AGEOD Forums

Is this is possibly the most deeply flawed aspect of this game? It would be all well and fine if an army and associated corps are within the same region, or if a battle stretches into a second or third or fourth day (which is extremely rare, it must be said) and corps in adjacent or nearby regions could be hastily force marched to (hopefully) assist in a battle, but if the battle is decided within a day, and corps that are 30 or 40 or 50 miles away from that battle are somehow a decisive factor then this entire concept smacks of nonsense. Am I alone in thinking this?

The MTSG effect is possibly the most deeply misunderstood aspect of this game. Napoleon knew that time rules the world. The Emperor's standing order was to MTSG and don't wait for orders. Lee's final artillery barrage at Gettysburg rattled windows in Philly. So guns can be heard a considerable distance and leaders can know to march there. However, like many aspects of the game, it doesn't automatically work in every instance. Your units don't always get the first shot, or always hit or always MTSG.

http://www.ageod.net/agewiki/index.php? ... ction=edit

"All stacks eligible to march to the sound of the guns have to test individually. The base chance of joining a battle is 100%. This probability is modified by the following factors:

# -10% for each day of marching that the supporting stack would (theoretically) need in order to enter the region where the battle takes place. All factors affecting the stack’s movement speed apply (e.g. cohesion, weather, activation status of commander, etc.). E.g. when the battle takes place in a mountainous region, the chance is reduced. Stacks moving at cavalry-speed are more likely to enter the battle (except in bad weather).
# +10% if it is the army-stack which has been engaged by the enemy in the adjacent region.
# +25% if it is the army-stack that marches to the sound of the guns.
# +5% for each point of strategic-rating of the army/column-commander who tries to march to the sound of the guns.
# -10% if the stack that tries to march to the sound of the guns is in a “defensive” command posture.
# -1% for every 5% of enemy control in the regions. Both, the region where the battle takes place and the adjacent region are taken into account – the enemy military control in both regions is added together and then divided by 5.

When a stack succeeds its march, it participates in this round of battle as if it was in the region where the battle takes place, but it does not actually move there. The stack does not suffer any river-crossing penalties, but on the other hand, it doesn’t profit from any entrenchment levels either.

When a stack fails this test, it will not participate in this round of combat (but it will try again in the next round - if there is one)."

Let's say Grant, with a strat of 6 commanding an army stack in Offensive posture in a region with 100% MC, attempts to MTSG to another region with 100% MC. That would be 155% chance to succeed so far. However, it will take his army 10 days to get there, so (155 - 100) = 55% chance to succeed. That's almost a coin toss for Grant to make it work. A 3-1-1 Corps commander would have only a 25% chance.

Knowing something is going to work as planned trumps hoping. Drop the stack on the region and see how long it takes to move there. Do the number crunching to know the odds of success. Keep MC maxed. The stack tasked with MTSG should perhaps be cavalry or have no slow units and a high strat commander of an army.

It is better to be present with 10 men than absent with 10,000. Good luck!

I would add that there is nothing to suggest that a battle “only lasts a day”. That is not always the case. Of course in real life, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, Shiloh, murfeesboro, Chattanooga, Wilderness and Spotsylvania-among others- were fought over several days up to a week.

I believe the game simulates this with multiple rounds. It simulates a battle lasting more than a day. I don’t think every battle and game automatically lasts only one day. Certainly wasn’t so in real life so I think they do a pretty good job with the MTSG

mjw wrote:I believe the game simulates this with multiple rounds. It simulates a battle lasting more than a day. I don’t think every battle and game automatically lasts only one day.

I really don't think that's the case.

There is only so many ways how tactical means like marching seperately and striking united can be modelled on our limited engines (both, software and hardware wise). Armies did cover large areas, jockeyed for position, held lines of communications, kept in touch via couriers, anticipated enemie's moves, expanded and contracted their columns as needed. That is reflected in the game, no more no less.

Where engine's have limits, imagination has none.

Yes, this. Plus forces reacting to movement by the enemy. Imagine making Jackson's '62 flanking march leading to 2nd Manassas in the game. His corps would be sitting around nearly two weeks while Pope is just staring blankly across the Rappahannock. Being able to spread your corps out, while still being able to at least partially cover each other increases the area a force could defend depending on its size.

MTSG is of course not literally realistic, but it kind of is in its affect.