AGEOD Forums

Two (hopefully) quick ones:

1. When you pay a bounty for men when you Call for Volunteers, is that money you spend considered in the projected totals for next turn? It doesn't seem to be but i haven't really studied it.

2. I have an Army HQ anad multiple Corps in one region. The Corps commanders are all active and on offensive posture, the Army HQ is not so is defensive. What happens with the inactive leader if I move all of them into an attack together? Does he just go along for the ride? Does he get involved in the attack anyway? Is there a penalty?

Thanks.

1. no it is not, this is a code limitation on these kinds of options.

2. the army will follow in defensive mode. if engaged/engaging, the army commander will help but with a combat penalty of up to 35% (equals to the missing MC of the region). You can have a defensive formation help in attack only if any defensive formation in the region is attacked, otherwise it won't help.

Pocus wrote:1. no it is not, this is a code limitation on these kinds of options.

2. the army will follow in defensive mode. if engaged/engaging, the army commander will help but with a combat penalty of up to 35% (equals to the missing MC of the region). You can have a defensive formation help in attack only if any defensive formation in the region is attacked, otherwise it won't help.

Not to refute the irrefutable, but it is not a game engine limitation. I just fired it up and tried and it definitely takes the bounty into account.

As for the army problem, I just leave the army behind as a reserve. It will help if it can.

if I may (somewhat) follow on from a similar question I had:

Moving into a region that has 50%+ enemy MC as well as an enemy stack in defensive mode is always bad?

To explain, I completely understand that if the enemy engages your force, or your force engages, you will receive a penalty.

But what if, say, both armies are set on defensive, both have inactive commanders and delay is set to a high setting in the options. Is there a chance that there will be no engagement at all?

And if so, does that then mean that your stack is legitimately (ie non-penalized) on defensive mode the next turn, such that if a subsequent engagement did occur you would not be penalized?

thanks

deguerra wrote:if I may (somewhat) follow on from a similar question I had:

Moving into a region that has 50%+ enemy MC as well as an enemy stack in defensive mode is always bad?

To explain, I completely understand that if the enemy engages your force, or your force engages, you will receive a penalty.

But what if, say, both armies are set on defensive, both have inactive commanders and delay is set to a high setting in the options. Is there a chance that there will be no engagement at all?

And if so, does that then mean that your stack is legitimately (ie non-penalized) on defensive mode the next turn, such that if a subsequent engagement did occur you would not be penalized?

thanks

I thought if you both remain in defensive posture there will not be a battle.

As I understand it unless military control is at 95% when you enter a region your safe to enter in defensive as only 95%+ MC can force you to enter in Offensive Posture.

but in that case the combat penalty for inactive commanders (who can only be in defensive mode) doesn't really make sense.

If you send them into a region, and the enemy is also in defensive mode, if there is no battle there can be no combat penalty. Seeing as the enemy is (somewhat) likely to be in defensive mode (it is after all you who are moving into the region), wouldn't that negate the point of the penalty?

It also doesn't seem to follow from my experience. Eg I recently sent Patterson into one of the Shenandoah regions early in the game which Johnston had just vacated. Patterson (being Patterson), was inactive and thus on defensive, but I figured this was ok since the region was empty.

To cut it short, Johnston came back, arrived before me and there was a battle. Both sides were on defensive posture, and Patterson got the penalty (not that he needed one)

thanks for answering though, you may well be right. I just don't quite understand the stances

deguerra wrote:To cut it short, Johnston came back, arrived before me and there was a battle. Both sides were on defensive posture, and Patterson got the penalty (not that he needed one)

When Johnston left the region probably had 100% MC.

Since the MC the region had is used for the whole turn based on what it was at turn start since you both entered the same turn Patterson was forced into Offensive posture despite his being inactive.

That is my guess. I might be wrong.

dolphin wrote:When Johnston left the region probably had 100% MC.

Since the MC the region had is used for the whole turn based on what it was at turn start since you both entered the same turn Patterson was forced into Offensive posture despite his being inactive.

That is my guess. I might be wrong.

Ah yes, that is a fair point. It probably did. And I suppose its not that unlikely that 100% MCs come up, so that the combat penalty does have some applicaiton.

Thanks!

deguerra wrote:Ah yes, that is a fair point. It probably did. And I suppose its not that unlikely that 100% MCs come up, so that the combat penalty does have some applicaiton.

Thanks!

100% MC will come up quite often. It is something you strive for in certain strategic circumstances.

Used in conjunction with MTSG "Marching to the Sound of the Guns" you can defend a region with a single element militia and a scrub corp commander.

yeah, fair enough.

you said before that anything above 95% MC will "force you to enter in offensive posture".

So if an active leader (lets say Patterson had been active....hah) is sent into the region, the game will automatically force him into offensive posture?

And if he is inactive, it will remain defensive, but initiate battle anyway and apply the combat penalty?

Is that correct?

deguerra wrote:Ah yes, that is a fair point. It probably did. And I suppose its not that unlikely that 100% MCs come up, so that the combat penalty does have some applicaiton.

Thanks!

100% MC is probably more common than not. Anyplace you haven't been before, or where a large enemy force has since been, is likely to be fully enemy controlled.
Plus, MC doesn't change that much in a day. So when Johnston returned, he probably still had >50% MC. Unfortunately, inactive commanders don't seem to revert to defensive posture after MC increases past 5%, so they're easily caught in this trap.

don't revert to offensive i assume you mean.

and is my above analysis correct then?

deguerra wrote:don't revert to offensive i assume you mean.

and is my above analysis correct then?

False. When an inactive commander enters a region with <5% MC, he is automatically switched to Offensive posture. Even if MC increases to and above 5% during the turn, he will remain Offensive, and not revert to Defensive, despite being inactive, for the remainder of the turn.

If both sides have >5% MC, then both may coexist in the region in Defensive posture without battle. However, MC will not increase for either side (a force in defensive posture in an uncontested region will increase MC).

I have seen a situation where my inactive general sat and watched the enemy sit there as well.

I had McDowell and the AOP march into Loudon VA (he was active at the time). He fought a battle against Jackson's Corps. I lost, but did not retreat out of the region. Next turn, I was locked, and had to stay in defensive posture in the region. My enemy did not attack. I stayed in that region for 5 turns (until my supply ran out - which forced my commander to unlock). Se we sat there watching each other in defensive mode (I am sure he didn't want to lose his entrenchment bonus).

The worst part was that I had less than 25% MC, so no supplies flowed to my army. And since I was on defensive, I could nt raise the MC to over 25% to get supplies. I had to start taking casualties from supply. I was not pleased about that outcome.

But I got my revenge. He attacked me later, and fell into the same trap. Only it was his army starving to death.

Jim-NC wrote:I have seen a situation where my inactive general sat and watched the enemy sit there as well.

I had McDowell and the AOP march into Loudon VA (he was active at the time). He fought a battle against Jackson's Corps. I lost, but did not retreat out of the region. Next turn, I was locked, and had to stay in defensive posture in the region. My enemy did not attack. I stayed in that region for 5 turns (until my supply ran out - which forced my commander to unlock). Se we sat there watching each other in defensive mode (I am sure he didn't want to lose his entrenchment bonus).

The worst part was that I had less than 25% MC, so no supplies flowed to my army. And since I was on defensive, I could nt raise the MC to over 25% to get supplies. I had to start taking casualties from supply. I was not pleased about that outcome.

But I got my revenge. He attacked me later, and fell into the same trap. Only it was his army starving to death.

I don't understand why you couldn't just retreat from the region in a subsequent turn. Inactive does not equal immoveable.

It does if you set it to be in the options I believe.

Regarding being forced into Offensive posture, I'm now completely confused

Isn't it beneficial you for your inactive commander who otherwise would be precluded from being on Offensive posture, to be auto-switched. Such that if he is engaged he is in the correct posture and suffers no combat penalty?

Furthermore, in my above example with Patterson, he quite clearly was in Defensive posture, and suffered them combat penalty accordingly.

I feel like I might be missing something vital

deguerra wrote:It does if you set it to be in the options I believe.

Regarding being forced into Offensive posture, I'm now completely confused

Isn't it beneficial you for your inactive commander who otherwise would be precluded from being on Offensive posture, to be auto-switched. Such that if he is engaged he is in the correct posture and suffers no combat penalty?

Furthermore, in my above example with Patterson, he quite clearly was in Defensive posture, and suffered them combat penalty accordingly.

I feel like I might be missing something vital

He is still inactive, netting him a significant combat penalty. He also moves more slowly. Being in an offensive posture is not exactly best, either, as it is the defender who enjoys the benefits of weather and terrain.

Right, fair enough. So he gets the penalty despite being offensive.

I think we're almost there. My final issue is that Patterson in my above example was Defensive though. He'd been inactive, so could only be set to defensive. But the game doesn't appear to have forced him onto offensive, despite MC being <5%.

The battle report lists him as defensive posture? Then JJ was in offensive?

No, neither were. I'll upload a pic

edit:

deguerra wrote:No, neither were. I'll upload a pic

edit:

Hmm, your pic does not appear. Reading back, though, it sounds like both sides were displayed as Defensive posture. How, from the battle report, did you know Patterson to be suffering a combat penalty due to being inactive?

Hmm, imageshack appears to be being a bit screwy.

I don't know him to be suffering the penalty. God knows he's bad enough to have suffered the loss without it.

I merely understood there to be a combat penalty for inactive leaders, and as I knew he was inactive (or had been the previous turn, and being Patterson, fairly certainly would have been the next), I assumed there was a penalty.

My initial question was around whether battles always initiated, dolphin indicated that they might even if both sides were defensive, provided that I had less than 5% MC (which I likely did).

Then you mentioned something about switching to offensive at less than 5% MC and that has me confused, mainly just because Patterson wasn't.

It is possible that I in fact had more than 5% MC and that his defensive posture was therefore kept up. But really, that does seem to be punishing you for MC, as Johnston arrived first meaning that Patterson surely would have been better off in Offensive.

Anyway, its getting late and this is far too confusing bedtime!

Thanks for the help!

edit: one more try on the pic

deguerra wrote:Hmm, imageshack appears to be being a bit screwy.

I don't know him to be suffering the penalty. God knows he's bad enough to have suffered the loss without it.

I merely understood there to be a combat penalty for inactive leaders, and as I knew he was inactive (or had been the previous turn, and being Patterson, fairly certainly would have been the next), I assumed there was a penalty.

My initial question was around whether battles always initiated, dolphin indicated that they might even if both sides were defensive, provided that I had less than 5% MC (which I likely did).

Then you mentioned something about switching to offensive at less than 5% MC and that has me confused, mainly just because Patterson wasn't.

It is possible that I in fact had more than 5% MC and that his defensive posture was therefore kept up. But really, that does seem to be punishing you for MC, as Johnston arrived first meaning that Patterson surely would have been better off in Offensive.

Anyway, its getting late and this is far too confusing bedtime!

Thanks for the help!

edit: one more try on the pic

Less than 5% MC forces offensive posture regardless of activation status. This makes sure you can't push forces into an enemy region without fighting for it. Looks like you lost a light inf/2 militia brigade. The rear guard often takes the worst casualties. Honestly, I'm confused as to what your question or complaint is. The only thing I can answer is their will always be a battle when you move into an enemy 100% MC territory. That is definitely far from a devastating loss, especially with Patt Patt in command.

Did you have a unit that was not attached to Patterson? Or maybe your enemy? You could have had a lone volunteer unit move into the region after Patterson, or your enemy could have had a lone unit start combat. It has happened sometimes. PS. I would guess that you attcked, as it has you crossing a river (in the icons at the bottom of the battle report).

As to your question Cromagnonman. I was playing with locked generals (it's an option I don't [SIZE="5"]EVER[/size] plan on using again). McDowell decided to get locked after losing the battle, and was locked for the a few months, almost causing the destruction of my army. The main point was that both sides sat there and watched each other (trench warfare at it's worst). I finally got lucky, McDowell activated, and was able to escape (after basically starving half to death with my army).

Ah, thanks for the pic. I can see a number of reasons you got creamed. However, regarding posture, I think you were actually in Offensive, though the battle report shows you Defensive since that's how you started the turn. But it also shows JJ getting the terrain bonus and you not; thus I presume your posture was not accurately portrayed. The battle log might be more useful.

Hi thanks for all the answers.

I never had a complaint (as you rightly point out, I was correctly creamed, and for a number of reasons), and my only question was whether two Defensive posture stacks would engage (which then led onto several tangents).

Am I correct in saying this is the crux of your (assembled) answers:

1. Two stacks on Defensive will not (normally) engage.

2. They will however engage, if the attacker has less than 5% MC in the region, because the engine then forces him onto Offensive (I now see how this makes perfect sense, thanks Cleburne).

3. The battle screen may not accurately reflect 2.

Finally, what is a battle log? Tell me I've not been missing a more detailed battle screen (or rather tell me I have, because that would be awesome).

Thanks again

There's a folder called Logs in the AACW folder. In it are several files, perhaps most interesting being !battlelog. It is regenerated every time you start the program, and shows a bunch of battle-related info, mostly who shot at whom and if they hit them. But there may be other info in there to interest you.

Thanks for that! Sadly, it's been a few restarts since that battle, but I'll be sure to check it out in future.