Can someone please explain this to me

[sabstah]

Hello,

Ok I understand that battles are random and can be lost sometimes for silly reasons... But I already reloaded 3 times and it still happens so there must be something I'm not getting...

Anyone has an idea why this is happening?

[ATTACH]27292[/ATTACH]

[RebelYell]

Hello,

Ok I understand that battles are random and can be lost sometimes for silly reasons... But I already reloaded 3 times and it still happens so there must be something I'm not getting...

Anyone has an idea why this is happening?

[ATTACH]27292[/ATTACH]

The enemy has another corp that seems to have also taken part in the battle.
Who was attacking?

[sabstah]

Me I guess, I was going from Indianopolis to Columbus with Gen. Johnston, but I'm in defensive mode.

[ArmChairGeneral]

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking, why you are "losing" the battle though you inflicted four times the hits? What were your orders? B/G (defend/withdraw early)? Maybe if you had Green ROE set ASJ withdrew as per your orders (although you would think the battle was "going his way" so he wouldn't keep trying to withdraw).

Your battle report screen looks different than mine. Where are the posture icons and the men/horses numbers in the top boxes next to ASJ and Doubleday (who BTW did not invent baseball)?

[sabstah]

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking, why you are "losing" the battle though you inflicted four times the hits? What were your orders? B/G (defend/withdraw early)? Maybe if you had Green ROE set ASJ withdrew as per your orders (although you would think the battle was "going his way" so he wouldn't keep trying to withdraw).

Your battle report screen looks different than mine. Where are the posture icons and the men/horses numbers in the top boxes next to ASJ and Doubleday (who BTW did not invent baseball)?

Not sure why you say "losing" under quotes. Losing means that I loose NM, cohesion, and that I cannot reach my destination and I'm being push back to Indianopolis. That's a complete defeat if you ask me. The fact that Union troops have huge losses is only a small relief... leure:

The orders of the army are defensive, standard posture. Johnston cannot attack this turn so I have no choice... I didn't give any order to retreat or anything. Just standard, defensive posture. I have twice their amount of troops (20.000 vs 10.000), morale is up, troops are experienced, general is good... and I loose. Any way I look at it I do not understand.

[ArmChairGeneral]

"Losing" refers to retreating from the battle, the line in the result window, "Confederate Defeat." You lost NM from this battle? I didn't see any elements destroyed on your side, which is how you normally lose NM.

By all rights this should have been a "Confederate Victory" from what I could see in the screenshots, and Mr. Baseball should have been the one to retreat, but other than not being able to advance into the region you wanted, it shouldn't have really hurt you much and you caused way more hits that the Union will have to spend replacements and time to recover. That is why I put "losing" in quotes, because even though it wasn't recorded as one,and you didn't advance to the region you wanted this looks like a pretty successful battle to me. Maybe a loss in seniority for your Generals (which should not have happened, because you in fact won the battle) but this is usually no big deal.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Unless you lost NM the fact that you "lost" this battle is trivial unless there was some critical reason you absolutely needed to go to Columbus on that turn. So, while it should have been recorded as a victory and Doubleday should have retreated, you came out WAY ahead. You would have still lost cohesion had you won, and it will recover quickly at Indianapolis anyway. Other than the need to go to Columbus again, I would count this as a success. ASJ's stack should be ready to fight again long before Doubleday is back in fighting shape, so the next battle should be even more lopsided unless the Union can reinforce.

Unless it hurt your overall strategic position somehow by not being able to occupy Columbus right away, the only important things are NM and hits delivered. Recovering from 120 hits is a big deal, that's six line infantry replacement chits, ~$125 and a bunch of conscript points. I would count this as a pretty big victory, even though the engine (whether incorrectly or because of some opaque rule) considered you the "loser." This happens some times, not sure why.

[sabstah]

Unless you lost NM the fact that you "lost" this battle is trivial unless there was some critical reason you absolutely needed to go to Columbus on that turn. So, while it should have been recorded as a victory and Doubleday should have retreated, you came out WAY ahead. You would have still lost cohesion had you won, and it will recover quickly at Indianapolis anyway. Other than the need to go to Columbus again, I would count this as a success. ASJ's stack should be ready to fight again long before Doubleday is back in fighting shape, so the next battle should be even more lopsided unless the Union can reinforce.

Unless it hurt your overall strategic position somehow by not being able to occupy Columbus right away, the only important things are NM and hits delivered. Recovering from 120 hits is a big deal, that's six line infantry replacement chits, ~$125 and a bunch of conscript points. I would count this as a pretty big victory, even though the engine (whether incorrectly or because of some opaque rule) considered you the "loser." This happens some times, not sure why.

Ok well you are right and it is more clear to me now (and I probably didn't lose NM), but it still annoys me that the game, as you say "whether incorrectly or because of some opaque rule" decides that I lose. Indeed I wanted to go to Columbus to defend against an incoming attack, hence why I kept trying. Well since then I changed tactics and gave up on Columbus anyway

Thanks for the explanation!

[Jim-NC]

When you say you had to be defensive, was that because Johnston was inactive? In looking at the screen shot, it appears that he is. This gives you a maulus, to your fighting. Also, I can't tell, but I believe you are attacking (you were forced to switch to offensive upon entering the region). I would guess that Johnston was inactive, and you had 0% MC of the region you were moving into. This would have hurt you a bit.

[ArmChairGeneral]

What's up with the missing Battle Report info? Did you just edit it out of your screenshot?

[sabstah]

What's up with the missing Battle Report info? Did you just edit it out of your screenshot?

So yes, Johnston was inactive, hence why he was on defensive mode. However the region where I wanted to go was Columbus, which I held, maybe not at 100%, but I did hold the city.

And the missing casulaties thing is because I'm looking at round 1.

[Jim-NC]

It's not the MC of the area you are going to that determines the switch, it's the area you are in when a battle is fought. You moved into an area with very little of no CSA MC, and Johnston was forced to switch to offensive while inactive. This causes your troops to fight with penalties.

The union was probably on hold at all costs. This means they try to ignore retreat rolls, but your force doesn't (as you used the standard value).

[soundoff]

It's not the MC of the area you are going to that determines the switch, it's the area you are in when a battle is fought. You moved into an area with very little of no CSA MC, and Johnston was forced to switch to offensive while inactive. This causes your troops to fight with penalties.

The union was probably on hold at all costs. This means they try to ignore retreat rolls, but your force doesn't (as you used the standard value).

Excellent observation and one I'd certain subscribe to.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Yup, I'll buy that for a dollar. Rule de-opaqued, thanks Jim-NC!

I have recently begun to appreciate the power of hold at all costs (B/R orders). It really cuts down on annoying retreats in closely contested defensive battles. In this case it held the field against sabstah's much larger force. I find it really helps in MTSG situations as well, since the original stack avoids withdrawing, giving a chance for support to arrive and engage for several rounds.

[GraniteStater]

Hey, dem's some good tactics right thar, I'd say.

Of course, there is a risk of being wiped out if overwhelmed.

[Mickey3D]

I have recently begun to appreciate the power of hold at all costs (B/R orders)

I appreciate it also but somehow I think it can become a little bit "gamey" when used too often : IRL you must have good reason to motivate your men to stand the ground at all cost.

[ArmChairGeneral]

I think of it rather as not being as eager to withdraw. If you don't have it set MTSG is far less effective, and sometimes gives you big losses in battles that you ought to win.

[Mickey3D]

[...]battles that you ought to win.

Well, if it comes to my opinion, I should win all the battles

If you can't stand the ground the time for MTSG to come into effect it means you are really understrengthed (if I remember well MTSG happens starting from the second round) and you deserve to loose (remember : Lee waited a complete day for A.P. Hill at Antietam...).

[ArmChairGeneral]

I don't need to win all the battles, just more of them .

I see your point, but I would think that if you have split your forces into two regions, then almost by definition either of them will be too small to fight against the size of stack that would attack a pair of Corps. MTSG is designed to allow splitting them into multiple regions. If it isn't effective because of awkward (and sometimes unwarranted) retreats when you use it, you would be better off concentrating in one stack instead, and then why have MTSG in the first place. MTSG combat results will always be inferior to how you would have done had everything been in the same stack in the first place, so MTSG is still a tradeoff.

The way I see it, in Orange (Normal) ROE, your leaders are more willing to retreat than the ROE implies. They often withdraw from strong defensive positions in battles they are winning when attackers have superior but not overwhelming numbers. Red ROE in the context of MTSG is saying "Hold the position, help is on the way."

I understand that your men will not stand around and get killed just because you told them to, but that is already modeled in several parts of the engine, and it is reasonable to think they could try to hold until relief arrives (Plus it's not like they won't retreat at all in Red ROE, it's just less likely.) For an historical example, Hancock/Howard did not leave the field at Gettysburg at the end of the first day, instead holding the artillery positions at Cemetery Hill and hoping for the rest of the Army to arrive.

Also, if you set Red ROE and your Corps fails to MTSG you can take big losses, so since there is downside risk, I don't think it is too gamey personally. Red-spamming will backfire in plenty of cases: withdrawing is often wise.

Of course gamey-ness is an individual judgement, and I certainly respect anyone playing however they think most appropriate and fun, I'm just trying to think through the implications (over-analysis is my favorite pastime).

[Mickey3D]

MTSG is designed to allow splitting them into multiple regions.

Each region of the game is covering a big area and at that time synchronization of forces was not easy (that's why corps synchronized movement is valid only for corps starting in the same region), so MTSG should not be considered as granted. Only great leader have a fair chance to use it.

The way I see it, in Orange (Normal) ROE, your leaders are more willing to retreat than the ROE implies. They often withdraw from strong defensive positions in battles they are winning when attackers have superior but not overwhelming numbers.

I see what you mean, it happens a few times to me but I don't have enough feedback to be sure it's a flaw in the game engine.

Red ROE in the context of MTSG is saying "Hold the position, help is on the way."

I understand that your men will not stand around and get killed just because you told them to, but that is already modeled in several parts of the engine, and it is reasonable to think they could try to hold until relief arrives (Plus it's not like they won't retreat at all in Red ROE, it's just less likely.) For an historical example, Hancock/Howard did not leave the field at Gettysburg at the end of the first day, instead holding the artillery positions at Cemetery Hill and hoping for the rest of the Army to arrive.

It would be interesting to know what is changing in battle resolution when Red ROE is used to know if your understanding is the right one.

Also, if you set Red ROE and your Corps fails to MTSG you can take big losses, so since there is downside risk, I don't think it is too gamey personally. Red-spamming will backfire in plenty of cases: withdrawing is often wise.

Your point is valid.

Of course gamey-ness is an individual judgement, and I certainly respect anyone playing however they think most appropriate and fun, I'm just trying to think through the implications

Until now I tried not to use it too often and never with the idea of allowing MTSG (in fact I never realized it was improving the chance of it happening) but sometimes there is position I don't want to loose (like the Rappahanock, New Orleans, ...) without heavy fighting.

(over-analysis is my favorite pastime).

After reading some of your messages I'm convinced of it I'm joking, you wrote very interesting posts and I'm really impressed by some of your analysis.

[GraniteStater]

Plus it's not like they won't retreat at all in Red ROE, it's just less likely.

Sorry, incorrect, I believe. HoldAAC prohibits retreating absolutely, IIRC - they can rout, but retreating is not allowed, if I have it right - tooltip and other sources, including the AACW manual, I believe.

[tripax]

I'm not sure the difference between RetreatWill and RetreatChance, but in the GameLogic.opt file in settings they are only set to zero for the first two rounds in defend at all costs. Certainly I've seen retreats when units are set to red.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Thanks for the kind words Mickey3D, even though I am a relatively new poster on the forums I have been reading your posts for years and hold your opinions and experience in high regard. I am not trying to say this is a flaw, just that Orange ROE leaders remain fairly willing to withdraw under certain conditions, and that if you want to be sure they stick around until MTSGers show up, then Red ROE is the better choice.

GS and tripax (who I also value ),

RetreatWill relates to the highest ranking commander in the battle (he could be an Army commander who is not physically present for the fight). He makes the decision to withdraw or not at the beginning of each round, but each stack must then actually disengage on its own. Retreat will is based on relative size of forces, casualties, cohesion, routed elements and other factors (I don't have a comprehensive list).

RetreatChance is the chance that a stack withdraws at the beginning of each round (once the overall commander has given the order order via RetreatWill). It is modified by strategic rating among other things (again no comprehensive list). As the rounds progress, the RetreatChance is modified downward because the formations are more and more entangled with the enemy, so a stack is more likely to succeed at their RetreatChance roll earlier in the battle than later, everything else being equal. (Pursuit damage also increases as rounds go by, based on the same logic.)

A stack can of course rout under any posture or ROE, but you have some control over when they try to make an orderly withdrawal. For a stack on it's lonesome, Orange or less are usually good choices since no-one is coming to its aid.

In the case of MTSG, one stack will always have to fight the first round alone. Even if you will eventually have superior numbers, the order to withdraw (based on RetreatWill) can be given before everyone has a chance to get there. If the top-leader orders withdrawal at the start of the second round (which is common because the initial stack is usually overmatched and takes a lot of hits in the first round because of long-range fire) then his MTSGers will either never arrive (the battle is already over or else they succeed in making their RetreatChance roll right away) or they arrive but the first stack is not there to fight and they will also be overmatched. Since the order to withdraw has already been given, the MTSGers will be attempting to withdraw at the start of each round, trying to leave even if they might otherwise have won. If you have MTSGers that make their RetreatChance roll, they go wherever the retreat algorithm sends them and not automatically back to their original region, so you can end up abandoning not just one but two good defensive positions.

So if I know that I am going to be attacked and I need MTSG forces to make a go of the battle, and I think the chances of MTSG are sufficiently high, Red ROE prevents the initial stack from trying to retreat at the beginning of the second round, instead waiting for support to arrive. Then everyone stays together, and there are hopefully sufficient troops on hand (if MTSG succeeds) to successfully fight the battle and hold the position.

[GraniteStater]

AFAI knew, from tooltips, etc., the program documentation, etc., stated unequivocally that "Units will not retreat" under B/R, but that "routing was possible."

That's all I can say.

Many here know more than I.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Can't say for sure GS, you may very well be right. I have definitely experienced retreats under Red ROE but those could have been routs: you can't tell if a retreat is orderly or not unless you look it up in the battlelog.

[tripax]

Thank you for the kind words, ArmChairGeneral. You mention that retreat chance declines across rounds. It looks like it actually stays the same or increases across rounds.

// Defensive Posture - First ROE (Defend at all cost)

roeRetreatWill4 = 000|000|030|040|050|050
roeRetreatChance4 = 000|000|050|050|075|075
roeCombatCoeffOwn4 = 110|110|110|110|110|110
roeCombatCoeffOpp4 = 110|110|110|110|110|110

[Mickey3D]

ArmChairGeneral, I'm completely amazed by the amount of knowledge you have on the battle engine . Are you going through all the details of the game log file ?

Very interesting tripax, I should look more often to the config files

[ArmChairGeneral]

Mickey3D,
Thanks, (I think?) yes, I have looked at a lot of battle logs, read both wikis (AACW and AGEWiki, which is more informative IMO though out of date) and sandboxed 100 or so Corps vs. Corps battles with an eye toward understanding the battle engine. The log file is cryptic and really long, so it doesn't always help (how initiative modifiers are applied are an example of where the log file is unclear).

tripax,
Nice catch, RetreatWill and RetreatChance increase not decrease by round. You are MORE likely to order (RetreatWill) and successfully retreat (RetreatChance) as the battle goes on. (Pursuit damage still increases slightly per round).

Based on the ROE percentages that tripax is quoting from the GameLogic files, it appears that Red ROE does allow retreat in later rounds.

[Gray Fox]

I have the manual in front of me and it states, "Hold at all costs: A stack will never attempt to retreat. Routing is still possible."

"Defend and Retreat: A stack attempts to withdraw from the battle beginning with the third combat round..." which seems to be the instructions in the passage from tripax's post. Could it be that the passage was labled incorrectly in the text but the programming part was actually for Defend and Retreat?

Then out spake brave Horatius, The Captain of the Gate:
'To every man upon this earth Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better/Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers, And the temples of his Gods?

[GraniteStater]

Here's an analogy from RL - mine, in fact.

I was a medic - on active duty, I was at a small post in MD & never in the field. After I was discharged, I joined a rifle company in Western Mass., the National Guard. Well, on our annual "two weeks," we were part of larger operations and I used to ask the old hands what we were doing occasionally. It may seem odd to ask this, but I was always with the mortar section, so that the CO knew where I was (the tubes didn't move much) and we moved only when we got orders. Most often, the answer was, "We're retreating." One time, I said, "How come we're always retreating?"

The sergeant gave a good answer. He said, "Well, in a certain sense, anyone can attack. The mark of a good outfit is being able to withdraw under pressure and keep good order. That's why we practice retreating more than attacking."

So, what I'm saying is that B/R should have a downside, the upside being an increased resilience when engaged early and in the first few rounds. But, if starting to get overwhelmed, then snap - and a certain loss of on-the-spot cohesion and order, cohesion and order you would have retained if you had stuck to B/O, B/B, or B/G.

Otherwise, why should the program make a distinction between the two states?

Also, look at it this way: B/G or G/G means that you're prepared to retreat - you're not going to be caught out and can retain Cohesion, mitigate losses, etc.

B/R can, and should, have its uses, as so well described by ACG. However, there should be a certain risk attached - and I believe there is.