Marching to the Sound of Guns Q's

[Michael T]

Some questions on the mechanics of ‘March to the Sound of the Guns’

Let’s say Corp A is in region X, B Corp is in Region Y. Both are under the same Army and both regions are adjacent.

Let’s say B Corp gets attacked in all the following cases.

1 If Corp A spent 6 days just getting to region X in its normal movement are these 6 days of movement taken in to account before A Corp can aid Corp B in region Y?

2 If Corp A in region x is itself attacked does that preclude it from coming to the aid of Corp B in region y?

3 If Corp B is attacked but the battle does not commence until day 13 and it will take Corp A 3 days to get to region y, does this preclude Corp A from joining the battle?

4 Are Corp marching to the sound of guns force marching? If so do they suffer the cohesion hits?

5 Why do they return to the region they came from? It seems that they might spend the best part of 2 weeks getting to a region, then spend another 2 weeks marching to the sound of guns and fighting and spend another 2 weeks getting back all in the period of 2 weeks!

March to the sound of guns is a very important part of the game, yet the info in the manual is so inadequate. Can anyone shed some light on these questions.

[Ace]

1) No, they appear on day 1. This may sound illogical, but I imagine they started moving the same time as the enemy was sighted moving toward combat region. The longer it takes them to get to adjacent region in real travel time, the less is the chance they will MTSG (-10% chance for every day of travel). Adjacent units assigned rail movement will always MTSG since it takes them only 1 day to enter the region.

2) No. It would induce gamey tactics, like let this militia occupy this corps while I attack this adjacent corps.

3) No. See post 1.

4) No. But they do suffer some cohesion loss as from regular marching.

5) They return to starting region the following day - or they would march out the whole turn - that would not be good design.

[Michael T]

This whole March to the Guns thing needs some tweaking IMO. Its too simple and in favour of defence. I like it in principle but it needs some work. It would appear to me that the defending units are marching faster than the attacking units. After all the attacker knows where he is going, the defender guessing. The attacker has little opportunity at finesse here. It's simply an all in show, no matter what time, space and other engagements would influence in reality.


Thanks for the info anyhow.

[moni kerr]

Both sides are subject to the same modifiers so they march at the same pace. I don't consider the defender as guessing where the attacker is going in the region. The defender occupies the ground the attacker needs to march through to get through the region.

As the attacker you have plenty of opportunity to finesse, you just need to think bigger than a single region.

[Michael T]

I am sorry but did you read Ace1 reply?

They do not march at the same pace when MTG is invoked. See number 1.

Number 2 is particularly poor if you take out the gamey case. A legitimate spoiling attack should be rewarded by tying down a potential MTG Corp.

Number 3 is also bad.

And 5, you are kidding right?

[Michael T]

Also, assuming they have a rail line, would the MTG Corp have to have the required available Rail Cap in order to use rail movement rates?


What happens if two adjacent Corp are attacked on the same day, or there about. Do they each MTG of each other (effectively being in two places at once)?

So many possibilities here. Is there a comprehensive thread somewhere that explains all this stuff? Or is it simply best to set up test cases and analyse?

Sorry to rant on, but this really is the *GAME* right here, MTG.

[moni kerr]

I am sorry but did you read Ace1 reply?

They do not march at the same pace when MTG is invoked. See number 1.

Number 2 is particularly poor if you take out the gamey case. A legitimate spoiling attack should be rewarded by tying down a potential MTG Corp.

Number 3 is also bad.

And 5, you are kidding right?

1) The same modifiers apply to both sides. Read this: MTSG. They march at the same pace.

2) It can if you time it properly. Remember 1), attacker and defender corps are subject to the same modifiers.

[Ace]

Also, assuming they have a rail line, would the MTG Corp have to have the required available Rail Cap in order to use rail movement rates?

They have to be on the rail line, and rail transport icon has to be pressed as if they are set to move by rail that turn - they are drawing from transport pool capacity by having wagons on stand by the same way as when they draw transport capacity while moving.

The march to the sound of the guns concept is crucial since you do not have 5 day turns. You have 15 day turns. Armies that were historically spread out during Civil war always somehow managed to concentrate for the big battle, with maybe a day delay (look at Antietam and Gettysburg - two most famous examples). Now, how do you simulate that if you give orders every 15 days. You set the engine to automatically call for reinforcements that would be there historically.

If the marching between region takes two much time, there is high chance the corps will not engage. I imagine this like this:

Enemy force is spotted moving in direction of corps A. In real civil war, corps B would get orders to march to contested region. If they are too far, there is small to none chance they would get in time, if they are close, there is big chance they will get in time. Enemy movements were spotted within days of the offense, not after 15 days. MTSG helps solve this issue.

From my experience, during battle resolution corps that have MTSG always takes less damage than the corps in the region. I assume, the corps in contested region is targeted first during combat, so MTSG corps do influence combat less than as if they were in the region from the start.

Regarding number 2. If the battle takes place on exactly the same day, they would not help each other, but that is impossible to precisely plan if you play with any kind of combat delay settings. What you could do is send waves of raiders, turn after turn to keep them occupied. But that would be too much micromanagement for me.

[Michael T]

Thanks for the link moni kerr. But the question begs why is that info not in the manual, even a cut and paste from the wiki sight would help.
Anyhow that info is crucial to know. As MTSG is at the heart of how big battles are fought in this game. A good understanding is cruical. Yet the manual is blank on it. Incredible really.

With that info I have something to work with. Thanks

[Emx77]

But the question begs why is that info not in the manual... A good understanding is cruical. Yet the manual is blank on it. Incredible really.

I really think that Ageod need to pay more attention to comments like this. They produce excellent games but documentation is often lacking. Sometimes there is no enough info about important game concepts, on other occasions manual is wrong and describing mechanics which doesn't work inside game and, in some scenarios, there are often automatic or conditional triggers which catch player totally by surprise (some triggers SHOULD be mentioned under scenario design notes). This leads to a lot of frustrations, especially in PBEM.

Ageod, game documentation is your marketing asset. Don't let hurried manuals ruin otherwise excellent games.

[Emx77]

I have some additional questions:

1.) Do units embarked on train suffer additional combat penalties if attacked in their home province or upon arrival in contested province when MTSG is activated?
2.) MTSG only works for corps and armies in adjacent regions, right?

[Ace]

1) No, they disembark before combat, regions are large enough.
2) Yes

[Frosty_MooseHead]

Just a thought, maybe MTSG should be renamed something along the lines of 'counter-offensive'
MTSG sounds to me like it is involving a battle which has already been initiated. When in reality it seems the game mechanic sounds more like a 'maneuver to counter a possible attack'.

[Mickey3D]

Just a thought, maybe MTSG should be renamed something along the lines of 'counter-offensive'
MTSG sounds to me like it is involving a battle which has already been initiated. When in reality it seems the game mechanic sounds more like a 'maneuver to counter a possible attack'.

MTSG happens only if a battle starts. It will not happen if an ennemy stack move into a friendly region without triggering combat (e.g. ennemy has some control of the region and is not in offensive mode).

[Whitman]

1) No, they disembark before combat, regions are large enough.
2) Yes

As a newb, I am reinforcing the sentiment of bad documentation. The reason for my post is I just read about 40 links about this and just when I think I might sort of understand, the post above says "YES" to #2 when asked if MTSG is for Adjacent regions only.

I thought MTSG could be over vast distances depending on rail, etc..,

-- I just realized this is the CW 2 forum. I thought this was the EAW forum, I followed too many links. No matter, I thought MTSG could be lots of Regions. Thanks.

[pgr]

This whole March to the Guns thing needs some tweaking IMO. Its too simple and in favor of defense. I like it in principle but it needs some work. It would appear to me that the defending units are marching faster than the attacking units. After all the attacker knows where he is going, the defender guessing. The attacker has little opportunity at finesse here. It's simply an all in show, no matter what time, space and other engagements would influence in reality.

Again, not entirely. MTSG cuts both ways. If the attacking stack has friendly corps in adjacent regions, those corps will MTSG on day 1 of the battle just like the defending ones will. Indeed, MTSG has some nice benefits for the attacker, including the fact that stacks that MTSG in support of an attack across a river do not have river crossing penalties and stacks MTSGing for the defender do not receive entrenchment bonuses. If the defenders loose, the MTSG stacks will retreat (and go passive, which prevents them from MTSG again that turn), they sometimes loose the entrenchments in their starting provinces, and they sometimes even retreat away from their starting provinces. MTSG on the attack can be devastating, and you can't really do big sweeping turning movements with out it.

But it does take some getting used to.

[Gray Fox]

Also, it is a random event. The attacker can synchronize movement of all of the attacking stacks. None of the defender's adjacent Corps may show up as the unfortunate point of attack gets hammered.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Also, since MTSG does not occur on the first round of the battle, it is entirely possible that the initial defender withdraws because they are outnumbered and losing after the first turn. Then, when the MTSGers arrive, they are also severely outnumbered because the first stack is no longer there, and what should have been an adequate defense across two regions crumbles as the stacks are defeated in detail. Losing MTSGers do not return to their starting region, they go where the retreat mechanism sends them (winners go back where they started from). It is not uncommon to see three-region-wide defensive fronts collapse in a single turn this way.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Re Rail and MTSG:

I am not convinced that rail orders affect MTSG in any way. I have tested this (under 1.04) several times, and the percentage chance for MTSG quoted in the battle log remains the same whether I have rail movement selected or not. The percentages shown in the log are consistent with the number of days it would take to march to the region on foot, including the time it takes to cross rivers, the effects of weather, etc.

Minutiae: Rails count as roads for non-rail movement, so having a rail connection to the region in question DOES reduce the base marching time, but not all the way to one day. Also, rail bridges negate the extra time needed to cross the river in question on foot, so MTSGing from Louisville to New Albany, for example (adjacent with a rail bridge) is more likely than MTSGing from Louisville to Madison (adjacent but no rail bridge).

[ajarnlance]

Re Rail and MTSG:

I am not convinced that rail orders affect MTSG in any way. I have tested this (under 1.04) several times, and the percentage chance for MTSG quoted in the battle log remains the same whether I have rail movement selected or not. The percentages shown in the log are consistent with the number of days it would take to march to the region on foot, including the time it takes to cross rivers, the effects of weather, etc.

Minutiae: Rails count as roads for non-rail movement, so having a rail connection to the region in question DOES reduce the base marching time, but not all the way to one day. Also, rail bridges negate the extra time needed to cross the river in question on foot, so MTSGing from Louisville to New Albany, for example (adjacent with a rail bridge) is more likely than MTSGing from Louisville to Madison (adjacent but no rail bridge).

This issue needs a definitive answer. Does using rail points work for MTSG or not? It is a crucial issue...

[Gray Fox]

This is from the MTSG thread in the AACW Wiki:

"The base chance of joining the battle is 100%. This probability is modified by the following factors[1]:
-10% for each day of marching (all normal factors affecting the stack's movement apply) (my underlining)
+10% if adjacent to army HQ
+25% if the army HQ itself
+5% for each point of strategic rating of the leader
Every 5% of military control lacking gives -1% chance (both for start and end region)
-10% if in defensive posture[2]"

1. Post by Pocus in thread "March to the Guns" at the AACW forums
2. Post by Runyan in thread " Bunch of questions (n00b alert)" at the AACW forums

Either this applies to CW2...or it doesn't.

[ajarnlance]

This is from the MTSG thread in the AACW Wiki:

"The base chance of joining the battle is 100%. This probability is modified by the following factors[1]:
-10% for each day of marching (all normal factors affecting the stack's movement apply) (my underlining)
+10% if adjacent to army HQ
+25% if the army HQ itself
+5% for each point of strategic rating of the leader
Every 5% of military control lacking gives -1% chance (both for start and end region)
-10% if in defensive posture[2]"

1. Post by Pocus in thread "March to the Guns" at the AACW forums
2. Post by Runyan in thread " Bunch of questions (n00b alert)" at the AACW forums

Either this applies to CW2...or it doesn't.

Two other rules I have read about before are:
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.

Would be nice to get a definitive answer on the 'rail to the sound of the guns option' ie does it work?

[ArmChairGeneral]

According to the battlelog, it does not. It will take me some time, but I will rerun the tests and post the results again.

[ajarnlance]

According to the battlelog, it does not. It will take me some time, but I will rerun the tests and post the results again.

Thanks for checking this. It makes sense for troops to be able to use rail to MTSG (think 1st Manassas). But I don't want to waste the rail capacity if it doesn't work. Maybe it will need a patch...

[Gray Fox]

Yes, that is correct. Here's the link:

http://www.ageod.net/aacwwiki/Marching_to_the_sound_of_the_guns

I must point out that I am not a fan of relying on MTSG. Sun Tzu wrote that one should win the battle first and then fight it. So I attacked Jackson who got reinforced by Longstreet via MTSG. They both lost. Historically, the outcome of some battles dramatically flip-flopped because of this actually happening, so the game has it.

[Mickey3D]

Here are the parameters for MTSG in the GameLogic.opt file :

resBaseChanceDef = 90 // Base chance if in Defensive posture
resCostPerDay = 10 // -10% for each day of marching
resCohCostPerDay = -1 // -1 cohesion for each day of marching
resModAdjGHQ = 10 // +10% if adjacent to army HQ
resModIsGHQ = 25 // +25% if the army HQ itself
resModLeaderStrat = 5 // +5% for each pt of strat factor of the leader
resControlChunkMod = 5 // Every 5% of MC lacking gives -1% chance (both for start and end region)

You can take advantage of the rail ... as long as you give to your corps the order to use rail movement !

[Skibear]

Two other rules I have read about before are:
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.

I am not 100% sure on the 2nd point. By definition an inactive stack will be in defensive posture at best receiving a -10, plus will move slower so more negatives for days marching, plus they are likely to be inactive due to lower strategic ratings, but i'm not sure they implicitly don't try to MTSG.

[pgr]

Thanks for checking this. It makes sense for troops to be able to use rail to MTSG (think 1st Manassas). But I don't want to waste the rail capacity if it doesn't work. Maybe it will need a patch...

If you are thinking 1st Manassas, then MTSG does not work with rail, because you cannot MTSG across multiple regions. (Which is what Winchester to Manassas would be.)

That said, if you are in the next province over, rail movement cuts the travel time in days to just 1, and cohesion loss is minimal. Both will help MTSG.

@ Micky... I assume the base chance for non-defensive postures is 100%?

As for inactive leaders... I assume the impact is indirect. Being inactive would increase the number of travel days...which would decrease MTSG chance. I suppose if you were playing with hard activation, and an inactive leader is locked in place, he wouldn't be able to MTSG.

[Mickey3D]

I assume the base chance for non-defensive postures is 100%?

In AACW the file contained a parameter stating 100% in offensive posture. This line has disappeared in CW2 but I assume it's still 100%


[/QUOTE]As for inactive leaders... I assume the impact is indirect. Being inactive would increase the number of travel days...which would decrease MTSG chance. [/QUOTE]
Yes, it's the way it works.

I suppose if you were playing with hard activation, and an inactive leader is locked in place, he wouldn't be able to MTSG.

I never played with this setting.

[ajarnlance]

Thanks for clarifying these important MTSG issues.... it certainly makes for an interesting and often unpredictable game!