Okay, my first post. I found I was quite intrigued by the game design and graphics, and recently purchased it from Matrix. The series has a lot of potential, and I'm certainly looking forward to your ACW game. The ACW is the logical next step after a Revolutionary game, and it would have been my #1 suggestion for the next game, so bravo. By the way, I'd like to suggest that the engine also seems well suited for a classical Roman setting. A concept similar to GMT's classical games like 'Sword of Rome' might work well with this engine.
But, on to the reason for my post. I started the 1775 alternate campaign as the British. I've noticed some issues I'd like to point out.
1) Retreats. It seems the AI has a tendency to retreat towards the ocean, and tends to retreat into regions where it can easily be trapped, and cannot escape. This makes it very easy, for example, to capture George Washington and wipe out the entire Continental Army in the first few months of the war. I've seen the Continental Army retreat from Boston to New Bedford twice in two seperate games, where they are easily cornered and destroyed. The AI needs to try to avoid retreating into regions where it will be trapped.
2) Captures. When I captured George Washington and the whole Continental Army in New Bedford in August 1775, I strangely got no notification of this. I strangely got notified only of capturing the American artillery and supply units, but not a word about the American generals or the militia regiments! This is silly. Please add notifications for every general and unit that is captured.
3) Text. The game is filled with sloppy text and misspellings. For example, the scenario description for the 1775 campaign runs black text into the wood border of the interface in several places, and contains a typo in the VERY FIRST sentence of the description (TO the signing of the Treaty of Paris, not TOL the signing). I know you are a French company, and Pocus, your English is good, but you really need a native English speaker proof reading all of the game text. Cleaning up stuff like this would really help to polish your games, and make them more professional.
4) Disappearing Generals? I took an army with General Gage down to Newport, and he disappeared in November 1775. He wasn't killed in the siege, as best I could tell. I got a message that month saying that General Burgouyne had left America, but the fate of Gage was a total mystery to me. Again, please make sure the player gets notifications each time a General is killed or wounded, including enemy Generals, or when a General leaves the theatre.
5) Alternate 1775 scenario. It looks to me like the alternate version adds a lot of American regiments to the siege of Boston at game start, but this isn't clear from the scenario description. Either the regiments should be there in 1775, or they should not. In any case, I think the scenario designers should decide the best way to represent the historical reality, and then make that the one 'official' 1775 scenario, rather than starting a precedent now of creating two or three 'alternate' scenarios, which are poorly described in the menu. This just adds cleanliness to the design, rather than confusing clutter.
6) Insurgents. The .pdf manual often refers to them as 'Rebels', while often in game they are referred to as 'Insurgents', such as in the loyalty report of Insurgent vs. Tory. From a purely aesthetic perspective, it would be best to be consistent throughout the game with respect to what you call the belligerent colonists, and I suggest you use the term 'Rebel' throughout. 'Insurgent' is a word we in the English speaking world often use in the press and media to refer to Muslim fundamentalist forces fighting in the Middle East, and using the term in BoA to describe our own patriots is...slightly uncomfortable. Again, I simply suggest the consistent and politically inert use of 'Rebel' in game.
That's all for now. I'm sure I'll have more observations as I play a bit more. I'm offering some critical feedback because the game system clearly has a lot of potential, and I hope you will continue to improve it to be the best it can be.
One more thought about the way that retreat and capture is handled in game.
Forcing an uncontrolled retreat to another region after every lost battle is quite possibly a bad way to handle warfare by large armies in the 18th and 19th centuries. Large armies in this slow moving form of warfare didn't make sudden uncontrolled movements, and were also very difficult to corner.
I know a lot more about the ACW than the Revolutionary war, so I will use some ACW examples. Generally, ACW battles were fought to a more or less inconclusive result, and then one side or the other chose to make an orderly withdrawl or move after a few days. Generally, a defeated army, such as the defeated Confederate army at the battle of Shiloh, was able to make an orderly withdrawl after the battle.
My basic understanding is that this is what basically happened after the battle of Bunker Hill also, right? Neither the British or Americans were forced to move away from Boston. Rather, a battle was fought, there was some redeployment around Boston, but in the end both armies still remained in the Boston area. If I'm wrong, someone will correct me. I am still brushing up on my Revolutionary history.
But, this will certainly be more of an issue for the ACW game. These large armies often fought inconclusive battles, then remained facing each other in the same area, often for days, until one general or the other decided to make a move. Also, it's important to recognize the fact that battles were generally only fought when both sides DECIDED to give battle in a certain place. It was usually possible for generals to refuse to give battle if they so desired.
In game terms, I think this suggests that most of the time, losing a battle should NOT force an uncontrolled retreat. Rather, most battles should end with the armies in place at the end of the turn. Let the player decide to move the army or not. If they took a beating, they will move, for sure.
This would also help to make the armies less fragile, and prone to being cornered or forced to surrender. In BoA, it seems very easy to eliminate a whole army by forcing the entire force to surrender when caught in regions they do not control militarily, or when there isn't an empty region to retreat to.
In the ACW, it was obviously very difficult to force an army to surrender. If in the next ACW game, if it is possible to defeat the Army of Northern Virginia once in Pennsylvania, and cause the army to surrender after only an engagement or two, then something is wrong. Historically, Lee was defeated in enemy territory, but was then able to make an orderly retreat, avoiding any more engagements (using the passive stance in game terms) to march back to Virginia.
Maybe what is needed is better differentiation between an uncontrolled rout and an orderly retreat. Uncontrolled routs, such as the skeddadle back to D.C. by the Union army after the first battle of Bull Run, were the exception. Only force such a movement in special circumstances, when the army is totally shattered, or their morale totally fails.
Forcing an uncontrolled retreat to another region after every lost battle is quite possibly a bad way to handle warfare by large armies in the 18th and 19th centuries. Large armies in this slow moving form of warfare didn't make sudden uncontrolled movements, and were also very difficult to corner.
I know a lot more about the ACW than the Revolutionary war, so I will use some ACW examples. Generally, ACW battles were fought to a more or less inconclusive result, and then one side or the other chose to make an orderly withdrawl or move after a few days. Generally, a defeated army, such as the defeated Confederate army at the battle of Shiloh, was able to make an orderly withdrawl after the battle.
My basic understanding is that this is what basically happened after the battle of Bunker Hill also, right? Neither the British or Americans were forced to move away from Boston. Rather, a battle was fought, there was some redeployment around Boston, but in the end both armies still remained in the Boston area. If I'm wrong, someone will correct me. I am still brushing up on my Revolutionary history.
But, this will certainly be more of an issue for the ACW game. These large armies often fought inconclusive battles, then remained facing each other in the same area, often for days, until one general or the other decided to make a move. Also, it's important to recognize the fact that battles were generally only fought when both sides DECIDED to give battle in a certain place. It was usually possible for generals to refuse to give battle if they so desired.
In game terms, I think this suggests that most of the time, losing a battle should NOT force an uncontrolled retreat. Rather, most battles should end with the armies in place at the end of the turn. Let the player decide to move the army or not. If they took a beating, they will move, for sure.
This would also help to make the armies less fragile, and prone to being cornered or forced to surrender. In BoA, it seems very easy to eliminate a whole army by forcing the entire force to surrender when caught in regions they do not control militarily, or when there isn't an empty region to retreat to.
In the ACW, it was obviously very difficult to force an army to surrender. If in the next ACW game, if it is possible to defeat the Army of Northern Virginia once in Pennsylvania, and cause the army to surrender after only an engagement or two, then something is wrong. Historically, Lee was defeated in enemy territory, but was then able to make an orderly retreat, avoiding any more engagements (using the passive stance in game terms) to march back to Virginia.
Maybe what is needed is better differentiation between an uncontrolled rout and an orderly retreat. Uncontrolled routs, such as the skeddadle back to D.C. by the Union army after the first battle of Bull Run, were the exception. Only force such a movement in special circumstances, when the army is totally shattered, or their morale totally fails.
Most of this is good advice, but I think the 'uncontrolled retreat' isn't as inappropriate as you suggest.
The retreat from New York in 1776 would be a good example, basically the entire army was in flight and if the British had managed to pursue Washington would have been in even worse trouble than he was. And of course Burgoyne managed to get himself into a 'no retreat' situation in 1777, so that has to be possible in the game.
I agree with "rebel". Insurgent has a different nuance in French than in English - in English the connotation is more to being an unrecognized belligerent, a guerilla. To some degree both of these were true of the rebels in 1775-1781 (especially someone like Marion or Allen), but the word looks a little incongruous to an English speaker.
Insurgent would be a fine word for the Spanish in 1808 though.
The retreat from New York in 1776 would be a good example, basically the entire army was in flight and if the British had managed to pursue Washington would have been in even worse trouble than he was. And of course Burgoyne managed to get himself into a 'no retreat' situation in 1777, so that has to be possible in the game.
I agree with "rebel". Insurgent has a different nuance in French than in English - in English the connotation is more to being an unrecognized belligerent, a guerilla. To some degree both of these were true of the rebels in 1775-1781 (especially someone like Marion or Allen), but the word looks a little incongruous to an English speaker.
Insurgent would be a fine word for the Spanish in 1808 though.
Runyan: we have read your posts, but as they are lengthy and need some elaborated answers, we are still discussing some of the matters you express in them. As you can guess our main area of focus is now on AACW, but a 1.11 patch due after the release of our 2nd game is anyway planned, so your suggestions are indeed welcome to establish the TO DO list of this patch.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
runyan99 wrote:This would also help to make the armies less fragile, and prone to being cornered or forced to surrender. In BoA, it seems very easy to eliminate a whole army by forcing the entire force to surrender when caught in regions they do not control militarily, or when there isn't an empty region to retreat to.
I did notice that more often than not, a defeated army will retreat within the town of the province where the battle was located even if the army was standing outside the town before the battle (not a 'sortie'), meaning the player DIDN'T want to be trapped in a siege.
This produce too often IMHO 'Alesia' situations and conduces to the destruction of the entrapped army. Is this historical ? In any case this doesn't seems right in a strategic and gameplay perspective.
May be you should work out a guidelines of keys and factors to consider for the retreat priorities...that would help us model things a bit better...
Two comments for Runyan
4) Gage disappears becomes he is removed from command by King George's government: you should get a message with the historical event text.
5) Following a request of a great number of players, the 1775 alternative scenario was made to "show" them what it would look like IF we implement their suggested historical setups of 75 Boston. That was NOT our original design. Hence the term "alternative"...
As for proofreading, we were lacking the English native speakers resources to do it for BOA. This has improved for our ACW game. Please feel free to take the texts you dislike and send us the corrections
Two comments for Runyan
4) Gage disappears becomes he is removed from command by King George's government: you should get a message with the historical event text.
5) Following a request of a great number of players, the 1775 alternative scenario was made to "show" them what it would look like IF we implement their suggested historical setups of 75 Boston. That was NOT our original design. Hence the term "alternative"...
As for proofreading, we were lacking the English native speakers resources to do it for BOA. This has improved for our ACW game. Please feel free to take the texts you dislike and send us the corrections
the retreat priorities has been debated during a quite lengthy discussion, if memory serves, in the beta forum. It was decided that if the stack was majorly made of irregulars+cavalry, it would retreat to another region. If there was artillery, it would retreat into the city, and otherwise its a random roll.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
PhilThib wrote:May be you should work out a guidelines of keys and factors to consider for the retreat priorities...that would help us model things a bit better...
BoA seems to turn every defeat on the battlefield into a forced, uncontrolled rout into a city or into a random region. This seems unrealistic (e.g. the Continental army didn't rout after Bunker Hill) and seems to cause problems.
My suggestion is simple
1) Defeated armies generally don't retreat at all, but remain in place.
2) Lopsided battles however should be able trigger a rout, where the army is forced to move to a new region. An army which suffers 50% casualties in a battle, for example, might rout. There might be several factors which trigger a rout.
This change in game mechanics might necessitate some tweaking to the way battles are initiated or ended, but overall I think it would help to make the game more realistic, and give more control to the players as to where their army is going.
PhilThib wrote:That's exactly what we need to assess...what are these factors.
NB: knowing that cohesion of units and rout are a feature of ACW that will be retroffited into BOA next spring, with the first game addon
Well, with only a few hours of thought, and not knowing all of the ins-and outs of the combat system, a basic ruleset might be as follows.
An defending army which loses a battle may rout. Each of the following triggers a rout 'check'.
1) The defending army suffers 40% casualties or more during the battle
2) The attacking army is twice the size of the defending army, and the defender loses the battle
A rout 'check' consists of a 1-6 die roll against the defending commander's Strategic rating. Note an army without a leader which suffers a rout check always routs.
Failing a rout check forces the defender to retreat to a random neighboring region. If the routing army cannot retreat, it must surrender.
runyan99 wrote:BoA seems to turn every defeat on the battlefield into a forced, uncontrolled rout into a city or into a random region. This seems unrealistic (e.g. the Continental army didn't rout after Bunker Hill) and seems to cause problems.
My suggestion is simple
1) Defeated armies generally don't retreat at all, but remain in place.
I quote out the rout rule, as this is done in the new cohesion system.
Defeated armies in BOA don't do an uncontrolled rout but an ordered retreat toward an adjacent region. This is done so that the army can move away from his victor, because things are not as simple as they appears. You have for example to consider what will happen if another enemy army arrives in the region. If your army has not retreated, what should happen? Does it gets another beating, or does a magical protection prevent it to be engaged (I can see several ways to exploit that).
We have given some thoughts on this issue before and retreat with a credit in time after battle seemed to be the best way to not completely terminate the weakest side.
Another point to consider is that in BOA retreat is always voluntary: this is your leader who checks what is the power ratio between him and the enemy and then decide to retreat. If he does that, believe me, you are better be content because it means that you really can't sustain more damages. As said above, uncontrolled retreat (= rout) can only be handled by a set of complex rules that need the Cohesion system of AACW.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
Pocus wrote:Defeated armies in BOA don't do an uncontrolled rout but an ordered retreat toward an adjacent region. This is done so that the army can move away from his victor, because things are not as simple as they appears. You have for example to consider what will happen if another enemy army arrives in the region. If your army has not retreated, what should happen? Does it gets another beating, or does a magical protection prevent it to be engaged (I can see several ways to exploit that).
We have given some thoughts on this issue before and retreat with a credit in time after battle seemed to be the best way to not completely terminate the weakest side.
I understand your points. The fact remains however, that the game system cannot re-create what happened at Bunker Hill, where the British attacked a PORTION of the Continental army, that portion was defeated, and at the end of June, both armies remained in the Boston area. Nobody retreated historically. But in BoA, any battle resulting in a defeat of any kind results in a retreat to another (random and therefore uncontrolled by the player) region. In my games, every Battle of Bunker Hill seems to result in a retreat to New Haven for some reason.
It's fairly easy to exploit these retreats, especially using multiple attacks, to corner and capture an army. As it is, I'd be terrified to keep my armies anywhere near the Atlantic coast, for fear that they would retreat somewhere I could not extract them from.
Maybe the problem is that combat in BoA is often too deadly and battles are too big. The game does not seem to be very apt to create what is essentially a large skirmish (like Bunker Hill) when the potential forces involved on both sides are large.
Something is missing.
Maybe the problem is that combat in BoA is often too deadly and battles are too big. The game does not seem to be very apt to create what is essentially a large skirmish (like Bunker Hill) when the potential forces involved on both sides are large.
Something is missing.
perhaps. We have already some advanced concepts kicking, like how terrain prevent units to be engaged all at the same time, but perhaps more is needed, like a delay of several days before an attack happen between 2 forces in the same region, etc. AACW introduces more of these rules, but some testers are asking for even more delay. So this is not written in stone.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
runyan99 wrote:6) Insurgents. The .pdf manual often refers to them as 'Rebels', while often in game they are referred to as 'Insurgents', such as in the loyalty report of Insurgent vs. Tory. From a purely aesthetic perspective, it would be best to be consistent throughout the game with respect to what you call the belligerent colonists, and I suggest you use the term 'Rebel' throughout. 'Insurgent' is a word we in the English speaking world often use in the press and media to refer to Muslim fundamentalist forces fighting in the Middle East, and using the term in BoA to describe our own patriots is...slightly uncomfortable. Again, I simply suggest the consistent and politically inert use of 'Rebel' in game.
in·sur·gent /ɪ]
–noun
1. a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, esp. a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws; rebel.
2. a member of a section of a political party that revolts against the methods or policies of the party.
–adjective
3. of or characteristic of an insurgent or insurgents.
4. surging or rushing in: The insurgent waves battered the shore.
I don't see muslim fundamentalist anywhere in that definition. In fact it seems to perfectly describe the combatants in the Revolutionary War. I would suggest that you forget all your preconceptions or at least stop watching so much FOX.
In a new game I played tonight, I noticed that the Americans had abandoned Fort Ticonderaga, so I moved one regiment and one leader down from Canada, and took the fort.
My force was subsequently besieged in the fort. After a few turns, to my suprise, they surrendered without any combat occuring at all, and without a breach in the fort.
Why did they surrender?
My force was subsequently besieged in the fort. After a few turns, to my suprise, they surrendered without any combat occuring at all, and without a breach in the fort.
Why did they surrender?
Pocus wrote:the retreat priorities has been debated during a quite lengthy discussion, if memory serves, in the beta forum. It was decided that if the stack was majorly made of irregulars+cavalry, it would retreat to another region. If there was artillery, it would retreat into the city, and otherwise its a random roll.
Why does an army with artillery retreat into a city or fort? Isn't retreating into a fort, where they can be put under siege and eliminated, the last thing a general would want to do? Isn't it the last thing that General Washington would want to do with his inferior Continental army?
I encountered this in my current game. In March 1776, General Howe encountered the Continental army under Washington. Washington retreated without combat into New Haven. Yes, the Continental army contains an artillery unit. They are now besieged. I saved the game and stopped, but I assume this will lead shortly to the end of Washington and his army.
Is that really what the AI should be doing? It seems in every game I play, I'm capturing Washington within a year. Shouldn't Washington, if he wanted to avoid combat, have retreated to another region? Why should he ever want to retreat to New Haven?
runyan99 wrote:In a new game I played tonight, I noticed that the Americans had abandoned Fort Ticonderaga, so I moved one regiment and one leader down from Canada, and took the fort.
My force was subsequently besieged in the fort. After a few turns, to my suprise, they surrendered without any combat occuring at all, and without a breach in the fort.
Why did they surrender?
Because it is historical, and forces routinely surrendered to others in less than a month when besieged, even with supply around. But you are saying "a few turns", so they were perhaps starving.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
runyan99 wrote:Why does an army with artillery retreat into a city or fort? Isn't retreating into a fort, where they can be put under siege and eliminated, the last thing a general would want to do? Isn't it the last thing that General Washington would want to do with his inferior Continental army?
I encountered this in my current game. In March 1776, General Howe encountered the Continental army under Washington. Washington retreated without combat into New Haven. Yes, the Continental army contains an artillery unit. They are now besieged. I saved the game and stopped, but I assume this will lead shortly to the end of Washington and his army.
Is that really what the AI should be doing? It seems in every game I play, I'm capturing Washington within a year. Shouldn't Washington, if he wanted to avoid combat, have retreated to another region? Why should he ever want to retreat to New Haven?
I checked the code and the occurences of retreat into the city or fort are rarer that I thought. You retreat into the city if you have more artillery + supply compared to irregular + militia + cavalry.
Regular neutral in the choice.
Basically it has been decided that the priority choosen by the colonel of a regiment or arty battery is, when there is a fight in the countryside with a town or fort some kms aways:
artillery or supply wagon will try to reach the city or fort asap, to get shelter
cavalry, irregular or militia want to 'run for the hills' and spread.
regular are 50/50 and will follow the rest.
Sound rather logical. Now if you comes with an upgraded logic that can be understood simply by the players, I'm willing to change the code, provided the betas are ok with the proposal. Nothing is set in stone in BOA, its a living game, by players for players (sound like a commercial
).Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
2) Captures. When I captured George Washington and the whole Continental Army in New Bedford in August 1775, I strangely got no notification of this. I strangely got notified only of capturing the American artillery and supply units, but not a word about the American generals or the militia regiments! This is silly. Please add notifications for every general and unit that is captured.
I don't think it has been captured. Leaders can't be captured, they are either killed, wounded or escape. When wounded they are deployed in a controled town within the state of the battle. And yes this is a gameplay abstraction and balance decision, used to prevent a side to loose importants leaders except in the most dire circumstances. See as many others games handle leaders: they are not "physical" and can be attached/detached at will (Paradox games). Here you get to move them and have to think if Greene should be sent to the south with 2 months of travel, etc. Those are nice choices for the players, but we had somehow to protect leaders from being killed or trapped too easily.
So to conclude: unless you saw a black stripe on Washington portrait during battle, he will fight you again.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
Pocus wrote:Basically it has been decided that the priority choosen by the colonel of a regiment or arty battery is, when there is a fight in the countryside with a town or fort some kms aways:
artillery or supply wagon will try to reach the city or fort asap, to get shelter
cavalry, irregular or militia want to 'run for the hills' and spread.
regular are 50/50 and will follow the rest.
Sound rather logical.
So, when an army retreats, the artillery and the supply get the first say on where the whole army is likely to go? That isn't logical if you ask me. That's like Colonel Peagram telling General Lee where to go after a battle.
There is no logical reason for artillery or supply to want to lead the army into a town. If the army is retreating because it is threatened or wants to avoid battle, then the first priority (for the whole army) should always be to move to another region.
Pocus wrote:I don't think it has been captured. Leaders can't be captured, they are either killed, wounded or escape. When wounded they are deployed in a controled town within the state of the battle. And yes this is a gameplay abstraction and balance decision, used to prevent a side to loose importants leaders except in the most dire circumstances. See as many others games handle leaders: they are not "physical" and can be attached/detached at will (Paradox games). Here you get to move them and have to think if Greene should be sent to the south with 2 months of travel, etc. Those are nice choices for the players, but we had somehow to protect leaders from being killed or trapped too easily.
So to conclude: unless you saw a black stripe on Washington portrait during battle, he will fight you again.
I used the wrong word. The army apparently surrendered. The only things captured were the artillery and the supply.
The Contintenal army was in New Bedford (cornered), and lost a battle. As a result, the whole army disappeared. I assume the regiments all surrendered, but I got no confirmation of this in the dialogue box. What happened to the leaders? Did they escape, or did they surrender?
runyan99 wrote:Why does an army with artillery retreat into a city or fort? Isn't retreating into a fort, where they can be put under siege and eliminated, the last thing a general would want to do? Isn't it the last thing that General Washington would want to do with his inferior Continental army?
My point exactly !!
The army is making an ordered widthdrawal, but it don't means it can go where it is preferable to go, as the enemy is on your back. You disengage from the enemy, you have a bunch of artilleries and wagons, what will you do? Retreat into the safety of the fort, or abandon them and run for the hills? Because you really don't think that you can outpace a pursuing enemy, with perhaps cavalry with your wagons, don't you?
I think also that mileage may vary between players or situations. Some time you would prefer to retreat into the nearby fortress (let's say you are in the Quebec region and don't want to give up the fortress, I'm sure most of the time you will prefer to retreat inside the walls and not in the nearby wilderness), some time (perhaps more often, I concur) you prefer to move away.
Here is a proposal to please everybody. If you have the special order "Enter nearest city" set, in case of retreat you retreat inside the walls if a city is present. If not you move to another region. But I still think it's not that realistic in some cases, given the relative speed of the pursuer and the pursued.
I think also that mileage may vary between players or situations. Some time you would prefer to retreat into the nearby fortress (let's say you are in the Quebec region and don't want to give up the fortress, I'm sure most of the time you will prefer to retreat inside the walls and not in the nearby wilderness), some time (perhaps more often, I concur) you prefer to move away.
Here is a proposal to please everybody. If you have the special order "Enter nearest city" set, in case of retreat you retreat inside the walls if a city is present. If not you move to another region. But I still think it's not that realistic in some cases, given the relative speed of the pursuer and the pursued.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
When in the Revolutionary Wars was a defeated army ever pursued to the point where is suffered massive casualties? Washington after New York?
But you're right about the choice - abandon supply and artillery, or enter the city. I think the AI chooses to stay too often, but it's a tough call. Small forces should retreat into cities.
But you're right about the choice - abandon supply and artillery, or enter the city. I think the AI chooses to stay too often, but it's a tough call. Small forces should retreat into cities.
Why do you assume the pursiung army is faster than the retreating army? Isn't it likely that the pursuing army also has artillery and supply? It certainly is the case in my games when the main British army faces off with the Continental army. It would certainly also be the case in almost all ACW battles, where both sides are going to have just as much artillery and wagons, and both armies are pretty much always going to move at the same pace. And as others have pointed out, pursuit was rarely quick or vigourous after a battle in this period. Think Meade after Gettysburg. Armies were pretty much able to keep out of contact if they so chose, as long as they were moving at all.
I think the idea that wagons and artillery have to be abandoned or move into a city is based on some bad assumptions.
I think the idea that wagons and artillery have to be abandoned or move into a city is based on some bad assumptions.
Sticking to the BoA period, I prefer to take the example of Brandywine Creek where the Americans had to retreat in disorder after suffering a defeat. This led Gen. Sullivan in charge of the artillery to abandon all his guns (a score at most with some howitzers, I don't have the exact numbers).
The point being in case of a disordered retreat, and even more in case of a blatant defeat or rout, you abandon artilleries and wagons. I concur that in case of a fighting withdrawal, stalemate or when the combat stop at night, you can pretty easily retreat with all your heavy and slow stuff.
Also, from what you say, I get the impression that you are somehow mixing up the speed of movement at the operational scale, where both armies, the defeated and victorious ones are moving roughly at the same speed (and indeed ACW is even more plentyful of examples where the victor is unable to conduct a real pursuit) and what happen when the line break at the tactical level, with opposing foot soldiers (no need for cavalry here) moving and capturing heavy equipment left in place.
Back to the game now. In BoA there is no rule simulating complete rout, but there is some rules simulating how an army disengage from another. We will have to test if a switch (choosen by the player) can simulate correctly if you retreat into the city or in another region. For this purpose there is the Enter City special order which can be recycled conveniently in this case.
The point being in case of a disordered retreat, and even more in case of a blatant defeat or rout, you abandon artilleries and wagons. I concur that in case of a fighting withdrawal, stalemate or when the combat stop at night, you can pretty easily retreat with all your heavy and slow stuff.
Also, from what you say, I get the impression that you are somehow mixing up the speed of movement at the operational scale, where both armies, the defeated and victorious ones are moving roughly at the same speed (and indeed ACW is even more plentyful of examples where the victor is unable to conduct a real pursuit) and what happen when the line break at the tactical level, with opposing foot soldiers (no need for cavalry here) moving and capturing heavy equipment left in place.
Back to the game now. In BoA there is no rule simulating complete rout, but there is some rules simulating how an army disengage from another. We will have to test if a switch (choosen by the player) can simulate correctly if you retreat into the city or in another region. For this purpose there is the Enter City special order which can be recycled conveniently in this case.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests