How to inflict great casualties and destroy enemy armies

[hannibal_barca]

Hello

I am having trouble being able to force an enemy army into a decisive battle and annihilate it or greatly destroy its numbers. I usually have my principal army attack head on and it drives the enemy army into retreat but the enemy army is on a retreat stance and I can only inflict very few casualties on it. This happens over and over. Do I have to split my main army into various bodies to surround the enemy army ? i.e. the provinces around the enemy army so when ti retreats it has to fight against another of my armies?

Thank you

[Bohémond]

In AJE, a lot of casualties can be inflict to enemy force during pursuit phase. These casualties are not diplayed in combat report window but in Messages Log.

In addtion, there is no Region MC requirement for a stack to retreat towards a region, this implies that the enemy stack can ''evade'' to any surounding regions.

Pursuit and retreat can be modded through settings in .opt files.

Regards

[hannibal_barca]

So battles of annihilation like at Cannae with hannibal are impossible in this game?

[pantsukki]

Occasionally the enemy army will stand their ground, every now and then I see tens of thousands of losses per side. So pretty much all the time if you cause massive casualties, expect to loose quite a lot of men too. Except with the Parthians, from my early tries with them it seems that their cavalry can easily butcher loads of legionaires with minimal losses.

[vaalen]

If you can attack an enemy army in a position where they cannot retreat, because they have less than 5% military control, you can destroy the entire army. I have managed to do this a few times, and it works. It also pays to have as much cavalry as you can, because they can really inflict heavy losses in a pursuit. In one game, as Pyrrus, I inflicted heavy losses on the Romans with a cavalry rich army, and destroyed the rest of the army in a pursuit. I also had a Cannae, where I fought two Roman consular armies, and destroyed all of them except for two battered legions that managed to escape.

I should point out that two Roman legions survived Cannae, and escaped the slaughter. They were decimated, and disgraced. Later they redeemed themselves when Scipio Africanus took them to Africa, and they took part in his victory at Zama over Hannibal.

I have also noticed that units that are besieging a city are often more reluctant to retreat, and will often suffer heavier casualties before they break. Finally, it is also possible to trap enemy armies in a peninsula, where the can retreat into only one or two provinces, especially in Italy or Greece. Especially if you have another army in those provinces. This can lead to several combats, and heavy enemy losses. They might break through, but they will take a lot of losses. And if you have enough cavalry, the pursuit will be devastating to them.

Hope this helps.

[hannibal_barca]

Are you sure about the 5 percent military control? I thought that any enemy army can still retreat into a 0 military control percent province. You can't necessarily trap it like that.

[vaalen]

I have been unable to retreat into provinces where I had no control, and on several occasions I have trapped enemy armies where they were surrounded by sea and areas that I controlled completely, and they did not retreat. The manual says five percent military control, and I assume that is true. I will check out the amount of military control the next time I am in such a situation.

Have you actually seen armies retreat into areas where they have no control?

[Bohémond]

As per Game Default Settings, Required MC is o for retreating ;


ctlAllowRetreat = 0 // Minimum control to have in a region to allow a retreat into it


Regards

[hannibal_barca]

As per Game Default Settings, Required MC is o for retreating ;


ctlAllowRetreat = 0 // Minimum control to have in a region to allow a retreat into it


Regards

Vaalen, do you see this quote? It proves that you need zero military control to be able to retreat in to that province. Perhaps you have modded the values?

I agree the manual does say 5 percent minimum to be able to retreat into that province but that was rule was changed long time ago in a American Civil War patch, (even 5 years ago maybe).

[vaalen]

[quote="hannibal_barca"]Vaalen, do you see this quote? It proves that you need zero military control to be able to retreat in to that province. Perhaps you have modded the values?

I agree the manual does say 5 percent minimum to be able to retreat into that province but that was rule was changed long time ago in a American Civil War patch, (even 5 years ago maybe).[/QUOTE

You are correct. I am will have to check. My apologies for the misinformation, which may apply only to my installation.

[Lares Privati]

Hi, I'd love to know how to annihilate an ennemy army so I don't have to pursue it for month. I was playing the Cesar/Pompée scenario (as Cesar's faction) and the AI has sent two armies to bypass the front and infiltrate behind my lines.

In one case I had to defeat successively the same army 3 or 4 times. In the last battle a legion commanded by Curio confronted an army of ... 4 guys !

What would make 4 guys, who just lost 3 battles successively stay with their general and revendicate the Tarrentum countryside when Curio and his legion are camping nearby ?

Love ? Sam Peckinpah ? Coca roots ? An ultimate secret weapon ? Camouflage ?

On the other front, Afrianus and his 5 legions were defeated in Lugdunum and succeeded to escape through the Pyrennees ! I lost a lot of time running after those guys.

[hannibal_barca]

Hi, I'd love to know how to annihilate an ennemy army so I don't have to pursue it for month. I was playing the Cesar/Pompée scenario (as Cesar's faction) and the AI has sent two armies to bypass the front and infiltrate behind my lines.

In one case I had to defeat successively the same army 3 or 4 times. In the last battle a legion commanded by Curio confronted an army of ... 4 guys !

What would make 4 guys, who just lost 3 battles successively stay with their general and revendicate the Tarrentum countryside when Curio and his legion are camping nearby ?

Love ? Sam Peckinpah ? Coca roots ? An ultimate secret weapon ? Camouflage ?

On the other front, Afrianus and his 5 legions were defeated in Lugdunum and succeeded to escape through the Pyrennees ! I lost a lot of time running after those guys.

I think it may be a weakness of the Athena engine that it cannot simulate decisive battles.

[TJD]

I think it may be a weakness of the Athena engine that it cannot simulate decisive battles.

I'm not sure that's the case. I can recall a game of WiA2 where I absolutely shattered Cornwallis's army even though I didn't have any great preponderance of strength. The difference was, or so I figured at the time, that he couldn't retreat because of the 5% MC rule. He was trapped by ZOCs. I'm still pretty new to the games so there may have been other factors involved, but the 5% rule seemed very real in that instance and Athena delivered a truly decisive result.

[Lares Privati]

But the 5% MC rule doesn't apply in AJE, does it ?

Usually I find the engine quite realistic in its simulation and I certainly am new to the game too, so I can't judge it's a weakness of the engine. Maybe it's just normal that armies aren't easily destroyed. I don't remind that much historical exemples of a totally annihilated army after all.

But in my last game the AI relied on infiltration strategies and those small stacks were already difficult to catch so it was frustrating not to be able to quikly annihilate them.

Maybe I should use more cavalery as Vaalen suggests.

[TJD]

But the 5% MC rule doesn't apply in AJE, does it ?

.

No, it doesn't, you're correct, but it was pointed out above that it is possible to change the game settings and put the rule back into effect. I have to agree with you overall that defeated armies do seem a bit too slippery and the retreat pathing can be very surprising indeed.

[pantsukki]

No, it doesn't, you're correct, but it was pointed out above that it is possible to change the game settings and put the rule back into effect. I have to agree with you overall that defeated armies do seem a bit too slippery and the retreat pathing can be very surprising indeed.

The retreat pathing becomes extremely annoying when the beaten army returns to the province from which the attacker just came. Did they march through them?

[hannibal_barca]

But the 5% MC rule doesn't apply in AJE, does it ?

Usually I find the engine quite realistic in its simulation and I certainly am new to the game too, so I can't judge it's a weakness of the engine. Maybe it's just normal that armies aren't easily destroyed. I don't remind that much historical exemples of a totally annihilated army after all.

But in my last game the AI relied on infiltration strategies and those small stacks were already difficult to catch so it was frustrating not to be able to quikly annihilate them.

Maybe I should use more cavalery as Vaalen suggests.

In the 2nd Punic War, Hannibal and Scipio regularly annihilated (or close to it) enemy armies. Sure there were survivors but out of an army of 50k only a couple thousand survived. That is almost impossible to simulate with the current AJE engine. Perhaps in the 2nd punic war expansion pack they will add a trait to both Hannibal and Scipio that increases a chance of "encirclement tactics" like used in Cannae by Hannibal and by Scipio in Spain.

[TJD]

In the meanwhile I'm thinking of switching the 5% MC rule on. Without it, the role of maneuver and the map itself seem to lose a lot of their meaning.

[hannibal_barca]

In the meanwhile I'm thinking of switching the 5% MC rule on. Without it, the role of maneuver and the map itself seem to lose a lot of their meaning.

I think the original reason they got rid of it was that Athena AI couldn't handle it. I guess in multiplayer it works but I play mostly single-player and Athena will not be able to recognize the gravity of 5 percent rule.

[Lares Privati]

The retreat pathing becomes extremely annoying when the beaten army returns to the province from which the attacker just came. Did they march through them?

Actually it did happen : Cato's 2 depleted legions were succesively defeated by Marc Antonius and managed to change hex, everytime it ran away in the hex M A was coming from. One of them (Syracuse) was under Pompeian's MC, but under the siege of a legion.

Yes, defeated armies can be slippery. And those one are not particularly specialised in guerilla warfare ! I know the slaves rebellions are going to be troublesome.

@ Hannibal Barca _ About those "encirclement tactics" you are talking about, the one used in Cannae shine in all its simplicity and genius but it looks like those tactics were very difficult to synchronise before the invention of radio-telecommunication !

I just read the wiki page about The Seven Days Battles and I see that even a millenary later, a brilliant general could have troubles with those tacics.

[ArmChairGeneral]

but it looks like those tactics were very difficult to synchronise before the invention of radio-telecommunication !

Exactly. The main difference under the 0% rule is that full military control is not a guaranteed retreat-blocker, it takes actual elements or forts to fully prevent retreat. This is not so much a limitation of the engine, but a minor nerf to the value of MC that has remained consistent in AGEOD games across many titles (although they continue to report the wrong value in the manuals for some reason). It is somewhat unrealistic to think that having had some cavalry in a region two months ago would prevent 20,000 men from moving into a region if they needed to. Having 95+% MC still blocks supply, and still forces them to move into the region in offensive posture, slowing cohesion and hit recovery, and so is still an important factor to success.

This changes the tactics somewhat, but destroying large stacks is still very possible. Rather than disperse, surrounding with MC to block and pin defeated forces, instead use two (or three if you have enough troops) stacks, one larger and one smaller, to herd them into bad terrain and away from supply and wear them down with attrition, lack of supply and repeated attacks. It is not always easy to make happen and can take several turns:

Determine in advance which hex you think they will retreat to, and where you would rather that they go. If the likely retreat hex has a structure, try to get one of your stacks inside so they do not abandon the region allowing the retreaters to take supply and cover. If you can't prevent the move, plan ahead: force a minor skirmish there to keep them weak or occupy the next region along their retreat path to block supply.

Logically, forces on the move are very likely to retreat to the hex they originated from, since that is the way they are facing once they turn around and start running. If they are stationary, then logically, they are interested in retreating to regions with structures (for supply and cover) whether they own them or not, and become less interested in moving to regions the more enemy elements that are present. They will want to avoid regions with few exits (peninsulas) if they can. (Also use these facts and */B and */G postures to pre-plan your own fighting retreats.)

Attackers on the move are usually coming from a region that has a supply generating structure and will retreat back towards it, making them difficult to trap and wear down. If a large force can retreat into an adequately supplied friendly structure they will quickly recover hits, cohesion and supply while having cover from attrition, and you will have to settle for the hits they took from their failed attack. Stationary forces are easier to force into "bad" retreat decisions by having the exit covered.

Herd the retreater into the worst terrain with the least supply possible, away from their supply structures and away from potential cover; allow attrition and cohesion losses to do their work. Maneuver them into regions bounded by seas or strongly held forts so they have nowhere good to retreat to. Give offerings to the gods, beseeching them for mud or snow.

Keep attacking them as often as possible in O/B for your larger stack and in O/G posture with the smaller (the retreater is likely to be in passive, you need to force combat) from regions that have structures so that you will retreat and then recover from battle more quickly than the enemy, who remains in the open. Well-led but weaker forces in O/G posture normally force combat (slowing the retreater's cohesion and hit recovery and using ammo) but withdraw with an acceptable number of hits compared to the benefits gained by forcing engagement. Both of your stacks will need some cavalry; your larger stack needs the ability to find and pursue, while your smaller stack needs to be able to disengage from combat effectively.

Eventually they will run low on supply, be behind in cohesion and hits, will have nowhere good to retreat, and you can eventually set your large, well-rested stack to O/O and destroy most if not all of it. It will take a several turns and a lot of effort and careful planning and maneuver,to get to this point but it is worth it: destroying large stacks wins scenarios.

Even if they manage to escape with half their force intact, it will take many turns for them to regroup, while you are free to seize the strongest positions or advance to press home the advantage.

Forcing smaller or large but severely weakened forces into isolated structures can lead to successful siege or siege/assault situations of the normal kind. If supply generated in the region is inadequate and they are unable to fully resupply supply by wagon, elements will be unable to draw replacements even when not besieged.

Cornering is decisive when successfully carried out against large stacks. Those pesky small stacks are often not worth committing all of the resources it will take to successfully eliminate them, plus they are often hard to force to battle, making you chase them all over. You will simply have to garrison your rear against those guys.

The results vaalen describes are not impossible, although it is not MC that makes them possible. Sometimes, because you have large enough stacks with a big enough cav advantage, or strongly held forts, ZOC comes into play and prevents retreat into those regions, leaving the enemy with nowhere to go, allowing you to overwhelm it all at once old-school. This is a less consistently available method than herding them away from supply and cover and wearing them down. Establishing ZOC is difficult and largely structure dependent, making destroying large forces MORE dependent on the map than if you could block with MC alone.

Sometimes you can build a structure via RGD that can help with either herding or establishing a ZOC where you want it. Forts don't guarantee ZOC by themselves, you still need troops there.

[ArmChairGeneral]

The retreat pathing becomes extremely annoying when the beaten army returns to the province from which the attacker just came. Did they march through them?

This is totally a understandable perspective, and the only way to justify the behavior is to wave your hands and invoke abstraction or hex size, while taking comfort in the fact that your own generals will be smart enough to head for the largest least-defended structure instead of heading off to starve and freeze on a snowy mountain vacation.

To discourage this kind of non-sense from the retreat mechanism (all retreat decisions occur in resolution and are out of the player or AI's direct control, PBeM included) leave some units behind in the structure you are attacking from; the retreater will be less likely to want to go there, and even if it does it won't accomplish anything. Alternatively you can use this behavior to lay a trap: since you know it is likely to head toward the region with the biggest structures, you can lie in wait in defensive posture outside the the structure, knowing that if you have full MC they will be forced to attack while weakened, losing even more cohesion and ammo.

The retreat algorithm's biggest weakness IMO is that it can only choose from adjacent regions, so does not consider the big picture, retreating east toward an occupied enemy level two city when it there is a friendly and well defended depot two hexes to the west. If the algorithm were going to be beefed up with some type of consideration of MC (but short of outright blocking, which is unrealistic without the presence of units) it should probably take loyalty into account somehow as well.

It's not the perfect system, and sometimes produces weird results, but once you get the hang of how it DOES decide things, the tactical picture becomes much easier to understand and manipulate to get the results you are looking for (the complete destruction of your enemies!).

As an aside, as far as I can tell, terrain has little effect on the retreat decision aside from the fact that movement costs mean that late battles can result in a retreat that does not reach its destination in the remaining time, and so it "stays" in the battle region. In this case, it has still burned cohesion trying to march, even though it doesn't get anywhere, as you have surely noticed when this has happened to you. The replay animates it trying to leave, so you can see where it wants to go. Left to its own devices it will finish the move on the next turn; it no longer HAS to move there, and if it is yours you can redirect it, but movement time to that region is shorter than any other region since it is already part-way there. This behavior is easy to confuse with stalemates, where neither side is forced to retreat.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Sorry for the long posts.

Short answer:
It is very rare that you can bring large enemy stack to battle and defeat them on one turn unless the opponent makes a mistake with respect to posture or structures. Cannae etc., are possible, but a competent player will not repeat the mistakes of history, and nor should the AI. Play around with trying to force them into "bad" retreats. This is the surest way to victory, but it takes several turns. It may not feel as satisfying as a crushing one-turn victory, but succeeding against a large stack will clear the field and win the scenario almost every time.

[hannibal_barca]

Thank you armchair for the very detailed responses

[ArmChairGeneral]

Hope it helps!

Don't know if you play any of the other games or not, but the basic idea is the same in all of them. AJE/BOR has fewer units on the map for the most part, so herding and trapping is more of a tactical challenge. If you can pull this off at least sometimes here, it will seem very easy to accomplish in the other games.

[ess1]

I would like - and think perfectly within the period tactics - to be able to attack a force with a move taking, say 15 days, then arrange an order for arrival on, say day 15+. As turns are 30 days, is this doable? So far I haven't been able to.

[Jagger2013]

I haven't been able to figure out what o/b, o/g, o/o, */b and *g stand for in Armchairs post. I assume those are all postures. I guess o stands for offensive but no idea about the rest. They don't seem to match with secondary posture options. Anybody know what they stand for?

[ArmChairGeneral]

ess1,
I think you are asking if you can delay your movement order so you arrive later in the turn, and this unfortunately is not possible AFAIK (if it is I want to know how as well).

Jagger2013,

Posture button color/Rule of Engagement button color.

In AJE the posture is the left column of the orders buttons, the rule of engagement is the right of the two columns.

O/O = Orange/Orange or offensive/normal. O/B = Orange/Blue or offensive/conservative-attack. B/O= Blue/Orange, or defensive/normal B/B = defensive/defend-and-retreat.

The * means any, so */B= any posture/Blue button ROE.

Using the colors is more clear since the ROE names in the tooltips (but not their effects) change depending which posture you are in.

*g was a typo, should be */G = any posture/green ROE button.

[aariediger]

The retreat pathing becomes extremely annoying when the beaten army returns to the province from which the attacker just came. Did they march through them?

I had this same problem in AACW, and asked about it on the forum. My issue was attacking a force that was on a peninsula, with only one escape route (where my army was) with 100% military control. I did leave part of my army behind, and it did no good. I attacked, and they 'retreated' through me, into my rear, and now I was the one cutoff from supply. This is just unacceptable, and what I learned was the only way to prevent it was to change the MC rule back to some non-zero number. I went with 5%, but even 1% can do the job. I understand the AI might not be able to handle it, but it is a must for PBEM (in my opinion.)

It makes people think twice before doing risky things. Further, you can avoid losing entire armies simply by throwing cavalry all around your army in the adjacent hexes. If the enemy manages to defeat all those cavalry, once again giving him 100% control entirely around you, then in my opinion, you shouldn't be allowed to retreat.

Here's a quote from that thread:

The game I was thinking of is Hannibal: Rome versus Carthage, a spectacular game in its own right. It has a point-to-point movement system that resembles the way we move in this game. All of the points in the game can contain a Political Control marker from either side. After a battle, the loser must retreat to a space that their side controls. Every space they travel through that isn’t friendly they lose a unit. If you have to go more than four spaces, the entire force is captured. Also, if the attacker loses he must first retreat to the space he came from, if the defender loses, they cannot retreat into the space the attacker came from. Those are four sentences that explain the retreat rules in that game. Why can’t we have a system that is as simple and works as well as this one?

[ess1]

ArmChairGeneral
Thanks for info. That's a pity as I think it realistic to be able to do so.
Presumably too difficult/low priority.