Retreats without good reason

[Heldenkaiser]

(For lack of a better title.)

In the last two turns I was twice wondering why my commanders were retreating from a region without (from my perspective) good reason.

Case 1 was a Federal corps that was assaulted across a river by a Reb corps and repelled it, taking victory from the field. Yet afterwards my corps retreated and let the Rebs advance, thus abandoning the river line and nullifying the advantage gained in the battle.

Case 2 was a Federal army that crossed a river to attack a (slightly) smaller Reb force. They recrossed the same turn without a fight. And this was U. S. Grant, not G. B. McClellan.

In both cases I was wondering about the reasons for the retreat. In case 1, I would have understood if the corps had retreated before a battle, or after a defeat. But after a victory? In case 2, if they didn't want to fight, why cross the river at all? Thus, the army took the risk of an opposed crossing, yet without taking the opportunity of actually attacking the enemy.

Does it make sense? What determines the decision to retreat? Thanks.

[blackhorse]

I've had the same thing happen and thus have the same question.

In fact, the post that denisonh posted to start the whole "combat model needs work thread" was against my confederate forces. My forces trashed denisonh's attackers, yet retreated out of the area, despite minimal, and I mean minimal losses and despite a very resounding and clear victory.

It's a bit odd.

[runyan99]

I haven't really noticed the behavior you mention, but..

Ever since BoA the game engine seems loathe to allow two armies to occupy the same region. In many cases they should.

[jimwinsor]

It almost seems like the retreat decision takes into account only raw numbers, but not other important factors such as entrenchment level, etc.

[el_Gato]

I haven't really noticed the behavior you mention, but..

Ever since BoA the game engine seems loathe to allow two armies to occupy the same region. In many cases they should.

I've had cases where two opposing corps occupied the same region, without a shot being fired.

Just recently, I had a corps dug in around Harper's Ferry, set to Defend --- because I had detected a large Yankee force on the opposite side of the Shenandoah River --- and expected a fight. Next turn, the Yankee force (about a corps in strength) crossed the river unopposed, failed to attack (or be attacked!), and ended the turn parked peacefully in the same region as my corps. Next turn, I was forced to give up the defensive advantage and go on the attack to force the Yank back across the river.

[jimkehn]

Just had the same occurance in a PBEM game. In fact the email I sent him before I read this, I made the same comment. Beauregard thoroughly thrashed McDowell in Manassas. I mean it wasn't even close, and the Feds held the ground. Puzzling.

[Mike]

Just had the same occurance in a PBEM game. In fact the email I sent him before I read this, I made the same comment. Beauregard thoroughly thrashed McDowell in Manassas. I mean it wasn't even close, and the Feds held the ground. Puzzling.

I was the other party of this turn and the messages I rec'd indicated a victory. How are PBEM turns typically traded to the 'non-hoste'? Are screen shots made for critical battles? This could get very time consuming.