Retreat Direction

[JBEtexas]

Hello!

Why do my CSA forces keep retreating in a northern direction when they lose a battle in the valley of northwest Virginia?
They seem to be retreating in the most dangerous direction and putting themselves between enemy forces with no safe way to return to safety!!!

What am I doing wrong?

[BBBD316]

JBEtexas,

There is a new beta patch that addresses this issue.

[pgr]

Yep, look to the improve the game sub forum.... 1.05RC1.... Although it is still in beta, so some kinks are being sorted out.

[ajarnlance]

Hello!

Why do my CSA forces keep retreating in a northern direction when they lose a battle in the valley of northwest Virginia?
They seem to be retreating in the most dangerous direction and putting themselves between enemy forces with no safe way to return to safety!!!

What am I doing wrong?

I hope they patch this behaviour in TEAW as well... I have observed the same thing... armies 'retreating' suicidally into the most dangerous regions when they have much better alternatives.

[Captain_Orso]

They've realized that folly of their ways and are deserting ....

jk


Seriously, you probably didn't do anything wrong. Starting with the 1.05RC1 engine there are a number of issues addressed with allowed the retreating stack to do some irrational things.

I would strongly recommend switching to the new patch level you can find here: Public Beta Patch 1.05 RC1.

Remember, you can always have multiple installations in different directories. You just have to move the saves between the correct directories under '..\My Documents\My Games\..' if you are not happy with the RC1 patch level.

[Jagger2013]

Seriously, you probably didn't do anything wrong. Starting with the 1.05RC1 engine there are a number of issues addressed with allowed the retreating stack to do some irrational things.

I am not sure it started with 1.05RC1 since the problem has been in every Ageod game I have played since BOA maybe 6-8 years ago. I certainly hope it is better but we shouldn't have too high expectations from an algorythm. Unfortunately, an algorythm sometimes provide results which miss what is clearly obvious to the rawest conscript. If there were some way to get the human involved in the decision, I suspect the problem would disappear.

[Captain_Orso]

They've realized that folly of their ways and are deserting ....

jk


Seriously, you probably didn't do anything wrong. Starting with the 1.05RC1 engine there are a number of issues addressed with allowed the retreating stack to do some irrational things.

I would strongly recommend switching to the new patch level you can find here: Public Beta Patch 1.05 RC1.

Remember, you can always have multiple installations in different directories. You just have to move the saves between the correct directories under '..\My Documents\My Games\..' if you are not happy with the RC1 patch level.

I have to clarify this. The "irrational" things had nothing to do with the direction of retreat. It had to do with what stacks were doing when they couldn't retreat out of the region. They were less irrational than unexpected and further analysis has been showing them to be rational, if you know why it's happening.

I am not sure it started with 1.05RC1 since the problem has been in every Ageod game I have played since BOA maybe 6-8 years ago. I certainly hope it is better but we shouldn't have too high expectations from an algorythm. Unfortunately, an algorythm sometimes provide results which miss what is clearly obvious to the rawest conscript. If there were some way to get the human involved in the decision, I suspect the problem would disappear.

The new algorithm, as far as I've seen is working more logically than the old, so fewer retreats into territory with low friendly MC, which is as it should be.

We will just have to learn to drop old bad habits of not allowing for a retreat path when attacking into enemy territory. Deep raids will not be so easy anymore.

[FelixZ]

We will just have to learn to drop old bad habits of not allowing for a retreat path when attacking into enemy territory. Deep raids will not be so easy anymore.

In other words, aggressive moves are more likely to be penalized.

Haven't we heard complaints about the lack of Union aggressiveness? Doesn't this encourage more Union hesitation?

[ohms_law]

Pdox makes a pretty good WWII game, FYI.

[BBBD316]

Well I have copied my steam version into a new folder and updated the non-steam version.

My saves are all still showing in the same place, despite me trying to move them.

Is this going to cause issues? I have one game on beta and 2 non-beta.

[Merlin]

As long as you know which game is which, it doesn't matter. I actually find it convenient for PBEM.

[Captain_Orso]

In other words, aggressive moves are more likely to be penalized.

Haven't we heard complaints about the lack of Union aggressiveness? Doesn't this encourage more Union hesitation?

If you would pay attention to more than just the catchphrases you would understanding what's going on.





No, it encourages the player to act in a far more rational manner.

It will also "encourage" the game to act more rationally by not retreating stacks deeper behind enemy lines and away from friendly forces and supplies.

The issue we have with a lack of initiative on the part of the Union player is that the Union player does not have the incentive to attack in 61 and 62. To be aggressive the Union player does not have to deep raid or lunge deep into Confederate territory; just make an effort and push forward as was expected of his real-world counterparts.

Rational play and aggressiveness should not be mutually exclusive in the game. If they are, the game if broken and should be fixed. This is one major step in that direction.

[ajarnlance]

If you would pay attention to more than just the catchphrases you would understanding what's going on.





No, it encourages the player to act in a far more rational manner.

It will also "encourage" the game to act more rationally by not retreating stacks deeper behind enemy lines and away from friendly forces and supplies.

The issue we have with a lack of initiative on the part of the Union player is that the Union player does not have the incentive to attack in 61 and 62. To be aggressive the Union player does not have to deep raid or lunge deep into Confederate territory; just make an effort and push forward as was expected of his real-world counterparts.

Rational play and aggressiveness should not be mutually exclusive in the game. If they are, the game if broken and should be fixed. This is one major step in that direction.

Cameron Diaz... what a hottie... would make a great PBEM partner... I agree... rational moves are to retreat to and not away from friendly territory and units.. hope this has been fixed... I'm updating to the new patch now...

[Gray Fox]

Your army marches into a region. An opposing army counter-marches into the same region. The opposing army is now between your army and your army's line of retreat (it's actually called the line of communications, since army commander's never think about retreating). Even though this cannot be portrayed on the game map, one stack may end up blocking retreat for the other stack in the same region and it's totally real world. So the soldiers of the unfortunate retreating stack may not be able to directly run home to Mommy. If the game engine is tweaked to prevent this random occurrence, then it would not be historical, IMHO.

[Captain_Orso]

The lines of communication are more-or-less represented by your MC in surrounding regions.

So in your example--I assume you meant the both armies started from different regions--both armies are now in the same region, only your army--being the invader--, except for the region from which it just came, is surrounded by enemy controlled region and it cannot advance further into any enemy controlled regions until it reduced the enemy ZOC in its current region by gaining substantial MC over the enemy in its current region.

You could however return to the region from which your army just came--assuming you had gained and maintained substantial MC in that region--, otherwise you will be locked in the current region.

[Barca]

That's a good point, Gray Fox, but I think the game should model this situation with loss of cohesion. As you say, "this cannot be portrayed on the game map."

If the enemy gets in your rear, your army loses cohesion (gets totally disorganized) trying to get back (obliquely) to its line of communications and to friendly territory. And it is extremely vulnerable until it can recover its cohesion. But it still makes every effort to retreat "backwards" toward Mommy, it doesn't march off into enemy territory where it will be even further from its bases and in even deeper supply problems. This is what JBEtexas was objecting to.

Let's take a real historical example: the aftermath of the Battle of Pea Ridge in March 1862. Van Dorn tried to march his (little) army into the rear of the opposing (little) Federal army commanded by Curtis. But Curtis was warned, redeployed to face the attack, and beat it off. And here is what happened next, quoting from The Battle Cry of Freedom by James M. McPherson, page 405:

"Next morning Van Dorn discovered that when you get in the enemy's rear, he is also in yours. Confederate troops had run short of ammunition but the Union army now stood between them and their ammunition wagons. Both armies concentrated near Elkhorn Tavern, where . . . seven thousand Union infantrymen swept forward in a picture-book charge led by Franz Sigel's division . . . The rebels turned tail and ran. It was . . . [an] inglorious rout . . . Van Dorn's forces scattered in every direction. It took nearly two weeks to reassemble them."

Clearly, CW2 models this sort of thing with the supply and cohesion rules -- Van Dorn's army goes down close to zero supply and zero cohesion, and it takes a long time to recover. But what Van Dorn's army didn't do -- and shouldn't do -- and would never have done -- is retreat north into Union-held Missouri instead of south into rebel-held Arkansas.

So I think that what Pocus is trying to do with the latest beta patch is right on target, I just hope he gets everything to work properly!

[Barca]

That's a good point, Gray Fox, but I think the game should model this situation with loss of cohesion. As you say, "this cannot be portrayed on the game map."

If the enemy gets in your rear, your army loses cohesion (gets totally disorganized) trying to get back (obliquely) to its line of communications and to friendly territory. And it is extremely vulnerable until it can recover its cohesion. But it still makes every effort to retreat "backwards" toward Mommy, it doesn't march off into enemy territory where it will be even further from its bases and in even deeper supply problems. This is what JBEtexas was objecting to.

Let's take a real historical example: the aftermath of the Battle of Pea Ridge in March 1862. Van Dorn tried to march his (little) army into the rear of the opposing (little) Federal army commanded by Curtis. But Curtis was warned, redeployed to face the attack, and beat it off. And here is what happened next, quoting from The Battle Cry of Freedom by James M. McPherson, page 405:

"Next morning Van Dorn discovered that when you get in the enemy's rear, he is also in yours. Confederate troops had run short of ammunition but the Union army now stood between them and their ammunition wagons. Both armies concentrated near Elkhorn Tavern, where . . . seven thousand Union infantrymen swept forward in a picture-book charge led by Franz Sigel's division . . . The rebels turned tail and ran. It was . . . [an] inglorious rout . . . Van Dorn's forces scattered in every direction. It took nearly two weeks to reassemble them."

Clearly, CW2 models this sort of thing with the supply and cohesion rules -- Van Dorn's army goes down close to zero supply and zero cohesion, and it takes a long time to recover. But what Van Dorn's army didn't do -- and shouldn't do -- and would never have done -- is retreat north into Union-held Missouri instead of south into rebel-held Arkansas.

So I think that what Pocus is trying to do with the latest beta patch is right on target, I just hope he gets everything to work properly!

It has something to do with the strategic scale of the game (the size of the map).

I don't think it's possible to simulate "getting into the enemy's rear" at this strategic scale. What you are describing is more for an operational level game (or grand tactics battle game).

Maybe I'm not making myself very clear.

It's one thing for the enemy commander to get in my rear, but it's another for me to retreat

In CW2, I think this sort of operational "getting in the enemy's rear" is already simulated in all sorts of ways, especially loss of cohesion.

[Jagger2013]

Good example Barca of the consequences of cut communications. Although I am curious if we have any other examples during the Civil War? It has been several years since I have read much of the Civil War but off the top of my head, I can't remember any large armies having their line of communications cut. I remember some seiges but weren't they voluntary? Maybe, did Grant cut off the communications at Island Number 10 and trap the rebel army? I believe actually cutting lines of communications of large armies was very, very rare. Much, much rarer than the oddball retreats we are seeing in the game.

When it comes to odd retreats, I don't really mind small units making an oddball retreat but I do get upset when a major army makes a death wish retreat. I know in RUS, there are some excellent defensive positions which I will not defend simply because I know the odds of a disasterous retreat is very high.

[Gray Fox]

This isn't so much a case of this is what happened at (fill in the blank) so much as all army's that did the maneuver thing everywhere in the war were actually trying to prevent their lines of communication becoming compromised. An army of tens of thousands can't easily dissolve and run away to reform somewhere else closer to home. In AACW, a routed army without a retreat path was presumably pursued and annihilated. Now, your routed army (with supply train and artillery) may end up running in a direction you don't like, but it survives. If we want to "fix this", then go ahead, but it is not under the blanket of being historically correct.