1755-1763 Scenario: French allowed to reach Virginia unpunished?

[Drakken]

I just played the 1755-1763 scenario and I was baffled to see lone French irregulars just walk inside British American territory and reach deep to the coast of Virginia unopposed as soon as in 1755, even besieging Williamsburg, VA while being totally surrounded by 100% loyal British regions.

While I can accept that lone units can forage easier and irregulars can move easier in enemy territory, I do not think that French irregulars should be able to go deep inside territories totally loyal to the British without facing supply shortage or loss in cohesion/troops. They should at least attempt to create a line of supply before advancing.

[PhilThib]

By nature, irregulars just do not check about supply that much . Now, the raid so deep inside enemy territory is most probably an AI abuse...we'll have a look into it next week...thanks for spotting

[Pocus]

They will lose cohesion fast though, so unless if there is an undefended city ripe for the taking (and some plunder), they will be recalled within a few turns by the AI for some good rest.

Lack of loyalty and/or lack of military control = more cohesion loss. It depends also of there cohesion usage by move, in the database.

[Drakken]

They will lose cohesion fast though, so unless if there is an undefended city ripe for the taking (and some plunder), they will be recalled within a few turns by the AI for some good rest.

Lack of loyalty and/or lack of military control = more cohesion loss. It depends also of there cohesion usage by move, in the database.

But they are indeed undefended cities between Lake Champlain and Virginia, and garrisons cannot be redeployed because they are locked in-position.

[PhilThib]

We can possibly have some kind of auto-garrison rule implemented, but it may be both unhistorical and unbalanced for the game. Will need further checking and testing

[GShock]

I think the best solution is to defend the settlements. But the AI shouldn't be allowed to go deep without having established a supply line first.

[Pocus]

Supply line is not a valid concept for this place and time. If by that you mean a string of depots, with ample stock and a garrison!

[GShock]

I mean that without a "supply line" units should be unable to pursue offensive operations. If the AI does, it should be suicidal. With supply line i just mean a calculation whether to go or not into enemy territory depending on the survivability of the unit on its supplies.

WiA can't use the same supply algorythm and rules as AACW.
1) There's no railroads
2) The turn is 30 days long.

Adapting the AI to the new concepts surely hasn't been easy thing.

[Clovis]

The real problem isn't tied to supply, irrelevant in this time and place for raiding parties, or garrisoning.

The fact is very few people will accept long range missions in enemy territories. They will accept short range because they will be assured to come back from the mission. In any other case, the fear to be among enemies, withot possibility to retreat in safety, will lead them to say no to any leader planning such a move.

Of course, some men will agree to do such missions. They will be named commandos or any other name. they will accept such a risk.

In WIA, like in ACCW, any man is a commando. You may send any conscripts several hundred of kilometers away...

In short, rules prohibiting that are lacking. Obviously, attrition for small groups in deep enemy territory should be so high the group would disappear in one turn, except with special leader or very high cohesion level. But clearly, such a rule is badly needed.

[lodilefty]

Given that much of the map is wilderness, why wouldn't irregular raider types [Natives, Courriers, Rangers] be able to raid deep and far? Living off the land is what the Natives did anyway, and the other raider types were either frontiesmen or were trained to do this.

[Stwa]

Given that much of the map is wilderness, why wouldn't irregular raider types [Natives, Courriers, Rangers] be able to raid deep and far? Living off the land is what the Natives did anyway, and the other raider types were either frontiesmen or were trained to do this.

OK, I cant resist....

1. Because living off the land is NOT as easy as it sounds in the 21st century. Especially if you have a whole bunch of guys all-together at once. Were making them sound like Vikings or Sarmations.

2. Why would irregulars travel hundreds of miles to torch a settlement, when they can probalby torch one much closer by. You only do this because the game lets you and you score some points.

3. Ammo might be a concern as well. In the movies they are always casting their own bullets, and they always seem to have plenty. A complete exageration.

4. In the 18th century, the chances of retrieving a unit that has out-paced the army (i.e. no command control), is inversely proportional to how far away they unit gets. Heck they may decide to stop, find new wives and set-up a brand new homestead.

[Clovis]

anothe point I forgot:

map... Raids in totally unknown regions are just suicidal. At this time, raiders and at fortiori Indians didn't get maps of Virginia.... Raids were confined on objectives whose roads were known by raiders or in vicinity of.

[Stwa]

anothe point I forgot:

map... Raids in totally unknown regions are just suicidal. At this time, raiders and at fortiori Indians didn't get maps of Virginia.... Raids were confined on objectives whose roads were known by raiders or in vicinity of.

1. Yes, good point. Feer of the unkown. A long trip of any kind was hazardous by its nature.

2. Let us not forget, that even if there was no supply line, there is still a communication line.

3. In the game, you get instant feedback from all your deep raiding irregulars. It would be better if you had to plot their entire move right to the destination, and when they get a province or two away from you, their unit is no longer visible. Quite frankly, you would probably never hear from them again. Maybe after the war.

[GShock]

I feel a disturbance in the force (Clovis getting on WiA)...

[lodilefty]

Methinks we are into the realm of AI behavior?

...our old friend supply/distance anticipation. A human knows it, but Athena thinks day-to-day...

We could tweak models and units, but I'd rather hear from Hok and 'the Phils' on this first....

[Pocus]

I don't quite see which rule can be set so to prevent deep raid. If this is doable and have a profit, then both the players and the AI will do that.

[Clovis]

I don't quite see which rule can be set so to prevent deep raid. If this is doable and have a profit, then both the players and the AI will do that.

I don't think it was doable, except for some special groups maybe for the reasons mentioned here.

What I would envision :

- prohibition for small forces( ie until 3 units) to move farther than 3 regions whose loyalty in under 20 from a region where loyalty is at least 50
- exception to this rule for special leaders with "long range raider ability" or units whose cohesion is at least 90.

[StatboyVT]

Given that much of the map is wilderness, why wouldn't irregular raider types [Natives, Courriers, Rangers] be able to raid deep and far? Living off the land is what the Natives did anyway, and the other raider types were either frontiesmen or were trained to do this.

Ignoring the supply issues, I'll just add that it's not historical at all. I was playing the 1755 campaign as the British, and one unit of French irregulars marched down and laid siege to New York! Whether or not they'd physically be able to do that really isn't the point. The main point I think is that no man would be willing to march hundreds of miles with just 200 men to attack New York City, and no commander would be foolish enough to order him to do so. It's basically WW2 Japanese Kamikaze tactics that aren't nearly as effective, because the attacking group is easily wiped out if you have troops nearby.

Basically, no east coast towns or cities in the major states should ever be raided. Raiding in the FIW was out on the Frontier. George Washington defended Virginia's frontiers against Indian raids throughout the war. But he defended the frontier...the mountain/valley areas. The wilderness. He wasn't defending Alexandria from a besieging Miami warband.

Overall though, great game, I love it. And I appreciate the tremendous customer support!

[lodilefty]

I don't think it was doable, except for some special groups maybe for the reasons mentioned here.

What I would envision :

- prohibition for small forces( ie until 3 units) to move farther than 3 regions whose loyalty in under 20 from a region where loyalty is at least 50
- exception to this rule for special leaders with "long range raider ability" or units whose cohesion is at least 90.

Nice, but currently the FIW does not include Loyalty....

...maybe we could use Military Control?

[GShock]

Issue already brought up by me, long time ago.

I think this could be done by making loyalty affect more incisively on MC so that it's harder to achieve that 25% MC to let supplies pass.

On the other hand, the fact I occupy New York, should allow me to refill my supplies but should not allow me to have replacements.

Abstraction is important, but if you couple the lack of supplies in deep enemy territory (you need to keep lots of troops to keep the MC above 25% and let supplies pass) with the lack of replacements from captured settlements, i think this problem would be solved.

Perhaps the algorythm in use by supplies could exclude from replacement priorities any settlement in an enemy State if the capital is not in control?

[lodilefty]

Issue already brought up by me, long time ago.

I think this could be done by making loyalty affect more incisively on MC so that it's harder to achieve that 25% MC to let supplies pass.

On the other hand, the fact I occupy New York, should allow me to refill my supplies but should not allow me to have replacements.

Abstraction is important, but if you couple the lack of supplies in deep enemy territory (you need to keep lots of troops to keep the MC above 25% and let supplies pass) with the lack of replacements from captured settlements, i think this problem would be solved.

Perhaps the algorythm in use by supplies could exclude from replacement priorities any settlement in an enemy State if the capital is not in control?

Gshock! Think AACW minus 100 years!

There is no 'passing of supplies' in WiA! No supply network. Supplies are generated locally in each region, by structures, depots. You must run your own supply wagons if you 'go awandering'.

..and "State" really didn't exist, at least not cleanly. AFAIK there are no 'Capitals' defined... [The infighting over who owned what went on well after the Treat of Paris. ]

AFAIK, These deep raids are driven by the 'petty war' [or petit war] rules. Athena keeps on going trying to find a settlement to plunder for points... cities and towns are 'pillage magnets' and she doesn't really 'think ahead'...

So: FIW = no loyalty rule, petty war on; AWI = loyalty rule, no petty war; totally different "urges" for Athena

I wonder if there is a parameter in the settings or models we can adjust?

[PhilThib]

IIRC, there are columns CT and CU in the latest Models.xls file which can be used (don't ask me exactly how though )

[lodilefty]

IIRC, there are columns CT and CU in the latest Models.xls file which can be used (don't ask me exactly how though )

Ex-actly

I wonder what they do? They have values in WiA only for leaders....

..and for different DB, with different columns [ ] they are:
AIRole_Skirmisher
[color="Red"]AIRole_Raider[/color]

[Clovis]

Nice, but currently the FIW does not include Loyalty....

...maybe we could use Military Control?

Why not?

[GShock]

Stop movement further into enemy territory with MC checks compared to force size?
Insert checks on all neighbouring regions so that if there's none with at least 25% the stack would be locked in place to starve and increase desertion?

mmmm

[Pocus]

These are AI columns, to tell the AI that some leaders are to be favored for some roles. It does not mean another leader can't go 'deep raiding'.

When I said 'if this is doable', I did not meant 'historically', I mean that for now I don't see an easy rule to code and then follow by players to prevent deep raiding. Clovis proposal for example seems very grognard to achieve the desired result. If people need to remember various set of conditions to be able to understand why they can or can't move into a given region, then the game will be as complex in the end as the Advanced Squad Leaders manuals. Only lawyers will understand it in the end

[Clovis]

These are AI columns, to tell the AI that some leaders are to be favored for some roles. It does not mean another leader can't go 'deep raiding'.

When I said 'if this is doable', I did not meant 'historically', I mean that for now I don't see an easy rule to code and then follow by players to prevent deep raiding. Clovis proposal for example seems very grognard to achieve the desired result. If people need to remember various set of conditions to be able to understand why they can or can't move into a given region, then the game will be as complex in the end as the Advanced Squad Leaders manuals. Only lawyers will understand it in the end

OK...Another one: any force as I defined entering a region whose Military Control is under 25% could: - often be locked in for the whole turn - sometimes locked and suffering high attrition. Cavalry would get better chances to remain untouched and special leaders/ units yet more...If a friendly big stack, or a region with MC above 50% would be in an adjacent region, then chances would be the best possible to avoid these malus...

[Pocus]

I prefer. Perhaps combined with some refinements on the Hard activation rule.

[GShock]

We must devise a good system that works with both settings on the activation rule. This is not so easy...i am proposing the same Clovis is proposing, using the MC but also, to increase the speed at which loyalty affects the MC of the regions you just abandoned.

If you need more troops to fight the loyalty against you, as garrison, this simulates supply lines and you can't resupply all of the line without supply wagons for the region and 1 adjacent regions.

This would make it impossible to penetrate deep into enemy territory (and the AI has to be tweaked in this sense) as the problem is more related to player than to AI. I think it's just an "AI abuse" that can be tweaked without any intervention at all...but the problem for player remains.

Another option is to make the AI calculate whether your move is suicidal or not during the processing phase. Just like you give order and general doesn't obey...you move deep in enemy territory and the general stops along the process.

I think these coupled things would work regardless of the activation rule preset by the player.

[Stwa]

Stop movement further into enemy territory with MC checks compared to force size?
Insert checks on all neighbouring regions so that if there's none with at least 25% the stack would be locked in place to starve and increase desertion?

mmmm

Or (for irregulars) their movement rate, desertion rate, and consumption of supplies, should be inversely proportional to the loyalty of the region they occupy.

The longer they stay in enemy territory, their unit will slowy dwindle down.