Williamsburg surrender????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ajarnlance]

I am playing my first PBEM as the CSA. My opponent laid siege to Williamsburg for just 2-3 turns and now I am told my entire force has "surrendered"?? Is this a sick joke?? Or is it one of those ha, ha you should have known situations... school of hard knocks for the newbie?? I don't mind when something happens that is in the rules but I have not read of surrender happening like this ANYWHERE!!
I have attached a snapshot of the turn before. Magruder is in FULL SUPPLY, maximum entrenchment with orders to "hold at all costs". There is no breach in the walls and the replay shows no assault was made that turn. Why did he "surrender"???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????[ATTACH]31961[/ATTACH]

[havi]

I think there is surrender roll going on in sieges if u had a bad roll or something like that.?! And Watch out butler he is the bad one .

Icorrect <3

[ajarnlance]

I think there is surrender roll going on in sieges if u had a bad room or something like that.?! And Watch out butler he is the bad one .

Please explain "bad room"?? What does Butler do??

Just to reacp: My 500 combat power force is entrenched to the max inside a redoubt with no breaches, facing a 830 Union force under the command of that offensive genius Butler (sarcasm intended). I am at FULL SUPPLY with Magruder, a level 3 defensive general, who has orders to 'hold at all costs' and he simply gives up after 30 days of siege... you must be joking!!! This is the most ridiculous result I have yet encountered....
In the same turn I assault Louisville with a force of over 1000 combat power and the small garrison holds on.... why don't they surrender since their situation is obviously much more perilous than my strong force with plenty of artillery safely entrenched in a redoubt??

[Ace]

Can you post current game turn with backup 1. I would like to take a look at that.

[havi]

Sorry about fingilsh, but i read somewhere that u need depo and supllycart inside of your redoubt to last those sieges, and there is somekind surrender roll going on those sieges too. Orso or ace probably knows more on those.

[ajarnlance]

Here you go Ace. I appreciate you taking the time to look at this. I hope these are the correct files. [ATTACH]31962[/ATTACH][ATTACH]31963[/ATTACH][ATTACH]31964[/ATTACH][ATTACH]31965[/ATTACH]

[ajarnlance]

Sorry about fingilsh, but i read somewhere that u need depo and supllycart inside of your redoubt to last those sieges, and there is somekind surrender roll going on those sieges too. Orso or ace probably knows more on those.

I had a supply cart inside and supply was at FULL. Doesn't feel right... if they surrendered after a couple of months of facing huge odds I would understand... but not this...

[havi]

I will bet my nuts that u just had a bad roll on that... But if this help in Russia-Swedenfinland war in 1808 Russians took a strong fort outside of Helsinki just a couple of weeks and they didn't bombarded the fort hartly all, well they think the fort leader was bought but who knows.

[ajarnlance]

I will bet my nuts that u just had a bad roll on that... But if this help in Russia-Swedenfinland war in 1808 Russians took a strong fort outside of Helsinki just a couple of weeks and they didn't bombarded the fort hartly all, well they think the fort leader was bought but who knows.

In AJE there are bribery cards for sieges... but I don't know about this in CW...

[havi]

Did that happen in CW bribery it wasn't all for the cause? Well Finnish aristocracy has allways been corrupted, in that same year or was it in 1809 the finnswede army was still fighting against Russians when aristocrats where selling them selfs of czar in porvoo.

[ajarnlance]

Did that happen in CW bribery it wasn't all for the cause? Well Finnish aristocracy has allways been corrupted, in that same year or was it in 1809 the finnswede army was still fighting against Russians when aristocrats where selling them selfs of czar in porvoo.

That's the aristocracy for you... always thinking they are above the rules the rest of us live by.. I don't know of any bribes during sieges in the CW, maybe they tried but I don't think any were successful. Actually I think there were quite high standards of honour during that period in America... not like the US political system now...

[ajarnlance]

Can you post current game turn with backup 1. I would like to take a look at that.

Ace. I forgot to post how the turn played out for me. here it is. You have backup 1, this is how my turn played out. [ATTACH]31966[/ATTACH][ATTACH]31967[/ATTACH]

[Ace]

In the 1st post Magruder is not in the fort at all. He is trying to move away from it. He left locked conscript unit inside the city. Locked conscript against 250 PWr worth of cannons will surrender.

P.S.

I just saw you posted turn results, I'll take a look at that.

[tripax]

Did Butler intend to attack that turn? In my experience, if a general makes to attack and the besieged force is heavily outnumbered (and perhaps overcrowding in a structure plays a role, I'm not sure) the besieged force will be more likely to surrender (without a fight), even if they would have held out had the sieging general been content to wait.

[Ace]

I've looked at the second game post and two save games don't seem linked. In the second save game Magruder surrendered as if he was inside the fort. In the first save game (previous turn), he is outside the fort. I tried running the turn there and he had a battle, lost it and retreated towards Richmond, everything WAD there. Are you sure these are the actual orders of the previous turn, not alternate version of last turn orders?

[ajarnlance]

I've looked at the second game post and two save games don't seem linked. In the second save game Magruder surrendered as if he was inside the fort. In the first save game (previous turn), he is outside the fort. I tried running the turn there and he had a battle, lost it and retreated towards Richmond, everything WAD there. Are you sure these are the actual orders of the previous turn, not alternate version of last turn orders?

I did rerun the turn to see if the result was different by pulling Magruder out of Williamsburg. The files are probably all mixed up now... sorry I am not exactly a computer whizz. Still I am astounded that my well situated force with a clear path back to Richmond just 2 regions away would surrender so easily after just 2 turns of siege to a modest Union force. Imagine the disgrace for a southern commander surrendering so close to the Capital after suffering almost no losses, not being assaulted and being in perfect supply,,,

[ajarnlance]

Did you see the second set of files I sent? Maybe these files will help....[ATTACH]31968[/ATTACH]

[ajarnlance]

Did Butler intend to attack that turn? In my experience, if a general makes to attack and the besieged force is heavily outnumbered (and perhaps overcrowding in a structure plays a role, I'm not sure) the besieged force will be more likely to surrender (without a fight), even if they would have held out had the sieging general been content to wait.

No Butler did not attack. And my force is under the crowding limit and not heavily outnumbered... just don't understand why this happened...

[pgr]

I'll let Ace analyze the files. I'll say that if your stack is outside the structure, a retreat happen before a structure. If you were in the structure, then you where in a siege, and there would have been surrender roll. I'm not familiar with all the factors in the calculation, but a supply cart greatly reduces the chance of surrendering.... But it dosen't eliminate it. I bet you had an unlucky roll.

That said, as a general rule cities are traps and one tends to be better off outside than in...

[Captain_Orso]

Butler has no leaders or units with and siege or engineer abilities. The only things then with him that matter are: 1. his force is stronger, and 2. he has 122 offensive-fire-power from artillery.

Magruder has no leaders with engineer or fort-defender nor an engineering unit, but he does have a supply train and plenty of supply. The only other things with him that matter are: 1. his force is weaker, 2. he has 72 defensive-fire-power from artillery, and 3. he's intrenched in a redoubt at level 4.

In the GameLogic.opt file we find:
// ********************************************************
// ***** SIEGES *****
// ********************************************************

sieValueForSiegeBonus = 18 // How many Artillery Combat Pts needed to get a +1/-1 modifier to siege
sieOutcomeDiceRollSides = 12 // Sides of the Siege Outcome roll / compared to TQ/Discipline
sieWagonDepotProtectChance = 90 // Chance that a non empty depot/wagon protects against surrender
baseProdCoefLocked = 100 // Percent of base supply when under siege with port unblocked
sieExtraModifier = 0 // Extra Modifier (positive: help the besieger)
sieSurrenderModEndangered =- 3 // If structure breached, lack of supply and weaker than besieger, get this penalty to surrender

Magruder's Siege Roll Modifiers:

artillery: 72 / 18 = +4
Fort level 1: +1
sieSurrenderModEndangered -3 (see above)
Total +2


Butler's Siege Roll Modifiers:
artiller: 122 / 18 = 6.7777 = +6
Total +6

Average Discipline: I'm not sure how to calculate this. Magruder himself has Discipline 10, the artillery each have 7, but they're smaller than regiments. Just counting elements I get this:
Discipline ............ number-of-elements(including Magruder)
Discipline 10 * elements 2 = 20
Discipline 9 * elements 9 = 81
Discipline 7 * elements 5 = 35
Discipline 6 * elements 4 = 24
Discipline 5 * elements 5 = 25
Total elements 25
Total discipline 185
185 / 25 = 7.4 = 7 average discipline.

Each side roles a d12 (12 sided die) and modify this with their Siege Roll Modifiers. Subtract the defender's modified roll from the besieger's modified roll to get the SRV (Siege Roll Value).

Results:

SRV > defending units’ average discipline: Defender surrenders and all units are eliminated unless the defending force includes a supply wagon, in which case the result is ignored (90% of this according to "sieWagonDepotProtectChance = 90 // Chance that a non empty depot/wagon protects against surrender".

SRV >= 3 A breach is made. Cities and pre-war forts are breached after a single breach result while permanent fortifications require two breach results to be fully breached.

SRV > 0 5 hits are inflicted on the defenders for each point of SRV.

SRV < 0 The defender has managed to repair a breach.

Magruder's possible dr range is lowest 3 to highest 14

Buttler's possible dr range is lowest 7 to highest 18

So basically, just for determining a surrender, you can add the Magruder's force's average discipline to their dr and if the Butler's dr is greater, the Magruder's can surrender with a 10% chance.

Magruder's possible dr range with average discipline of 7 add is lowest 10 to highest 21

Buttler's possible dr range is lowest 7 to highest 18

I'm not about to calculate that exact probability of Butler attaining the SRV > average discipline, but it is obviously very possible, and the 10% chance of supply not preventing surrender, although small, is still there, and that is probably what happened.

References: http://www.ageod.net/aacwwiki/Manual:Siege_combat and http://www.ageod.net/agewiki/Sieges_and_breaches

[elxaime]

That said, as a general rule cities are traps and one tends to be better off outside than in...

Yes, and remember the biggest siege of the Civil War was Vicksburg and it lasted only six weeks (3 turns in game time). Vicksburg went under after the relief effort failed at the Battle of Champion's Hill. Many American Civil War generals seemed to regard sieges of the type that had occurred a few years before (1854-1855) at Sevastopol during the Crimean War (a siege which lasted one year) as being the new normal. But Sevastopol turned out to be the exception that proved the rule. Yes, you can delay and drag things out by submitting to sieges. But unless relieved, the besieged force will eventually surrender, assuming the besieger has truly cut the town off. You will lose the whole force to the prisoner of war pens.

Magruder, in this case, was doomed unless someone came to drive Butler off. Butler may be a terrible general, but entrenched defense is not that taxing to even one such as he.

[Ace]

I run the turn where you tried to pull Magruder out, I put him inside the fort, run the turn and got these results:

7:05:36 (Reporting) Starting CheckSiege
7:05:36 (Reporting) Siege in region Williamsburg, VA Besieger Value 13 BesiegedValue 6 Net result 10 Picked group TQ J. Magruder' Force 9
7:05:36 (Reporting) Fort John B. Magruder suffered a breach in Fort John B. Magruder current total of 1
7:05:36 (Reporting) Confederate States of America armies suffered 50 hits during the siege

I read these values like this. Union has 13*18=234 Pwr worth of cannons. CSA has 6*18=108 Pwr worth of cannons. This gives huge advantage to the besieger., +7 siege points. The rest is up to luck, in my case Butler rolled +3 dice over Magruder, earning him total of +10 siege points. If this number is bigger than Magruder average TQ-troop discipline (9 in this case), he will surrender unless he has full supply wagons. If he has full supply wagons, he has additional 90% chance to hold the siege with some serious hits (this happened in my test). In your case he surrendered. Bottom line is, sieges are traps (same as Ft Donelson). I put troops inside only to guard supply depots in my rear where the besieged force can be quickly relieved. Of course, if you have loads of artillery inside, they will hold on as long as you have enough supply inside. But if you have loads of artillery, you can test your chances in open field as well...

In historical Vicksburg case, CSA had loads of artillery inside, so they held out until out of supply...

[Captain_Orso]

Pocus!! can you explain "Siege in region Williamsburg, VA Besieger Value 13 BesiegedValue 6 Net result 10 Picked group TQ J. Magruder' Force 9"?

Also, please have a look at:
sieSurrenderModEndangered =- 3
This looks malformed.

Ace, that's was a good idea to run the turn and get the log messages, but I have the feeling that your analysis is way off the beaten track. You can count the offensive and defensive fire-power of each side's artillery. The Union only has 8 batteries and the South only 4.

Since the message uses some mamby-pamby terminology which is not used anywhere else that I can think of, and since I think I took everything into account which I could find in the Wiki and elsewhere, I can only guess that the Besieger and Besieged Values are the end results of each sides modified dr, because I can't think of anyway that they could be the modifiers unless there are a bunch not recorded in the Wiki.

[Ace]

I am aware that my analysis is not absolutely correct, but its close. Players don't have to know exact numbers. Rough understanding is enough im most cases. For everything else, it's Pocus time

Remember average Union battery is 50% stronger, so 8 union cannons would do the same damage as 12 confederate

[ajarnlance]

Thank you to Ace and Captain Orso for a very thorough detailed analysis. I never leave troops inside cities because they are traps. However, I was under the mistaken impression that a fort would give me better protection... or at least prolong the siege until I could lift it. The lesson I have learned here is to NEVER leave a force inside any structure. If Magruder had been entrenched outside I think he could have defended very well against this attack by Butler. I was just shocked because I have never had a surrender happen to me before. The Union now has a fort only 2 regions away from Richmond... a dagger at my throat, plus I have lost a good size force and taken the NM and VP hits. I don't think forts or redoubts are worth the effort (maybe on rivers to let artillery fire on ships)... entrenching is free and a lot less risky.

Do forts give an advantage for artillery in combat with ships/ river units?? Or will entrenching do just as well??

[Captain_Orso]

I am aware that my analysis is not absolutely correct, but its close. Players don't have to know exact numbers. Rough understanding is enough im most cases. For everything else, it's Pocus time

Remember average Union battery is 50% stronger, so 8 union cannons would do the same damage as 12 confederate

I didn't count the cannons, I added up their fire-power, which is what the Wiki says: "Artillery combat factors"

Just having a rough understanding is what got this thread started. That's why I'd like to have a more thorough understanding. I hate guessing, because it always leads to, "you know nothing, Captain Orso" and then I take an arrow in the leg

[Captain_Orso]

Thank you to Ace and Captain Orso for a very thorough detailed analysis. I never leave troops inside cities because they are traps. However, I was under the mistaken impression that a fort would give me better protection... or at least prolong the siege until I could lift it. The lesson I have learned here is to NEVER leave a force inside any structure. If Magruder had been entrenched outside I think he could have defended very well against this attack by Butler. I was just shocked because I have never had a surrender happen to me before. The Union now has a fort only 2 regions away from Richmond... a dagger at my throat, plus I have lost a good size force and taken the NM and VP hits. I don't think forts or redoubts are worth the effort (maybe on rivers to let artillery fire on ships)... entrenching is free and a lot less risky.

Forts and redoubts are speed bumps and not insurmountable wall. They do provide some protection against a siege, but if you are being bombarded, you cannot fight very well, and if you are inside a fort you cannot maneuver at all.

Aside from helping to stop enemy forces from just waltzing through a region, they also help maintain a foothold in the region.

Do forts give an advantage for artillery in combat with ships/ river units?? Or will entrenching do just as well??

At entrenchment level 3 you can press the Bombard Passing Ships SO button. Level 5 entrenchments are equal to a level 1 fort. What the entrenchments won't do is:
--Stay put if abandoned. If a very large force enters the region, a force inside entrenchment just might retreat, and you're entrenchment would go up in smoke. They won't if inside a fort.
--Bombard automatically. But as long as artillery is not commanded by an un-activated leader they may use the Bombard SO button, so almost the same.
--Draw supplies. Forts draw supplies so that you can almost use them the same as depots.
--Help replace losses. Forts will help replace losses--including entire elements--which otherwise can only take place in a depot region.

So in the right place and in the right situation, they most certainly are useful.

[tripax]

... Level 5 entrenchments are equal to a level 1 fort...

How much better is a force in a level 1 fort with level 5 entrenchments than a force outside of a fort with level 5 entrenchments?

[ajarnlance]

--Stay put if abandoned. If a very large force enters the region, a force inside entrenchment just might retreat, and you're entrenchment would go up in smoke. They won't if inside a fort.

Some good points "in defence" of forts I think i would rather lose the entrenchment fortifications than lose my entire army in a siege. Speaking of permanent entrenchments I notice that EAW are adding permanent trenches that can swap sides. While most of the WW1 trenches were more substantial than in the CW, I have just read in Shelby Foote's excellent account that in a battle outside Corinth the Union forces occupied the entrenchments that had been created by the rebels a few months before. So I wonder if this permanent trench feature should also be added to CW2, maybe for level 5 and higher?? Were there any other examples in the CW of troops using the other side's trenches?

[Captain_Orso]

How much better is a force in a level 1 fort with level 5 entrenchments than a force outside of a fort with level 5 entrenchments?

I can assure you I have no idea. We had a thread going not long ago about the affects of entrenchment on artillery defenders. I imagine the "entrenched" defenders inside a fort are better protected.