AGEOD Forums

Have a question about defending. Does anyone know how the computer determines the defending stack, specifically, if I have 2 stacks in a region, how does the computer chose which stack to use as defender?

Jim-NC wrote:Have a question about defending. Does anyone know how the computer determines the defending stack, specifically, if I have 2 stacks in a region, how does the computer chose which stack to use as defender?

Both stacks will defend. (Gray will correct me if I'm wrong ).

The combat system is pretty complicated, but I'm pretty sure that all units present can engage in combat, limited by the frontage rules (don't get me started on that).

After combat, you may ntice that only one of your stacks, or even just one unit in a stack, has taken the brunt of the damage and that other units are untouched. This is not unusual, and it has to do with how units are targeted.

If you're really curious about which units are committed to a battle, look carefully at the battle results screen. It will list all of the generals involved, and add up all of the elements of each type. I think you'll find, if you add all of those up, that it will be every unit in every stack in the region, and possibly units from neighborin regions if you have sister corps "marching to the sound of the guns" -- but that's a whole other issue.

Given the frontage limitations, it's quite possible that not every element will actually fight, but they are all able to, and units that are not involved in the first round may come in as reserves in later rounds.

Hi
Don't know the exact numbers, but you have to bear in mind that several separated stacks on a region will probably not be engaged in a battle at the same time.
The enemy will attack a stack (selected randomly??) and the others will be committed to battle with some random(??) delay. I think it will be bigger or smaller depending of you optional Delayed commitment setting.
The result is that a single stack can be attacked, defeated or destroyed before the other friendly stacks are engaged on the battle. Specially with small stacks/battels that end on one or two rounds.
IMHO, having different stacks on a region to reduce command penalty % is more risk that havinga single big CP% stack there. At least you can count on the latter stack to fight together.
Not sure what advantage corps have on this situations (automatic/faster commitment??)
Regards
PS as you an see i have quite some ?? about this

arsan, I think you are correct here, and an even bigger risk with the separate stacks in a region is that smaller stacks will not realize they need to try to retreat due to total forces in region being used in retreat logic. So a small overwhelmed stack will continue to fight instead of attempting a retreat as if it were alone.

Where I learned the hard way: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=13293

arsan wrote:The enemy will attack a stack (selected randomly??) and the others will be committed to battle with some random(??) delay. I think it will be bigger or smaller depending of you optional Delayed commitment setting.
Not sure what advantage corps have on this situations (automatic/faster commitment??)
Regards
PS as you an see i have quite some ?? about this

The attacker has the upper hand here, hence it has the initiative and it will generally pick the weakest of your two (or more) stacks, if your stacks are in defensive posture. If one or both of your stacks are in attack posture, then you may have the initiative.

I'm not so sure about the delay of independent stacks committing to battle, but for corps the delay is not random. The delay option sets the time for the very first battle to start, but once the battle starts, the other corps has a chance of committing into the battle in a battle round depending on those factors:

-military control of the region,
-posture of the corps,
-being adjacent to the army hq, or the hq itself,
-strategic rating of the leader.

Every one of those factors adds a specific percentage to the chance of committing into the battle (like each point of the strategic rating adds 3% etc..,), and the percentage goes higher with every battle round fought.

PS. I wrote those from the top of my head, so the percentages and factors may differ (like terrain is also a factor, but i'm not sure if this applies when the stacks are in the same region).

So, if you start with two separate corps in an area with a mission to defend that particular location, it sounds like it would be appropriate to combine them into one stack. And, once you have decided to move them, divide them back up into two corps. Is this a correct assumption?

Regards,
CptCav

I wonder what happens if you have 2 defending stacks in defensive mode - one of them a small irregular unit set to ambush. Can you set an ambush in defensive mode?

Cheers, Chris

cptcav wrote:So, if you start with two separate corps in an area with a mission to defend that particular location, it sounds like it would be appropriate to combine them into one stack. And, once you have decided to move them, divide them back up into two corps. Is this a correct assumption?

Regards,
CptCav

I would not combine them into one stack because then you would have out of command penalties, so your troops would fight less effectivly.

A general rule with Corps. If they're in the same region...they will usually end up fighting the battle together. It may take a round or two for the second Corps to "March to the Guns" within the same region...but even with a poor leader...you're usually sure to have them fight together.

The problem arises when you have your Corps too spread out in different regions. As has been mentioned...MTG between regions is NOT a guarantee...and should be considered a significant risk...especially for the Union player.

Banks6060 wrote:A general rule with Corps. If they're in the same region...they will usually end up fighting the battle together. It may take a round or two for the second Corps to "March to the Guns" within the same region...but even with a poor leader...you're usually sure to have them fight together.

The problem arises when you have your Corps too spread out in different regions. As has been mentioned...MTG between regions is NOT a guarantee...and should be considered a significant risk...especially for the Union player.

+1

As a Union player, unless I am operating commanders say with the stats of Grant and Meade in tandem (most unlikely) I always assume as the Union NEVER for MTG to work. Now when playing as the CSA ......thats a different kettle of fish.

Its all down to horses for courses

I realize this is an old thread asking how defense is chosen but I thought I'd resurrect the part the thread alluded to on quantifying marching to the sound of the guns mathematically and discuss defensive settings as well.

Here's a quickie, undocumented (but easily understandable) excel spreadsheet based on the (someone thoughtfully shared on WIKI) quantification of how marching to the sound of the guns works. I believe it works for both the offense and defense identically, however, that is an experience based assumption.

I don't often like to use this spreadsheet in a game as it can reduce the tactic's feel to a (yuck) simple mathematical formula. Yet I find the general knowledge in a defense useful to at least quantify and understand so I can now position my defensive corps/officers in potentially mutually supporting positions using my best officers and terrain to my advantage. One example I might give is in the Eastern theatre......a CSA defense line Nelson-Ablemarle-Spotsylvania, especially in the winter. It is behind rivers and with a strategically high rated general in Ablemarle makes reinforcement of its shoulders likely and thus highly defensible. Sometimes that Ablemarle leader might not be Lee but rather Longstreet or Jackson with Lee's bonus! In fact...surprise.... Lee can be the lesser of the three sometimes. Depends.

Down at the bottom simply fill in the data for one example and voila.....the percentage chance to march to the sound of the guns is provided.

[ATTACH]7006[/ATTACH]

As Arsan alluded to, sometimes its better to defend by giving attack orders of incoming attackers. Especially with high initiative generals and troops.
To abandon the choice of who gets attacked to the attacker is bound to invite the attacker to choose the weakest division defender you've got.
True there is a cohesion penalty inherent in sitting on defense with attacking orders given. But a rested army need not be concerned with that.

As Jackson and later Patton both often stated....if the enemy is having to always react to your offensive actions, you are playing the tune both of you get to dance to.....you control the operational flow. I am a strong advocate for offense action in AACW despite inherent defensive fire advantages and also an inherent casualty disadvantage to the attacker. MTSG helps me do that.

I think this is pertinent to your original question on defense and who gets attacked. I think giving offensive orders on defensive positions can sometimes be the best of all worlds in trapping the attacker.

Thank you for this, SkyWestNM, a very useful anaysis.

On a side note, also worth being careful about sending divisions to join a command which is marching to battle, as I have just found. A two-division Corps advances from its region to engage the enemy with a third division from a different region ordered to join the command. As the fighting starts the third division has reached the battle region but has not yet caught up with the Corps, result it is stranded in the field with a 10% CP and gets massacred

I have quit trying to catch up with units on the march for that very reason. I often get undesired movement or combat results. Better (usually) to wait til one isn't on the march.

SkywestNM,
Note, you can have multiple Corps MTSG in support of a single Corps. In my current game against Athena, I had 3 Corps MSTG for a corps attacking a superior enemy (It was a glorious victory - mostly). The MTSG kept my original Corps from disintegrating by spreading around the pain between it and the other 3 Corps. At least the Union took triple the casualties I did.

Very cool, Jim. I'll bet you got a bucket full of NM for that one!

SkyWestNM wrote:Very cool, Jim. I'll bet you got a bucket full of NM for that one!

Actually I got 0 (thats right zero). I caused 21,000 casualties (it was like 300+ hits), and only lost 10,000 (like 150 hits). But I only destroyed 2 subunits. A different time in the same game, I destroyed like 15 subunits (but only killed 8,000) and got 8 NM points. I am still new enough I guess that I don't exactly understand the gains to NM. Oh well.

NM has a goodly deal to do with how many subunits are eliminated or what key strategic/objective cities you capture in a turn. Despite the shellacking the Union took from your CSA, alas, the fifteen subunits from the other game counted a good deal more it looks like.