Nothing but Battle Stuff Thread

[GraniteStater]

Clarification: Elements get an icon [on the BR].

Each icon is a "Brigade or Brigade equivalent" in Divisions or "Div equivalent", such as an integrated Leader & Brigade, i. e., something, usually commanded by a Leader, shown in a single row. These can be more than one element. A larger Supply Unit, for instance ( a Supply Wagon Unit with four elements) shows four wagon icons for four wagon elements, but that is a display issue. The icon for "So & So's Brigade" can represent more than one element; indeed, most often does, because most Brigades are more than one element.

IOW, mathematically, the mapping element -> icon is a function; the mapping icon -> element is not, for the latter can be mapped to more than one element and hence, in those cases is not, obviously, unique.

An icon can stand for more than one element. "Bde - equivalent" is inexact, for the Supply Wagons display all four elements in a larger Supply Wagon unit, but as an expression, is not entirely inapplicable. Also, integrated Cav or Arty in a Brigade is not shown, as far as I have observed.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Disambiguation:
Icon has multiple meanings depending on where it is, and there are lots of icons in the game that aren't even units at all, like the Ledger icon (button) or the blue Entrenchment icon on the Battle Report. An icon (picture of a soldier) on the map represents a Stack. An icon (picture of a soldier) in the Unit panel represents a unit, which could be a leader, a Division, a Brigade or a loose element like a Cav or artillery. An icon (picture of a soldier) in the Battle Report represents an element.

[ATTACH]27342[/ATTACH]
In the Unit Panel (shown along the bottom of the screenshot) each icon represents a Unit. Each of these gets a line in the Battle Report. Here we have a leader, three Divisions, a Brigade, a one-element Cav Unit and some one-element artillery Units.

In the Battle Report, each line represents a Unit, and each icon on the line represents an Element in that Unit. On the right is the Element Window for the 1st Brigade, you can see that each icon in the Battle Report corresponds to one of the elements listed.

I broke this brigade out of its Division to show how vulnerable they can be when loose in the stack. This one took 40 hits (the tooltip is covering part of the number) in line with what a full sized Division deals in a round. Check out the damage to the Divisions above it, they got targeted by Rebel Divisions too. The 1st Brigade only has three combat elements though, so each element had a lot of hits applied to it compared to the elements in the Divisions above it (artillery can take a few hit too, but not usually). Had the loose Cav Unit below it been targeted by one of the Divisions, it would have been destroyed.

[GraniteStater]

Not in the Divisional representations. Granted, I had nothing open, but look at your screenshot. How many times have you seen eighteen icons on the row? Me? Never.

And I've never seen arty or cav integrated as part of a bde shown as an icon. I rarely see artillery icons in Divisional rows and God knows, I try to put arty in my toothpaste: I often have individual atrillery batteries in Divs and rarely see an arty icon.

If you are asserting there is a one-to-one mapping of all elements to all icons, I must beg to differ.

I think the imperfections of the BR need to be addressed, not the design at the moment - I mean erroneous or incomplete information - which touches upon design, but what I mean is especially some of my recent experience.

Leaders WIA - no slash; all Bdes in his Div disappear - no message, no slashes, and the numbers displayed for S&C losses do not merit the wipeout.

And design - what happened to range? Also, I've been asking for an indicator on who started the action for years. Maybe it's redundant in some cases, but as a communicator - "redundancy is your friend."

Also, probably getting way OT, just the last few Turns, out inthe West Texas town of El Paso (well, it's environs) - I had engaged Sibley; won; go to scope the map out and he is nowhere to be found. No "Also here," nuttin'. Not in the neighborhood. I attack Baylor and Sibley shows up.

The UI and the back end are not entirely on a handshake basis. I had a fleet that vanished - probably sunk, but no Messages. I've had a Div just disappear, essentially, and the stats shown in the BR didn't indicate it should be - with no messages about the component Bdes (ah, 'components,' now there's a useful word when we want to define terms for units & stax & such), etc.

And now you have units you just forced to withdraw, no more than a Region away with Cav all over the place, not be displayed at all.

There are UI issues with the BR and in other places - not getting Messages would be UI, just to be clear.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Not in the Divisional representations. Granted, I had nothing open, but look at your screenshot. How many times have you seen eighteen icons on the row? Me? Never.

And I've never seen arty or cav integrated as part of a bde shown as an icon. I rarely see artillery icons in Divisional rows and God knows, I try to put arty in my toothpaste: I often have individual atrillery batteries in Divs and rarely see an arty icon.

If you are asserting there is a one-to-one mapping of all elements to all icons, I must beg to differ.

Yes, it is definitely 1 element per picture of a soldier. The report is only 9 elements wide, the second half of the Division is there but off the edge. Artillery are alway listed last, so in Divisions are off the edge of the screen. I agree that I would like to see them displayed, but they are in the battle. If you go to an individual round's BR page, you will see that the "Number of Friendly Units (Elements) Participating in this Round" matches what you would expect if you count the elements outside the margin.

Cav and Arty integrated in a Brigade (AKA mixed brigade): Look at the 1st Brigade, it is composed of two infantry, one Cav and one artillery element. Its line in the BR shows exactly that, two infantry, one Cav and one artillery icon. If you hover over a picture of a soldier, the name of the element pops-up, matching what the Element Window reports. In the screenshot, I am hovering over the first element , the 21st & 25th MO.

Also, probably getting way OT, just the last few Turns, out inthe West Texas town of El Paso (well, it's environs) - I had engaged Sibley; won; go to scope the map out and he is nowhere to be found. No "Also here," nuttin'. Not in the neighborhood. I attack Baylor and Sibley shows up.

It isn't too hard for the CSA to put together a stack that has a 3 Hide and high Evasion score in the FW, they start with veteran Cavalry. On top of that, it is a "small" stack, this could be WAD.

Don't know what to tell you about the disappearing Division. I have had Fleets "disappear" on me, usually from bombardments, but never a whole division. (The Pursuit Hits Message does not show if any elements were destroyed AFAIK, maybe that is the culprit?)

[GraniteStater]

RY took 'em PoW, apparently. So be warned again.

Look, I love the design, I love the game, but letting things like 'drop-off' parts of the display just go uncorrected...

it's hard to know just what the heck happened sometimes. I don't mind odd results, losing 'cuz I make bad moves, or getting pummeled outta nowhere so much - I just want a decent report.

I didn't expect the AACW screen again, but things like range - useful. Why was that dropped?

And again, yes, I know the Posture icon is displayed in the BR, but an indicator of who started the battle, who was the ostensible 'attacker' is something that's never been done. Some people might like it.

And seriously, the user community shouldn't have to be ACG to have some things displayed in a clear and informative manner.

[RebelYell]

RY took 'em PoW, apparently. So be warned again.

Look, I love the design, I love the game, but letting things like 'drop-off' parts of the display just go uncorrected...

it's hard to know just what the heck happened sometimes. I don't mind odd results, losing 'cuz I make bad moves, or getting pummeled outta nowhere so much - I just want a decent report.

I didn't expect the AACW screen again, but things like range - useful. Why was that dropped?

And again, yes, I know the Posture icon is displayed in the BR, but an indicator of who started the battle, who was the ostensible 'attacker' is something that's never been done. Some people might like it.

And seriously, the user community shouldn't have to be ACG to have some things displayed in a clear and informative manner.

I agree that this would be a good point in game development to give some work for the battle report.

[ArmChairGeneral]

RY took 'em PoW, apparently.

What does PoW mean?

[GraniteStater]

Prisoner of War.

And BTW ACG, thanks for the patient re-explanation.

And man, how Sibley could hide with Cav crawlin' all over the Rio Grande basin and several altercations, to boot...CSA Hiding is the stuff of legend. Guess I'll have to make further efforts.

And speaking of which, slightly OT, but if CSA Hide is so darn good, then (I've defintely noticed even when large stacks are nose to nose, Region to Region, that that a whole CSA Corps can be a blank) Union integrated Cav ain't what might be desired. I know I've had stacks with four Cav elements or more and the neighbor's shades are drawn tight.

I'm starting to think for real scouting, you need to take some risks and use Cav detachments - ya gotta stick the ponies in there, or at least next to. I have been, for a little while, now - I've almost given up on so-called scouting by integrated Cav.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Aha, thanks!

[Gray Fox]

If a stack crosses a major river and fights a battle, its like an amphibious assault, win or be totally destroyed.

If a stack has no retreat, then it is also totally destroyed.

The failure to cross the river and no line of retreat may be treated as cases involving movement and thus are not listed on a battle report.

A naval stack destroyed by shore battery fire while moving certainly would be this case.

If a leader is with a stack that is destroyed, sometimes the leader survives and ends up locked in the nearest friendly city for several turns until his wounds heal. This may be the case with Sibley.

[GraniteStater]

If a stack crosses a major river and fights a battle, its like an amphibious assault, win or be totally destroyed.

If a stack has no retreat, then it is also totally destroyed.

The failure to cross the river and no line of retreat may be treated as cases involving movement and thus are not listed on a battle report.

A naval stack destroyed by shore battery fire while moving certainly would be this case.

If a leader is with a stack that is destroyed, sometimes the leader survives and ends up locked in the nearest friendly city for several turns until his wounds heal. This may be the case with Sibley.

Sir, what are trying to say here? Slow down, give some context; a series of statements on their own is unclear as to your meaning.

And the first statement is not absolutely true, afaik. IIRC, I have, regretfully, crossed navigable rivers and been defeated and not destroyed. Darn near, but not wiped out. As usual, could be wrong, but I tend to remember the disasters, for I want to know why they happened.

[ArmChairGeneral]

GS said,

I'm starting to think for real scouting, you need to take some risks and use Cav detachments - ya gotta stick the ponies in there, or at least next to. I have been, for a little while, now - I've almost given up on so-called scouting by integrated Cav.

Agreed, integrated Cav don't really accomplish what I think of as "scouting." Their detection is good, but a lot of advantages that Cav get, like high evasion, speed, etc. are negated by the rest of the stack. A 5 detection can only give you good info on adjacent regions; by the time an enemy is right next to your 5 Detection Division or Corps, detailed intel is often too late to be useful.

I use Cav in divisions more for their Patrol and Pursuit effects. A single 5 Detection Cav element gives the whole stack 5 Detection, so intel quality does not increase with more Cav. But, the more Cav you have the better you can force enemy stacks into combat (especially useful against defeated G/G stacks or wandering units). Of course, stacks with Cav in them survive lost battles better and inflict Pursuit damage when you win.

The Cavalryman trait is a BIG combat bonus, it makes Cav pretty darned good in combat. Consequently, I try to keep one in the stack with the most Combat Cav. Sometimes I concentrate all my scouts back into this stack (putting them inside divisions, not as loose units) before a battle to maximize the number of elements getting the bonus and to increase pursuit hits.

I am constantly moving cav elements and brigades in and out of my Combat Cav Divisions, retasking them as needed. Corps combat performance does not seem to differ much between having cav concentrated in one Division or spread out into several, so I tend to keep most loose Cav elements combined into a "Cavalry Division" to minimize the number of Divisions I need to unzip when I want them for something else.

I like to organize scouting stacks into Divisions when able, because individual Cav elements are safer in larger units. This is not always possible, depending on the leadership situation, which is OK, a division can be worse in some ways (CPs, inactivity, speed). If I only had one Cav leader, I would use him in a Corps rather than a scout stack, where his bonus will do the most good toward winning VPs and NM. In a pinch, I use 4 Strategic Rating non-Cavalryman to lead Scout Divisions (no 3-1-1s, you don't want scout stacks fixed in place).

The stats of your cavalry elements vary: Conscript Cav have only 4 Detect, for example, and Hide and Evasion differ as well. Cav benefit a lot from experience stars and upgrades, since those give bonuses to scout skills like Evade, Patrol or Evasion. I make a point of putting my worst Cav into combat divisions and my veteran Cav into scouting stacks to take advantage of their better "stealth."

Sometimes I leave Horse Artillery at home when scouting, since they have poor Hide and Evasion values compared to the veteran Cav they would be stacked with. (A stack uses the worst Hide value among its elements.) HA help scout stacks a lot in case of combat, but if the combat could have been avoided....

[ArmChairGeneral]

I have, regretfully, crossed navigable rivers and been defeated and not destroyed. Darn near, but not wiped out.

Sometimes the enemy can't sustain the fight to finish you off, even though you are unable to retreat. This happens in my games a lot during amphibious attacks on Ft. Pillow and Isl. 10 (defending in the region). The Union's failed amphibious attacker cannot withdraw, but I am not big enough to deliver the death blow, and they are still in the region next turn in G/G. (Island 10 is swamp though, so maybe they just can't make it out of the region due to terrain.)

[GraniteStater]

I was responding to what I believed what a statement about a cross-river attack, particularly across a navigable river. When I read 'amphibious', I think of a landing.

[ArmChairGeneral]

Ah, I see, I was forgetting they are different. (Navigables aren't treated differently are they?)

[Gray Fox]

GS posted:
"I had engaged Sibley; won; go to scope the map out and he is nowhere to be found. No "Also here," nuttin'. Not in the neighborhood. I attack Baylor and Sibley shows up."

So I replied, if a leader is with a stack that is destroyed, sometimes the leader survives and ends up locked in the nearest friendly city for several turns until his wounds heal. This may be the case with Sibley.

GS posted:
"I had a fleet that vanished - probably sunk, but no Messages. I've had a Div just disappear, essentially, and the stats shown in the BR didn't indicate it should be"

To which I replied, if a stack crosses a major river and fights a battle, its like an amphibious assault, win or be totally destroyed.

If a stack has no retreat, then it is also totally destroyed.

The failure to cross the river and no line of retreat may be treated as cases involving movement and thus are not listed on a battle report.

A naval stack destroyed by shore battery fire while moving certainly would be this case.


Here's something else to bear in mind for cavalry scouting. If you have attrition in your game, cavalry scouts incur a lot of it. Hits are proportional to the cohesion cost of any move, plus weather and terrain hits. So if the scout moves out one turn and back when supply is out, the number of hits for a single scouting mission can add up. I prefer to have a cavalry screen. I have a front line region with a depot or supply unit and a defending stack. The regions next to it, and closer to the enemy, have a cavalry scout. The scout can draw supply from the stack depot/SU without moving and can spy into the next region(s) over.

[ArmChairGeneral]

If a stack crosses a major river and fights a battle, its like an amphibious assault, win or be totally destroyed.

Can anyone confirm that this is the case or whether it is simply a river-crossing combat penalty and the force can withdraw?

[Gray Fox]

This is the case. Cross a major river and either win or die.

Specifically, GS posted in another thread that he had crossed the river between Stafford and Fredericksburg and lost IIRC a corps. I lost a corps in AACW crossing to Tippahanock from the northern shore.

In the Wiki, river crossing and amphibious assault are both combined under one category for determining offensive fire value, but under withdrawal only amphibious assault is stated as fighting "to the last man". However, my experience in AACW was that a major river crossing was treated the same.

A major river in this case would be one navigible by ships.

[GraniteStater]

The river crossing to which you refer was mostly a result of having the entire ANV dogpile one Corps.

I think you can retreat across a navigable river - it might be hard, very hard, depending on circumstance, but I don't think it's impossible.

Lose an amphib assault (a 'landing') and there's nowhere to go - that might, by rule, be a total loss - although you never know, IIRC, in AACW, I saw instances where you could plop the units onto TPs, or even 'sideways' to a Region, although now we're getting into MC and such. Anyhow, a landing force being wiped out wouldn't bother me so much if that's an absolute rule - that's rational. Retreating across a navigable, yes, even a navigable river, shouldn't be prohibited absolutely, imo - after all, you did cross it, right? That's an abstraction of the vessels needed, so why can't the abstraction run both ways?

Extremely difficult, yes, but absolutely prohibited, no. Plus, there are some areas on the map that are more than just a navigable river - Mobile Bay, for one. Hampton Roads, arguably. Most of Chesapeake Bay. Any crossings at such places could well be considered landings, imo.

[GraniteStater]

And in the same context, when I landed at New Orleans against RY, I had Sailors in three out of four Divs. All Divs on the BR showed a landing penalty icon, however.

* Does having even one combat unit in the stack (not artillery) go without Sailors or Marines incur the penalty for all?

* If not, if it's 'per unit', then did I see merely a display error, or did I actually incur the penalty, in which latter case, the 'anti-penalty' mechanism is not working, then.

[Jim-NC]

I can tell you that I have seen 2 different river "landings" with 2 different results. In the first, a corps with 2 divisions sailed down the Mississippi, and landed in Memphis. The only problem was I had Polk's corps sitting there besieging the town (I think I had 4 divisions in the corps). The entire corps got wiped out after about 6 rounds. It looks like 5 generals were "wounded", and moved 1 region north, to hide in the town under protection of Wallace's corps. The 2nd time was I think a landing from ships (didn't see where the force came from otherwise) of a corps with 2 divisions (this was in Nashville). The only issue was I had Cheatham's division staging there. This time, the union took large losses, but was able to retreat from the battle, and ended up sitting outside Nashville, wounded, but still alive. The biggest difference I know of is that Polk's corps was bigger and had a division of cavalry (6 cavalry and 2 horse artillery I think) + 6 or 7 integrated cavalry. Whereas Cheatham's division only had 2 integrated cav regiments (they came as part of a mixed brigade).

So the enemy may try to retreat, but if it can't (fails the roll), then it fights to the death - which as this is a river landing, it is usually the attackers demise. I think the fact that I had all that cavalry in Polk's corps meant that I was able to catch the union boys as they kept trying to escape.

[bommerrang]

This is a very helpful discussion! I sure wish the designers had explained how the game works in more detail. Very frustrating in trying to figure it out. They make it like a riddle.

[GraniteStater]

Oh, it can be quite riddling at times - remember, though, we're still not even officially on 1.04 yet. Still...

(A) So, I'm approaching Mobile with a good sized Corps, fairly well equipped, some Wagons, ready to do business. G2 tells me that Mahone is holed up there with some iron breastworks, but only one Div. I had cut the RR into Mobile from the north. I enter the Region on O/G, s. t. like that; cautious - probably can't budge him with that entrenchment, but call it recon in force. I did not have a rational basis to fear overly much, afaics.

The engagement turns out to be with the garrison ( I swear I was on O/G), which I overwhelm. That's it for that Turn. Upon scoping it out Lotsa Bad Buddies are coming down from the north and even with a cut RR, time to withdraw and try again later - found out Mahone's strength, anyway.

Mahone then engages me, while I am on G/G and withdrawing (i. e., I am now in the Region, one Turn later) - but the BR shows me on Orange and I get walloped - by an inferior force with not that much special going on. Huh? I wasn't attacking the trenches! Needless to say, when JJ shows up with more guys, it's hurtin' time, but luckily, got out of the whole mess rather better than I had feared at one point.

(B) Keyes, another Corps, had assaulted Baton Rouge, held by a Div at about half my 850 Pwr strength. The Redoubt was breached, at least once, maybe only one hole. R/O - and Ouch!!! The besieged Div is at level 8 entrenchments??? Howzat work? As modelling, wouldn't it be kind of difficult to get to that level inside a town or city? Plus, the assault was fairly early on in the siege and he had no Engs, or anything special I could see. Level 8?? But, to top it off, after much patience and waiting, and eight breaches later, his Div is still at about 425 Pwr, about half mine. I decide to go R/G and see what happens.

They surrendered - not even a BR. I'll bet RebelYell was pretty ticked about that.

Just what the heck is going on? I don't mind some unpredictability and randomness, but I'm starting to lose any sense of appraisal or anticipation with which to plan.

[Jim-NC]

As to the Mobile situation, I would hazard a guess that it was 100% CSA MC. If that is the case, your troops will auto switch to offensive to attempt to gain MC. I think this may even happen if you are in passive.

As to the Baton Rouge situation, the redoubt is different from the trenches within the city. In certain instances, you can get a set of level 8 trenches. So even though the fort walls are breached, the troops inside have built trenches around the breach. The surrender roll is complex (to say the least), and independent of the level of trenches of the defender. It depends on the number of breaches, supply units (or lack thereof), and the quality? of the defenders. I think it's the quality.

Note - Below is from my experiences with PON.
Siege surrender - both sides roll a die, then add modifiers. If the attacker has a higher roll, +1 breach, if the defender has a higher roll, -1 breach (if tie, nothing happens). If enough breaches, and something else happens, surrender is a possibility. The surrender roll is against the defending troops ?quality? I think it is. A supply wagon ?with supplies? prevents the surrender, but forces another roll. So if you have a wagon, you get 2 rolls to surrender (you have to fail both rolls). Without a wagon, the defender only gets 1 roll.

I think it's the same (or at least very similar) for CW 2.

[RebelYell]

As to the Mobile situation, I would hazard a guess that it was 100% CSA MC. If that is the case, your troops will auto switch to offensive to attempt to gain MC. I think this may even happen if you are in passive.

As to the Baton Rouge situation, the redoubt is different from the trenches within the city. In certain instances, you can get a set of level 8 trenches. So even though the fort walls are breached, the troops inside have built trenches around the breach. The surrender roll is complex (to say the least), and independent of the level of trenches of the defender. It depends on the number of breaches, supply units (or lack thereof), and the quality? of the defenders. I think it's the quality.

Note - Below is from my experiences with PON.
Siege surrender - both sides roll a die, then add modifiers. If the attacker has a higher roll, +1 breach, if the defender has a higher roll, -1 breach (if tie, nothing happens). If enough breaches, and something else happens, surrender is a possibility. The surrender roll is against the defending troops ?quality? I think it is. A supply wagon ?with supplies? prevents the surrender, but forces another roll. So if you have a wagon, you get 2 rolls to surrender (you have to fail both rolls). Without a wagon, the defender only gets 1 roll.

I think it's the same (or at least very similar) for CW 2.

My theory what happened.

The auto garrison militias, bad dicipline and no supply wagon, surrendered.
I did not take them in my division, I did not need them even but they keep popping up if you include them in your division.
So I left them in a separate stack, mistake, should have kept them in the division stack.

If this is what happened it is a design oversight, a bug or my installation.

[GraniteStater]

As to the Mobile situation, I would hazard a guess that it was 100% CSA MC. If that is the case, your troops will auto switch to offensive to attempt to gain MC. I think this may even happen if you are in passive.

Entering, yes, you switch if oppo MC is too high. Maybe if you are already in the Region, and MC is still above a certain value, you still can't use G/G or other Postures. IOW, you don't get to withdraw in anything but Orange or Red - dunno for sure.

[Captain_Orso]

If your stack is in Passive Posture it will never automatically change to Offensive Posture when entering a region, even if that region has 100% enemy MC. You will also never gain any MC from a stack in PP in any region, regardless of enemy presence.

If there is a garrison inside a location (city/fort) within a region, you can only attack that garrison by going to Assault Posture. If you are moving you will only ever assault the garrison in the last region you are plotted to enter.

I'm not sure what happens if you plot a stack to move for more than one turn and your stack coincidentally ends it's first turn of movement in a region with a garrison inside that region's location, but I assume in that case you would also not assault the garrison as your stack is still moving, but I'm not sure.

You can "retreat" through any region regardless of the enemy MC, but "retreat" is only caused by losing a battle or through overwhelming enemy presence. You cannot voluntarily "retreat". If you plot a move, even if you are in PP it is a move and not "retreat" in game terms.

If you start a turn with a stack in a region with an enemy stack, you can set your stack to PP in order to not go to OP and attack the enemy stack(s), but it will not prevent the enemy from attack your stack.

A stack in PP will fight but at a disadvantage, but with a greater chance at breaking off a battle and being able to move away.

If you are trying to get out of a region with an enemy stack it is advisable to use the Avoid Combat Special Order, but you can only use this SO if the leader of your stack is activated (does not have a brownie).

[GraniteStater]

If your stack is in Passive Posture it will never automatically change to Offensive Posture when entering a region, even if that region has 100% enemy MC. You will also never gain any MC from a stack in PP in any region, regardless of enemy presence.

If there is a garrison inside a location (city/fort) within a region, you can only attack that garrison by going to Assault Posture. If you are moving you will only ever assault the garrison in the last region you are plotted to enter.

I'm not sure what happens if you plot a stack to move for more than one turn and your stack coincidentally ends it's first turn of movement in a region with a garrison inside that region's location, but I assume in that case you would also not assault the garrison as your stack is still moving, but I'm not sure.

You can "retreat" through any region regardless of the enemy MC, but "retreat" is only caused by losing a battle or through overwhelming enemy presence. You cannot voluntarily "retreat". If you plot a move, even if you are in PP it is a move and not "retreat" in game terms.

If you start a turn with a stack in a region with an enemy stack, you can set your stack to PP in order to not go to OP and attack the enemy stack(s), but it will not prevent the enemy from attack your stack.

A stack in PP will fight but at a disadvantage, but with a greater chance at breaking off a battle and being able to move away.

If you are trying to get out of a region with an enemy stack it is advisable to use the Avoid Combat Special Order, but you can only use this SO if the leader of your stack is activated (does not have a brownie).

If your stack is in Passive Posture it will never automatically change to Offensive Posture when entering a region, even if that region has 100% enemy MC.

This seems to be a direct contradiction of Received Wisdom. I have been under a very strong impression, from AACW & in CW2, that entering a Region with 100% oppo MC switches the stack over to Orange - whether 99% or lower MC does also I cannot recall.


If you start a turn with a stack in a region with an enemy stack, you can set your stack to PP in order to not go to OP and attack the enemy stack(s), but it will not prevent the enemy from attack your stack.

Yes, I know - this is the observation I was making - I was in the Region to start with, issued a Move command to get out and put it on G/G, Evade. Now, nothing's 100% and guaranteed in CW2, but the ensuing Battle Report showed me on Orange - in the BR screen, that is. That's my point, my question.

The other info & reminder about sieges - thank you, yeah, eight breaches might help the Surrender roll, thanks for the refresher.

[Jim-NC]

My theory what happened.

The auto garrison militias, bad dicipline and no supply wagon, surrendered.
I did not take them in my division, I did not need them even but they keep popping up if you include them in your division.
So I left them in a separate stack, mistake, should have kept them in the division stack.

If this is what happened it is a design oversight, a bug or my installation.

It is part of the design. It has been that way since PON (so I have known about it for approximately 2 years). I think the issue is that the engine picks 1 stack to check for surrender, and if that stack surrenders, everyone does. This means you need to keep all forces in 1 stack if possible. They (pop up garrison units) don't have to be in the division, but they do need to be in the stack with the division. That way the average of the stack is used for surrender calculations.

[Captain_Orso]

The minimum friendly NM in a region to prevent you from going to OP used to be 95% in AACW.

EG: If you march a stack in DP into a region in which you have between 95 and 100% MC, your stack will remain in DP. If in that region you have <95% MC your stack will automatically convert to OP as soon as it is inside the region.

Somebody pointed out that this is not the case anymore and I've tried it out and found it to be true. The rules have changed. What they are now, I don't know, but not what they were before. When exactly this change took place IDK.

I do know that during closed beta testing you could still march into a region with 100% enemy MC with a stack in PP and not have that stack change to OP. Whether that has recently changed IDK, but I don't think so.