point placement, and further complicated by the fairly short battle time-limits in each stage, which enforce fairly rapid attacks, and discourage attempts at attritional warfare for the attacker - after all, if you inflict 4000 losses, take 1000, but the opponent is sitting on the Round Tops with their 5000+ VP, you 'lost' the stage, and, because of the logic of stage progression, will likely be forced significantly backwards. For instance, on the above progression set, post-patch, I played through the attack on the Round Tops on Day 2, having taken Cemetary and Culp's Hill. When my attack didn't succeed (even losses, but I didn't take the hills in time), I was knocked back to the historical Day 3 setup, with the union holding all of the hills. Which means that for the Union player, the stage progression is, "Either win, or recieve an even more advantageous fighting position" while for the Confederate player, the progression is, "Win several times consecutively with a smaller army on progressively less favorable ground. If you ever lose, we will reset all of your progress." I would humbly suggest that the more sensible sequence would be for a failed assault on the Round Tops to be followed by a union counter-attack on Cemetary and Culp's, or, if the Union choses not to, a second Confederate effort on the Round Tops. Essentially, I would argue that the getting the stage progression right matters precisely because it impacts one side more greatly - the side which is forced to attack. Manipulating the circumstances of the attack to be favorable is a major tool in the CSA toolbox.

More oddity - I tried the Flanking-Attack stage again. Once again I achieved a draw, but this time I lost the Peach Orchard. As a result, the choices for battle I was given were to attack Culp's Hill - apparently losing the Peach Orchard caused me to abandon my position on Culp's Hill and Cemetary Hill? Note that I held the northern-most control point on the Flanking-Attack map, so it's not like my entire flank was turned - I forced a draw and held more location points than my opponent (1500 to 1000) and inflicted casulties at 3-to-2 (3 union for every one confederate), so I hardly got thumped and driven off. I'm finding this frustrating particularly because the CSA has so few resources - being forced to make big frontal assaults on positions that are either valueless to me, or that I've already taken are really tough when I have to manage 3-to-2 casualty ratios in every fight just to avoid running out of army. So far, in my experience, the defender's advantage, especially on good ground, is considerable, which is fine, it's as it should be - but it really means the stage progression needs a better sense of who ought to have what ground, and who ought to be forced to attack, and who ought to be able to choose to defend. The CSA in possession of the town and the hills near the town doesn't need to attack, and an inconclusive fight in the Peach Orchard isn't going to change that - so the progression makes little sense.

This is one of my first playthroughs with the CSA, so it's possible I'm missing something, but the following series of scenarios makes very little sense to me. I apologize for the somewhat long description of the stages, but I want to be clear on why I think the stage-setup is not quite right. On Day 1, in the morning, I took and held everything (Epic Victory), so the battle advanced to an assault on Cemetary Hill and Culp's Hill, which I also won, taking everything. Then that automatically moved into a scenario where I could attack southward and push the union off of the field - but the majority of the victory points were on my side of the field, and I was sitting on the single best defensive position anywhere around, so I lured the union into an attack and then pushed it back, held on to Cemetary Hill and Culp's Hill, all the way down to the Peach Orchard, but didn't push down to the Round Tops. Then on the Second Day, I'm given the choice to either Hold Position, or attack the Round Tops. I opt to hold position - in any historical sense, attacking the Round Tops at this juncture is stupid. I control the town, and the road-junction. I've actually cut over the union line of supply (Hanover Road) and I am in possession of the best defensive positions on the field. Historically speaking, I have produced the nightmare scenario Buford fought so hard to avoid - I have a very strong defensive position which the union army must attack. The union gets the initiatve, since I held still, and choses some sort of 'Flank at the Peach Orchard' option. Now here's a problem - the union units enter the map not from the South-East (not from the Round Tops), but from the South West - not just along the Emmitsburg Road, but even to the West of it, which makes no sense - on the morning of Day 2, Longstreet should, in his approach to the town, already be physically in the way of this flanking manuver - historically, the Emmitsburg road was the launch-point for his flanking attack in the morning of Day 2. The scenario is heavily wieghted towards Union forces in terms of numbers, but I hold all of the victory points (I do take some losses) and the game declares that a 'draw' - which I find strange, but ok. But this then immediately moves to a stage (without a decision screen) in which I attack the Round Tops - all of the victory points are on the union side of the map (the Round Tops, mainly). So I have to attack the Round Tops anyway. I suppose my issue is: I don't understand why the Confederate player is forced to assault these positions. Culp's Hill and Cemetary Hill, which command the town, the completed section of railway, and the road junction, are the crucial strategic locations of the battle, which is why every effort, either direct or flanking, is to control, or preserve control, of these positions. It's my understanding that Buford and Reynold's efforts on the first day were based on the very direct understanding that if the Confederates gained those heights on Day 1, Meade would be forced into an assault upon them, which would almost certainly fail. As the player, being in possession of those heights on Day 1, I would like the option to wait for Meade to be forced to attack me, which he almost certainly would have been. So why is the Confederate player forced to launch an assault southward?