Not retreating after losing a battle

[pgr]

Of course, now that I'm thinking about it Captin_O, didn't Pocus make a tweak in the 1.03RC that a stack would not retreat out of a region (would always retreat locally) if there was no enemy stack present in an offensive posture?

[Captain_Orso]

Of course, correct me if I'm wrong Orso, if you have at least one neighboring province with 100% friendly MC, you should be able to retreat there, correct? (There is some upper limit on ZOC right?)

Anyway, the game file would help enlighten.

ZOC can be anywhere from 1 to well over 100, like 168. You cannot have 168 MC in any region, so if the enemy has a ZOC value of 168, how can you retreat?

Ok. One, but commanders choice. Current issue provides no choice. Just keeps attacking.

I'll get the files listed when I get home. If you could save to OneDrive I'd have them

Of course you have a choice, you could set your stack to PP+EC and attempt to move out of the region.

Of course, now that I'm thinking about it Captin_O, didn't Pocus make a tweak in the 1.03RC that a stack would not retreat out of a region (would always retreat locally) if there was no enemy stack present in an offensive posture?

That would be completely new to me.

As far as I can tell--Pocus did not by far post every single change he made in the code, and I believe that some code is now coming to the surface that may have always been there, just not triggered very often--the biggest--in affects--change that was made was the affects of ZOC during a retreat. It didn't used to play a role, only movement days. If there were enough days left in the turn, the next turn the stack which had retreated was in it's targeted location--case closed.

Now, if the enemy's ZOC is high enough, the losing stack cannot retreat out of the region, it is put into DP--I believe this might be a change that Pocus made, or it might be from the MC--and tries to avoid combat. If the stack which lost the battle is now in a region with =<5% MC, it will of course go to OP--so from entering the region in xP [any Posture] (combat->lose) ->PP->retreat (cannot retreat out of region) ->DP (MC =< 5%) ->OP (enemy not avoided/found and engaged->combat).

I've been thinking about what this says. One could interpret that the retreating stack is so desperate to get out of the region that it is attacking the enemy standing in his way--that the affects of ZOC. But then he should only attack enough to pin the enemy while the rest of his force escapes--or tries to. It should not be an all out pitched battle unless the 'defending' enemy forces that on the retreating force--but that would mean that the formerly defending stack is now in OP. So if a stack is forced to go from PP to DP because it cannot retreat out of the region, it should also be set to 'Retreat' ROE (green). Currently the ROE is never changed by the game under any circumstances.

[Pocus]

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?

[ArmChairGeneral]

So if I attack a defender and lose heavily, I will not exit the region because the enemy is in defensive posture? On the next turn, since I lost the battle and didn't gain MC I would then be forced into Offensive posture again, and likely lose again, with the cycle repeating itself until I finally manage to complete a manual move out of the region?

[pgr]

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?

I don't know if it is technically bugged, but it does mean that if a stack attacks into a region and looses, it is no longer retreating out of the region, because the defender is often in a defensive posture, even if the MC is still zero. That means that the stack will attack again the next turn trying to get the MC up to at least 5%. That seems to be what this thread is complaining about.

It might be worth making stacks retreat out of regions with less than 5% friendly MC, even if the enemy stack is in a defensive posture, to break this kind of "always attacking" loop.

[pgr]

ZOC can be anywhere from 1 to well over 100, like 168. You cannot have 168 MC in any region, so if the enemy has a ZOC value of 168, how can you retreat?
.

I remember Ace posting somewhere (and bien sûr I can't remember where) that the game caps the ZOC calculation at a certain point to prevent the problem you are talking about. (88 is the value I seem to be remembering). This was done to make sure you could always move to regions with 88+% friendly MC.

[Gray Fox]

What if you broke your unit up into smaller stacks of less than 4 CP's each and used whatever RGD's you had to further increase their evasion value (cavalry screen, etc.)? You might be able to break contact that way and escape in a semi-real world fashion.

[richfed]

The force that moves into the region and attacks is the one that has the issue. Do you find your forces retreat if you attacking?

As you describe, Sir. It is mostly [at least] the unit moving in to the region that refuses to retreat.

[AndrewKurtz]

Yes, I suspect the issue is less with the retreat change and more with MC never changing above 0 and thus, causing a cycle of unwanted battles.

[AndrewKurtz]

Thinking out loud, I believe a potentially very logical change that would address it would be to only automatically change a force into Offensive mode due to MC levels if the are entering an enemy controlled region. They can stay on other postures if already in the region or leaving the region.

[minipol]

What if you broke your unit up into smaller stacks of less than 4 CP's each and used whatever RGD's you had to further increase their evasion value (cavalry screen, etc.)? You might be able to break contact that way and escape in a semi-real world fashion.

I have been doing this for a while. If I really want to be sure a stack retreats, I divide it up and retreat all the smaller stacks.
Usually this means 1 of those small stacks is going to get hit but the rest is spared.

[DrPostman]

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?

I wonder if your changes are the reason why I had a single leader stuck in a region
surrounded by red. There was only one region he could go through and I had to
walk him a very long way around after noticing he was stuck there a couple of turns.
I thought it was sort of a fluke, but now....

At least I finally got him out. And while the pic shows him in passive those previous
2 turns found him in offensive posture.
[ATTACH]32545[/ATTACH]

[pgr]

Thinking out loud, I believe a potentially very logical change that would address it would be to only automatically change a force into Offensive mode due to MC levels if the are entering an enemy controlled region. They can stay on other postures if already in the region or leaving the region.

Why not just have that force retreat out of the region if it looses it's battle coming in. If you have 0% MC, it stands to reason that there is no place to retreat locally to...

[Captain_Orso]

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?

I was kind of afraid of that. I would say that it's "bugged". A stack should only be 'locked' in a region if it could not otherwise 'move' normally out if the region because of ZOC, and that may be too extreme, but hard to know without seeing it the game.

If a stack can retreat if there is a valid region into which it could normally move, players will have the possibility to maintain an escape route--which is how it works in real life--, but if they allow themselves to be caught without an escape route they will have to pay the penalty.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Another method would be to give an automatic minimum 5% MC to the attackers no matter the combat result. Then the desired behavior (attackers not automatically leaving the region just because they lose to a stack in defensive posture) still occurs but the stack isn't forced into offensive posture on the next turn by the lack of MC. This would not affect the new retreat-pathing mechanics (ZOC, etc.).

[Pocus]

This should be the case, you get a minimum 5% upon entering a region.

[Captain_Orso]

Is that regardless of the disparity in size between the stack(s) moving into the region and those of another faction already in the region?

Is the granting of 5 MC a per stack bonus? For example, if 4 stacks enter a region on different days of the same turn, would each cause +5 MC for a total of +20?

Same situation, but the stacks all enter the same day?

--

Regardless, even if you get 5 MC when a stack enters the region, it seams that the MC are soon eaten away by a disparity in power between the 'defending' and 'moving' forces, which causes the 'moving' force to attack, which is what we are used to.

Also, after the first battle, which the 'moving' stack loses, those MC will be gone and the next turn the formerly 'moving' stack's faction will be at 0 MC in the region and will automatically go to OP and attack. So it's an exercise in futility.

--

The question is, when should a stack which losses a battle NOT be able to retreat out of the region? On what should it be measured?

I have been assuming whether a stack may retreat out of a region or not is completely dependent on ZOC since the 1.05RC2-PB patch. I still find using ZOC the most logical choice. But if we haven't actually been seeing this, I find that the only reasonable way judge if this is the solution to the issue, would be to see the rule in action.

[pgr]

This should be the case, you get a minimum 5% upon entering a region.

I think I have seen that pretty clearly in the game logic file... but I am not sure I have ever observed it in actual game play. (1.00 on)

I have seen 1 cav unit stacks raid in defensive, or offensive, posture into unoccupied enemy territory, and still have say 3% friendly MC at the end of the turn. My anecdotal experience with enemy occupied provinces is you have to beat them to get any MC gain, let alone 5%. Even before this patch, an army invading and loosing a battle, even if he somehow remained in the territory, never gained any friendly MC. (But they would try to retreat out generally... the only reason a stack in this situation would still be in the region it attacked was because there weren't enough days left to complete the move.)

[AndrewKurtz]

This should be the case, you get a minimum 5% upon entering a region.

The issues isn't whether you have 5% upon entering. It is that you lose it and then stay with the new retreat logic. To fix the issue, if a force is in the region, they would need to not drop below 5%.

[Pocus]

indeed!

[ArmChairGeneral]

I meant that their presence should keep a minimum 5%. What seems to be happening is that you enter, gain 5%, lose the battle, go into passive posture and stay in the region, and for the remainder of the turn the defenders reassert their MC and it is whittled to below 5% so on the ensuing turn there is not enough MC and you are forced back into Offensive.

I don't think anyone is disputing that ZOC should be part of the retreat algorithm, but ZOC rule doesn't seem to be the problem in these cases. The current issue is the force getting stuck in a cycle of battles caused by the posture-loop even when there IS a valid retreat path. Before Pocus made the doesn't-leave-the-region-if-there-is-no-enemy-in-offensive-posture rule change this never came up because losers would retreat. It sounds to me like the ZOC rule will work just fine once the unintended posture-loop is cleared up somehow (whether by a 5% rule or some other method).

Other than this issue, I don't see any problems with the new rules as written: attackers SHOULD have to maintain a valid retreat path or risk destruction.

EDIT: cross-posted with Pocus

[pgr]

If in a way the first 5% are free...and the attacker assumes a defensive stance while retreating locally and keeps his 5%... I rather like the idea of a stack staying in region unless the enemy is in an offensive stance. It would allow for more contested regions, you could build up for a breakthrough over multiple turns... think Siege of Petersburg... if it works right, it would be kinda great...

But that means those first 5% need to be truly automatic.

[AndrewKurtz]

If in a way the first 5% are free...and the attacker assumes a defensive stance while retreating locally and keeps his 5%... I rather like the idea of a stack staying in region unless the enemy is in an offensive stance. It would allow for more contested regions, you could build up for a breakthrough over multiple turns... think Siege of Petersburg... if it works right, it would be kinda great...

But that means those first 5% need to be truly automatic.

Yes, I think the "rule" needs to be that if you have a force in a region, MC never falls below 5%. If that was the case, I think I would like the new retreat in region concept.

[Captain_Orso]

This has gotten completely silly.

We started out with no auto-OP. You moved a large force into a region with a large enemy force entrenched and held a Mexican stand-off. In reality you don't move your force into the proximity of an enemy force, unless you intend to attack it. Mexican stand-offs are just for movies.

So a rule was made that says, when you enter a region with =<5% MC you automatically go to OP. IE you must attack--otherwise don't move into the region.

So now we're going to circumvent that and say that any force in a region has a minimum of of 5% MC so that auto-OP doesn't trigger. Then we are right back on square one, where you can shove your force into a region without going to battle, sit an wait to see if how much MC you can gain and once you're entrenchments have evolved, whether the enemy--who was there first--might attack you in your newly dug entrenchments or if you might be able to sneak past them to cut them off from their lines of communication, without ever having fired a shot.

We might as well turn off the auto-OP rule and go back to the way it was originally.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Good point, it would have to be applied at the end of the turn (or the beginning of the following turn) or else use some other method to address the posture-loop problem. You should go into Offensive posture the first time you enter the region, it is the second turn that seems to be problematic.

[AndrewKurtz]

This has gotten completely silly.

We started out with no auto-OP. You moved a large force into a region with a large enemy force entrenched and held a Mexican stand-off. In reality you don't move your force into the proximity of an enemy force, unless you intend to attack it. Mexican stand-offs are just for movies.

So a rule was made that says, when you enter a region with =<5% MC you automatically go to OP. IE you must attack--otherwise don't move into the region.

So now we're going to circumvent that and say that any force in a region has a minimum of of 5% MC so that auto-OP doesn't trigger. Then we are right back on square one, where you can shove your force into a region without going to battle, sit an wait to see if how much MC you can gain and once you're entrenchments have evolved, whether the enemy--who was there first--might attack you in your newly dug entrenchments or if you might be able to sneak past them to cut them off from their lines of communication, without ever having fired a shot.

We might as well turn off the auto-OP rule and go back to the way it was originally.

I disagree completely, in fact, beyond completely. There is a significant difference between moving a force into a region and deciding to stay. It makes sense that the former requires a battle on entry. It does not make sense that the latter forces a battle and results in no way to retreat.

No one is suggesting circumventing the rule as you stated it (stated the rule that is). The change to OP would still occur when ENTERING the region. What is suggested is that, after that battle, if both sides remain in the region, a new battle not be forced. Both sides could sit and stare at each other until one side decided to attack or retreat.

What is silly is the idea that a large army could be in a region and have MC of 0% of it.

[minipol]

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.

[AndrewKurtz]

What was the logic behind the decision to set MC to 5% when a force enters and is changed to OP?

[minipol]

See the above. The rationale is "a force will automatically adopt offensive posture in an attempt to get a foothold there."
If you enter a region, and you have no control, you suffer a lot of effects. To counter this, you need some control over a region.
For instance, to get supplies. To do this, you need to force the other force to give up some of it's control.
This is not done by asking nicely, but by force, as it's a war after all.
This in turn means going on the offensive. Hence the offensive posture.

The real question is this: do you need the automatic 5%? If a really small force enters a region where it encounters a big stack.
Would it be able to get 5% MC? I don't think so. So an automatic 5% is not the way to go.
It could be, if the forces aren't that different in size but just like that? Nope, that's crazy talk

[AndrewKurtz]

Then the other change that could be made is to only change to OP when entering the region. Today it happens when you are just in a region. That would require no MC change and have the same affect of avoiding the loop.