Question about destruction of your forces.

[exar83]

HI, my name is Brad. I'm from Evansville, IN. I used to be a Civil War reenactor. I enlisted in the 19th IN Co.A volunteers. We were in the Army of the Potomac, 1st Corps, 1st Division, 1st Brigade. We were known as the Iron Brigade. Some also called us the 'Black Hats' due to our dark blue Hardee hats. Long time listener, first time caller I was reading my pdf version of the manual and i noticed this event (copied directly from the manual):

"Finally, you cannot retreat from battle into completely hostile regions (i.e. less than 5% Military Control).
Note: Engaging in a battle deep within enemy territory is a very risky proposition, as losing it will result in complete destruction
for lack of a retreat path!"

I understand and appreciate the way that rolls and calculations are made in order to simulate circumstances that arise in war that just can't be done practically any other way. Such as simulating leader characteristics or the effects of weather and terrain on supply distribution and movement. So I was curious if the above situation described in the manual is just for game play reasons? Or is there a historical occurrence that warrants that event? Because, if I'm understanding it correctly, for example lets say you have a corps in enemy territory and you fight a battle and you lose the battle. Your corps tries to retreat but is destroyed or forced to completely surrender because you have less than 5% Military Control in the surrounding regions even though the enemy has no forces in those territories. I would think that even though the region is hostile that your corps would still take this avenue of retreat rather than be destroyed. And with no forces in the hostile regions I take that to mean that the civilians are the only hostile factor but I wouldn't think the civilians would be able to stop a corps from passing through even if they wanted to.

So does anyone know why you are destroyed instead of allowed to retreat? Was there a historical occurrence of civilians stopping a large enemy force from passing that this rule simulates? From most accounts that I've read, in the North and obviously more so in the South, civilians tended to help wounded enemy soldiers from any side. Many simply saw them as fellow Americans and, more likely, fellow human beings that were wounded and in need of aid.

[ERISS]

Maybe civilians took the weapons of captured soldiers and told them to desert, stop making war, send them back home.
And when orderly retreat is not possible, when there's no time to scout a safe route in an uncontrolled region, being pushed back blindly is leading to a rout.

[Ethan]

Hi guys!

Firstly, 're-welcome' to the Ageod Forums, exar83! Hope you enjoy here.

From 1.14 patch, the minimum Military Control (%) required to allow a retreat was changed to 0:

"56.) Changed Minimum control to have in a region to allow a retreat into it to 0, was 5 (adopted from Clovis Mod)"

Regards!

[exar83]

Awesome, thanks guys! I originally purchased the hard copy of the game years ago and ended up losing it. So last week I saw I could download it from AGEOD's official site for $20! I love this game so much and since it's my favorite Civil War game and favorite turn based strategy i went ahead and bought the digital version. I also downloaded patch 1.16 and got the pdf manual with the game. I guess the manual should be updated since it's the one that comes with the purchased game. No big deal though, it certainly won't stop me from having fun playing this game again! I respect the hard work put into the intricate details and all of the historical accuracy put in. I know that level of historical detail doesn't just come from the nearest book that you see at the local library. That's why instead of just downloading a free pirate copy I went ahead and paid for it a second time, gladly. The history lesson alone is worth $20!