Serious Retreat Issue

[denisonh]

During a PBEM, I had a situation where Washington's Army, enroute to an adjacent American held town with a garrison and a depot (from Providence to New London), is attacked and then retreats the opposite direction towards a British held town. The fact it is winter and retreating away from his lines of communication and supply, as well as put him in a catastrophic strategic position makes absolutely no sense. See attachments.

I am now stuck in New Bedford, cannot get out, and will lose the game.

The fact that the mechanism that forced Washing to retreat towards an enemy held town which (will spell doom for him) in the middle of winter rather than along the road he was already ordered to move along towards a friendly garrisoned town with a depot makes NO FLIPPING SENSE. leure:

[runyan99]

I've been complaining about retreats in BoA for a long time.

Few understand the problems, unti they play a PBEM and get screwed by the rules. There is lots of room for improvement here.

The greater combat delay I have mentioned in the past would make it harder to initiate a battle, and thus cause fewer retreats. I am Denison's opponent in the above mentioned game, and Howe's army 'caught' Washington as soon as Howe arrived in the region, resulting in the battle and the retreat, despite the fact that Washington was trying to move out of the region. It's pretty easy to exploit this.

If stacks retained their movement orders instead of losing them when a retreat happens, and tried to retreat to the region they have a move order to (provided the region is friendly controlled), that would make a big difference.

I've seen the Continental Army retreat east towards the coast in a number of PBEMs, which typically result in Washington being trapped against the sea. It seems there is a strong bias in the game to retreat east as the Americans. If nothing else changed, the devs need to make sure that the default retreat direction in the AWI scenarios is west, towards the interior, not east.

[runyan99]

Not to overstate the case, the uncontrolled retreats in BoA take the game completely out of the hands of the players, ruins most of my PBEMs, and makes BoA pretty much unplayable as a 2-player game.

Specifically, it is almost impossible to play the game as the Americans against a human opponent, and not lose the Continental army because of the retreat rules.

[denisonh]

It most certainly is a game breaker. Enough of one that I would not attempt to play another PBEM unless this issue is corrected.

[PhilThib]

In this instance, I'd be interested in a save of the retreat game turn and the previous one

[denisonh]

Easy enough.

Send it to support@ageod.com ?

[PhilThib]

Yes, thanks

[boudi]

This is not a serious problem. New Bedford is free of defense. Set washington's army in defense option, go inside New Bedford, and wait the winter end.

[denisonh]

This is not a serious problem. New Bedford is free of defense. Set washington's army in defense option, go inside New Bedford, and wait the winter end.

Given the condition of the Army, the strength of the British in the nearby territories, the new supply rules, and a human opponent well aware of the consequences of decisively defeating the young continental Army, I have to disagree on your assessment.

In any case, the point is Washington should never of retreated there away from his lines of communication and supply. There is no reasonable or plausible explanation that is acceptable, so I maintain it is a serious issue.

[Pocus]

Easy enough.

Send it to [email="support@ageod.com"]support@ageod.com[/email] ?

I got it, I will check that within some days.

[Pocus]

managed to check it today.

The behavior was logical - given the current state of the code - this means there is no unexpected bug: The rules for now are to retreat to the highest military controled region, and in case of tie to randomize the target region.

You retreated toward New Bedford which was 100% controled by you (despite the city still flying British color).

Now, we can improve that, by adding a retreat interest bonus to region where you own a city, fort and depot, this would have changed the destination to the region you seek in your case.

[denisonh]

managed to check it today.

The behavior was logical - given the current state of the code - this means there is no unexpected bug: The rules for now are to retreat to the highest military controled region, and in case of tie to randomize the target region.

You retreated toward New Bedford which was 100% controled by you (despite the city still flying British color).

Now, we can improve that, by adding a retreat interest bonus to region where you own a city, fort and depot, this would have changed the destination to the region you seek in your case.

Pocus,

Is the region that the attacker came from and, in this case, the region the defender was moving to taken into account?

If a player is in a defensive mode moving to a destination under 100% of military control and not being attacked from that same region, why should the retreat be to a "random" location?

If an Army is defending a region (i.e. not moving), I can see perhaps randomizing with emphasis on control, depots and fort, but the destination of a withdrawing army is an important (and conscious) strategic decision by the player. Randomizing it without conditions that prevent the withdrawing move such as enemy control or occupation is a problem.

There needs to be an allowance to allow a player to make a strategic withdrawal or retreat, which randomizing does not seem to allow.

[Pocus]

this is not considered, because things get rather ugly when you consider multiple stacks in attack and defense, and the fact that most of the time you would want to retreat all the stacks in the same region. There is only randomization when all things are equals, but now that structures levels are taken into account, there are few chances that two regions can have the same interest.

[denisonh]

this is not considered, because things get rather ugly when you consider multiple stacks in attack and defense, and the fact that most of the time you would want to retreat all the stacks in the same region. There is only randomization when all things are equals, but now that structures levels are taken into account, there are few chances that two regions can have the same interest.

Maybe it is a simple as letting current movement orders stand if they meet certain criteria for retreat?

[Wilhammer]

Perhaps the easiest fix is to just have units retire to the Area they came from?

They have to still have sufficient control to enter that region. This leads me to ask - does control of an area change day by day DURING a turn execution?

----------------
Basically, a unit in retreat will fall back on its line of communications and/or supply.

Many times the LOC and the Supply Line are the same thing, not always.

In Runyans experience above the unit retreated to an area that was NOT in his supply net and not in any contact with other areas to have enough supply...

So, at least, the unit should retreat to an adjacent Zone that is getting the most supply. Control of an area is obviously not enough; I personally think that, if its to be complicated for all kinds of situations, my humble suggestion are below;

1. Go Back to the Zone you came from. (Not doable, say, your back is against the wall or its an amphib assault).

2. Got to an adjacent Zone that has sufficient control and the Highest Supply value. Level of control is secondary to supply availability.

3. Only then (say no supply or all are equal), then retreat to a zone that gives you the highest AVERAGE control '(structure+area)/2'

It might take a little longer to process, but I'd much rather have it modeled correctly.

My Buck-Fifty...

[runyan99]

Wilhammer can attest to having several opportunities to capture Washington's army in our last game due to the retreats.

[Wilhammer]

Yes, Runyan, the retreat to Long Island was memorable.

Who's army was it that kept trying to leave a lost state and head to safer areas, only to retreat into the mountains, repeatedly, until death by starvation and combat wiped it out?

Earlier, we had the retreat to Portsmouth, up near Maine, that almost got him trapped.

Geo managed to get out of his many retreat foibles, but at great damage to his force and much nail biting.

[Pocus]

Maybe it is a simple as letting current movement orders stand if they meet certain criteria for retreat?

except if you are penetrating an hostile territory.

[Pocus]

Perhaps the easiest fix is to just have units retire to the Area they came from?

They have to still have sufficient control to enter that region. This leads me to ask - does control of an area change day by day DURING a turn execution?

----------------
Basically, a unit in retreat will fall back on its line of communications and/or supply.

Many times the LOC and the Supply Line are the same thing, not always.

In Runyans experience above the unit retreated to an area that was NOT in his supply net and not in any contact with other areas to have enough supply...

So, at least, the unit should retreat to an adjacent Zone that is getting the most supply. Control of an area is obviously not enough; I personally think that, if its to be complicated for all kinds of situations, my humble suggestion are below;

1. Go Back to the Zone you came from. (Not doable, say, your back is against the wall or its an amphib assault).

2. Got to an adjacent Zone that has sufficient control and the Highest Supply value. Level of control is secondary to supply availability.

3. Only then (say no supply or all are equal), then retreat to a zone that gives you the highest AVERAGE control '(structure+area)/2'

It might take a little longer to process, but I'd much rather have it modeled correctly.

My Buck-Fifty...

I will add something to do about that.

[denisonh]

except if you are penetrating an hostile territory.

I would think that would not meet the criteria for retreat, and neither would moving to friendly controlled territory that contains enemy forces.

[Hobbes]

Something similar to the current movement from a thawed lake.