Completly destroyed

[Dudosh]

Hi,

I`m playing with 1.14, and I attacked with Grant Paducah on "normal" attack. In the turn then Grant attacked with "stormattack" and bigger enemy and don´t retreats. The whole army is destroyed 9 Morale points..I`m able also to upload the complete game. I`m 100% sure that I never ordered stormattack so I`m clueless why grant not retreats from battle. did i made something wrong?

[ATTACH]8461[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]8462[/ATTACH]

[johnnycai]

It was an amphib attack based on the battle screen shot, those landing are either successful or extremely devastating to the attacker if not successful.

Looks like your battle was in the devastation category.

[MrT]

yep, i think when you cross the river your attack becomes automatically Stormattack, because you cant do a half hearted river crossing attack. Thats why river crossings are so much of a pain in the ass.

[cobraII]

Looks like the south got their cannae. yeah attacking across rivers are dangerous.

[Redeemer]

Yeah, do not cross rivers or do amphibious landings without at least 3 to 1 odds and marines are helpful as well.

[Colonel Dreux]

Way to go Beauregard!!! Rebel yell! Rebel yell! Rebel yell!

[Inside686]

We are a band of brothers...

[TEP]

Just a follow up to the lessons learned here...
Is there a difference between attacking across large, navigable river zones (where you can put ships) and smaller rivers that make up a border between regions?

[Chaplain Lovejoy]

Just a follow up to the lessons learned here...
Is there a difference between attacking across large, navigable river zones (where you can put ships) and smaller rivers that make up a border between regions?

Manual, p. 17: yes.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Chaplain Lovejoy]

Uh...the hard copy one that came with the game. Says copyright 2007 on the back cover.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[enf91]

Where is the new manual?

[TEP]

Manual, p. 17: yes.

Found it! Thanks!

So crossing a minor river does not result in the attack automatically becoming an (amphibious) assault?

If you have to cross a major river, is it better to load your troops on (escorted) riverine transport units?

[MrT]

Rock and hardplace sums up river crossings.

No boat means auto total assault.
Boat means you stand a chance of been sunk without damaging the enemy.

best is to cross were you control the river with a large fleet previously, and there is no major enemy opposition on the opposite bank. Dont forgot to use the bombardment button to support ur amphipious assault.

Or at least thats m tatic lol

[Vegetius]

Sure, a naval assault should be strongly supported by a powerfull navy.

There are two sorts of naval assault :
* the most risky is a landing directly on the coast from the fleet and a failure means the destruction of the whole force (just imagine what would have occured if the D-Day was a failure, the men on the beaches certainly would have been kille or captured).
* the second is a river crossing where the forces involved always have a possibility of retreat but with heavy losses if the defender is strongly entrenched.

To represent that, the icon in the battle report is not the same in case of landing or river crossing.

[GraniteStater]

Found it! Thanks!

So crossing a minor river does not result in the attack automatically becoming an (amphibious) assault?

If you have to cross a major river, is it better to load your troops on (escorted) riverine transport units?

To the best of my knowledge, attacking across a minor (i. e., unnavigable) river is not a severe penalty; at least I haven't experienced it as such.

Attacking across a major (navigable) river results in the following, AFAIK:

* (a) You just cross and get your feet wet, no boats. This automatically puts you in an Offensive posture and you do experience penalties for attacking across the river.

* (b) You use boats. This is an Amphib Assault and you will be penalized considerably, river or coast, I believe. Good idea to have Marines or Sailors in the assault.

I have had some severe losses at times when crossing rivers, but it's not something I worry about a lot. Just be aware of what you're asking your guys to do and plan accordingly.

Best to cross at an unopposed point and attack from the same side of the river, of course.

[Chaplain Lovejoy]

Hmmm, could you type a line or so from that page "exactly" as printed? I might be able to search and find it and post the corresponding electronic manual page.

Two lines from the "effect on defender" column, verbatim:

Minor bonus if attacker crosses the river

Major bonus if attacker crosses the river

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Brochgale]

A beautiful site Dudosh, Way to go Beauregard. Are you sure you were not impersonating Grant at time you ordered attack and was hitting the Whisky at time?

Al;ways adds a little authenticity to game if the players impersonate a General dont you think?

[Heldenkaiser]

* (a) You just cross and get your feet wet, no boats. This automatically puts you in an Offensive posture and you do experience penalties for attacking across the river.

Early in my present campaign, I did that, crossed the Potomac from Washington to attack Alexandria. I lost an entire corps to the last man.

[Vegetius]

In a current pbem, my opponent assaulted me in Alexandria from Washington with the whole Army of the Potomac (no fleet support).

Longstreet mounted guard in the town, entrenched in level 7 fortification with his 5 divisions.

Taking reinforcements in account, the forces involved were 89.000 men and 304 guns for Lee against 139.000 men and 640 guns for MacDowell.

The result was a heavy defeat for MacDowell, with 37.000 losses instead of less than 12.000 for Lee and destruction of 19 units !

[Heldenkaiser]

Taking reinforcements in account, the forces involved were 89.000 men and 304 guns for Lee against 139.000 men and 640 guns for MacDowell.

Poor odds even with no river crossing, wouldn't you say?

[slimey.rock]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Indeed.