User avatar
Erik Springelkamp
Brigadier General
Posts: 412
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 2:40 pm
Location: Groningen, NL

Why is there no battle?

Tue Mar 31, 2015 10:55 am

Image

CP stack moved into WE controlled region Compiegne with WE stacks in defensive stance, but there is no battle?

User avatar
Byrd
Lieutenant
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 11:38 pm

Tue Mar 31, 2015 12:30 pm

I've seen that multiple times, in the case when there is disputed Military Control. The supposed attacker just sits by and no battle is initiated. The only way to get a battle going is for the supposed Defender to attack all out. No idea why or if this is the case here. Looks familiar though.

User avatar
Erik Springelkamp
Brigadier General
Posts: 412
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 2:40 pm
Location: Groningen, NL

Tue Mar 31, 2015 12:42 pm

But there was 100% WE MC when the CP stack entered.

Can it be that the battle delay carries the start of battle over to the next turn?
But if the entering stack then can switch to defensive posture, we have a loophole in the game rules that are meant to have an attack by a force that enters an enemy controlled region.

Pandur
Conscript
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 10:26 am

Tue Mar 31, 2015 1:42 pm

i observed this too, i think its working as intended, no loophole there rly. what happens is this, the CP stack moved into your region in defensive posture, your stack is in defensive too. that means by the manual you possibly allow the other stack to pass by or enter the region without all out attacking. 2 stacks hostile to each other can sit on 1 region both in defensive posture and no battle will happen, i guess there is a low chance not sure but normaly nothing happens. a 3rd force could initiate the battle if both stay in def posture.

the CP stack in your case could pass through or has a chance to do it i guess, however supply will limit the stack in your rear.

by the way you the same erik from BFC forums?

User avatar
Erik Springelkamp
Brigadier General
Posts: 412
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 2:40 pm
Location: Groningen, NL

Tue Mar 31, 2015 2:48 pm

Pandur wrote:i observed this too, i think its working as intended, no loophole there rly. what happens is this, the CP stack moved into your region in defensive posture, your stack is in defensive too. that means by the manual you possibly allow the other stack to pass by or enter the region without all out attacking.


But when you enter a region that is 100% MC for the enemy, you must change from defensive posture to offensive posture, with a malus when you are not already in offensive posture, thus an initial battle with the moving force attacking must take place.

Pandur wrote:2 stacks hostile to each other can sit on 1 region both in defensive posture and no battle will happen, i guess there is a low chance not sure but normaly nothing happens. a 3rd force could initiate the battle if both stay in def posture.

the CP stack in your case could pass through or has a chance to do it i guess, however supply will limit the stack in your rear.


But only after an initial battle already happened. At least that is what I understood from previous discussions and the AGE Wiki.

Pandur wrote:by the way you the same erik from BFC forums?


Yes. :gardavou:

User avatar
Shri
Posts: 887
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:57 am
Location: INDIA

Tue Mar 31, 2015 6:53 pm

@Erik-
yes, it is a big loophole. Esp. if you play with "Delayed commitment" (which is a-historical in WW1) it is sometimes too stupid and such results do occur.
Rascals, would you live forever? - Frederick the Great.

Pandur
Conscript
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 10:26 am

Tue Mar 31, 2015 8:00 pm

But when you enter a region that is 100% MC for the enemy, you must change from defensive posture to offensive posture, with a malus when you are not already in offensive posture, thus an initial battle with the moving force attacking must take place.


i forgott that, you are right!

yes, it is a big loophole. Esp. if you play with "Delayed commitment" (which is a-historical in WW1) it is sometimes too stupid and such results do occur.


interessting!

User avatar
Erik Springelkamp
Brigadier General
Posts: 412
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 2:40 pm
Location: Groningen, NL

Tue Mar 31, 2015 11:17 pm

Shri wrote:@Erik-
yes, it is a big loophole. Esp. if you play with "Delayed commitment" (which is a-historical in WW1) it is sometimes too stupid and such results do occur.


So for EAW the interim solution is to set Commitment on the smallest delay.

However, I also noticed this in other games, where commitment should be delayed somewhat, so I think Pocus should find a solution for this problem. That should be possible, but I can imagine that it is not trivial, as somewhere in the unit/stack data this status must be stored for use in the next turn. Or delay must be cut off so at least a battle will occur on the last day, but that will also have undesirable side-effects.

Pandur
Conscript
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 10:26 am

Wed Apr 01, 2015 6:41 am

up to now i played with medium delay? what would be the recommended setting? smallest delay possible or delay completely off?

User avatar
Erik Springelkamp
Brigadier General
Posts: 412
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 2:40 pm
Location: Groningen, NL

Wed Apr 01, 2015 8:29 am

Pandur wrote:by the way you the same erik from BFC forums?


I thought you meant the battlefront.com forum, there I am Erik Springelkamp as well, but now I see there is a different BFC forum, and I am not active there.

User avatar
Jim-NC
Posts: 2981
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:21 pm
Location: Near Region 209, North Carolina

Thu Apr 02, 2015 12:51 am

You will need to look at the battle logs to see what happened. It's possible there was a battle, but the CP stack retreated immediately. It's also possible they have not had a chance to leave the region yet.
Remember - The beatings will continue until morale improves.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

Altaris
Posts: 1543
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:20 pm

Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:16 pm

I've observed this occurring when there's one of the "General XYZ issued conflicting orders, and is reverting to a defensive stance" messages. I think it has something to do with failed activation rolls, but I'm not 100% sure. I've seen this happen in CW2 as well. No other AGEOD games that I've noticed, so it may be something in CW2 and later engine updates.

Tazmaniacs
Private
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2014 6:37 pm

Fri Oct 02, 2015 11:38 pm

Altaris wrote:I've observed this occurring when there's one of the "General XYZ issued conflicting orders, and is reverting to a defensive stance" messages. I think it has something to do with failed activation rolls, but I'm not 100% sure. I've seen this happen in CW2 as well. No other AGEOD games that I've noticed, so it may be something in CW2 and later engine updates.


I confirm, I've stumbled upon this page because I was looking for what meant "conflicting orders" in CW2. I also guess that it has sthg to do with activation rolls, but I' can't be sure of anything either.

Altaris
Posts: 1543
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:20 pm

Tue Oct 06, 2015 8:46 pm

Yes, it's due to a leader being inactive. I agree it's something which needs to be changed. Long ago, if a leader was inactive and reverted to defensive stance, they would still attack when moving into an area with <25% MC, but with a big attack malus. I liked that better, but the engine changes since no longer allow it.

Return to “To End All Wars”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests