Retreat and Surrenandlder

[poobah_1]

So I have a question and I am a huge newb to the game and the forum. I have played many other wargames, both computer and the older hex bookcase games so I am not totally new to the grognard genre....that being said.

How is retreat and surrender handled in the game?

I have pressed and beaten in battles where the opposing army is backed up to the ocean or a river with no exits and the opposing army just retreats across it or across mobile bay or even the Mississippi.

Now I know abstraction is needed in theses game, but maneuver and positioning are fundamental to any game at any scale.

Trapping your an opposing army and giving them no option but surrender is key. The very basis of warfare is maneuver and execution of a battle plan. If the game makes the basis underlying principle of all tactical warfare mute, then the game is not legitimate.

A.S. Johnson risked his army in order to pinch grant between his army and the river before Buell could arrive. The objetive was to destroy grant, not to only win the field. Bragg won the field at Chickamauga but lost the west when he failed to force Rosecrans to surrender.

Now maybe this is a bug, but if you win a battle, and a river is to your back. You cannot retreat, you either die or surrender.

Again, maybe I am wrong, but I have seen countless examples of stacks retreating across major river. This has to be addressed.

Just my opinion.

PooBah

[Durk]

Sometimes I think the rule is that retreat of forces is to the most annoying and impossible place you can imagine. But that is me at times of frustration.
Just like in the actual Civil War, battles of annihilation are very rare. What? One time? As long as a region with some control exists in potential areas, retreat happens.
Think of Lee at Antietam, river at back ,retreated.
Rivers are not an obstacle to retreat, they are better as a barrier to attack.

[GraniteStater]

A good point, but, for the most part, even navigable rivers are not insuperable barriers in the game. Not that it can't happen, it can, but most of the time, it has to be something like the lower James, Chesapeake Bay, or perhaps Mobile Bay. If you examine the boundaries of the navigable water Regions, you see the boundaries are not congruent with the corresponding boundaries of the neighboring land Regions - so there's more than one cross-water route.

One way to accomplish what you want in this case is to park four or more naval elements along the desired stretch (non-transports). That denies crossings.

I do take these into account, myself, when maneuvering - it can become relevant in the retreat algorithm - but, absent a naval force, they are not insuperable barriers to retreat.

Welcome to the forum. Hope you don't find the retreat mechanism discouraging.

[poobah_1]

Thanks for the replies.

I didn't mean to sound to harsh, it was late...

While a few good points are brought up. I have to vehemently disagree on some of the points.

I am more talking about when pressed at a river backing, surrender would be the most likely outcome.

any there where many...many....many surrenders.

Donelson, Vicksburg, practically every city and city garrison on Sherman's march. Of course Chickamaugua, Shiloh, Antietam, Chattanooga, all where defined the rivers. ( you brought up a good point about antietam, but that battle was considered a draw because the Union didn't pursue, if they did, Lee might have lost his army.) by Rather than face annihilation, the opposing army surrenders.

My point is the whole point of maneuver at this level is to FORCE the battle of annihilation. To give your enemy army no chance of retreat and the fight the battle that would be decisive.

And I would tweak the routing/retreat algorithm that if an element is routing into a river, that it either surrenders or suffers massive losses.

Just my two cents, and I love the game BTW!!

Poobah

[havi]

Hello. In my pbem against GS he made amphious assault to little rock where I had 2divisoins waiting and the result was I wiped out his 10000men strong corps they all surrended only what was left of that expedition forces was cannons and suply what I didn't got. So there is possibility that the army's surrender when they r in hard position. And welcome to the forum

[GraniteStater]

Thanks for the replies.

I didn't mean to sound to harsh, it was late...

While a few good points are brought up. I have to vehemently disagree on some of the points.

I am more talking about when pressed at a river backing, surrender would be the most likely outcome.

any there where many...many....many surrenders.

Donelson, Vicksburg, practically every city and city garrison on Sherman's march. Of course Chickamaugua, Shiloh, Antietam, Chattanooga, all where defined the rivers. ( you brought up a good point about antietam, but that battle was considered a draw because the Union didn't pursue, if they did, Lee might have lost his army.) by Rather than face annihilation, the opposing army surrenders.

My point is the whole point of maneuver at this level is to FORCE the battle of annihilation. To give your enemy army no chance of retreat and the fight the battle that would be decisive.

And I would tweak the routing/retreat algorithm that if an element is routing into a river, that it either surrenders or suffers massive losses.

Just my two cents, and I love the game BTW!!

Poobah

I more than halfway agree with you, but, as you play more, you'll see that there are 'inconvenient' positions. Maybe not total annihilation in one Turn, but, a severe drop in Cohesion leads to Very Bad Things. You move slower (can't get away), your fighting ability drops, and Supplies are a Big Deal. Getting severely thumped when you've stuck your neck out can, indeed, lead to annihilation. Believe me, I know, I learned to play, particularly in PbeM, by getting squashed by good players.

The opportunities are there - just play more, you'll see. Then you'll get into PbeMs and abandon your life entirely.

[Pocus]

Since some ACW1 patch, a long time ago, it was decided that even with 0% control you could retreat through a region. The game engine can prevent that, but this was a decision made conscientiously with the betas.

[poobah_1]

Thanks for the reply Pocus and others.

Here are my issue with that.

1) It violates the laws of physics. hehe...just kidding. But to be serious, while abstraction is needed for game flow and such, here is a situation where it is NOT needed. Pocus, you mentioned the engine could stop it, but made the decision to allow. So thus the only logical reason for allowing a corp or army sized unit to float magically over mobile bay with no boats, with all there equipment, horses, cannons, ammo, food etc. Is for .....Balancing?
2) It violates the basic tenets of warfare and wargaming. Here is my main beef. All strategic wargames from Chess to Risk to CW2 are built upon the premise of using fire(combat) and maneuver to position your armies into a situation where the "final" battle takes place. Sun Tzu called this "Fatal Terrain". All warfare is based on the premise that one must force the enemy into a place where he/she must fight or die(surrender). Allow escape where there is none, violates all of this

Here is my solution - ( i don't think it's right to just bitch and moan without offering something that other people can then throw darts at and call me out as well)

1) Disallow retreats across
a) Mobile Bay
b) Chesapeak Bay
c) Mississippi River South of Cairo
d) Tennesee River - Evans ford to Cairo
An exception could be made if a harbor is present and transport ships are present. But only for retreating unit - not routing units.
2) If Retreat has been disallowed - surrender would be used - The general would be removed from play ...the unit out of the force pool for one year for the CSA and six months for Union.
3) If transport ships are present - the only up to the transport capacity could be used and they would have to fight there way out vs. artillery and any ships on the water if partial blockade. If enemy ships are there, then they fight, if they sink, the units being transported are lost.

So that is my two cents. and its only my opinion, Try it out, lets playtest it in a an RC....Its a great game no matter what....

PooBah

[tripax]

The first two from that list can be achieved simply within the constructs and code that now exists, and could be done in a RC or a mod.

The first can be achieved by increasing the cohesion loss from a battle, especially losing a battle. This would make it much harder to retreat across wide expanses of water (retreating forces with no cohesion are more often gobbled up). It might be necessary to change the retreat direction calculation a so that it is relatively more likely that retreat will be attempted in a non-water direction. Increasing cohesion loss from battle and decreasing cohesion loss from movement has been requested and was a part of some mods I've seen.

Increasing the frequency and duration of generals wounded when they lose a battle (which equates to capture) goes some way to covering your second point.

I don't know if using nearby transports to retreat is a thing, even for coastal invasion forces, so I'm not sure how 3 could be done right now (it could be added, but not in a simple mod as I can see it).