Not retreating after losing a battle

[ArmChairGeneral]

See the above. The rationale is "a force will automatically adopt offensive posture in an attempt to get a foothold there."

This is the rationale for changing the posture on entering, not for giving the automatic 5% that Pocus says is already granted under the current rules, which I think is what AndrewKurtz asked.

The fact that the rules-as-written already include a 5% MC gain on entering a region implies that 5% is not a big deal in terms of the mechanics it effects (it is well below the threshold values for most of them) and was how Pocus intended things to work, but that there is a problem with the way it is happening in practice. So then what we are talking about is not whether there ought to be a change TO a 5% rule, because there already is one, but that it isn't sticking long enough to do what it was supposed to do (at least as far as we know, because we don't have an answer to Andrew Kurtz question about why the rule exists).

That being said, the only reason an automatic 5% was bandied about was because it is a measurement that is reported to the player and appears related to the problem (everything looks like a hammer when all you have is a nail ). Any other method to address posture-looping would probably be less risky than tinkering with MC because it affects so many other subsystems that there is a lot of room for unintended consequences..

[AndrewKurtz]

ArmChairGeneral. I think you nailed it, both why I asked the question and positioning the decision.

[Captain_Orso]

To decide what we want to do, we should look at the definition and more particular the effects of mc.
Going by the wiki:

- increases your chances of stopping an enemy force trying to cross it
- and the *cohesion cost* incurred by enemy units moving into/through the region.
- affects the chances of a corps successfully “marching to the sound of the guns”
- if you control at least 51% of a region your *detection level* will increase
- you cannot *retreat* from battle into completely hostile regions (i.e. less than 5% military control)
- In regions with 5% or less military control (i.e. enemy territory), a force will automatically adopt offensive posture in an attempt to get a foothold there. However, forces in passive posture or those composed entirely of *cavalry*,*irregulars* and *support units* may transit through enemy territory without switching *posture*.
- During *amphibious assaults* and *river crossings* into regions where you have 10% or less military control, your posture is also automatically set to offensive (unless the force is entirely composed of irregulars)

Also it deals supplies getting through.
We should be careful how we go about this.
We should be able to cut off supplies, definitely if your force is a lot bigger then the opposing force.
Again if you move you force into a position where they have no mc and are a lot smaller, you should pay the price. There is a reason why a lot of the commanders in that time era where obsessed with tactical and strategic manoeuvres and that sometimes forces retreated without battle.
Because they didn't want to get into a situation where they were without a safe retreat.
If you want to avoid that, pack enough guns and men.

- you cannot *retreat* from battle into completely hostile regions (i.e. less than 5% military control)
This is not correct. That it is not correct is the entire reason why the request for changes to the retreat rules were made in the first place. Those changes are what spurned this thread.

The issue with the way retreats worked up until 1.05RC2 was that in the numerous occasion the AI would invade the north and then either voluntarily move off from, for example Pittsburgh, or be pushed out through battle, often times the invading force, once out of Pittsburgh, would start running rampant through the North, not only moving further from the safety of the South, but every time that such a force was caught and lost a battle, it would simply be retreated away and into a region in which it had 0 MC.

- In regions with 5% or less military control (i.e. enemy territory), a force will automatically adopt offensive posture in an attempt to get a foothold there. However, forces in passive posture or those composed entirely of *cavalry*,*irregulars* and *support units* may transit through enemy territory without switching *posture*.
This is also not written in the Wiki. It actually says that when entering a region in which you have =<5% MC your force will automatically go to OP. It doesn't actually say that this will happen if you are simply standing in a region with =<5% MC that your force will automatically go to OP, although this seems to be the case, but I'm not sure if that's the exact rule.

I thing the original theme of the thread is getting lost, which is that since the 1.05RC2 engine, stacks which lose a battle are no longer retreating out of the region, and this is why:

Actually it is true that recently I made a change about stacks and posture. If there is no enemy in offensive posture and you retreat, then you don't, you just break off combat and stays in region. Is this bugged?

So the original issue was that after losing a battle stacks were retreating out of the battle region and into a region in which that stack's factions has 0 MC.

Now we have the issue that after losing a battle stacks are not retreating out of the battle region.

So, are these two different issues? Or the same issue with two different opinions on what the rule should be?

[AndrewKurtz]

The issue has never been that they are not retreating. The issue is that because they do not retreat and they are in a region at the start of the turn with under 5% MC, they are automatically changed to OP.

And very importantly, this change to OP happens, not when they enter a region. They are trying to exit and it happens. It also happens whether on passive or not.

This results in an unintended battle of loops.

Previously this was not exposed because the force retreated to another region.

So to fix ot either:

1. Forces need to retreat out of the region (not my recommendation)
2. Forces in a region, perhaps with some logic based on relative size of forces, need to have at least 5% MC (second best option in my opinion)
3. The changing to OP needs to work as you described it...only upon entering the region and not if in passive posture

[Captain_Orso]

Did you read what I wrote?

There are two issues.

• One is that people are complaining that a stack which loses a battle will retreating into regions where the stack has 0 MC. This was 'fixed' in 1.05RC2.
• The second was caused by this fix which prevents any stack from retreating out of a region, unless the winning side was in OP/AP. If the winning side is in DP, the stack will not retreat, but go into DP.

I've made suggestions a couple of times on how to fix this and they are simply ignored.

Then somebody else can come up with a suggestion, which will fix both issues at the same time.

[AndrewKurtz]

I did and I don't understand what your describing as point two doesn't seem to match the real issue as I see it. I was actually wondering if you were reading what I was writing. Guessing I am missing something. Maybe someone can jump in and explain exactly what your recommendation for the mistaken change to OP is.

Sorry I'm not following.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Orso,
It is pretty clear from reading your last couple of posts carefully that you are not quite getting what we are talking about, and are possibly confusing the discussion in this thread with some of the other RC3 threads (which is understandable, there have been multiple threads and multiple issues that people have been talking about). The things you are talking about are all important points, and many of us probably agree with most of them (I do, for the most part), but the only place they intersect with the main line of discussion in this thread is in this line:

It doesn't actually say that this will happen if you are simply standing in a region with =<5% MC that your force will automatically go to OP, although this seems to be the case,

It is likely, based on the observations of numerous reliable posters, that this is EXACTLY what is happening. THIS (and only this) is what we (at least AndrewKurtz and I) have been talking about in the latter half of this thread. It sounds like this SHOULD only happen when entering a region, but nonetheless it appears to be happening every turn, causing a loop of battles that is (probably) not the intended behavior. As pgr said in another thread, this is not a bug, but the result of a conflict in the game-logic that was never apparent before because defeated stacks retreated under all conditions.

Figuring out what exactly is going on, why it is happening, and suggesting possible solutions to the specific issue that still achieve Pocus' intended outcome is what this thread has (mostly) been about. Obviously it would be best if the posture switching behavior only triggers upon entry, but for whatever reason, it is not happening this way currently. It may be that a minimum MC approach is a next-best solution that leads to the intended outcome. Indeed Pocus may decide on an entirely different, even better approach than either of these. (For that matter, we may all be off-base and he WANTS this to happen).

[Gray Fox]

As I seem to recall, AACW and the initial rule set of this game punished a force for having no line of retreat with annihilation. This was too harsh for some players (after all, a game should be fun to play), so a defeated force was allowed a guaranteed line of retreat. This created the situation where Athena would send a force to Pittsburgh and then you would have to chase it all over the northeast. The game was fixed again so that a force could be "pinned down". This also seems to feel wrong. How can we make sure that Athena is not a slippery fish touring all over the single-player's Union and that a PbeM force gets fair punishment for failure, but still make the game fun to play?

I humbly suggest a force that fails in battle without an ability to retreat be removed, but not annihilated or pinned down into slow torture. The units of that force would show up a turn or two later temporarily locked in a friendly city. At least half the force would be lost, but half would still survive. This is real world. It represents a unit breaking down into smaller groups and "getting out of Dodge" by exfiltrating. Half the force don't make it or get rounded up by the enemy. This is what the Union army pretty much did after the first Bull Run. After a few turns to regain cohesion and replacement, the unit would once again be ready for use.

[Captain_Orso]

*ugh* Okay, I see now how we've been talking past each other

The issue with a stack going back into OP after being put into DP by the game or the player is only the last in a chain of events. It is also probably the one that stands out the most, because it results in battle after battle, whether the player wanted to go to battle or not.

To summarize

• A stack moves into a region with =<5% MC (=<10% if landing from ships or crossing a major [navigable] river) and, if in DP, will be automatically changed into OP, so that a battle will more than likely occur. (As far as we can tell, no change has been made here.)
• If the stack moving into the low MC region loses the battle, it goes into retreat. If the stack(s) which won the battle is in DP, the retreating stack will not be retreated out of the region, but be put into DP. (This is the first change that occurred.)
• The stack which lost the battle, and is now in DP is being put into OP through an unknown rule. This I believe is a new rule. Reasoning: Before 1.05RC2 it was common to occasionally find a stack in retreat from a battle region in DP. I generally set such stacks into DP with EC (Evade Combat) and hopped for the best. They never went into OP, although they probably had 0 MC in the region from which they were retreating.
• Now, since the stack which lost the battle is not retreating out of the battle region and being put into DP, the second change is putting the stack into OP, although it hasn't entered the region in this turn. This causes the stack which originally had just moved into the region to attack again, and most likely lose again, and the above cycle starts all over again.

The issue being discussed here is: the stack is being changed to OP, although it hasn't entered the region in this turn. This is the last (in chronological order in the chain of occurrences), but not least, in a chain of events leading to this paddle-ball effect.

So the name of this thread is completely misleading, because it's not about NOT retreating, it's about automatically going to OP.

Viewing only the automatic change from DP to OP I believe it is only logical, if a stack finds itself in a region with very low MC, it must to go OP to attempt to gain MC, or move out of the region.

[AndrewKurtz]

Sounds like we are on the same page now. I agree the subject is now misleading. Sorry about the confusion.

Viewing only the automatic change from DP to OP I believe it is only logical, if a stack finds itself in a region with very low MC, it must to go OP to attempt to gain MC, or move out of the region.

That would be an acceptable solution with one caveat. A force stating in a region with less than 5% MC should only have it's posture changed to OP if does NOT have orders to exit the region. It should be allowed to leave the region if there is a viable path. It is the responsibility of the opposing force to change to OP and attack in this case.

Currently, the friendly force is changed to OP even though it is trying to move out of the region, even when on PP. That causes another battle, it loses again, stops moving, gains zero MC and the loop continues.

[Captain_Orso]

Yes, exactly my though. If the stack is plotted to leave the region, perhaps with Defend/Retreat(fighting withdraw), it should be allowed to leave unmolested, if the enemy does not take the offensive.

[ArmChairGeneral]

I just want to double-check with those who have reported it that battle-looping appears to be happening to stacks that DO have a valid retreat path, because otherwise this whole thing is a non-issue since surrounded stacks deserve what they get. I think Fox's exfiltration suggestion for surroundeds is also interesting. I don't think I am going out on a limb to say there is consensus that whatever it is, Something Very Bad should happen to fools who get themselves surrounded.

Does losing a battle put you into Defensive posture or Passive posture (I can't remember)? I am thinking along the lines of: if losing put you into Passive, then you would not gain MC, (which is appropriate) not be able to start a siege or otherwise influence the region militarily, and suffer combat penalties if attacked by an enemy, but would also not be subject to posture switching if you decided to stay in the region, thus breaking the battle-loop. Would Passive be sufficiently penalizing to the stack for losing and having no MC, while still giving the stack the choice to either leave or attack again if it wanted (which seems to be one of the intents behind not making them retreat automatically)? It would recover cohesion if left unmolested, but would still have to go to Offensive (either directly or by reverting if you put it in Defensive) if it wanted to have any influence on the region. This would also force the defender to go to Offensive posture to bring it to combat and kick it out, which is also seems to be what the rule intends.

Do we know for sure that stacks in Passive posture are not switching to Offensive because of MC? If it was intended that they do not switch, but they are switching, then fixing it so they do not might fix the battle loop problem more directly than tinkering with MC. (I don't have a complete understanding of the ramifications of this approach, maybe it is intended that you can't just use Passive posture to waltz right up to an entrenched position without having to attack it right away.)

Cross posted with them, but my intent was to toss Passive posture out there as a solution along the lines of what Oro and Kurtz are suggesting with a Defend/Retreat rule. Passive would have slightly different game effects.

Tangential but not directly related to the posture loop question: perhaps toning down the ability for Passive forces to avoid battle (the roll they make when they encounter enemies in Offensive posture) would help make retreaters more realistically catchable (they are remarkably squirrely little devils without a dozen cavalry in your stack) and help prevent possible abuse of Passive posture as a cloaking device.

[Captain_Orso]

I just want to double-check with those who have reported it that battle-looping appears to be happening to stacks that DO have a valid retreat path, because otherwise this whole thing is a non-issue since surrounded stacks deserve what they get.

Does losing a battle put you into Defensive posture or Passive posture (I can't remember)? I am thinking along the lines of: if losing put you into Passive, then you would not gain MC, (which is appropriate) not be able to start a siege or otherwise influence the region militarily, and suffer combat penalties if attacked by an enemy, but would also not be subject to posture switching if you decided to stay in the region, thus breaking the battle-loop. Would Passive be sufficiently penalizing to the stack for losing and having no MC, while still giving the stack the choice to either leave or attack again if it wanted (which seems to be one of the intents behind not making them retreat automatically)? It would recover cohesion if left unmolested, but would still have to go to Offensive (either directly or by reverting if you put it in Defensive) if it wanted to have any influence on the region. This would also force the defender to go to Offensive posture to bring it to combat and kick it out, which is also seems to be what the rule intends.

Losing a battle--not sustaining a draw--has always put the losing stack(s) into PP. I believe the current engine now simply differentiates between the posture of the enemy force. If the enemy force is in OP, your force is put in PP and may retreat the region. If the enemy force is in DP, your force is also put into DP and must remain in the region. But some other rule is causing this force to then be changed to OP.

During an analysis of a series of battles fought along these lines with 1.05RC2, IIRC, the start of the turn found a CS stack in the middle of a retreat across the Cumberland with 3 days left to be out of the region and in safety. Union force was set to OP and on day 1 of the turn the CS force took a terrible beating. The Union force was also mauled, because it was set to sustained attack, and went to DP.

So after the battle on day 1 the CS force went to DP too. But at some time during the turn it was changed to OP and on day 13 another battle took place, this one with the Union in DP and the CS in OP. The CS lost again, but since the Union was in DP, the CS was also set to DP and could not retreat.

Remember, you can lose a battle vs a smaller force when attacking, especially if the smaller force is deeply entrenched. In such a case I don't think the losing force should lose all of its MC, nor necessarily be forced to retreat. Retreat should be based on the difference in size and condition of the forces involved.

If the force which lost were allowed to remain in DP and retreat the next turn per the players plan, the only thing I can think of where there might be an issue is if the losing force were in behind enemy lines trying to get back into friendly territory and the battle took place right on the edge of friendly territory.

Then again, if the defending force is blocking the moving force's path back to their own lines, the 'defending' force might have to attack to prevent the 'retreating' force from getting past them. ZOC alone will not really work in this case, because the game doesn't take the previous region of the moving force into account for ZOC AFAIK.

I think Fox's exfiltration suggestion for surroundeds is also interesting. I don't think I am going out on a limb to say there is consensus that whatever it is, Something Very Bad should happen to fools who get themselves surrounded.

If there were some historic case of precedence one might be able to make a judgment on this. To me it sounds like ... the least offensive term I can think of is poppycock. We're talking about an army formation and not outlaws.

Do we know for sure that stacks in Passive posture are not switching to Offensive because of MC? If it was intended that they do not switch, but they are switching, then fixing it so they do not might fix the battle loop problem more directly than tinkering with MC. (I don't have a complete understanding of the ramifications of this approach, maybe it is intended that you can't just use Passive posture to waltz right up to an entrenched position without having to attack it right away.)

We don't know what the exact parameters are of changing to OP other than entering an enemy held region. This is all that Pocus has said about this, other than that a force moving into an enemy held region should automatically gain 5% MC.

Actually it is true that recently I made a change about stacks and posture. If there is no enemy in offensive posture and you retreat, then you don't, you just break off combat and stays in region. Is this bugged?

To be found here: Not retreating after losing a battle, Post #33

Cross posted with them, but my intent was to toss Passive posture out there as a solution along the lines of what Oro and Kurtz are suggesting with a Defend/Retreat rule. Passive would have slightly different game effects.

Tangential but not directly related to the posture loop question: perhaps toning down the ability for Passive forces to avoid battle (the roll they make when they encounter enemies in Offensive posture) would help make retreaters more realistically catchable (they are remarkably squirrely little devils without a dozen cavalry in your stack) and help prevent possible abuse of Passive posture as a cloaking device.

I'm not sure if being in PP actually affects the chance of getting caught and forced into battle. But if your are trying to get away and not get into an engagement, you should probably be taking hits during the process, more or less like in retreat.

[ArmChairGeneral]

If there were some historic case of precedence one might be able to make a judgment on this. To me it sounds like ... the least offensive term I can think of is poppycock. We're talking about an army formation and not outlaws.

Really? You are saying that a force that recklessly attacks with no thought to securing a valid retreat path should suffer no consequences at ALL? What about if all neighboring regions have enemy units in them? I'm not taking a stand that it should be any one thing or another: annihilation, forced to keep fighting, exfiltrated, stuck in the region, having their birthday taken away, whatever. I just think that this is the kind of thing that any good military commander would avoid at all costs. This is kind of a digression from the topic at hand, though, and I was basing my claim for consensus partly on what I thought YOU were saying about retreat paths and the lack of them, and partly on the volume of posts about the topic in this thread and over the years (it got a lot of ink in AACW too). Apparently I WAS going out on a limb . (Also, I would think a small group of outlaws would have a much better chance of slipping away from an enemy Army than a Division would? Isn't that the whole point of stealthy units like partisans?)

I'm not sure if being in PP actually affects the chance of getting caught and forced into battle. But if your are trying to get away and not get into an engagement, you should probably be taking hits during the process, more or less like in retreat.

According to its tooltip Passive ROE increases the chance that you will withdraw before a battle is even fought, and Passive posture automatically puts you in Passive ROE. I am pretty sure I have seen a reference to this roll being made somewhere in the wikis (I will try to find it tomorrow) and that it relates to the Patrol and Evasion values of the respective stacks (and thus to the relative sizes and presence of cavalry on either side). I will see if I can find the reference for it tomorrow. In-play I have definitely found that it is difficult to force Passive enemies to battle, while it is almost automatic to initiate battle with a stack in Defensive posture. Because of this it would probably be better to make B/G the method for leaving the region after a loss, since Passive would (unless I am wrong about this) make it more likely that you could leave the region unharmed even if the enemy stack switched to Offensive to try to engage you.

Thanks for the clarification about which postures you change to after losing and under which conditions, I hadn't seen that before.

[Captain_Orso]

Really? You are saying that a force that recklessly attacks with no thought to securing a valid retreat path should suffer no consequences at ALL? What about if all neighboring regions have enemy units in them? I'm not taking a stand that it should be any one thing or another: annihilation, forced to keep fighting, exfiltrated, stuck in the region, having their birthday taken away, whatever. I just think that this is the kind of thing that any good military commander would avoid at all costs. This is kind of a digression from the topic at hand, though, and I was basing my claim for consensus partly on what I thought YOU were saying about retreat paths and the lack of them, and partly on the volume of posts about the topic in this thread and over the years (it got a lot of ink in AACW too). Apparently I WAS going out on a limb . (Also, I would think a small group of outlaws would have a much better chance of slipping away from an enemy Army than a Division would? Isn't that the whole point of stealthy units like partisans?)

The drawback of the way the game and battle engines work is that there is no fighting withdraw really, where you could try to escape a region while the enemy is trying to force you into an engagement which you cannot win. The problem is with the abstractness of the ZOC rules. They're made to prevent you from advancing through a strongly held enemy region in into its hinterland. But it will also prevent you from running away into enemy territory.

I was specifically talking about an "army formation" and not raiders, cavalry or other stealthy units.

And if this type of "infiltration"--actually infiltration is sneaking into enemy territory and not out of it--then we'll have all those players moaning--and rightly so--that Johnston or who ever can go scampering across the Old North-West and escape a substantially larger and better rested force every time. I'd not want to hear what they have to say about Johnston's army evaporating into thin air and suddenly appearing back in Nashville or Bowling Green a turn or two later.

There's an example of what a good military commander did when his army was caught in a situation with literally no place to retreat. His name was R. E. Lee and it happened in April '65 and he is still considered one of the greatest military leaders ever to wear a uniform on US soil.

According to its tooltip Passive ROE increases the chance that you will withdraw before a battle is even fought, and Passive posture automatically puts you in Passive ROE. I am pretty sure I have seen a reference to this roll being made somewhere in the wikis (I will try to find it tomorrow) and that it relates to the Patrol and Evasion values of the respective stacks (and thus to the relative sizes and presence of cavalry on either side). I will see if I can find the reference for it tomorrow. In-play I have definitely found that it is difficult to force Passive enemies to battle, while it is almost automatic to initiate battle with a stack in Defensive posture. Because of this it would probably be better to make B/G the method for leaving the region after a loss, since Passive would (unless I am wrong about this) make it more likely that you could leave the region unharmed even if the enemy stack switched to Offensive to try to engage you.

Thanks for the clarification about which postures you change to after losing and under which conditions, I hadn't seen that before.

Yes, it gives you a greater chance at disengaging before the battle actually develops, but I think the chances of getting caught are the same. That's what I meant. Sorry if I was unclear.

I've never figured out which is better B/G or G/G. Probably the one which costs less cohesion loss.

[Gray Fox]

From a post by Barca:

And here is what happened next, quoting from The Battle Cry of Freedom by James M. McPherson, page 405:

"Next morning Van Dorn discovered that when you get in the enemy's rear, he is also in yours. Confederate troops had run short of ammunition but the Union army now stood between them and their ammunition wagons. Both armies concentrated near Elkhorn Tavern, where . . . seven thousand Union infantrymen swept forward in a picture-book charge led by Franz Sigel's division . . . The rebels turned tail and ran. It was . . . [an] inglorious rout . . . Van Dorn's forces scattered in every direction. It took nearly two weeks to reassemble them."

The game mechanic went from total annihilation, to guaranteed retreat, full circle back to pinned down to slow death. If the stack is again allowed to retreat, you'll be back to the situation of chasing Athena up to Canada.

Raids consist of moving dispersed, fighting concentrated and then moving back to friendly lines dispersed. It's the Ranger way. A unit trapped behind enemy lines would wait until nightfall, break up into smaller groups and exfiltrate. A covering force would screen the escape. It may amaze some of you how much poppycock actually works.

As a retired soldier, I enjoy reading posts about how a war game should be programmed.

[Captain_Orso]

From a post by Barca:

And here is what happened next, quoting from The Battle Cry of Freedom by James M. McPherson, page 405:

"Next morning Van Dorn discovered that when you get in the enemy's rear, he is also in yours. Confederate troops had run short of ammunition but the Union army now stood between them and their ammunition wagons. Both armies concentrated near Elkhorn Tavern, where . . . seven thousand Union infantrymen swept forward in a picture-book charge led by Franz Sigel's division . . . The rebels turned tail and ran. It was . . . [an] inglorious rout . . . Van Dorn's forces scattered in every direction. It took nearly two weeks to reassemble them."

Yup, they panicked and basically deserted--although I'm sure that nobody was going to hold that against them in a court marshaling--and nobody ordered it. It was nobodies choice. It happened; a rare occurrence on that scale and certainly not something that Van Dorm bragged about afterwards; how he 'sneaked' his troops out of harms way... nah, I don't thinks so.

Beyond that, they were not in enemy territory where the citizens, local and state militia would literally be up in arms chasing down every single one of them. Remember Morgan's raid? Remember how many got out? And that was cavalry and not infantry and artillery and supply trains.

The game mechanic went from total annihilation, to guaranteed retreat, full circle back to pinned down to slow death. If the stack is again allowed to retreat, you'll be back to the situation of chasing Athena up to Canada.

It's a bug. It has been recognized as that and is being worked on. Please give Pocus some time to work on it.

Raids consist of moving dispersed, fighting concentrated and then moving back to friendly lines dispersed. It's the Ranger way. A unit trapped behind enemy lines would wait until nightfall, break up into smaller groups and exfiltrate. A covering force would screen the escape. It may amaze some of you how much poppycock actually works.

This is the middle of the 19th century and not the middle of the 20th century. I know that you know that such commando tactics did not exist at that time as they did nearly a hundred years later. Partisans close to their home counties, where they knew the territory like their back pockets, could easily get away with such tactics. But as I stated already once, we're talking army formations in enemy territory.

As a retired soldier, I enjoy reading posts about how a war game should be programmed.

Glad that you're amused. I'm more partial to productive suggestions that consider all sides of the situation. Or maybe you should go into the other threads and tell those complaining about Johnston skidding away from one battle to the next all across Ohio, that he's just expertly exfiltrating and giving them the slip with commando tactics.

[Gray Fox]

Washington's army was pinned against a river once and the British expected to destroy him the next morning, except that his army was gone. They lit a thousand campfires and left. History is full of such examples. The Ranger guide was first written in the Revolutionary War.

This is still a humble suggestion. A totally real world, historically accurate suggestion.

[Captain_Orso]

There are many examples of large forces retreating successfully, when they had a place to which they could retreat. Lee's retreat from Gettysburg--he went out the exact same way he came in. The same with Hood's retreat from Nashville, but his army was in far worse condition and the bad weather and lack of supplies cost his army dearly. But he went out the way he came in, a path that had been cleared on the way in. Hooker and Burnside basically retreated into open arms waiting for them. McDowell and Pope/McClellan after both Manassas battles and McClellan on the Peninsula.

Being in enemy territory without a path of egress is not such an easy task as per the examples of Able Streight's raid into Alabama in April/May '63 and John Hunt Morgan's raid into Indian and Ohio in June of the same year. Both ended in disaster, and these were exclusively mounted troops. There was another raid by the Union during Grant's overland campaign or the siege of Petersburg where the Union cavalry split up to try to sneak back to their own lines, which also didn't fair well for the raiders.

But this is what I've been saying all along. Retreat should depend on having a place to which your army can retreat, IE where you have MC and probably also a friendly populous.