AGEOD Forums

Hello,

Do we know enough about how the the posture/ROE that each player selects prior to battle (and ends up being used in the actual calculations) effects the subsequent combat calculations and outcomes for each player?
I understand that typically you would expect higher casualties for All out Attack/Hold at All Costs postures and lower casualties for Feint/Probes/Retreat if Engaged postures but there are quiet a few possible combinations, 128 in fact.

However, for a player (P1) to choose an attacking posture and one of the four ROEs (that is 8 possible combinations), how does the posture/ROE that the opposing player (P2) select (there are 18 possibilities) affect the outcome of the battle? Based on what you pick, what do you hope the enemy picks?

Here is a matrix as a point of reference. Keep in mind that if casualties, retreats etc are discussed/compared, some standard "reference combat result" needs to be used for quantitative comparisons to make sense, to keep things relative.
eg. based on a orange/orange P1 vs a blue/orange P2.....

Of course factors such as force sizes and terrain matter when discussing, but what are there any general rules? What can be said about the combat modifiers that affect P1 and P2 in each case?

[ATTACH]33326[/ATTACH]

PS: Just realised that "Posture selection combat modifier matrix" would have been a more appropriate thread title.

A Feint attack (green) and a Conservative attack (blue) are also supposedly possible for P1.

It's more involved than these choices too. A commander may have a special ability that over-rides them. An Angry Commander may fight an extra round even though you set him to Green/Green. I had Grant launch a Conservative attack against Richmond rather than force a bloodbath. Johnson has the skirmisher trait, so he withdrew after a short battle and I got to lay siege.

Gray Fox wrote:A Feint attack (green) and a Conservative attack (blue) are also supposedly possible for P1.

A blue attack is fairly common for Northern players if they are using the option that lets them move inactive generals

A green attack is rare, but possible. Trying to break through enemy lines and getting caught, or getting into a fight while on the march

The more I think about it, the more I realise how poorly I understood the significance of how P1/P2 posture and ROE combinations interact with each other. Seems it even confuses some of the more experienced players...

Gray Fox wrote:A Feint attack (green) and a Conservative attack (blue) are also supposedly possible for P1.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here that is't already covered by the matrix. Feint attack (green) and Conservative attack (blue) are NOT postures anyway, they are ROEs secondary to the two types of attack postures, Assault and Offensive.

The player is faced with the following decisions to make for each stack:

1. Do I enable one of the two "attacking" postures (Assault (red) or Offensive (orange)) or do I enable one of the two "defensive" postures (Defensive (blue) or Passive (green))? NOTE: Only selecting an "attacking" posture will give the player an opportunity to themselves initiate an actual battle.

2. Having selected one of those postures, the player then must then consider one of four ROEs (essentially modifiers to the Posture). If they chose an "attacking" posture , the options are All Out Attack (red) , Sustained Attack (orange), Conservative Attack (blue) and Feint/Probe Attack (green). If they chose a "defensive" posture, the options are Hold At All Costs (red), Defend (orange), Defend and Retreat (blue) and Retreat (green).

So if a player just says "I launched an Assault (or Offensive) on (whatever)" without mentioning ROE's, then it could have occurred under ROEs of vastly different flavors (from All Out Attack to Feint/Probe)

I am sure you understand this but it's worth underscoring how things work.

It's more involved than these choices too. A commander may have a special ability that over-rides them.

I understand that but it is irrelevant right now. Indulging in how modifiers outside this matrix affect things can be done after we understand the basics of what these different matchup combinations alone mean for P1 and P2, without considering any external modifiers you allude to.

Without definite insight in to the actual mechanics, so many questions/situations arise when considering this matrix of possibilities, where do you start?

eg. If two identical opposing stacks with vanilla leaders and units occupy the same region with say 50% MC each, what difference does it make to the battle calculations if one side picks orange/orange (Offensive/Sustained Attack) and the other blue/orange (Defensive/Defend) as opposed to one side picking orange/orange (Offensive/Sustained Attack) and the other also picking orange/orange (Offensive/Sustained Attack)?

Bullman wrote:eg. If two identical opposing stacks with vanilla leaders and units occupy the same region with say 50% MC each, what difference does it make to the battle calculations if one side picks orange/orange (Offensive/Sustained Attack) and the other blue/orange (Defensive/Defend) as opposed to one side picking orange/orange (Offensive/Sustained Attack) and the other also picking orange/orange (Offensive/Sustained Attack)?

Any battle between two identical stacks with vanilla leaders will just about always favor the defender as just about every unit has better defensive fire than offensive fire. Since this is true, your first example should favor the defender as he'll be using superior defensive fire against the offensive fire. Checking through my current game, the only units I can build with a base values with matching firepower is the ranger unit and siege artillery, I didn't find any units with better base defense vs offense. This is early on, but from what I remember that firepower discrepancy between the two stats gets worse and not better as units upgrade.

The second battle should be a tossup as both sides will be using their offensive stats. For the 2nd it might be a matter of which units fail a morale check first or maybe it results in pretty much a stalemate. I'd expect the casualty ratio to favor the defender in the first and to be pretty even in the 2nd.

As far as I can tell, the ROE only affects when(if) your unit(s) will attempt to withdraw from the battle. I use green posture all the time with scouts or singletons that might encounter an overpowering force of the enemy. I might use a blue ROE in defense if I want to avoid excessive casualties if brought to battle against a superior force but want to defend against equal/lesser opponents without just retreating.

Since defense is favored before adding entrenchments, I try to fight battles as much as possible on the defense. An attacking posture won't give you your entrechment bonus even if another force is moving into your region. An attacking posture will give you MC of a region much faster than a defensive posture and a green posture won't give you any MC. I Hope this helps.

Oh and most weather/terrain features will also give bonuses to the defender as well, just more reason to find a region the enemy has to attack you in and hunker down for the attack. And why you always need either superior officers or better quality soldiers when going over to the attack.

FightingBuckeye wrote:Any battle between two identical stacks with vanilla leaders will just about always favor the defender as just about every unit has better defensive fire than offensive fire. Since this is true, your first example should favor the defender as he'll be using superior defensive fire against the offensive fire.

Yes, I am of course aware of that, however, when one player P1 selects one of the 2 "attack" postures then one of the four ROEs and the other player P2 selects one of the 2 "defensive" postures then one of the four ROEs, that results in 64 possible combinations between the two players (as you can see from the matrix).

So now the question becomes for example, if P1 selects orange/orange (Offensive/Sustained Attack), what difference does it make if P2 selects say:
- blue/green (Defensive/Retreat)
or
- green/red (Passive/Hold At All Costs) ?

This is just one example of course. The point being made is that without proper understanding of these interactions and differences, how can a player intelligently use these options?

The second battle should be a tossup as both sides will be using their offensive stats. For the 2nd it might be a matter of which units fail a morale check first or maybe it results in pretty much a stalemate. I'd expect the casualty ratio to favor the defender in the first and to be pretty even in the 2nd.

I haven't checked recently but in a battle is it possible for both sides have one of the "attacking" postures? Or does the game always nominate/force one to be the defender regardless? If so, how does it decide?

As far as I can tell, the ROE only affects when(if) your unit(s) will attempt to withdraw from the battle. I use green posture all the time with scouts or singletons that might encounter an overpowering force of the enemy. I might use a blue ROE in defense if I want to avoid excessive casualties if brought to battle against a superior force but want to defend against equal/lesser opponents without just retreating.

Of course you may want to escape and "avoid" excessive casualties because you are a small force by selecting a "green" posture/ROE, but as the enemy, you don't want that to happen. How much difference does it make if the enemy is red/red when you might be green/green as opposed to them being say orange/green and you green/green?

Again, just one example. This discussion does need some higher level input based on intimate understanding of how the battle results are calculated and how posture/ROE factor in.

I kind of thought that postures/ROE were kind of a "rock, paper, scissors" kind of thing where nothing a player selects is ever certain to result in their expected/desired result because it is always checked against what the opponent picked for posture/ROE.

Bullman wrote:NOTE: Only selecting an "attacking" posture will give the player an opportunity to themselves initiate an actual battle.

I'm pretty sure that's false


Again, playing a game where inactive leaders can move, but face a penalty while attacking, attacking with blue defensive posture is common.

Bullman wrote:I haven't checked recently but in a battle is it possible for both sides have one of the "attacking" postures? Or does the game always nominate/force one to be the defender regardless? If so, how does it decide?

The defender can have an attacking posture. If I remember the manual correctly, that means they initiate the battle, are the defenders, and do not get the benefit of any entrenchments.

This is a fairly common stance for garrisons that intend to intercept small units.

Rod Smart wrote:I'm pretty sure that's false

Again, playing a game where inactive leaders can move, but face a penalty while attacking, attacking with blue defensive posture is common.

?? I don't think any of this is mentioned in the manual. Under Posture Defensive it clearly states "your Stack won’t engage enemy Units". Why would inactive leaders that move initiate (ie. "attack") when in Defensive posture?

Rod Smart wrote:The defender can have an attacking posture. If I remember the manual correctly, that means they initiate the battle, are the defenders, and do not get the benefit of any entrenchments.

This is a fairly common stance for garrisons that intend to intercept small units.

?? Confused by what you are saying here. Perhaps you need to quote the relevant parts from the manual. Are you somehow trying to refer to a garrison unit within a structure set to an "attacking" posture to intercept units passing through a region as being a "defender"? That doesn't make sense.

I have yet to understand how the game resolves the following situation (among many other things yet this one is kind of simple)

- two opposing stacks in the same region
- both stacks are set to an "attacking" posture.
- when the turn is processed, the two stacks engage in battle
- does the game assign one of the stacks as "the attacker" and the other as "the defender" and apply any defensive terrain bonus to "the defender"? Or will the game both negate any defensive terrain bonus because both stacks have "attacking" postures (ie. the concept of an attacker/defender is meaningless when considering this battle)?

At least to answer partial amount of your questions Bullman.

Two forces negate their defensive capability(including entrenchment) when set to any aggressive posture whatsoever. AFAIK both stacks should be considered mutually engaged and neither a defender.

Bullman wrote:I have yet to understand how the game resolves the following situation (among many other things yet this one is kind of simple)

- two opposing stacks in the same region
- both stacks are set to an "attacking" posture.
- when the turn is processed, the two stacks engage in battle
- does the game assign one of the stacks as "the attacker" and the other as "the defender" and apply any defensive terrain bonus to "the defender"? Or will the game both negate any defensive terrain bonus because both stacks have "attacking" postures (ie. the concept of an attacker/defender is meaningless when considering this battle)?

BattleVonWar wrote:At least to answer partial amount of your questions Bullman.

Two forces negate their defensive capability(including entrenchment) when set to any aggressive posture whatsoever. AFAIK both stacks should be considered mutually engaged and neither a defender.

In the battle report screen, "the attacker" I believe is usually shown on the left of the panel and the defender on the right. Would it be right to say that in these attack/attack confrontations, that assignment is for all intents and purposes meaningless?

Yes, I think so. Picture a boxing match where both fighters willing walk into the center of the ring and start throwing punches.

BattleVonWar wrote:At least to answer partial amount of your questions Bullman.

Two forces negate their defensive capability(including entrenchment) when set to any aggressive posture whatsoever. AFAIK both stacks should be considered mutually engaged and neither a defender.

thing is I would love to move a unit stack to region filled with enemy stack defensivly so they can sit there at the end of the turn reforming cohesion and gettign the supplies ready for the attack or battle next turn. OR have a chance in which my unit can fight defensively whilst moving to a region unless attacked by a "surpriser" general in which an attack,attack situation can hopefully happen.

In order for a battle to occur one or both sides must be in Offensive/Assault posture. If both are in Offensive/Assault then neither gains any defensive bonuses, and both use their elements' Offensive combat and leadership characteristics. The "Attacker/Defender" status assigned in the battle report is arbitrary and meaningless in that situation. If both are in Defensive/Passive postures, then no battle will occur.

"But wait," you say, "I move Defensive posture stacks into enemy regions where the enemy is also in Defensive posture and battles occur all the time. What gives?"

As it turns out, it is actually pretty uncommon for two opposing stacks in a region to both be able to be in Defensive posture. When a stack enters a region in which it has insufficient MC (5% I think?) it is automatically switched into Offensive posture, and then attempts to engage the enemy stack (or begins to establish MC if there is no enemy present). If an enemy stack has been in a region for more than a few turns it will have converted the region to 100% MC, meaning that it is rare that you would move a stack into a region with an enemy that had not already established full MC. Double-Defensive posture tends to occur mostly in cases of simultaneous entry, or in cases of small stacks (which haven't been able to establish full MC yet). The posture-switching property can be exploited to force inactive but not-fixed generals into Offensive behavior by moving into a region with 100% enemy MC. This is usually not a great idea, however, unless you outnumber the enemy significantly: you will suffer a -35% penalty to all combat rolls (the same as the max penalty for insufficient command).

The important takeaway is that there is no order that you can give that will guarantee that you can march into enemy territory and start entrenching without a fight. Even though you have given it Defensive posture orders, your stack will switch to Offensive posture and seek to engage using its Offensive stats.