Fix Retreats

[pgr]

In patches going forward, could effort be made to prevent stacks retreating into strongly held enemy positions? I am not the first person to complain about odd retreats. (A quick forum search on the subject reveals two at length discussions on the topic. 1 and 2)

To add focus to the discussion, I'll offer up my recent PBEM experience with the wonderfully capable FelixZ. A force under Beauregard was attacked in Fredrecksburg by Grant (coming from Culpeper with 1 corps, while the rest of the Union force remained in Culpeper). Beauregard decides to withdraw after a few rounds, and retreats to Culpeper....a region with the maximum number of enemy troops in which I have 0 MC. Upon arriving in Culpeper, he switches to attack mode (because I have no MC in the region), looses of course, and retreats back to Fredericksburg! He then is trapped in a loop for the rest of the resolving turn, bouncing between those two regions. For your enjoyment, I am including the .hst and replay file. (you will note that in the new turn, Beauregard STILL wants to retreat into Grant's main body).

Now I know why Beauregard did what he did, a quick at the retreat logic makes it pretty clear:

// ********************************************************
// ***** CONTROL & RETREAT *****
// ********************************************************

ctlContested = 5 // Minimum control gained upon entering a region (if not passive)
ctlAllowRetreat = 0 // Minimum control to have in a region to allow a retreat into it
ctlRetreatAdjCity = 5 // Interest in retreating toward a region with a city (per level)
ctlRetreatAdjFort = 30 // Interest in retreating toward a region with a fort (per level)
ctlRetreatAdjDepot = 25 // Interest in retreating toward a region with a depot (per level)
ctlRetreatLandLink = 10 // Interest in retreating toward a region, value per land link
ctlRetreatPrevSubSpaceCoeffH = 250 // Coefficient applied to the interest if the region is the one where we are coming from
ctlNoBeachHead = 10 // Minimum control to have so that a region is not a beach/riverhead if you have to cross a body of water before attacking

// Added September 22, 2012
cltRetPenaltyPerNmySU = 4 // retreat penalty (in interest pts) for each nmy SU in retreating region

In the basic retreat calculation the presence of enemy forces IS NOT A FACTOR. Military control is the proxy for enemy forces, but you can see that as coded originally, this value is set to 0. So a unit is allowed to retreat into a province in which its side has no Military Control. After that, the draw is determined by what is in the province. In this case Culpeper was the only town with a depot next to Fredericksburg. When he lost his battle in Culpeper, he could have gone south to Charlottesville, 100% friendly MC with a depot in town, but he went back to the enemy held Fredricksburg because of the whopping 250 coefficient that tries to get a stack to go back to where it comes from.

So the result is a retreat loop. A defending force is dislodged and retreats into an enemy held town/fort/depot province (which is logically the last place they should want to go), retreats back to where it just came from (now an enemy held province) looses, and retreats "back" to the previous province.

Clearly the code is designed for the "Minimum control to have in a region to allow a retreat into it" value to prevent this kind of thing from happening. A certain % of MC is needed for a region to be a valid retreat destination, then the retreat algorithm kicks in to direct forces to friendly towns, forts, and depots. (Frankly, it is quite elegant.) But with with the minimum control set to 0%, stacks can't distinguish between friendly and enemy held depots.

Why is minimum MC set to 0? According to the game manual, it shouldn't be. Page 63 of the manual (describing the effects of Military Control):

Finally, you cannot retreat from battle into completely hostile regions (i.e. less than 5% Military Control). [color="#FF0000"]Note: Engaging in a battle deep within enemy territory is a very risky proposition, as losing will result in complete destruction for lack of a retreat path! [/color]

According to Pocus the decision was made quite along time ago during the patching process of ACW1, based on feedback from beta testers. Apparently, the justification was for historical flavor. Encirclements were "difficult" to achieve and the 5% rule made it too simple to do. That would explain why a new coding was added in September of 2012, that adds a retreat penalty for each enemy sub-unit in a possible retreat province. Clearly though this isn't enough, because Beauregard still went to the province with the most enemy units.

So to sum up, retreats in ACWII need to be improved, because retreating forces all to often decided to retreat into strongly held enemy territory. (Which never happened historically, and makes no sense logically).

There seem to be two options. Either raise the minimum military control necessary for a retreat to 5% (to the level stated in the manual, and what I suspect the AGE engine default level normally is) OR change the retreat coefficient values so that retreating AWAY from enemy units becomes THE major factor in in choosing a retreat destination.

I would argue for the minimum MC value to be re-established, because it is simple, quick, and what the thing was designed for. Any other solution requires re-writing and testing of the whole retreat logic in a way that would only be applicable to this title.

[ohms_law]

+1

[VigaBrand]

And fixed, that reatreats longer than 15 days had a chance to engaged a second time by the enemy.
I see some battles, which come every round because the force needs more than 15days to move. This forces will be annihaled, because they never get cohesion and will be attacked every turn. This cost much NM.

[pgr]

And if you want to play around with what it is like for the minimum MC to be at 5%, you can try with a modded game logic file. I'd love to have some play reaction.

[Captain_Orso]

I'm not entirely sure, but I've always assumed that "ctlRetreatPrevSubSpaceCoeffH = 250" only applied to a stack which plotted a move for that turn--Grant for example, not a stack which is retreating.

But your description does sound like Beauregard is being bounced back-n-forth because of ctlRetreatPrevSubSpaceCoeffH.

A simple code change could fix this--but it would be a code change. Set a variable if the ctlRetreatPrevSubSpaceCoeffH parameter has already been used once this turn, which if set will cause the algorithm to thereafter ignore the ctlRetreatPrevSubSpaceCoeffH parameter.

[pgr]

I'm not entirely sure, but I've always assumed that "ctlRetreatPrevSubSpaceCoeffH = 250" only applied to a stack which plotted a move for that turn--Grant for example, not a stack which is retreating.

But your description does sound like Beauregard is being bounced back-n-forth because of ctlRetreatPrevSubSpaceCoeffH.

A simple code change could fix this--but it would be a code change. Set a variable if the ctlRetreatPrevSubSpaceCoeffH parameter has already been used once this turn, which if set will cause the algorithm to thereafter ignore the ctlRetreatPrevSubSpaceCoeffH parameter.

Well the ctlRetreatPrevSubSpaceCoeffH seemed like the right explanation, but you could be right that it had nothing to do do with it. It could have simply been that F-burg had a town and a level two depot. Regardless, it was the decision to retreat towards the enemy in the first place that I view as the main problem.

I suppose one could fiddle around with the relative coefficient values to make the cltRetPenaltyPerNmySU value the most important (say like make it something silly high, like 400), but the more coefficents are modified in the path finding algorithm, the more potential for creating new weird behavior. That's why i thinking making ctlAllowRetreat something other than 0 would be the most elegant solution.

Do any of you old-timers out there remember why it having ctlAllowRetreat active was a problem?

[ohms_law]

Regardless, it was the decision to retreat towards the enemy in the first place that I view as the main problem.

Yea

I'm really trying to avoid arguments, but dammit... make a code change. It's not that big of a deal. There's going to be another patch regardless (probably 8-12 more, if past history is any judge), so what's the problem?

[pgr]

Well something should be changed. It could be something simple like the min MC value, or something more complicated like upping the penalty for retreating to regions with enemy troops.

Frankly, I'm surprised that the MC issue was seen as such a gameplay issue that it required disabling that part of the retreat formula. As a practical matter, a defending stack is probably better off standing its ground and fighting it out (with defensive bonuses and everything) rather than fighting 2 rounds and retreating into a hostile force (where they risk to get engaged again on even worse terms).

[tripax]

I don't know, but to me the MC issue seems like it would most likely come up when you have a raider unit on B/B or even G/G behind enemy lines. The unit could easily end up surrounded by MC=0 but should definitely be allowed to retreat. In fact, I vote strongly against enabling a minimum MC - unless the minimum MC only applies to forces not on horseback or something and even then, I'm not convinced.

[ohms_law]

It just needs to be part of a larger logic structure. Military Control of surrounding regions is simply the first thing to check.
I don't understand why there's any resistance to improving this part of the game. The retreat mechanism is an absolutely key component to any military game. I see absolutely no reason not to spend the processing time on it.

[Ebbingford]

IIRC forbidding a force from retreating by the MC rule also leads to strange results.
If a force is surrounded and can't retreat because of MC in neighbouring regions it will stand and fight. This is often despite several retreat attempts during the battle. As soon as the attacking force gets low on cohesion it will then retreat from the battle and out of the region, the battle is often then termed a win for the defenders, despite it being anything but. It is only a win because they still hold the ground because they weren't allowed to retreat, they win by default.

[pgr]

I don't know, but to me the MC issue seems like it would most likely come up when you have a raider unit on B/B or even G/G behind enemy lines. The unit could easily end up surrounded by MC=0 but should definitely be allowed to retreat. In fact, I vote strongly against enabling a minimum MC - unless the minimum MC only applies to forces not on horseback or something and even then, I'm not convinced.

Well I think the raider question, is pretty well taken care of by the default MC gain every time a unit enters a province (provided it isn't passive). A unit gets automatic 5% military control while entering a province. If it moves on to the next province and is pushed back, it would be able to fall back to the province it came from.

Historically, raiding was a hazardous undertaking, and many a raiding group got captured in its entirety if it got pinned down. As it stands, a single cav element on evade combat (even if blue rather than green) does a very good job of evading combat. The MC limit for retreats wouldn't effect a raider's ability to advance into enemy territory or avoid battle. So I doubt there would be much of a noticeable effect. I'm assuming in other AGE games, with the MC level activated, people still raid? (TEAW for example?)

[pgr]

IIRC forbidding a force from retreating by the MC rule also leads to strange results.
If a force is surrounded and can't retreat because of MC in neighbouring regions it will stand and fight. This is often despite several retreat attempts during the battle. As soon as the attacking force gets low on cohesion it will then retreat from the battle and out of the region, the battle is often then termed a win for the defenders, despite it being anything but. It is only a win because they still hold the ground because they weren't allowed to retreat, they win by default.

Why do you consider it "strange" for a force that is surrounded to stand its ground and fight? That strikes me as normal behavior.

From my understanding of the game, a force attempts to retreat when it thinks the odds of wining are too low. It seems logical that if there is no place to retreat to, the force is better off standing its ground. This does mean that the attacker will have to have enough force to force the defender to rout.

In any event it is a lot less strange than for an outnumbered force to decide to abandon its defensive position to "retreat" towards the force that is attacking it. IMO.

[tripax]

Well I think the raider question, is pretty well taken care of by the default MC gain every time a unit enters a province (provided it isn't passive). A unit gets automatic 5% military control while entering a province. If it moves on to the next province and is pushed back, it would be able to fall back to the province it came from.

Historically, raiding was a hazardous undertaking, and many a raiding group got captured in its entirety if it got pinned down. As it stands, a single cav element on evade combat (even if blue rather than green) does a very good job of evading combat. The MC limit for retreats wouldn't effect a raider's ability to advance into enemy territory or avoid battle. So I doubt there would be much of a noticeable effect. I'm assuming in other AGE games, with the MC level activated, people still raid? (TEAW for example?)

I don't think this really takes care of the issue. If I am chasing a raider through Texas with a brigade of CSA cavalry - and thus following him, I'm perfectly likely to return MC to 100% in my favor. If I catch him and he can't retreat because of MC, then he's done for which doesn't seem right. 0% MC doesn't seem to equal "pinned down" in every case, I think.

[Captain_Orso]

I think the issue is a point of logic.

EG: CS-Force-A moves from its starting region directly into an adjacent region where it encounters Union-Force-B. Simultaneously Union-Force-C moves into the CS-Force-A's starting region. A battle ensues between CS-Force-A and Union-Force-B, which Union-Force-B wins and CS-Force-A must retreat.

Because of the weighting of ctlRetreatPrevSubSpaceCoeffH CS-Force-A will nearly always retreat into its starting region, where Union-Force-C is. Once CS-Force-A has reentered its starting region another battle ensues, this time between Union-Force-C and CS-Force-A, which CS-Force-A also loses.

Since ctlRetreatPrevSubSpaceCoeffH is the greatest factor in choosing the region into which CS-Force-A must retreat, the region from which it just retreated is picked for its next step of retreat, and the entire process starts all over again, with CS-Force-A ping-ponging back and forth between Union-Force-B and Union-Force-C until it is nearly wiped out.

Logically it can be argued that during its first retreat CS-Force-A might know that Union-Force-C has moved into its starting region and be greatly motivated to NOT retreat into that region. This would greatly depend on CS-Force-C's awareness of Union-Force-C being in its starting region.

But once on it's second retreat--this time from Union-Force-C--, CS-Force-A must be aware of Union-Force-B being in the region from which it had just retreated, and this is where the issue lies, because the Retreat algorithm does not allow for the retreating force to have any awareness of forces with which it had just battled, which I feel must logically negate ctlRetreatPrevSubSpaceCoeffH.

[tripax]

Just to be clear, in the example you give, I think after the first battle in Fredericksburg, it is odd that your force would retreat to the region where Grant's force originated. It may be hard to cross a river, but a force which has been in a region for a week or so (which could be measured by its level of entrenchment) should be able to manage it without disaster.

I think that after the second battle in Culpepper, your force should definitely have retreated back where it came from.

So I agree wholeheartedly that the retreat path in the first battle was silly and it would be nice if it could be improved. The second battle should have been avoided, I think.

[pgr]

@ captain_orso, you seem to have a good handle on how the code tends to play its self out. How important is the "cltRetPenaltyPerNmySU = 4 // retreat penalty (in interest pts) for each nmy SU in retreating region" value?

If the value was changed from 4 to say 400...would that tend to fix this retreat issue?

[pgr]

I don't think this really takes care of the issue. If I am chasing a raider through Texas with a brigade of CSA cavalry - and thus following him, I'm perfectly likely to return MC to 100% in my favor. If I catch him and he can't retreat because of MC, then he's done for which doesn't seem right. 0% MC doesn't seem to equal "pinned down" in every case, I think.

When I get some extra time, I plan on playing around with the minimum MC activated, and seen what the result is.

Concerning raiders, I think it would play out in one of two ways. Either the raiding force is really small (say one element), and when the big chasing force is able to succeed in bringing it to battle. In this case the raider risks being destroyed in the fire combat before it even has a chance to retreat. This is a current hazard. Or the raiding force and the chasing force are nearly the same size, and a battle breaks out. If the raiding force has nowhere to retreat to once the battle starts, my understanding is that it will just keep fighting on until the attacker gets exhausted and stops attacking. To be destroyed, the raider would have to be overwhelmed.

I might be wrong, but raider survivability seems more impacted by the ability to evade combat rather than the ability to retreat anywhere after combat has started.

[Captain_Orso]

Having only just loaded an looked at the scenario and the replay just now, there are some very strange things indeed when looking at the forces and battle reports.

Firstly, I do not think, Grant directly attacked Fredericksburg, but rather Franklin's Corps and Grant MTSG'ed. Grant as far as I can tell started in Fauquier, VA (Manassas) and was moving to Culpeper, where he arrive on day 3 or 4. But here is the first "strange thing". The Battle Messages say that Berry's Corps is committed in Fredericksburg. But Berry's Corps is sitting pretty in Stafford, VA and not even moving. At the end of the turn it's still entrenched at level 5. Additionally the actual Battle Report show not a single unit under Berry either of the Battles of Fredericksburg. Only Grant and Franklin are involved. The first Battle of Fredericksburg is on day 4.

While all the fun is going on in Fredericksburg, Kearney's Corps is moving from Clarke, VA (between Fauquier and the Shenandoah) for Culpeper and will arrive on day 6. The battle in Fredericksburg is on day 4 and in Culpeper on Day 5--that's was a damn fast retreat from Beauregard--, but retreat is kind of like MTSG; you just appear there.

So Beauregard arrives in Culpeper on day 5. Battle log messages say that Kearney's and Dixes' Corps are committed against Beauregard in Culpeper, although from what I can see Dixes' Corps is not moving at all and ends the turn in Clarke. Further Kearney's Corps has not even arrive in Culpeper yet.
The Battle of Culpeper--on day 5--only involves unit from Grant's Army of the Cumberland. Neither Kearney's nor Dixes' Corps are evolved in the Battle of Culpeper. Only Grant's Army of the Cumberland.

So, now let's go back to the First Battle of Fredericksburg. Going by where Franklin, Berry and Grant ended their turns, Franklin attacked Fredericksburg from Culpeper and Grant--coming form Fauquier--MTSG'ed, and Berry--not activated--did not MTSG.

Now, MTSG does NOT work like normal movement. When a corps and/or army goes to battle, if it is weaker than the opposing force it can call for neighboring corps and/or army stacks to MTSG. It is calculated if the called force will "arrive" in time to take place in the battle. If it can it is suddenly there. The "march" is completely abstract.

Once the battle is over the force which MTSG'ed is immediately returned to its original region--unless the battle is so late in the turn that the "time to march" would exceed the end of the turn, in which case the MTSG stack remains in the battle region. This doesn't happen that often.

What does this all mean for this situation? On day 4, after the First Battle of Fredericksburg, Beauregard must retreat and his target region is picked. The question comes to my mind, is Grant's Army of the Cumberland "in Culpeper" at this time?

At the start of the turn aside from Franklin's Corps the 6th Illinois (2 regiments) the Bull Run Bde are in Culpeper; the 6th garrisoning and the Bull Run has orders to rail up to Washington. So when Beauregard's Corps' retreat region is ascertained, there are at least 2 Union elements in Culpeper, but if Grant's army has returned to Culpeper before Beauregard's retreat region is ascertained, then there are just under 80 Union elements in Culpeper on turn 4 "after" the First Battle of Fredericksburg. I think the former is the case, because of the "cltRetPenaltyPerNmySU = 4 // retreat penalty (in interest pts) for each nmy SU in retreating region" parameter. If Grant were in Culpeper when Beauregard's retreat region is picked, there would be about 350 points against Beauregard retreating to Culpeper. Also it means that Grant an Beauregard are retreating/returning to the same region at the same time; very, very strange.

But are a couple of other illogical things apparent to me.
- The parameters which make retreating toward a town or depot don't seem to take into account whether the town/depot is in friendly hands or not.
- There is a parameter reducing the probability of a retreating force picking a region with a large enemy force, but there is none increasing the probability of it retreating TOWARD a large friendly force. During the First Battle of Fredericksburg, E. Johnson's Corps is moving from Albemarle, VA (The Wilderness) to Louisa, VA (between Fredericksburg and Richmond). At all times just 1 region away.
- The "ctlAllowRetreat = 0 // Minimum control to have in a region to allow a retreat into it" eliminates the need for some MC in a region to be able to retreat there, but there is no parameter to increase the probabilty of retreating into a region where the retreating side DOES have MC.

--

Steps that would "fix things":
- Parameters increasing the chances of retreating toward towns/depots should take into account to whom they belong.
- Friendly MC should increase the chances of retreating toward a region.
- Friendly SU's should increase the chances of retreating toward a region.
- The "ctlRetreatPrevSubSpaceCoeffH = 250 // Coefficient applied to the interest if the region is the one where we are coming from" parameter should only be in affect the first time a stack retreats in that turn. After that, it would be just returning to a known enemy force.

[FelixZ]

Caption Orso,

Franklin attacked from Culpepper. Grant and Kearny railed into Culpepper both with O/O. Berry was in Stafford with O/O. All four commanders were active.

Beauregard was defending in Fredricksburg.

Dixon's divisions were transferred into Grant's Army.

My thought on Beauregard's retreat to Culpepper is that when Beauregard's force entered Fredricksburg the force came from Culpepper. I've found that managing where a force arrived from pays dividends when forced to retreat.

[Captain_Orso]

Without the .hst and .ord files from both factions from the preceding turn I can only go by what the resulting .hst file show, the CS replay, which is bias through FOW and the messages in the mail-box.

Ultimately the discrepancies I found in the messages are by far secondary to the demonstration of mechanisms which force the retreat of a force which cannot but doom it to destruction, where other more logical courses of action would not. That Beauregard and Grant both astonishingly followed the same direction to the same region, one retreating into it, the other returning there, is only the first step on a path of completely illogical actions unprecedented to my knowledge in any military campaign.

I believe the adjustments I proposed would greatly reduce such occurrences and make for a smoother and better game.

[FelixZ]

Without the .hst and .ord files from both factions from the preceding turn I can only go by what the resulting .hst file show, the CS replay, which is bias through FOW and the messages in the mail-box.

Ultimately the discrepancies I found in the messages are by far secondary to the demonstration of mechanisms which force the retreat of a force which cannot but doom it to destruction, where other more logical courses of action would not. That Beauregard and Grant both astonishingly followed the same direction to the same region, one retreating into it, the other returning there,.

Not sure that I follow this last? Does not a a Corps/Army MTSG return to their original region (assuming time is sufficient)?

As a bit of clarification - Grant received two divisions from Dixon before movement; Grant arrived in Culpepper on Day 1; Kearny arrived in Culpepper on Day 2; Berry did not have a move order; All three had O/O to facilitate MTSG. Franklin began the turn in Culpepper and directly to Spotsylvania with R/O.

[Captain_Orso]

Not sure that I follow this last? Does not a a Corps/Army MTSG return to their original region (assuming time is sufficient)?

As a bit of clarification - Grant received two divisions from Dixon before movement; Grant arrived in Culpepper on Day 1; Kearny arrived in Culpepper on Day 2; Berry did not have a move order; All three had O/O to facilitate MTSG. Franklin began the turn in Culpepper and directly to Spotsylvania with R/O.

As I stated, if the Corps/Army stack can return to its starting region before the end of the turn, it will. In fact it will return to the exact status in which it left.

Here's an example that actually happened in a PBEM game I was playing: The Union had taken Memphis and was attacking Corinth. Jackson's Corps was between, or in Corinth--I'm not sure anymore, but it's inconsequential. Jackson was heading north of Memphis across the Mississippi to Madison. Just as Jackson was 1 day away from entering the region north of Memphis the Union attacked in Corinth and a battle ensued, which caused Jackson to MTSG all the way back to Corinth. Once the battle was over on the next day he entered the region north of Memphis.

The messages clearly say that Kearney arrived in Culpeper on Day 6, which means that he wasn't there when Beauregard started his 1 day retreat into Culpeper and wasn't there on Day 5 when the battle in Culpeper took place in which only Beauregard and Grant are involved.

I also assume that Grant was not counted as being in Culpeper, when Beauregard's retreat target was picked, because I believe his size alone would negate Culpeper from being targeted.

[pgr]

But are a couple of other illogical things apparent to me.
- The parameters which make retreating toward a town or depot don't seem to take into account whether the town/depot is in friendly hands or not.
- There is a parameter reducing the probability of a retreating force picking a region with a large enemy force, but there is none increasing the probability of it retreating TOWARD a large friendly force. During the First Battle of Fredericksburg, E. Johnson's Corps is moving from Albemarle, VA (The Wilderness) to Louisa, VA (between Fredericksburg and Richmond). At all times just 1 region away.
- The "ctlAllowRetreat = 0 // Minimum control to have in a region to allow a retreat into it" eliminates the need for some MC in a region to be able to retreat there, but there is no parameter to increase the probabilty of retreating into a region where the retreating side DOES have MC.

--

Steps that would "fix things":
- Parameters increasing the chances of retreating toward towns/depots should take into account to whom they belong.
- Friendly MC should increase the chances of retreating toward a region.
- Friendly SU's should increase the chances of retreating toward a region.
- The "ctlRetreatPrevSubSpaceCoeffH = 250 // Coefficient applied to the interest if the region is the one where we are coming from" parameter should only be in affect the first time a stack retreats in that turn. After that, it would be just returning to a known enemy force.

You are correct in seeing that Grant did not lead the attack, he MTSGed. As far as the retreat algorithm taking into account who owns what, I would argue it does. The minimum MC check means that all regions that pass it are, by definition, partially friendly. The depot or fort values don't consider who controls the province, because the minimum MC check already did that. By setting it to 0, retreats become blind.

I like the steps you propose. It seems to me the first two, would effectively be the same thing. Retreating units should be drawn to regions with high friendly military control. (Which either means re-activating the minimum MC requirement or creating a MC pull calculation...which should have a large weight)

Friendly SU's drawing retreating units to them makes sense, and I would suggest that corps should have a tendency to retreat towards army HQs.

As far as the ctlRetreatPrevSubSpaceCoeffH is concerned, as long as a stack picks its first retreat path well, the ping-pong thing would be avoided before it becomes a problem.

FelixZ, feel free post the turn and order files, if people want to play around with it. In the end though, it's less about what happened in my particular game, but more that this retreat is illustrative of funky retreats that have popped up for a number of people.

[Captain_Orso]

You are correct in seeing that Grant did not lead the attack, he MTSGed. As far as the retreat algorithm taking into account who owns what, I would argue it does. The minimum MC check means that all regions that pass it are, by definition, partially friendly. The depot or fort values don't consider who controls the province, because the minimum MC check already did that. By setting it to 0, retreats become blind.

Yeeeeaaa-no. "ctlAllowRetreat = 0 // Minimum control to have in a region to allow a retreat into it", IE you need at least 0 MC to retreat into a region, which means there's no restriction through that parameter per default anymore.

When it used to be set per default to 5, if you had between 5 - 100% MC in a region, you could retreat into it. But it made no difference what so ever where between 5 and 100 your MC was.

I like the steps you propose. It seems to me the first two, would effectively be the same thing. Retreating units should be drawn to regions with high friendly military control. (Which either means re-activating the minimum MC requirement or creating a MC pull calculation...which should have a large weight)

No, not at all. I'm proposing a new parameter. It might be set so that each MC percentage point you have in a region adds a probability point to retreating into that region.

Friendly SU's drawing retreating units to them makes sense, and I would suggest that corps should have a tendency to retreat towards army HQs.

That could be another new parameter, but I don't think it would be nearly as important as in general to have a positive opposite of "cltRetPenaltyPerNmySU"; EG: "cltRetBonusPerFrndlySU"

As far as the ctlRetreatPrevSubSpaceCoeffH is concerned, as long as a stack picks its first retreat path well, the ping-pong thing would be avoided before it becomes a problem.

There will always be situation where a stack gets bounced back into the region from which it came, which then is occupied by an enemy stack. That in itself is not the issue. The issue starts when the retreating stack is forced to retreat a second time and retreats back into the region in which the first battle took place, than again back to the region of the second battle, and again, and again.

FelixZ, feel free post the turn and order files, if people want to play around with it. In the end though, it's less about what happened in my particular game, but more that this retreat is illustrative of funky retreats that have popped up for a number of people.

FelixZ already contacted me to ask my email for sending the files. I'll have a look at them, but I don't think anything new and substantial will come to light.

[Ebbingford]

Why do you consider it "strange" for a force that is surrounded to stand its ground and fight? That strikes me as normal behavior.

I didn't say that

[pgr]

I didn't say that

That's fair

And as a bit of an epilogue, Beauregard's self destructive bent continued in the next turn. I had ordered my fellow safely south. Day 1, Beau "retreats before battle" to...you guessed it Culpeper. Arriving day 7, he retreats before battle to...Fredericksburg... arriving on day 11 (with a nice river crossing penalty) his corps is completely destroyed.

I think we can check off the list the fact that MTSG might make a stack think a province is empty...

(And Beauregard didn't even have the good taste to die in the battle )

[Captain_Orso]

That's fair

And as a bit of an epilogue, Beauregard's self destructive bent continued in the next turn. I had ordered my fellow safely south. Day 1, Beau "retreats before battle" to...you guessed it Culpeper. Arriving day 7, he retreats before battle to...Fredericksburg... arriving on day 11 (with a nice river crossing penalty) his corps is completely destroyed.

At the end of the previous turn Beauregard was still in the middle of retreating back into Culpeper.

What orders did you give him?

In the CS messages I find the following:

I see in the Movement Messages that Beauregard was given the Forced March SO and succeeded in his Forced March.

I also saw that on day 1 somebody succeeded in retreating from Spotsylvania. Since only Beauregard's Corps had ended it's turn there I assume it must be him.

But as you stated, Movement message 26/45 says that Beauregard's Corps has arrived in Culpeper on day 8.

Then in the Battle messages 22/31 says that somebody succeeded in retreating from the battle in Culpeper on day 8, so that must also be Beauregard's Corps.

In the Movement messages 34/45 it says that Beauregard's Corps has arrived in Spotsylvania on day 11. Then all hell breaks loose.

In the Union messages I find the following:

Battle messages 3/30 Franklin's Corps engages Confederate States in Spotsylvania on day 1.

Battle messages 4/30 Confederate States succeeded in retreating before the battle in Spotsylvania on day 1.

[INDENT]So retreat is triggered again here. There is no message stating that anybody from Culpeper (Grant's Army of the Cumberland [3 division each with 17 combat elements each plus 3 batteries of supporting artillery]and Kearney's Coprs [3 division each with 17 combat elements each plus 4 batteries of supporting artillery]) are in any way involved in Spotsylvania.

But if they have not MTSG'ed to Spotsylvania, the "cltRetPenaltyPerNmySU = 4" parameter should have generated 109 points against retreating to Culpeper compared to 5 for a level 1 city and 25 for a level 1 depot. Even if only Grant had MTSG'ed Kearey's Corps generates 55 points alone against retreating to Culpeper.

So either Grant and Kearney are not considered to be in Culpeper, something else is drastically wrong, or I'm missing something BIG.[/INDENT]

Of course when Beauregard retreats from Culpeper, its right back to Spotsylvania where Franklin's Corps is still waiting as on day 1, although he could have also retreated to Nelson, VA (Charlottesville), without even crossing a river, and into the loving arms of J.E.B. Stewart and a division under W.H.F. Lee and relative safety.

But the rest is tragic history.

I think we can check off the list the fact that MTSG might make a stack think a province is empty...

Do you think so? Why else would Beauregard retreat from Spotsylvania to Culpeper, again.

(And Beauregard didn't even have the good taste to die in the battle )

Under the current situation, I think you can hardly blame Beauregard; although I'm sure Davis will

--

After further thought, I believe my first suggestions for "fixing" this mess are demonstrated through this further catastrophe.

Since I believe it to be demonstrated here, I will add to the list of fixes that stacks which had MTSG'ed must be returned to their starting region before the retreat region is chosen. If you consider that the retreating force is moving parallel to the force which MTSG'ed toward the same region, I find it--in realism terms--unlikely that this would happen without the knowledge of the retreating force. The retreating commander would be a fool indeed under such circumstances to continue on the same route. He must take another.

I had some misgivings for a short time, whether an enemy held town should not have the same draw as a friendly held town. In reality if the town were only held by a small garrison, a large force--even retreating from battle--might consider that it could easily brush off the small garrison.

But since in the game a retreating force is automatically in passive posture, it can never have any advantage of advancing toward an enemy owned town, even the town is completely empty, because the retreating force will not even capture an empty town.

Therefore even an empty, enemy owned town can have no logic draw on a retreating force.

[pgr]

At the end of the previous turn Beauregard was still in the middle of retreating back into Culpeper.

What orders did you give him?


[INDENT]So retreat is triggered again here. There is no message stating that anybody from Culpeper (Grant's Army of the Cumberland [3 division each with 17 combat elements each plus 3 batteries of supporting artillery]and Kearney's Coprs [3 division each with 17 combat elements each plus 4 batteries of supporting artillery]) are in any way involved in Spotsylvania.

But if they have not MTSG'ed to Spotsylvania, the "cltRetPenaltyPerNmySU = 4" parameter should have generated 109 points against retreating to Culpeper compared to 5 for a level 1 city and 25 for a level 1 depot. Even if only Grant had MTSG'ed Kearey's Corps generates 55 points alone against retreating to Culpeper.

So either Grant and Kearney are not considered to be in Culpeper, something else is drastically wrong, or I'm missing something BIG.[/INDENT]

My orders to Beau was to move south. I assume he superseded those orders when he retreated before the battle and he decided to go to Culpeper. The reason I suppose that MtSG had nothing to do with it is because there wasn't a battle, so there was no call for grant to come. I agree that Grant's presence should have had a big negative effect, but for some reason the draw of the depot must have been stronger. Something is odd here.

[FelixZ]

One could also assume that Grant did MTSG in response to Union message #3 which comes before message #4.

Does any one think that this thread should also discuss how to avoid/alleviate bad retreats under the current rules?

Until there is a patch (if there ever is one for retreats), we all have to live with this result.

I've seen ping-pong movements over the past three years. This one is different in that it is retreating into a heavily occupied region - not into a region that was just occupied by the enemy (usual situation).