Minor quibble about combat results

[K-1stPennaRes]

Apologies in advance if this has been discussed before.

Leaving out the problem (to me) that National Morale means that your troops do not fight as well, which of course means National Morale declines, I have two minor complaints about a battle that just occurred in my PBEM game, in the fall of 1862.

As the Federals, I had over 120,000 men, well-supplied with artillery, and with high cohesion, in a fortified Alexandria, under McCllellan. The troops were all in corps, etc., and the army was as strong as I could make it (allowing for the discrepancy in NM, which was high).

My complaints are:

1) Lee, with an army of only 80,000, drove me out, and
2) Although McCllellan and the 10,000 or so troops attached to him retreated to D.C., the entire rest of my army retreated south into Virginia, and wound up somewhat east of Fredericksburg.

Leaving out the extremely unlikely result (remember what happened at Malvern Hill, when the real McLellan's army was theoretically demoralized) I am wondering why the game could not have been scripted so that, if one's army is defeated, it retreats toward the nearest friendly-controlled, supplied city, instead of deep into enemy territory. This is not the first time I have seen this happen.

Thanks very much.

B.C. Milligan

[GraniteStater]

Apologies in advance if this has been discussed before.

Leaving out the problem (to me) that National Morale means that your troops do not fight as well, which of course means National Morale declines, I have two minor complaints about a battle that just occurred in my PBEM game, in the fall of 1862.

As the Federals, I had over 120,000 men, well-supplied with artillery, and with high cohesion, in a fortified Alexandria, under McCllellan. The troops were all in corps, etc., and the army was as strong as I could make it (allowing for the discrepancy in NM, which was high).

My complaints are:

1) Lee, with an army of only 80,000, drove me out, and
2) Although McCllellan and the 10,000 or so troops attached to him retreated to D.C., the entire rest of my army retreated south into Virginia, and wound up somewhat east of Fredericksburg.

Leaving out the extremely unlikely result (remember what happened at Malvern Hill, when the real McLellan's army was theoretically demoralized) I am wondering why the game could not have been scripted so that, if one's army is defeated, it retreats toward the nearest friendly-controlled, supplied city, instead of deep into enemy territory. This is not the first time I have seen this happen.

Thanks very much.

B.C. Milligan

'Nuff said.

The game does a very good job of modelling RL. There are limits to models, though, and you must remember that what you see is a result of code. Code is not reality.

Same goes for retreats. The more you play, the more you will see 'unexpected' retreats. Plan accordingly, I would advise.

[K-1stPennaRes]

'Nuff said.

The game does a very good job of modelling RL. There are limits to models, though, and you must remember that what you see is a result of code. Code is not reality.

Same goes for retreats. The more you play, the more you will see 'unexpected' retreats. Plan accordingly, I would advise.

Thanks for your reply. As a game designer myself, I am quite aware of the liabilities of programs, but this game is so good for the most part, I guess I was hoping for too much. This is not my first PBEM game, and I have seen some pretty strange retreats before. But because this one will probably cost me the capital and the game, I guess it was slightly more annoying.

[GraniteStater]

Thanks for your reply. As a game designer myself, I am quite aware of the liabilities of programs, but this game is so good for the most part, I guess I was hoping for too much. This is not my first PBEM game, and I have seen some pretty strange retreats before. But because this one will probably cost me the capital and the game, I guess it was slightly more annoying.

I can understand. Say, can you use a good technical writer?

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

Yeah, that's a tough result. That's why I use hold at all costs in that situation so I don't have to worry about retreat paths.

[K-1stPennaRes]

Yeah, that's a tough result. That's why I use hold at all costs in that situation so I don't have to worry about retreat paths.

And I will do the same in the future.

B.C. Milligan

[K-1stPennaRes]

I can understand. Say, can you use a good technical writer?

Actually, right now I am doing work that, when writing is required, it is done by me. If you are looking for jobs in this industry, you might start by visiting the Gama Sutra Website.

B.C. Milligan

[Longshanks]

One way to help beat the likelihood that this will happen is to move a unit into the defending region from another region (region B) where you wouldn't mind retreating to. The incoming unit should be targeted to the main defensive stack, i.e. McClellan. The game then seems to think that the whole stack came from Region B and therefore should retreat there.

Based on empirical studies (i.e. I can't prove it), this seems to work.

[K-1stPennaRes]

One way to help beat the likelihood that this will happen is to move a unit into the defending region from another region (region B) where you wouldn't mind retreating to. The incoming unit should be targeted to the main defensive stack, i.e. McClellan. The game then seems to think that the whole stack came from Region B and therefore should retreat there.

Based on empirical studies (i.e. I can't prove it), this seems to work.

And thanks!

Of course, upon reflection, one minor fly in this ointment is in order to do this, you have to first know that you are going to be attacked in that particular turn. My troops were stationary in Alexandria, and with it being fortified, and my having 120,000 troops there versus Lee's 80,000 (which I knew from the previous turn), I really never would have imagined my opponent would attack, much less take the city, much less with half my casualties, etc.

[Longshanks]

And thanks!

Of course, upon reflection, one minor fly in this ointment is in order to do this, you have to first know that you are going to be attacked in that particular turn. My troops were stationary in Alexandria, and with it being fortified, and my having 120,000 troops there versus Lee's 80,000 (which I knew from the previous turn), I really never would have imagined my opponent would attack, much less take the city, much less with half my casualties, etc.

Understandable, but there are SO MANY other considerations besides number of men which is, after all, only "flavor" not a real head count as Pocus and others have stated many times. Better to go by PWR but even that is not fool proof. Generals stats, weather, fortifications, troop experience, frontage, command penalties, crossing rivers/landing off ships all play big factors too. Any or all of these probably affected your combat.

[GraniteStater]

It pays to analyze the icons and other info on the Battle Report screen, something which, alas, I am all too guilty of not doing often enough.

[Jim-NC]

There was a series of posts about this issue. The "problem" deals with how the program uses the factors. IIRC, there were factors for time to move, military contorl of region retreating from/to, nearness of structure (city/port/depot), etc.

The genesis of that conversation was that CSA troops almost always would retreat from Memphis across the Mississippi river towards Madison AR. They would usually not stay on the eastern bank of the river.


Here is the discussion: retreat disucssion

I believe that the retreat matrix was tweaked in 1.15 and 1.16.

[Longshanks]

The genesis of that conversation was that CSA troops almost always would retreat from Memphis across the Mississippi river towards Madison AR. They would usually not stay on the eastern bank of the river.

Which is exactly what happened in my game vs G-S. He bumped me outta Memphis (but didn't take it). I retreated across the river, then moved back in. lol, I didn't get to follow my own advice!

[K-1stPennaRes]

...and it is, as someone as noted, just a game after all. Although I did not think it likely that Lee would have either ever attempted such an assault or succeeded if he had, I could accept the defeat, in the context of a game.

My only real complaint was the direction of the Federal retreat, i.e. toward the enemy capital rather than my own. I think scripting could prevent such a thing, but maybe not with this engine.

Anyway, my opponent has graciously offered to attempt to restore the game to a previous turn, and if he does, I will give the order to hold at all costs, which will probably still result in a defeat, but possibly not a retreat.

Thanks to all for your observations and suggestions.

B.C. Milligan

[Longshanks]

Might work, but they might rout too!

[charlesonmission]

Longshanks hit the nose on the head. Also, I think frontage plays a big role (can old Mac even bring in 120,000 at one time due to his low ratings). Personally, I don't like to mathmatically analyse every move while I'm playing, but there are threads on frontage out there.

Charles

Understandable, but there are SO MANY other considerations besides number of men which is, after all, only "flavor" not a real head count as Pocus and others have stated many times. Better to go by PWR but even that is not fool proof. Generals stats, weather, fortifications, troop experience, frontage, command penalties, crossing rivers/landing off ships all play big factors too. Any or all of these probably affected your combat.