Problem: Marching to the sound of the guns does not work properly.

[ANTONYO]

"Marching to the sound of the guns" does not work properly. Reinforcing Army not return to its original region after the battle and hits are concentrated in a single Corps.

Situation:

CSA Army of 1500 points of strength in Manassas and USA Army of 2100 points of strength in Alexandria. Both level 4 of entrenchment.
There is a battle of four rounds of combat between two Corps in Stafford, South of Alexandria, region adjacent to Manassa and Alessandria.
Round 1: Fight the two Cjorps in lonely, Corp CSA takes strong lost, but they continue to struggle. OK
Round 2: The CSA Army march to the sound of the guns. Corps USA takes strong lost, but they continue to struggle.Hits are concentrated in the initial Corps.
Round 3: The USA Army march to the sound of the guns. Both armies have lost similar. The struggle continue.Hits are concentrated in the initial Corps.
Round 4: Both armies have lost similar.Hits are concentrated in the initial Corps. CSA retreat. CSA Corp totally annihilated. Army CSA retreat a Frederiksburg. no return to its original region after the battle.

Both armies have had approximately the same casualities (8.000 men), but CSA has lost a full Corp and also your main Army has abandoned its defensive position in Manassas and retired to Frederiksburg .

Two problems:

1: Hits concentrated in the same initial Corp of the attack. Corp completely annihilated.
2: Withdrawal of the Army that has marching to the sound of the cannons to a location other than their initial location, contrary to what the manual says on its page 88 speaking feature marching to the sound of cannons. "Reinforcing
Corps will return to their original region after the battle".

It is a bug or not.

[Ace]

I think it is WAD, not a bug. Your army rushed in to help its Corps. Corps still did most of the fighting, as they were engaged from the start. After the loss, they were all pushed southwards. If you had won, your army would have return to Manassas.

[ANTONYO]

OK, It may be, but it would be more logical that the withdrawal would be his initial defensive position.

As for the second problem. Why the hits are concentrated only in a division, when there are 4 fighting. I don't see normal that will focus the hits in a single division and that this is completely annihilated when there are 4 divisions supposedly fighting.

[Ace]

You were unlucky, the hits do not spread evenly, they spread randomly like in RL. In RL combat there are dozens cases where one division gets mauled while the others are not hit as bad, take Picket's division as an example.

[ANTONYO]

I don't believe in bad luck. You can have bad luck in a round of combat, but not three. I am sure that there is a problem with the March to the sound of cannons.

None of the divisions that supported the combat to come to the March to the sound of the guns had damage.

[Ace]

Once engaged troops have higher chance to be engaged in the next round as well. Your MSTG troops fired at the enemy, but the enemy did not fire at them, the enemy fired on the already engaged corps.

[ANTONYO]

This puts in the manual page 87.

"Elements belonging to a single Unit always target elements of a single
enemy Unit, favoring weightier targets. Artillery elements always target the eligible
enemy elements on the field with the most hits remaining. This means large Units
concentrate more fire on their target, and are able to absorb more damage from the
enemy".


He understood that they were more easily eligible for units being attacked with more hits remaining, which is the logical, but it seems that this is not true

Does not have any utility that an army marche at the sound of the guns if not then involved in the battle. Something doesn't work

[Ace]

Ok, Pocus should answer this thread.

[veji1]

I am sorry but I agree with Antonyo there : In all military logic the actual MTSGing army would have helped the corps disengage itself and retire... It should be possible for the corps to be annihilated, but not through recieving all the hits, rather through battle engine features that would make it be surrounded and captured... This "all the hits focus on one corps until it is just gone even though the battle shows as a draw or close to" makes no sense and it was already the case in AACW.

[Jarkko]

This puts in the manual page 87.

"Elements belonging to a single Unit always target elements of a single
enemy Unit, favoring weightier targets. Artillery elements always target the eligible
enemy elements on the field with the most hits remaining. This means large Units
concentrate more fire on their target, and are able to absorb more damage from the
enemy".


He understood that they were more easily eligible for units being attacked with more hits remaining, which is the logical, but it seems that this is not true

Does not have any utility that an army marche at the sound of the guns if not then involved in the battle. Something doesn't work

You are confusing the terms "Unit" and "Target", partly because the manual isn't exactly clear. A "Unit" is a division or a brigade or a regiment. A "Target" can be a Unit or an element in a unit, depending on wether the targeter is a unit or an element. Ie a unit selects a target, then elements in that unit selects target elements in the target unit.

Also notice that a Unit who is selected as a target has a very high chance to remain the target until it routs. Notice that if the width of the front is filled already, then fresh troops won't make it to the front until the fighting units at front retreat.

Lets take an example of two corps fighting vs a single corps who gets supported by its army through MTSG

1) The Corps engage each other. Each division selects a target division (aka the units select target units). The elements in each division selects a target from the unit being the target of its division, artillery prefering to shoot at the beefiest elements. Hits are delivered.
2) The fight continues, the divisions prefering to target the same targets previous round. Artillery again prefers to target the beefiest enemy elements in the enemy unit, while the infantry very likely stay locked onto their previous targets. The army which is MTSG arrives to the scene.
3) The reinforcing units select targets, and the elements target elements in the target units. The units which were already in fight continue to fight their previous targets (unless they already routed), which means the initial lone corps starts to be pretty mauled. The fresh reinforcing troops deliver pain as much as they can, but essentially are not target for recieving fire (there will be some enemy units targeting these fresh units, but most are "locked" in fight with the initial corps)
4) The fight continues, with again the "locked" units fighting their targets etc. The initial lone corps has suffered too much, many units rout. If the reinforcing army wasn't considerably bigger than the initial corps, this very likely leads to the whole force retreating off the field, even though the reinforcing troops still are relatively unscratched.

[Ace]

Jarkko, you could not have said it better. Regarding insides of combat engine, I think only Pocus is better than you.

I was trying to say the same thing, but I was not as precise as you. I would add my comment. People seem to think once an army MTSG, that they engage in combat the same way as they were in region from the start. That is not the case as in given example. If that would be the case, MTSG and defense would be unrealistically too strong, with the army stack jumping all over the map defending everything.

[veji1]

Interesting, I understand the mechanics, but then I feel there should be a couple of checks in the battle routine : The units of the original corps (already pretty mauled) should try to get out of the first line battle before routing, and if fail, rout long before they are destroyed. My problem is that I have experienced several times a battle that in terms of casualties delivered was pretty even but turned into a defeat because the originally attacked corps was mauled to death, probably routed once its elements were very depleted and lost the last elements in the retreat/Routing routine (my interpretation). You end up with say 2 armies of 45 000 that fought each other, both incur around 9/10 000 losses but one has a corps completely wiped out.

This never happened in the ACW except in a siege capture or in the very late stages or the war (64 onwards) when some CSA units started vaporising... Seeing some corps get so badly mauled in battle that they have virtually 0 CV because of a mix of losses and crap cohesion is perfectly historical and it emulates to perfection what would happen : if in a battle a 15 000 men corps gets hit repeatedly and wears the brunt of the ennemy's assault, that at the end he could have only 6 000 men and 0CV because of virtually 0 cohesion is perfect. But it shouldn't puff into the air.

In the immense majority of ACW battles, some of the fresh troops would have covered the retreat of the mauled troops, so for me there are things to be adjusted in the engine :
- past a certain amount of losses (hits and cohesion losses) a particular unit should try to disengage, long before it roots.
- it should have a bonus on the disengaging roll if there are other units in the battle (with inf or cav elements) that still have high cohesion because that would emulate the traditional relief of mauled forces by newish units to allow it to retire.
- even if it routs, that original units should have roll that protect it from most of the extra hits (not cohesion but actual losses) if there are again a certain amount of still high cohesion combat units in the game. those new units should in turn be brought to the line (with a penalty, for example on the round when a unit routs, if another can replace it does, but on this very round into only receives fire, cannot fire back, only on the next round to the fire exchanges take place normally).

This would ensure that in a more historical way, reserves and MTSGing forces get sucked into the battle properly, either because frontage allows the battle to get bigger for example, or because they get sucked in to help mauled troops disengage.

It always irked me to see those big battles where the combat round lasts a long time and suddenly you get those messages of "generals X and Y are recovering in city Z" and you see that out of 4 corps/army stack involved on your side, one is completely gone, one is somewhat mauled and 2 are completely unscathed. Of course battle losses shouldn't be incurred homogeneously, and of course the corps bearing the brunt of combat should get mauled, but it shouldn't be wiped out, it should be made combat ineffective (ie very very low CV due to big losses and very low cohesion) and have retreated or even routed, but covered by the fresh troops that would have then taken its place in the battle.

For me there are elements in the routine that don't work as they should (if I understood the routine correctly of course).

[Ace]

I agree with you. It would be an improvement if your suggestions were implemented.

I would only ask Antonyo was the MTSG stack an Army stack. Army stack does not get targeted in combat, only its corps. That is why people generally put only artillery in the Army stack, or only the lone Army commander.

[veji1]

I agree with you. It would be an improvement if your suggestions were implemented.

I would only ask Antonyo was the MTSG stack an Army stack. Army stack does not get targeted in combat, only its corps. That is why people generally put only artillery in the Army stack, or only the lone Army commander.

See this is another frustrating thing. If an army stack doesn't get targeted in combat, than it shouldn't be able to receive combat troops... It makes no sense. What should be if that in a combat where an army stack is alone, it just acts like a normal stack, but in combat where and army stack either is stack with some of his corps, or MTSGs to supports its corps, the army stack should not go to the front line first, but act as a reserve that plugs the line when some units get too mauled.

Say you have a battle in a province where the CSA has a 2 division corps in defense : the Union marches in with 2 corps of 2 divisions and one army stack of one division. A battle starts and a 1 div CSA corps and a 1 division CSA army stack MTSG, the posture for the 3 stacks is the default orange defense. the battle is raging, with a frontage equivalent of 2.5 divisions for example, when the army stack and corps stack joined the battle, the corps sent its troop directly to the front line, with the army acting as reserve. During the battle one of the divisions of the original corps reaches "crisis point" where it tries to disengage. Because there is a division in reserve (ie the one in the army stack) it gets a very substantial bonus that allows it to disengage, with the army stack division marching in for that very round being hit by fire without being able to respond. Next round the battle resumes normally. Another couple of rounds and the other division of the orginal corp reaches crisis point, but with no reserve force present has a roll where either it disengages and it triggers the whole CSA forces in the provinces to disengage and retreat, or it routs and it means it is taken out of the battle and the USA get another round of battle where they can hit the CSA some more, with now the whole CSA forces trying to disengage.

That sort of dynamic would make sense. One would have the original corps with 2 very badly mauled division, with quite a few quasi empty regiments in them, and virtually 0 CV. But not have the corps vanish into the air.

Again this is what CV is for : The game has the tools to perfectly emulate the way some units were rendered completely combat ineffective by a mauling, by giving them virtually 0 CV when low cohesion and low numbers go together. a corps getting destroyed should only happen in very rare occasions : in a siege, or a battle when they are surrounded, etc.. but very very rarely, while I find it still happens too often.

[ANTONYO]

You are confusing the terms "Unit" and "Target", partly because the manual isn't exactly clear. A "Unit" is a division or a brigade or a regiment. A "Target" can be a Unit or an element in a unit, depending on wether the targeter is a unit or an element. Ie a unit selects a target, then elements in that unit selects target elements in the target unit.

Also notice that a Unit who is selected as a target has a very high chance to remain the target until it routs. Notice that if the width of the front is filled already, then fresh troops won't make it to the front until the fighting units at front retreat.

Thanks for the explanation.

Anyway I think the program should at any time to check the status of units on the frontline and in some cases replace them with units fresh, especially if with MTSG reinforcements have arrived, and is a far superior to the initial force.

I think that you having more than 75% of the intact army, should not be withdrawal, I think that something worked poorly with the MTSG and reinforcement forces were not taken into account when calculating the withdrawal.

4) The fight continues, with again the "locked" units fighting their targets etc. The initial lone corps has suffered too much, many units rout. If the reinforcing army wasn't considerably bigger than the initial corps, this very likely leads to the whole force retreating off the field, even though the reinforcing troops still are relatively unscratched.

That is the problem. That the army reinforcement MTSG was far superior to the original body, and the flight of the initial Corp causes the retreating off the field of whole force.

With the additional problem that the army that go with MTSG from Manassas, is removed along with the initial Corps and does not return to its original position in Manassas. In short, MTSG in this case does not help the initial body and also is retired from his defensive position.

In this case MTSG is not a benefit, but a prejudice.

I would only ask Antonyo was the MTSG stack an Army stack. Army stack does not get targeted in combat, only its corps. That is why people generally put only artillery in the Army stack, or only the lone Army commander.

Many thanks also to you. This did not know him. And what has happened in this battle may be due to this

This rule is well for the case that you want to preserve the integrity of an army. But for the start of the CW, when you don't have many 2-Star General, is often used to the army as a fighting force more.

[Jarkko]

Let me put it like this: There is a reason why you can choose to have MTSG "on" or not. The decission is *not* a no-brainer, like many people seem to think. You should always mentally compare the "for" and "against" of the decission wether to have MTSG on or not.

[ANTONYO]

Let me put it like this: There is a reason why you can choose to have MTSG "on" or not. The decission is *not* a no-brainer, like many people seem to think. You should always mentally compare the "for" and "against" of the decission wether to have MTSG on or not.

I don't understand your answer. Sorry, my English is very bad.

Would you like to say that there is a way to disconnect MTSG? If it is so, as it can be?

Anyway, I do not know any situation, which receive reinforcements in battle is negative for its result.

It is not normal to receive reinforcements and that they do not participate in the battle. And not only that, but because, the hits received during the withdrawal are greater and apply only on the original Corp. And not only that, but that even if they do not participate in the battle, rather than return to their region of origin, are removed to another place.

It is not easy to understand sorry.

[veji1]

Let me put it like this: There is a reason why you can choose to have MTSG "on" or not. The decission is *not* a no-brainer, like many people seem to think. You should always mentally compare the "for" and "against" of the decission wether to have MTSG on or not.

Sure, and that marching to the sound of guns could lead an army's position becoming unhinged, losing good entrenchments in the process, is part of the game. It emulates well the consequences of big battles in AACW. So in that sense it works well : big battle in Falmouth, a CSA army from Manassas MTSGs in but as the CSA loses the battle, all the troops end up retreating to Fredericksburg, leading to losing the positions north of the rappahanock. Great feature and very historical.

BUT, the losses distribution algorythm, or rather the way MTSGing forces get implicated in battle in support and if needed relief of original fighting forces, has issues. Again Corps or armies should almost never just disappear, this basically only happens in a surrender. They should be made completely combat ineffective, and this is what cohesion/elements-> Combat value emulates perfectly in the game.

In a battle where a corps or divisions get mangled, they should extricate themselves before being destroy, and this should be virtually guaranteed whenever there are MTSGing forces to plug the line.

So to take the example above, the original corps in Falmouth with 2 divisions for example is mangled and retreats to frederiksburg with only say 6 000 out of its 12 000 men and a CV of almost 0 because of losses and very low cohesion. It will have to stay immobile in passive posture for at least a couple of turns (1 month) before it becomes somewhat useable again. This is great and historical, one could even make cohesion recovery slower when it is very low, but anyway this is how it should work. That original corps should never just vanish into the air with the player getting a message "general X is recovering in province Z".

[Jarkko]

S
In a battle where a corps or divisions get mangled, they should extricate themselves before being destroy, and this should be virtually guaranteed whenever there are MTSGing forces to plug the line.

Unless you ordered your troops to fight to death, they will.

I have a serious feeling this whole issues could be a model example of "learn to play". You are supposed to *think* before you select MTSG, before you choose battle-stance, before you choose where to fight, etc. These are not mindless decissions, you know.

When you compare to the fights in real life, try to find out how many times the opposing forces were in red stance; I would say there are *very* few such cases (if any, in field battles). Troops weren't always ordered to leave their prepared positions in a forlorn charge, but stuck to their positions even if a friendly force considerably nearby was mauled; this resulted in the enemy perhaps winning the battle, but for them the position was essentially impossible to hold (you have heard of "tactical win but strategic loss" being a description for many CW battles, right?). Yet in the game most people seem to always have MTSG on, they always seem to be prepared to do re-enacts of Little Big Horn and die with their boots on, and then they have the decency to come and cry here the game is broken when they get exactly what they ordered and the game is working exactly as designed?

O tempora, o mores...

[Ace]

How can you order an Army not to MTSG? The only way I can think off is passive posture, and since passive posture has other consequences, I do not wish to do that. So, how do you do it except by detaching a corps, or by putting fixed units in adjacent corps?

[ANTONYO]

I have the same question that Ace. Like you to order to an army that you not to MTSG?

I think that no way to do it there is.

[Jarkko]

Guys, if you do not want to have army marching to the sound of guns, you don't park the army so that it will attempt MTSG. Essentially, if you put your army next to your corps, have MTSG "on", otherwise not. If you need to hold two provinces next to each other but don't want to MTSG, then do not place corps from same army in the province (if an independent corps isn't good enough, then use corps from two different armies).

Not very difficult to figure out, is it? Anyway, I don't think this thread belongs to "Help improve CW2", it belongs to general discussion and the thread title should be "Why do my troops fight to death when I choose a red stance?".

[fred zeppelin]

I don't think this thread belongs to "Help improve CW2", it belongs to general discussion and the thread title should be "Why do my troops fight to death when I choose a red stance?".

Certainly, the stance of the units has to be taken into account in evaluating whether the reinforcement mechanic is working as it should. But I do think there is a problem with the current system. You described it yourself earlier:

Also notice that a Unit who is selected as a target has a very high chance to remain the target until it routs. Notice that if the width of the front is filled already, then fresh troops won't make it to the front until the fighting units at front retreat.

Reinforcements, however they arrive, whether by MTSG or by planned movement, shouldn't have to wait for reinforced units to rout before they enter the battle. If the current algorithm works that way, then it is flawed.

[ANTONYO]

Not very difficult to figure out, is it? Anyway, I don't think this thread belongs to "Help improve CW2", it belongs to general discussion and the thread title should be "Why do my troops fight to death when I choose a red stance?".

I do not understand that you mean by "choose a red stance".

My troops never were in red position, were in the normal Orange stance.

I if I think that this thread can serve to improve the game.

No one doubts that the game functions according to is designed. But I do not think that is correct that if a Corps goes as reinforcements to a battle you cannot enter combat until the initial Corps has been completely defeated. It is not difficult to understand.

[loki100]

No one doubts that the game functions according to is designed. But I do not think that is correct that if a Corps goes as reinforcements to a battle you cannot enter combat until the initial Corps has been completely defeated. It is not difficult to understand.

but this is based on an incorrect understanding of how different stacks/corps pick targets. In particular, there is a real risk if you rely on March to the sound of guns for your defense that the corps in the province will take the brunt of the initial attacks. Equally its quite likely the new forces will not enter combat until the second hour (at the earliest) and may drop out of combat in a future round (much more likely if they are crossing a river).

As Jarkko says, MttSG is not a 'I win' solution, its a tool that needs to be used with some care. And that over a long game will blow up in your face at least once due to the random elements that come into play. It allows you to cover a wide front and to use small tripwire forces as part of your defensive strategy - both of which are good. It has the potential to fail you badly.

[ANTONYO]

Equally its quite likely the new forces will not enter combat until the second hour (at the earliest) and may drop out of combat in a future round (much more likely if they are crossing a river)..

Please read my initial post.

The battle has four rounds, reinforcements arrive in the second round (There is no river).

Second round: not enter combat
Third round: not enter combat
Fourth round: not enter combat and initial Corps completely annihilated.

As Jarkko says, MttSG is not a 'I win' solution, its a tool that needs to be used with some care. And that over a long game will blow up in your face at least once due to the random elements that come into play. It allows you to cover a wide front and to use small tripwire forces as part of your defensive strategy - both of which are good. It has the potential to fail you badly.

No one says, Mtsg is a "I win" solution, but it should get results more credible..

[loki100]

Please read my initial post.

The battle has four rounds, reinforcements arrive in the second round (There is no river).

Second round: not enter combat
Third round: not enter combat
Fourth round: not enter combat and initial Corps completely annihilated.




No one says, Mtsg is a "I win" solution, but it should get results more credible..

I did read your post. The point I made is that in all AGE games, MttSG relies on random aspects. So it doesn't always work and thus if you really can't risk it failing then you should find a different solution to your problem. Second as also in this thread issues such as frontage come into play. A force may march into a region where it cannot deploy into combat.

Now its never, and especially not in this era, easy to break combat when facing a superior enemy so in that case the original corps is stuck in the front regardless of units elsewhere in a large province.

Rise of Prussia has a comparable mechanic and troop density. Like most players, especially if on the defense, I rely on MttSG as a key tool as it allows me to block flanking moves. I know that over some stage in a typical campaign game, its going to fail me and a formation is going to be ripped apart.

So its a key, essential tool, but it fails sometimes. That makes it a very good bit of simulation.

[ANTONYO]

I did read your post. The point I made is that in all AGE games, MttSG relies on random aspects. So it doesn't always work and thus if you really can't risk it failing then you should find a different solution to your problem. Second as also in this thread issues such as frontage come into play. A force may march into a region where it cannot deploy into combat.

Now its never, and especially not in this era, easy to break combat when facing a superior enemy so in that case the original corps is stuck in the front regardless of units elsewhere in a large province.

Totally agree with you on everything you say.

I only mention my strangeness for the total annihilation of a Corps that is aided by other troops which do not go into combat in any of the three rounds.

Without MTSG never occurred the annihilation of the Corps, it had withdrawn before.

[veji1]

Guys, if you do not want to have army marching to the sound of guns, you don't park the army so that it will attempt MTSG. Essentially, if you put your army next to your corps, have MTSG "on", otherwise not. If you need to hold two provinces next to each other but don't want to MTSG, then do not place corps from same army in the province (if an independent corps isn't good enough, then use corps from two different armies).

Not very difficult to figure out, is it? Anyway, I don't think this thread belongs to "Help improve CW2", it belongs to general discussion and the thread title should be "Why do my troops fight to death when I choose a red stance?".

Hi Jarkko, I will assume that like many of us here english isn't your mother tongue, therefore when you come off as a jerk it is obviously not your goal right ?

Thanks for telling us all that we are morons, appreciate that. And sure mistakes using the red stance have lead to big disasters for me in the past. BUT the point here is that even with using just orange stances, there is an issue with the MTSGing regarding how the MTSGing forces enter a battle that has focused so far on the initial corps. Please just tell of when in the ACW (except the very late battles when the CSA armies were not functioning forces anymore) did corps just become annihilated in a battle (not a siege) ? Never. They became wrecked, combat ineffective, 0 CV because of big losses and low cohesion, but annihilated NEVER.

This is the point we are making. As I posted earlier in this thread, badly mauled corps always found a way of being extracted, whether at second Manassas, Antietam, Chickamauga, etc... It is just the way it happened. There is clearly a design problem in that part of the engine.

Regarding the other thing you are saying "beware of MTSG, it can result in you losing your starting positions, so it isn't always a positive" your are 100% correct, and indeed this is a very good feature : a "bad"MTSG can suddenly make a well dug in 3 province wide front disappear, as it should.

[Njordr]

Regarding the other thing you are saying "beware of MTSG, it can result in you losing your starting positions, so it isn't always a positive" your are 100% correct, and indeed this is a very good feature : a "bad"MTSG can suddenly make a well dug in 3 province wide front disappear, as it should.

In this case you can detach a small force from every single corps. When the corps will MTSG, the small stacks will mantain the entrenchment level.
If the corps will return in their starting region after the battle, at the beginning of the new turn you can simply merge them and still have a well dug force.