Unusual Non-Combat

[Longshanks]

I had an odd occurence in one of the tourney games, I'm hoping someone can shed some light on.

A large force under Grant is moving from Madison TN into Hardeman TN. Nearby is a pesky little force under NB Forrest, which simultaneously moves into Madison TN.

The replay shows Grant moves into Hardeman, and then suddenly retreats back into Madison, while at the same time Forrest retreats back into another region from where he started.

It therefore appears that Grant failed to move because of Forrest's movement, even though Grant vastly outnumbers him. But wait, there's more.

What the Union player DID NOT see on replay, is that a large Confederate corps railed through Hardeman during the time he was trying to march in. The game apparently interpreted this as "Grant is going to retreat before engaging a superior force in combat" but ... and this is the weird part ... the game gave no such message to either side, and the Union player did not get to see the unit that (I am guessing) caused his retreat. It simply appears to the Union player that a puny cav force messed up his move.

Any other ideas here? I can post the turn as soon as they make their next moves, if needed.

[moni kerr]

I had an odd occurence in one of the tourney games, I'm hoping someone can shed some light on.

A large force under Grant is moving from Madison TN into Hardeman TN. Nearby is a pesky little force under NB Forrest, which simultaneously moves into Madison TN.

The replay shows Grant moves into Hardeman, and then suddenly retreats back into Madison, while at the same time Forrest retreats back into another region from where he started.

It therefore appears that Grant failed to move because of Forrest's movement, even though Grant vastly outnumbers him. But wait, there's more.

What the Union player DID NOT see on replay, is that a large Confederate corps railed through Hardeman during the time he was trying to march in. The game apparently interpreted this as "Grant is going to retreat before engaging a superior force in combat" but ... and this is the weird part ... the game gave no such message to either side, and the Union player did not get to see the unit that (I am guessing) caused his retreat. It simply appears to the Union player that a puny cav force messed up his move.

Any other ideas here? I can post the turn as soon as they make their next moves, if needed.

As the Union player in question, let me add something. At the beginning of the turn both Grant and Lyon were set on defense stance during their move. Entering Hardeman would have set them on offense. They are back in Madison where they started from yet both are on offense at the start of the next turn. If they had retreated they would have been set to passive. Somehow a small force that retreated before combat was able to prevent their move, yet their stance change suggests they actually made it to their destination.

[Longshanks]

So, a few more facts:

"My force was larger than Longstreet's. He lost 7000 of his 26000 the previous turn and there are almost xxxxx in Lyon's corps alone. From the replay it looks like Grant and Lyon cancelled their move the same time as Forrest retreated, day 7. Forrest couldn't have much more than 6000 in his division. I didn't see any reb force move through Hardeman, just Doles move out by rail on day 1."

MoniKerr, who is simply asking "what happened here?" (from my point of view), has asked a good question.

In all, we're led back to the overall question "what makes troops retreat?" Anyone out there want a PhD dissertation on that one?

[FelixZ]

I've experienced a change in stance to offensive (as USA) when moving into or retreating from a region which has a CSA force and CSA military control.

In your example, did Forrest have orders to move in and out of the region?

[Longshanks]

I've experienced a change in stance to offensive (as USA) when moving into or retreating from a region which has a CSA force and CSA military control.

In your example, did Forrest have orders to move in and out of the region?

Good point.

I dunno. We'll have to ask GabrielK.

[Jim-NC]

Did they have overlapping orders? This is a bit hard to explain, but when you move a force into a region, you are left with a small circle icon. It is possible that both forces were attempting to meet with a force that retreated (the union had 3 units moving into Hardeman, and Grant/Lyon were moving to join the 3rd force who retreated a day or 2 before).

Option A -Force A went into the region, and then retreated, Grant/Lyon dutifully followed force A into the region, and switched to offensive, then followed force A back as it retreated (keeping their offensive posture). Force A would then be passive (or one of the 2 joined it).

Option B - No force A, but Grant was told to follow Lyon (dragged on top of the small circle) or vice versa. The 2 forces attempted to follow one another, both moving back to their start place. I have seen this once (at least I think that is what happened). This wold also allow them to keep the offensive posture.

My belief is that they didn't retreat, they were following someone/each other back to the start point.

[Captain_Orso]

If they were intercepting, you should see the intercept icon on top of their stacks during the move, or at least before the move starts. In crowded situations I've managed to do that, thus backing up my advancing forces instead of moving forwards.

You also have to be very careful if you change the stack which is the target of an interception, because you can never be certain, after breaking up a target stack, which of the constituents is then the target. In such cases I always re-target the correct stack to be certain.