Loosing generals due to starvation - concerns all AGE games

[OneArmedMexican]

I have gone back to ACW and played a CSA campaign. During that campaign, I made a mistake, resulting to the starvation of large parts of a stack containing two divisions and lead by Joe Johnston in command of an army HQ.

Here is a more detailed account of what happened:
[INDENT]I had attacked Springfield, ran into some very strange retreat mechanics which kept an inferior Union force that evaded me from retreating out of the area. Johnston himself (probably due to his particular combat avoiding traits) kept abandoning the ordered assault on the town. What was more, my stack couldn't retreat backwards (to Arkansas) either (union military control was too high in those areas). So I finally decided to march for Rolla the nearest source of supplies I could reach inspite of the Union force. I failed to take the city however (the Union beat me back in a low casualty battle). At that point my stack ran out of supplies. I dissolved the Army into its units and tried to escape each unit non its own to Western Kentucky. I managed to save about half my units (the survivors were in really bad shape though). My two former division commanders survived, too. Johnston who was still attached to his HQ disappeared when that HQ was dissolved due to lack of supplies.[/INDENT]

What is bothering me is that the AGE engine seems inconsistent as to when a general will starve alongside his troops and when he will survive.

1) A general will die if he is attached to an army HQ and that HQ is removed due to lack of supplies.

2) A general will die if if he is in command of a division and the last element in that division is removed due to lack of supplies.

3) On the other hand, a general will survive if he is not attached to any units even if all the elements in the same stack are removed due to lack of supplies.

This seems inconsistent: If I disband divisions once I see starvation is imminent, I can save my generals otherwise they die. Actually disbanding divisions is the sensible thing to do since the only hope for survivers is to rush each unit to the next supply source as fast as it can move. When it comes to HQs things are different however: detaching a general from his HQ comes with a big NM hit.

Personnaly I think generals should never disappear due to starvation. Throughout history, generals have always found ways to keep their bellies full while their men starved. In particular, I am not aware of a single general during the American Civil War that starved during while in command of his forces (and I think the same holds true for the other periods AGE games cover).

I know this isn't a big issue. But it might be something the developpers might want to look at for future AGE games. Also, this problem doesn't concern just ACW, but all AGE games since the issue seems to lie within the basic mechanics of the AGE engine.

[caranorn]

What's more important to me is that this is probably the reason why the ai loses some of it's better generals. I don't think I've ever lost a general to this mechanic as human player, but have noticed quite a number of good ai generals disapear in ways that can only be related to this issue...

P.S.: I expect your not being able to assault Springfield despite Johnston's orders was due to him having an army command and some other Confederate force present. Armies don't initiate combat unless they are the only stack in the region...

[Carrington]

I have gone back to ACW and played a CSA campaign. During that campaign, I made a mistake, resulting to the starvation of large parts of a stack containing two divisions and lead by Joe Johnston in command of an army HQ.

Here is a more detailed account of what happened:
[INDENT]I had attacked Springfield, ran into some very strange retreat mechanics which kept an inferior Union force that evaded me from retreating out of the area. Johnston himself (probably due to his particular combat avoiding traits) kept abandoning the ordered assault on the town. What was more, my stack couldn't retreat backwards (to Arkansas) either (union military control was too high in those areas). So I finally decided to march for Rolla the nearest source of supplies I could reach inspite of the Union force. I failed to take the city however (the Union beat me back in a low casualty battle). At that point my stack ran out of supplies. I dissolved the Army into its units and tried to escape each unit non its own to Western Kentucky. I managed to save about half my units (the survivors were in really bad shape though). My two former division commanders survived, too. Johnston who was still attached to his HQ disappeared when that HQ was dissolved due to lack of supplies.[/INDENT]

What is bothering me is that the AGE engine seems inconsistent as to when a general will starve alongside his troops and when he will survive.

1) A general will die if he is attached to an army HQ and that HQ is removed due to lack of supplies.

2) A general will die if if he is in command of a division and the last element in that division is removed due to lack of supplies.

3) On the other hand, a general will survive if he is not attached to any units even if all the elements in the same stack are removed due to lack of supplies.

This seems inconsistent: If I disband divisions once I see starvation is imminent, I can save my generals otherwise they die. Actually disbanding divisions is the sensible thing to do since the only hope for survivers is to rush each unit to the next supply source as fast as it can move. When it comes to HQs things are different however: detaching a general from his HQ comes with a big NM hit.

Personnaly I think generals should never disappear due to starvation. Throughout history, generals have always found ways to keep their bellies full while their men starved. In particular, I am not aware of a single general during the American Civil War that starved during while in command of his forces (and I think the same holds true for the other periods AGE games cover).

I know this isn't a big issue. But it might be something the developpers might want to look at for future AGE games. Also, this problem doesn't concern just ACW, but all AGE games since the issue seems to lie within the basic mechanics of the AGE engine.

Noticed this as well. In ACW, also applies to generals who have been joined to brigades.

Seemed funky, I agree.

[OneArmedMexican]

P.S.: I expect your not being able to assault Springfield despite Johnston's orders was due to him having an army command and some other Confederate force present. Armies don't initiate combat unless they are the only stack in the region...

Unfortunately that was not the reason; the army was the only stack I had in the region. But after the Union force outside the city evaded Johnston's stack, he didn't press the attack in order to storm the city. The next round he gave conflicting orders. Third round, Union forces outside the city evaded again and still no assault. After that it was time to get out of there since supplies were running low.

Thank you, for confirming my observations. I have to admit it is not a big issue. Starvation rarely happens to a human player. And if it does, he has made some mistakes or is playing CSA in the 64 campaign.
Still, I hope Pocus might take a look at the issue.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[OneArmedMexican]

Thank you for the explanation. Its a bit strange though: The game has to remember that a general used to be a seperate unit. After all it is possible to seperate a general from an HQ/dissolve a division. Why can't the game remember that once it removes units due to starvation?

Anyways, these engine mechanics result in illogical and annoying losses of generals. Like I said, generals historically were the last persons in an army to starve.

[Pocus]

Good arguments, especially about the AI not liking that. I'll add that to the todo list then.

[OneArmedMexican]

Good arguments, especially about the AI not liking that. I'll add that to the todo list then.

Thank you, I really appreciate it.

[Cromagnonman]

This is my chief method for removing troublesome AI generals like Jackson etc. I use it because generals are otherwise too difficult to eliminate. Surrounded, beseiged, their army annihilated, it's of no consequence. They just waltz (or teleport) through my lines and show up leading a brand new army a month or so later.