Fairly frequently, the game will change my units' posture settings, often with disastrous results. This is most noticeable with cavalry units I have set to a passive posture. When the turn is being resolved, their posture changes to "aggressive", and they usually get slaughtered when encountering a much stronger enemy unit.
This also seems to happen with armies - I had Van Dorn's army in the trans-Mississippi in an excellent defensive position against an advancing Curtis, but Van Dorn's posture suddenly changed to aggressive, and I lost the battle. Why does this happen?
-
Zoetermeer
- Sergeant
- Posts: 71
- Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 4:08 pm
- Location: Memphis, TN
-
AndrewKurtz
- Posts: 1167
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:49 am
- Location: Greenville, SC
GShock wrote:I've noticed this too, officially (manual-wise) you give orders but then when you hit the "end turn", it's the general's attitude that takes the initiative. That might be the explanation.
This game is for the greater part still a mystery in its mechanics to me.
The only time I've noticed a change is when I have "non-active" generals leading troops into uncontrolled territory. I'm assuming this is not what you are seeing?
-
McNaughton
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:47 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
I was running a test today regarding replacements (1863 scenario). I actually noticed that my forces moved out of Fredricksburg and attacked the remaining Confederate forces there, successfully defeating them. I had no order changes at all, and these troops, upon their own initiative, moved in (although I was attacked, and other forces moved to the sound of guns, so it is possible that this may affect units to become more aggressive as such).
-
Zoetermeer
- Sergeant
- Posts: 71
- Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 4:08 pm
- Location: Memphis, TN
Somehow it seems to happen to me more frequently than it used to (maybe with recent patches). Yesterday, as the CSA, I had A.S. Johston's army and 4 corps move against Fort Henry. There was a decent-sized Union contingent there so I left everyone's posture to 'defensive', so they could settle into a siege if not attacked. But when the turn was being resolved, ALL of them changed their posture to aggressive!
That could maybe make sense if one corps was attacked, and then the others had to change their posture to move to support. But it's no fun when your bushwacker units change to an aggressive stance and attack enemy units many times their size, ruining your cavalry raids. Ditto for JEB Stuart - I can't send him behind enemy lines, because he always changes his posture to aggressive, so he never makes it past Union forces.
That could maybe make sense if one corps was attacked, and then the others had to change their posture to move to support. But it's no fun when your bushwacker units change to an aggressive stance and attack enemy units many times their size, ruining your cavalry raids. Ditto for JEB Stuart - I can't send him behind enemy lines, because he always changes his posture to aggressive, so he never makes it past Union forces.
-
AndrewKurtz
- Posts: 1167
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:49 am
- Location: Greenville, SC
Zoetermeer wrote:Somehow it seems to happen to me more frequently than it used to (maybe with recent patches). Yesterday, as the CSA, I had A.S. Johston's army and 4 corps move against Fort Henry. There was a decent-sized Union contingent there so I left everyone's posture to 'defensive', so they could settle into a siege if not attacked. But when the turn was being resolved, ALL of them changed their posture to aggressive!
That could maybe make sense if one corps was attacked, and then the others had to change their posture to move to support. But it's no fun when your bushwacker units change to an aggressive stance and attack enemy units many times their size, ruining your cavalry raids. Ditto for JEB Stuart - I can't send him behind enemy lines, because he always changes his posture to aggressive, so he never makes it past Union forces.
If you move into territory your don't at least partially control (NOTE: Edited), the rules are the posture will be changed to an offensive nature. AND, if you're general is not eligible to be activated, you'll be nailed with an additional SIGNIFICANT command penalty (35% I believe)
From the Wiki:
In regions with 5% or less military control (i.e. enemy territory), a force will automatically adopt offensive posture in an attempt to get a foothold there. However, forces in passive posture or those composed entirely of cavalry, irregulars and support units may transit through enemy territory without switching posture.
Whew!
When I read you had to 'own' the region, I thought, "what?!?" You meant, of course, you had to have at least 5% MC, which is the minimum to prevent an auto-offensive stance change.
I think the auto-change at less than 5% makes perfect sense. Think about it this way - there is no where (at less than 5% MC) in that region that your forces have to establish their physical presence, so the force having to go to offensive is like the enemy is right on that region border - you are forcing your way into the region right from the border. You could view passive stance as skirting by the edge of the region [SIZE="1"][color="YellowGreen"]<--- shades of Advanced Squad Leader right there![/color][/size]
Which makes it a [color="RoyalBlue"]good practice to always check MC levels before you look at advancing into a region[/color]. It is your way of 'scouting' the area. Is the enemy at the border, or located towards the center of the region?
Cool stuff - don't change it!
When I read you had to 'own' the region, I thought, "what?!?" You meant, of course, you had to have at least 5% MC, which is the minimum to prevent an auto-offensive stance change.
I think the auto-change at less than 5% makes perfect sense. Think about it this way - there is no where (at less than 5% MC) in that region that your forces have to establish their physical presence, so the force having to go to offensive is like the enemy is right on that region border - you are forcing your way into the region right from the border. You could view passive stance as skirting by the edge of the region [SIZE="1"][color="YellowGreen"]<--- shades of Advanced Squad Leader right there![/color][/size]
Which makes it a [color="RoyalBlue"]good practice to always check MC levels before you look at advancing into a region[/color]. It is your way of 'scouting' the area. Is the enemy at the border, or located towards the center of the region?
Cool stuff - don't change it!
PBBoeye wrote:Whew!
When I read you had to 'own' the region, I thought, "what?!?" You meant, of course, you had to have at least 5% MC, which is the minimum to prevent an auto-offensive stance change.
I think the auto-change at less than 5% makes perfect sense. Think about it this way - there is no where (at less than 5% MC) in that region that your forces have to establish their physical presence, so the force having to go to offensive is like the enemy is right on that region border - you are forcing your way into the region right from the border. You could view passive stance as skirting by the edge of the region <--- shades of Advanced Squad Leader right there!
Which makes it a good practice to always check MC levels before you look at advancing into a region. It is your way of 'scouting' the area. Is the enemy at the border, or located towards the center of the region?
Cool stuff - don't change it!
Yes, this is exactly the reason why the rule was added. No MC and an enemy: you have to fight to enter the region!
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
Return to “AGEod's American Civil War”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests