AGEOD Forums

I'm posting this here because this sub-forum seems to be watched more closely than the tech support forum. I've been watching for this one for a while, and I'd also like the opinions of players before this becomes an actual report.

Essentially, Grant appears to MTSG for Wallace, but takes no casualties, all being suffered by Wallace:
[ATTACH]32021[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]32020[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]32019[/ATTACH]

The first is the current turn, the second the turn backup (previous turn), and the third the logs. Am I missing something or is the army stack invulnerable unless engaged separately?

Tech forum is really about hard crash or problems installing the game. Suspicion of gameplay bug is better posted here indeed, plus if nice&kind volunteers can pre check the possible trouble that's better overall (for the engine and Ageod, developer time is often limited)

Oops, I missed that one somehow . I'll have a look at that this evening.

Appreciated. To be honest I just kind of skimmed the logs, so this may not be the best example, but I do see this often. In fact, I've had several corps nearly destroyed when defending in the same region with a well commanded army stack which remained untouched. I just thought it was normal.

Merlin wrote:I'm posting this here because this sub-forum seems to be watched more closely than the tech support forum. I've been watching for this one for a while, and I'd also like the opinions of players before this becomes an actual report.

Essentially, Grant appears to MTSG for Wallace, but takes no casualties, all being suffered by Wallace:
[ATTACH]32021[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]32020[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]32019[/ATTACH]

The first is the current turn, the second the turn backup (previous turn), and the third the logs. Am I missing something or is the army stack invulnerable unless engaged separately?

Hi Merlin,

your battles are weird .

The Original Battles:










Short answer is that Grant and his army were not in any of the battles in Montgomery, TN (Clarksville).

Why he's listed as commanding the battles and his troop strength is added to the totals at the top, I have no idea.

What patch level did you run these turns on?

Edit: I just answered my own question. Turns were run on patch level 1.04.

Merlin, if you send me the turn before the battles I can check how it looks on 1.05RC1.

I ran the previous turn once on 1.05RC1 and the battle on day 1 between Johnson and Wallace was a total bloodbath.



Johnson probably didn't retreat into Humphreys because of the new retreat code, which is probably also why the battle was so bloody. So there was no battle in Humphreys nor another battle in Clarksville.

v1.04 official.

Okay. I'll see if I can catch it with an actual MTSG then. I have seen it happen, and because of that normally use army stacks as "leftover" containers.

Look up!! I *cough*cough* edited my post a little while you were writing .

If you run across it again, please post it. The issue seems to be with the battle display and not the battle itself.

I'm not sure about the 1.04 code, but the 1.05 code will probably fix this in a round-about way. Grant won't get to MTSG past the fleet in the Columbia and then won't be listed in the battle.

I'm not sure if the old code checked if the fleet blocked the crossing, but I saw a different example where the crossing was allowed, and after losing the MTSG'ed stack retreated right back over the blocked river.

It might be that the MTSG roll was successful, but the crossing roll wasn't and thus Grant's army didn't fight, but was listed in the battle display.

Sorry, I totally missed the edit. Those v1.05 casualties!

I don't have the previous turn, but I'll be on the lookout for another example. This is probably going to be one of those games where I actually do keep large army stacks, so if I see a fight where Grant commits in support of a corps in the same region, I'll grab it. That kind of battle is what caught my attention regarding this in the first place.

Captain_Orso wrote:Johnson probably didn't retreat into Humphreys because of the new retreat code, which is probably also why the battle was so bloody.

Crossing a river to attack an entrenched defender is pretty idiotic, too. Johnson's force got what it deserved, it seems to me.

It's no wonder I'm not seeing the supper-bloody battles that others are complaining about with 1.05. This stuff is really basic military know-how. If this sort of play is normal...

That's not what happened, though. Johnson's corps was already on the north side of the Columbia and had fought with Wallace the previous turn. With the army stack and another corps across the Columbia, why should the CS player not expect to MTSG across the river--without river-crossing penalties--and kick Wallace's ass? If Grant can do it, so can Joe Johnston.

Anyway, that's not what the issue was.

With the changes to retreat the players are going to have to learn some new tactics. No more deep, deep raids unless you can get away before the enemy arrives or you have build a retreat route into your plan, but you will also not see ping-poing-ing anymore--or at least only in very rare and obscure circumstances.

Dang-it! that I didn't save all the logs from my tests

[quote="Captain_Orso
Johnson probably didn't retreat into Humphreys because of the new retreat code, which is probably also why the battle was so bloody. So there was no battle in Humphreys nor another battle in Clarksville.[/QUOTE"]

Just wondering how you are getting to the conclusion that the new retreat code made things a bloodbath. Retreat destination shouldn't make that much of a difference.... Is it because something in 1.05 RC1 is making the retreat less likely?

Edit: answering my question... The blood letting is because of ZOC influencing retreats? Sounds like I can't forget the cav....

I don't follow, Orso. I haven't really been following this thread, so maybe I missed something earlier... ?
If a Corps has to cross a river, then it should take the river crossing penalty. That's what the penalty is for. Infantry can't fly over rivers, after all.
all of the troops under Johnston that are visible in the screenshot have the icon for river crossing as well, so it appears that they did cross a river.
Cross river = river crossing penalty = serious combat penalties. Seems pretty straightforward, to me.

ohms_law wrote:I don't follow, Orso. I haven't really been following this thread, so maybe I missed something earlier... ?
If a Corps has to cross a river, then it should take the river crossing penalty. That's what the penalty is for. Infantry can't fly over rivers, after all.

Nope, when MTSG'ing you do not suffer the river crossing penalty. It is assumed that enemy force is already facing off with the the friendly force in the region, so the enemy force cannot catch you during the river crossing and that your force in the region is protection your forces crossing.

Also note, if your side had >25% MC in the region and you simple march in to the region across a river there is no river-crossing penalty, for the same reason.

ohms_law wrote:all of the troops under Johnston that are visible in the screenshot have the icon for river crossing as well, so it appears that they did cross a river.
Cross river = river crossing penalty = serious combat penalties. Seems pretty straightforward, to me.

I went back to the first turn that Merlin posted. Johnson was retreating into Humphreys with 3 days to go before arriving. I believe the game counted Johnson as being in the middle of the crossing and therefore penalized him for a river-crossing.

Had they already completely crossed the river they would not have done battle with Wallace, because they would have been in Humphreys.

pgr wrote:Just wondering how you are getting to the conclusion that the new retreat code made things a bloodbath. Retreat destination shouldn't make that much of a difference.... Is it because something in 1.05 RC1 is making the retreat less likely?

Edit: answering my question... The blood letting is because of ZOC influencing retreats? Sounds like I can't forget the cav....

I had overlooked a couple of things.

The turn I got from Merlin was started at patch level 1.04. Johnson and Wallace fought the Battle of Clarksville and Johnson lost and was in the middle of retreating when the turn ended.

I picked up the turn and without changing anything ran it in my v1.05RC1 installation. What I didn't originally see was that Johnson was already in the middle of retreating across the Columbia when the Second Battle of Clarksville (from my running of turns) took place on day 1. Wallace was in Offensive Posture and All-Out-Attack in ROE, while Johnson was in the middle of a river crossing.

There are some serious issues with both the battle reports from the turn Merlin ran (Grant is listed as being in the battle with his 30,000 men, although none of them fought in the battle), and the turn I ran (T. Churchill's division was getting mauled by round 4 and had lost at least 1 regiment, in round 5 he was down to 2 batteries and nothing else, and in round 6 when the 2 batteries were destroyed, he was wounded). None of this is reflected in the (E) position of the Battle Report.

The ZOC could not have played a roll in Johnson not making it over the Columbia because the retreat was already underway in the turn, plus Humphreys was still 100% CS. Only during that turn did Grant get move into Humphreys and if Johnson had gotten away from Wallace, he'd have met Grant arriving on day 8 or 9, unless he continued to Davidson (Nashville) and skedaddled away from Grant too.

With the 1.05 engine ZOC will now be taken into account when choosing a retreat target. So no retreating into regions where you have too little MC, not because of the GameRules.opt parameter that says you have to have a minimum of x% MC to even consider a region for retreat, but through the same rules used to determine if you can move into a region at all.

Also, there will be no MTSG'ing across a river blocked by gunboats nor retreating across such a river region.

All-in-all the players will have to look into their tactics. If you deep raid and don't insure you have at least 1 region with high MC through which you can retreat, your force will be stuck without being able to retreat, or you'll have to manually retreat before getting into battle. In that aspect it will be a new game.

I'm bringing this back to the top as I now have a much clearer demonstration of the problem.

Before turn resolution:
[ATTACH]32727[/ATTACH]

After resolution:
[ATTACH]32728[/ATTACH]

I don't have the logs because I didn't realize what had happened until after I'd run a turn from another game.

Here's the situation in a nutshell: I attacked ASJ in Atlanta with something over 150,000 men to his nearly 100,000. After two battles and over 100,000 casualties, the hold-at-all-costs Confederates were routed from the field resulting in the total destruction of Forney's corps and the near-total destruction of Polk's after he's killed in the first fight. ASJ, however, ended up retreating almost entirely intact. In fact, his army stack looks like a normal stack which hasn't seen combat at all, which in fact it hadn't.

First battle:


Second battle:


At no time does ASJ commit to either fight, despite being in the same region, being an army stack, having full cohesion, and both combats lasting multiple rounds. I've seen this happen far too often for it to be some kind of anomaly, and the proof is pretty dramatic in large battles. Unless the army stack is alone or is the only initial aggressor, it doesn't fight and subordinate corps take all the punishment.

I've seen similar things but not sure if they are the same.
A cav division retreats into cairo where an army is stationed.
During the battle, the numbers I see, don't correspond to the total force.
However, in the after battle screen, it shows the total force number.
The result clearly shows only the cav division did combat.
It's very frustrating. Why would the army sit idle ?

[ATTACH]32729[/ATTACH]

minipol wrote:I've seen similar things but not sure if they are the same.
A cav division retreats into cairo where an army is stationed.
During the battle, the numbers I see, don't correspond to the total force.
However, in the after battle screen, it shows the total force number.
The result clearly shows only the cav division did combat.
It's very frustrating. Why would the army sit idle ?

If I had to guess, MTSG with odds over 100% doesn't work.

If ASJ's army stack marched into and had arrived in the region where the battle took place, then MTSG has nothing to do with it.

This would then be a completely different bug if AJ's army stack was simply in the same region as the battle at the time the battle took place, but his own stack didn't take part in the battle.

Captain_Orso wrote:If ASJ's army stack marched into and had arrived in the region where the battle took place, then MTSG has nothing to do with it.

This would then be a completely different bug if AJ's army stack was simply in the same region as the battle at the time the battle took place, but his own stack didn't take part in the battle.

ASJ was in the region, along with Forney and Polk who were commanding subordinate corps. No Confederate stack from that army had moved for two turns.

Here's what I see:

If an army stack marches into a region with one or more subordinate corps, the corps are the only ones to engage (I don't currently have a save for this one). If an army stack is in a region with one or more subordinate corps and is attacked, it never commits.

If an army stack marches into a region alone, MTSG works normally. If an army stack is alone in a region and is attacked, MTSG works normally.

The above oddities are the reasons you'll see my army stacks either empty or containing one division. I use them as siege/recovery/supply/training centers since they're wonky when adjacent to, or in the same region with, subordinate corps and can't be relied upon to commit; even when active, set to offensive posture, at full cohesion, and within a four day march of a battle.

I just needed to pour on the fun and mystery, so I restaged the previously posted battle in several different ways.

Round one:

I rolled it back several turns and sent ASJ to Bartow, GA. Union deployments as well as Forney and Polk remained the same.

Battle:


Forney:


Polk:


ASJ:


Map:


Notice ASJ is no longer in Bartow, nor is he B/R, but passive stance. He certainly seems to have fought, having retreated in passive stance to an entirely different region than the one in which he started, but his stack is completely intact, not even having lost a single point of cohesion. I didn't even bother with screens of his divisions because they're so undamaged their shiny buttons are blinding me.

Round two:

This time I sent Forney and Polk to Bartow. ASJ remains in Atlanta and Union deployments remain the same as well.

Battle 1:


Battle 2:


Forney:


Polk:


ASJ:


Map:


This one is more of a mess because a Union corps commander gets killed, thus the two battles. Notice how both Forney and Polk are properly savaged, but ASJ only loses some cohesion and a mere handful of hits.

You can repeat these kind of results infinitely.

I ran this battle once. During turn execution it isn't really possible to tell that all stacks are not involved from the beginning, but during the battle I saw that the CS side suddenly jumped in size. The battle report also shows ASJ's divisions first taking part in round 3 of the battle. So I assume that ASJ's stack was not actually selected to take part in the battle from the beginning, but was later 'called in' as reinforcements.

I can't remember ever seeing something like this before, but what I remembering is not knowing.

It does seem very odd to me that the selection of the stacks at the start of battle doesn't include ASJ, especially since the Confederate side is so heavily outnumbered. But then again I can't remember having seen exactly how the actual which stack finds which actually works. Just speculating, but maybe the Union side is actually managing to purposefully conduct an attack on only a portion of the Confederate forces, but I'm only guessing.

I would generally expect that since all 3 Confederate stacks start the turn in the same region, and judging from their entrenchment levels had been there for at least a turn or two before hand, (Warning, Warning! Reality Argument) that they would be positioned close to each other to provide mutual support. Therefore, why the game allows for the battle to start without ASJ's stack being included is beyond my understanding.

It could have to do with the army being untargetable if there is another stack in the region (I seem to remember this being discussed once before). Not sure this happens all the time, but it could explain what happens. It also follows my experience in the game, and in ACW I.

That seems very plausible.

Being that this is in the mountains I imagine it is not detrimental at all in this case; although it does look very scary for the Confederate player. Frontage will be so limited it will take several rounds of battle until the army stack's divisions might actually be needed to go to the line and the Union's massive excess in troops will only start showing their advantage when their first divisions get knocked out of the battle line and must be replaced.

I'm only guessing with the following, but if this battle took place in more open terrain, it would be to the defender's disadvantage if they need the division of the army stack either to fill the line or re-fill it before they actually get access to them. But it might be that the army stack was accessed specifically because their divisions were needed. If not, their presence in round 3 would be superfluous until they are actually needed; but certainly not detrimental--other than their small cohesion loss.

But how this battle would work in say hills or clear... I would need to do some testing before trying to make any guesses.

OMFG!!! My brain just so ordered my foot to march right into my mouth

I was thinking so much about Chattanooga because I've recently been reading about it that I mentally moved the the Battle for Atlanta to Chattanooga, which is being discussed in another thread

--

So my worst-case-scenario from above is actually reality.

Jim-NC wrote:It could have to do with the army being untargetable if there is another stack in the region (I seem to remember this being discussed once before). Not sure this happens all the time, but it could explain what happens. It also follows my experience in the game, and in ACW I.

That's why you'll find my (Union) army stacks were empty shells, nearly empty, or at least significantly weaker than their subordinate corps. My opponent didn't have that luxury as we both played relatively cautiously in 1861-1862 and thus had no promoted 2 stars. Having to keep as many divisions as possible in his army stacks meant a good third of his forces weren't doing much of anything in combat.

It's a system that needs to change, IMO, especially since most players will, after a few games, have figured out how to min/max recruitment and have the largest possible forces in the field. If that game had gone into 1865, I would've run out of Union generals.

BTW, I've run this turn (battle) without changing any of the orders from they way they were issued in the dowloads, and the South won the very nasty battle.

For neither side are all corps and army stacks included in the first rounds of battle, but it seams that before long, all are involved.

I've saved the logs if anybody wants to read through the battle and host logs, say so and I'll upload them.