March to the sound of gun and river crossing

[mikee64]

I've seen this happen on very rare occasion also; in a PBEM I once had Longstreet defending outside Richmond with level 8 entrenchments. He MTSG into an adjacent region and lost his entrenchments, even though he wound up back in the Richmond region. Needless to say this caused a bit of a panic as their were Yanks swarming all around the capital.

It was such an oddity (I've seen it happen only a couple other times in probably hundreds of hours of gameplay) that I didn't bother to report it.

Here is a thread with a specific post mentioning something similar.

[mikee64]

Also take a look at post #5 in this thread to see where I had a (apparent) MTSG oddity that was never resolved. Could be related with the water transport issue you are seeing?

[soundoff]

btw picture 3 and 4 show the same situatione... just picture 3 is a few days laster as picture 4 i think..

No they dont Tobi. Take a closer look both are for the Early July phase. Look at the top right hand corner.

All I did was the same as you. I loaded up your Late June orders and just hit the 'next turn' button.

There is definately something not right. Whenever an Army or Corp MTSG they should AUTOMATICALLY return to the region they were originally in every time. It does not happen in this case but it LOOKS as if its happening.


Whether it is being caused by something else like Banks having coastal artillery with him I do not know but it should not be happening and needs looking at by one of the programmers - IMHO. It is most certainly NOT WAD

[Tobi]

Also take a look at post #5 in this thread to see where I had a (apparent) MTSG oddity that was never resolved. Could be related with the water transport issue you are seeing?

probatly, where there also at least 2 battles in the region he moved into?
just your movement seems to be displayed correct while in my situatione the movement is displayed wrong... but the situatione looks the same

No they dont Tobi. Take a closer look both are for the Early July phase. Look at the top right hand corner.

All I did was the same as you. I loaded up your Late June orders and just hit the 'next turn' button.

i know, what i tried to say is that you get picture 3 when Johnson arrives bevor the round is over... and you would get picture 4 when he doesn't arrive bevor round is over...
it depents on which day the second battle takes place since he starts moving then i think... thats why i asumed you used difference options for battle delay as i
you can produce picture 3 or 4 by changing the time bevor smith attacks by letting him move around by rail (if i don't let him move 4 day around by rail bevor attacking, i get also picture 3, if he moves 4 days by rail bevor attacking i get picture 4... if there is mud i get the picture i posted in the last post)

There is definately something not right. Whenever an Army or Corp MTSG they should AUTOMATICALLY return to the region they were originally in every time. It does not happen in this case but it LOOKS as if its happening.

i think the problem is that he moves there.. he seems to get returned but starts moving to the battle by rail or ship... using quickest connectione... (as seems on picture 4 and my last picture... and if he arrives bevor day 15 it results in your picture 3)

[Jim-NC]

I have had the same problem in 1.15 as the CSA during a PBEM. I had Macgruder's (misspelled I know) Corps attached to the ANV. He was in Harpers Ferry, but his display had him 1 region east. I had to drag him out of Harpers Ferry (I didn't want him there), and it showed him taking days to march east. It was a MTSG situation as well.

I have also seen a corps get stuck, with move orders to the old region after a late in the turn MTSG. It would properly display and show them marching back to their old region.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[soundoff]

The only way these type of game errors get fixed is to point out these things at the time you first discover them and provide the saved game files to back up your assertions. This allows Pocus to recreate the problem so that he can rework the necessary game code. I can only imagine his frustration when he reads such detailed flawed gameplay descriptions from supposed past games yet no files are ever provided in order for him to do something about it.

+1

Unless such issues are ironed out then ALL of us will be forever bemoaning 'why has such and such happened'

[Jim-NC]

The only way these type of game errors get fixed is to point out these things at the time you first discover them and provide the saved game files to back up your assertions. This allows Pocus to recreate the problem so that he can rework the necessary game code. I can only imagine his frustration when he reads such detailed flawed gameplay descriptions from supposed past games yet no files are ever provided in order for him to do something about it.

3 reasons I did not report:

1. 1.15 was the legacy patch at the time (I had forgotten by the time 1.16 beta came out), and a display bug is certainly not CTD.
2. I was not hosting. I have asked my opponent to try to find the turn where that happened and post.
3. To me it was not that important. It is a bug that shows up maybe once a game, (probably much less). It is a display problem with a stack. And it doesn't effect gameplay. I don't expect perfection in my games (wish for, but don't expect). There are so many other database descrepencies/real bugs I would prefer to have fixed instead. (horse artillery move, blockade ships not being built, double units, no darker green for supply depots with the supply filter).

[mikee64]

In the thread I linked above, I did post the saves, as I always did (prior to 1.15) when I encountered a problem. In this case the behavior could not be duplicated on Pocus' machine. So in subsequent cases (rare as already noted) I didn't bother to report.

I also agree w/ Jim above; it's by no means a game-breaker and I would rather deal with it and let Pocus spend his time on bigger issues. I posted here mostly to let Tobi know there was similar behavior seen by others, not because I was looking for a "game fix."

With regards to MTSG units on a rare occasion not keeping entrenchments, a simple trade off is to just put a separate non-Corps unit in the trenches. You of course risk losing that isolated unit if attacked but that is a decision the player has to make.

And again to echo what Jim said, this game is about as close to perfection as I've ever seen for a PC wargame.

[soundoff]

Hi Jim-NC and Mikee64,


Under normal circumstances I'd agree with you. A one off event is just that a one off. But in the case of Tobi he actually posted not one but two identical types of event from different turns. One involves Johnston the other Lee. He did post both sets of files.

As this appears to be more than just an isolated occurance, at least in his game, I suspect that either there is a corruption somewhere or there is a chain of events going on thats creating the problem. Either way I think its worth checking out. Maybe the first step should be to reinstall the game but if that does not correct it then I would still contend it needs looking into, particularly as it appears that AACW might still be 'updated' at times.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[GillinghamFC]

Post 18 of this thread is a comprehensive description of how MTSG works but I have just seen a situation where some of the rules given there seem to be ignored.

Marching to the Sound of the Guns is something of an abstraction and works like this.

If a Corp or Army HQ is engaged in combat then other Corps or Army HQ have the potential of marching to the sound of the guns providing that:

1. They are all part of the same Army.

There are a couple of additional points to bear in mind

1. If your Army or Corp is in passive mode it is considered unable to MTSG

2. If your Army or Corp commander is inactive it will not MTSG

In the picture above I have 3 US armies, and associated corps

Code: Select all

In Spotsylvania (Fredericksburg)
McDowell          (***) 2 Divs ~18,700 men
  Wallace          (**) 1 Div   ~9,800 men
  Hooker            (*) 1 Div   ~4,500 men (not a corps)

(33,000 troops)

In Fauquier (Manassas)
Rosecrans         (***) 2 Divs ~15,200 men
  Franklin         (**) 1 Div  ~11,900 men
  Meagher          (**) 1 Div   ~9,900 men
  McCall           (**) 1 Div  ~10,600 men              (not active)

(47,600 troops)

In Culpeper
McClellan         (***)           ~200 men
  Keyes            (**) 1 Div   ~7,700 men              (not active)
  Foster           (**) 1 Div   ~5,000 men (not a corps)(passive)
  Berry            (**)                    (not a corps)(not active)

(7,900 troops, excluding Foster)


In Spotsylvania McDowell is confronting CSA troops who arrived in the
last turn, but no battle occurred last turn. [possibly because I have "Delayed Commitment" option set to "Small Delay"]

In Manassas Rosecrans and his three corps commanders are all ordered to move to Richmond by rail. Synchronized move is turned on. On day 1 they will be in Culpeper.

In Culpeper McClellan and his one corps (Keyes) are both in defensive mode. Foster and Berry are being withdrawn from here by rail. Berry is going to Baltimore; Foster to Hendricks, IN.

I now hit "Proceed to the next turn" and a battle starts almost immediately in Spotsylvania (Fredericksburg).



The picture above shows the battle results.

There were 83,000 US troops present. The only way that could happen is if Rosecrans and McClellan's armies and corps had supported McDowell using MTSG, yet the rules for MTSG say that only army HQs/corps in the same army are eligible for MTSG.

The battle report shows McClellan and Rosecrans were both there, along with their army HQs (three HQ units are present).

If I suppose that all active corps and army HQ in the vicinity had joined battle it still comes to only 70,000 troops. To get up to 83,000 troops also requires some inactive or passive forces to join battle, which is also against the MTSG rules.

This all seems to break the rules (which seemed pretty definitive and official) as explained in post #18. Is this a bug or is MTSG even more complex than those set of rules say?

(game is being played with v1.15)

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[GillinghamFC]

I was able to create a similar situation to my previous post using v1.16b2.
Please note that this is a test case to demonstrate MTSG and not from
an actual game



Picture above shows

McClellan's Army in Culpeper with Porter's and Franklin's Corps, total 34152 men, 9788 horses, 156 guns

Fremont's Army in Manassas with Heintzelman's, Sumner's and Keyes' Corps, total 45231 men, 12392 horses and 252 guns

Banks' Army in Spotsylvania with McDowell's Corps, total 21611 men, 5278 horses and 96 guns

Total USA forces are 100994 men, 27458 horses and 504 guns

Neither Fremont nor Banks should be eligible for MTSG into Culpeper (different army)

Additionally Fremont, Heintzelman, Sumner, and McDowell are all inactive (brown envelopes)

Banks' Army and McDowell's Corps are ordered to move by rail to Albemarle, synchronised movement on, and will arrive on day 2



Picture above shows the CSA move for the same turn.

Longstreet is ordered to attack McClellan in Culpeper, and will arrive on day 9. Longstreet has 31166 men, 4594 horses and 149 guns



Picture above shows the battle results

The CSA forces are Longstreet's 31166 men as expected.

The USA forces are 100904 men, 27428 horses and 504 guns which closely matches the total US forces for all three armies as calculated previously.
[The slight discrepancy in numbers of men and horses is presumably due to the game engine's calculation methods]

You can also see that all the 3 star generals were at the battle. There are also three army HQs shown as present.

It would appear that every single US army and corps has marched to the sound of the guns even though none were eligible to do so.

Save game attached below.

[soundoff]

Hi Gillingham,

The way I told it was the way MTSG should happen.

If its working as per your example then something is most certainly not right. You should send the relevant files to Pocus for investigation. I'm sure that Gray will tell you how once he sees your post.

[Pocus]

Hi all,

Sorry I missed this post. Thank you for your save GillinghamFC, there was indeed a bug where an army HQ could help another army HQ. When this was done, the next round the corps could jump in.

There is no hard constraint on activation though, just a penalty if I'm not mistaken.

[KCDennis]

I'm hoping someone can take a look at this situation, and offer an explanation on how it happened. My Confederate opponent has blockaded several sections of the Cumberland, and launched an attack on the Union force in Nashville. Somehow Buell's Corp in Sumner managed to MTSG:
[ATTACH]14638[/ATTACH]

It seems unlikely that he could have marched around the blockade. If I order Buell to march to Nashville using rail and river movement it says it would take 28 days. We are playing 1.15 so I won't bother with the save files. But is there an explanation that is escaping both of us?

[Mickey3D]

Blockade is never effective at 100% : maximum is 90%. So, based on what was said in the first posts of this thread, I think Buell had a 10% chance to MTSG.

[Cromagnonman]

On a related topic: on occasion, one might wish to attack a region across several turns. For example, one might wish to advance from Quebec and London upon Toronto simultaneously. The journey is roughly 18 days from Quebec and 23 days from London. When the first corps arrives, the other will still be 5 days' marching away. Would the second corps have its probability to MTSG calculated based on being 5 days away (even odds) or 22 days away (impossible)?