Public Beta Patch 1.05 RC1

[richfed]

I am surprised, because even going back to AACW, the game never behaved this way before. I freely admit I am making some moves that an ordinary player wouldn't make because I am trying to see how the beta behaves, but, I have always done hat. 100% casualties in 11 infantry regiments in a division x 3 or 4 in the corps to a fully healthy stack just doesn't feel right. It happens often. Anyway, I just wanted the developers to be aware ... if it's WAD, than so be it, but I doubt that it is.

[FelixZ]

[color=#ffffff]From reading the two threads discussing retreat failures, which of the following might be occurring under 1.05: [/color]
[color=#ffffff]
[/color]
[color=#ffffff]1 - the larger Combat Power faction prevents the smaller faction from retreating.[/color]
[color=#ffffff]
[/color]
[color=#ffffff]2 - the larger Combat Power faction prevents the smaller faction from retreating if there is no adjacent region with > 88 MC (friendly)[/color]
[color=#ffffff]
[/color]
[color=#ffffff]3 - the Cavalry force with higher evasion value prevents the smaller cavalry force from retreating.[/color]
[color=#ffffff]
[/color]
[color=#ffffff]4 - the larger Cavalry force with higher evasion value prevents the smaller cavalry force from retreating if there is no adjacent region with > 88 MC (friendly).[/color]
[color=#ffffff]
[/color]
[color=#ffffff]5) - the faction with higher zone of control prevents smaller faction from retreating.[/color]
[color=#ffffff]
[/color]
[color=#ffffff]6 - the faction with higher zone of control prevents smaller faction from retreating if there is no adjacent region with > 88 MC (friendly).[/color]

[ohms_law]

Pocus said in the change logs, he enabled zone of control checks in retreat. They were not enabled in 1.04.

Ya didn't answer the question.

[Ace]

How do you know that the ZOC rules are affecting... well, anything, really?
I'm sure that they are, but how can you tell?

Yes you are right, there should be something in the battle report telling you had your retreat path blocked.

[ohms_law]

I've only seen a couple of "bloodbath" battles, myself (across several different games).
I'm not saying that there's nothing at all wrong with the new rules or patch. Also, I'm not really seeing exactly what different people are doing with their games and their troops. More detailed battle reports would certainly help all of us evaluate things better.

Still, the crying seems like an overreaction, to me. I can't get over the thought that some people just need to play better. I'm rather enjoying the rules this way, myself.
Quit trying to attack across rivers, and against opponents that outnumbers you (haven't you guys ever heard of the "only attack with 3:1 odds in your favor" rule of thumb?!).

[charlesonmission]

Has anyone noticed that forces lose cohesion much more quickly when on the move. I have the traffic penalty set to medium, but the forces seem to lose cohesion very quickly even when there isn't a message that there was a traffic penalty.

When there is a traffic penalty, does anyone know how to turn it down a level once the game has started? FYI, medium seems to be quite heavy. I just had a force march from Meade to Jefferson KY and with the traffic penalty of Meade, they were too exhausted to even try to attach.

Charles

[ohms_law]

Pocus did say "work in progress". Some details about what's going on would be nice.
For what it's worth, the penalties do seem a bit steep. Sorta.
I kinda like it, but I'm starting to suspect that I like a more difficult game than others do...

Bumping up the cohesion recovery rate just slightly may be a good solution, rather than reducing the penalty. It's the traffic itself that causes the loss of cohesion, after all. Stop moving, and that cohesion loss ought to recover much quicker than, say, loss of cohesion caused by a unit being routed in battle.

[richfed]

I've only seen a couple of "bloodbath" battles, myself (across several different games).
I'm not saying that there's nothing at all wrong with the new rules or patch. Also, I'm not really seeing exactly what different people are doing with their games and their troops. More detailed battle reports would certainly help all of us evaluate things better.

Still, the crying seems like an overreaction, to me. I can't get over the thought that some people just need to play better. I'm rather enjoying the rules this way, myself.
Quit trying to attack across rivers, and against opponents that outnumbers you (haven't you guys ever heard of the "only attack with 3:1 odds in your favor" rule of thumb?!).

That is way off. The "crying" is precisely for opposite reasons. I'm not playing to "win," I am playing to see what happens in the beta version. I am not an "under the hood" guy. I am simply a "player" and would like the game to meet my expectations, or, at least find out why my expectations are wrong.

Anyway, I feel like something is wrong and am just trying to bring that to the attention of other players & the developers to consider. I have started 4 campaigns thus far with this patch and the results have been similar in all - both due to my moves AND Athena's. Easily reproducible.

As an example: I have attached 3 turns & logs. At Manassas, Longstreet is attacked by Athena with a corps numbering 19,000. They are wiped out. In another case, Magruder moves to Hampton Roads to relieve a besieged garrison. Forces are fairly equal. Battle ends & nearly all of Magruder's elements are apparently "in the red" [completely red]. This could be a graphical error, as the next turn his division still numbers 7,000 men. Not sure if I am reading reports properly. I am the CSA.

So:

• Possible graphical/battle report glitches
• retreat and/or disengagement is heavily skewed toward continuing the battle regardless of factors that ought to dissuade further action
• small, independent units make suicide moves

When I play, I want to assume, and be comfortable in the knowledge, that game mechanics are functioning according to plan. That's why I always try the betas.

[oldspec4]

That is way off. The "crying" is precisely for opposite reasons. I'm not playing to "win," I am playing to see what happens in the beta version. I am not an "under the hood" guy. I am simply a "player" and would like the game to meet my expectations, or, at least find out why my expectations are wrong.

Anyway, I feel like something is wrong and am just trying to bring that to the attention of other players & the developers to consider. I have started 4 campaigns thus far with this patch and the results have been similar in all - both due to my moves AND Athena's. Easily reproducible.

As an example: I have attached 3 turns & logs. At Manassas, Longstreet is attacked by Athena with a corps numbering 19,000. They are wiped out. In another case, Magruder moves to Hampton Roads to relieve a besieged garrison. Forces are fairly equal. Battle ends & nearly all of Magruder's elements are apparently "in the red" [completely red]. This could be a graphical error, as the next turn his division still numbers 7,000 men. Not sure if I am reading reports properly. I am the CSA.

So:

• Possible graphical/battle report glitches
• retreat and/or disengagement is heavily skewed toward continuing the battle regardless of factors that ought to dissuade further action
• small, independent units make suicide moves

When I play, I want to assume, and be comfortable in the knowledge, that game mechanics are functioning according to plan. That's why I always try the betas.

This parallels my thinking about the betas since I started w/ AGEOD's BOA. I enjoy the games but stopped playing TEAW (w/ the latest beta and also similar issues) until the latest beta questions and answers get sorted out. I have not downloaded the latest CW2 beta because of my experience w/ TEAW.

That being said, I am grateful that the AGEOD team does issue betas for play and feedback.

[ohms_law]

Athena, as always, needs help. Especially following new rules changes.
What you're saying in this reply is much different than your earlier post, though.
"I feel like something is wrong and am just trying to bring that to the attention of other players & the developers" is distinctly different than "In all my days of playing, and that is since AACW first came out, I never recall losing an entire corps."

[Barca]

Fair enough ohms_law. But indeed the problem is that entire corps are getting wiped out, whether Athena's or the players.

Just want to say again that, in addition to game play issues, this is NOT good from a historical point of view -- that is, it does not properly simulate the Civil War.

If you want to encircle large enemy armies and force their surrender, you can play a WWII game, for instance. The Germans encircled huge Russian formations on the Russian front in 1941, for example. But in the American Civil War, this sort of thing virtually never happened.

[VigaBrand]

+1
Example:
Lee escaped easily after Gettysburgh.

[ohms_law]

I wouldn't say "easily", but yea... I agree that "encirclement" isn't a Civil War thing.
To be honest, I hadn't really thought of the situation(s) that are being described as encirclement (probably because it is a Civil War game), but I can see how the label can easily be applied.

One thing that happened repeatedly during the Civil War was that both sides tended to disengage after a certain amount of bloodletting took place. That's something that frustrated Lincoln, Lee, Jackson, and Grant, among others, at various points.

I think that the ZOC rule change is the main reason that there's a "problem" here (I was surprised that it was added, to be honest... we never talked about it in the discussions about retreat problems, which lead to these changes being made). It's probably a bit too strict. I do kinda like it, but I think that the ZOC should be recalculated between rounds of battles, before the retreat rolls are made. I think that the engine is using the ZOC that existed before the battles start throughout, regardless of any cohesion and hits losses that the participants take.
If there's a good thing to spend more processing time on, one of them has to be battle resolutions (AI being the other, despite complaints about turn length).

[Ace]

It's not zoc issue. Something in the battle engine is stopping retreat despite available retreat options.
Pocus should really look at it because at the moment 1.05 is usefull only for beta testing.

[tripax]

I agree that battles resulting in complete destruction should be rare, especially when the two forces were large (even when there is a significant size imballance).

I'm trying to think what large battles had more than 30% losses for either side. The Union had a few successful large sieges (Island 10, Donelson, Vicksburg, Port Hudson, Petersburg) and Forrest captured a number of smaller garrisons (some which had greater number of men than he had). Bull Nelson failed at Richmond Kentucky losing about 7,000 - his entire force - to about 7,000 under Kirby Smith, but otherwise, even routes like the Battle of Okolona (7,000 Union vs 2,500 Confederate, Union was routed but only lost 350 men), and Nashville (Thomas' 55,000 routes Hoods 30,000, Hood losing 6,000 men), Sheridan's victories in the Valley against Early and Picket usually saw under 25% losses on either side (Opequon saw 30% losses by the confederates). Bloodbaths such as Shiloh, Gettysburg, Stones River, Chickamagua, Spotsylvania, and The Wilderness saw at most 28% (Confederates lost 28% under Bragg at Chickamagua, Union lost 30% under Rosencrans and the Confederates lost 34% under Bragg at Stones River, Lee lost 32% at Gettysburg).

The table, here, has a bit more. That list has the 33 costliest battles, the average losses in those battles are 17% for the Union and 21% for the Confederates. I think these numbers are a bit high because they include Port Hudson where the Confederates surrendered and count only the corps involved in some battles during the siege of Petersburg such as at Fort Stedman and at the Crater.

Note, all my estimates are from Wikipedia articles on the battle and include killed, wounded, and captured as casualties.

[richfed]

Athena, as always, needs help. Especially following new rules changes.
What you're saying in this reply is much different than your earlier post, though.
"I feel like something is wrong and am just trying to bring that to the attention of other players & the developers" is distinctly different than "In all my days of playing, and that is since AACW first came out, I never recall losing an entire corps."

Losing entire corps - especially when it becomes routine - IS representative of what I feel is wrong. No disconnect there ohms_law. In any event, as long as the developers become aware, discover why, and fix the situation, we should all be happy!

[pgr]

+1
Example:
Lee escaped easily after Gettysburgh.

Because Meade was not keen on pursuing. The ANV could have been cut-off and destroyed in both of its invasions of the North, had the Union commanders aggressively moved after Antietam and Gettysburg.

Encirclement WAS a big thing in the US Civil War.... it was just hard to achieve.

Here is just a short list:

Successful encirclements:
The Appomattox Campaign (Lincoln to Grant "Gen. Sheridan says 'If the thing is pressed I think that Lee will surrender.' Let the thing be pressed.")
The Vicksburg Campaign-- Grant lands at Grand Gulf, cuts Pemberton off from Jackson MS, beats him on the Big Black, and traps him in Vicksburg.

Near Encirclements:
The Tullahoma Campaign: Old Rosey's finest hour. Designed to trap Bragg in Central TN. Bragg survived because he withdrew before the federals could get in front of him.

Attempted Encirclements:
The Overland Campaign: Grant started with the intent of getting between Lee and Richmond, trapping him away from his base (an encirclement) and destroying him in Northern VA. He tried a series of left turning movements which only failed because Lee was too quick.... until he finally stole a march across the James. Had Hancock pressed the thing when he first arrived in Petersburg, Appomattox would have happened a year sooner.

Those are just big examples, but really almost all Civil War battles and strategic movements involved attempts at encirclement (cutting a force off from its base and line of retreat and forcing it to surrender). I agree they weren't often achieved. Really though, that's because they are hard to do with forces moving at walking speed, commanders frequently were content to let the enemy withdraw, and Civil War commanders protected their rears and withdrew before being encircled. In the end though, the war only ended because of movements that led to successful encirclements.

In game terms, you have to be sleeping at the wheel to allow a region to get completely surrounded. If it does happen, there should be serious consequences because those WERE the decisive moments of the Civil War.

(As an aside, Ace is correct in saying that ZOC impacting retreat is NOT what seems to be causing big blood bath battles. There seems to be a bug in the RC1 that is stopping stacks from successfully evaluating potential retreat destinations. You can refer here for the relevant discussion.)

[ohms_law]

Those aren't the types of encirclement that we're referring to here, pgr. You're talking about encirclement at the strategic level, through maneuver, which had been a principal tenant of warfare since at least Napoleon's wars early in the century. What people are complaining about here are "blitzkrieg" style tactical encirclement.

Anyway, Ace:
"Something in the battle engine is stopping retreat despite available retreat options."
That would clearly be the ZOC rule that Pocus enabled for this patch. Unless you think that he just messed up the combat code in general somehow (based on some other information that I'm not aware of?).

[minipol]

Unless you think that he just messed up the combat code in general somehow (based on some other information that I'm not aware of?).

That's a harsh statement. I doubt Pocus changed or had to touch the combat code when enabling the ZOC rule.
It's not impossible of course but let's first wait for a reaction of the devs.

[ohms_law]

That's what I'm saying.
AFAIK, all he did was enable the old(er) code that's been there for a while anyway.

[Ace]

I have no privileged information whatsoever. I analyzed battlelogs in the 1.05RC1 and I saw that the logs say no region to retreat to, will remain in province, while there is a number of 100% MC neighboring provinces to choose from. I classify such behaviour as a bug.

[pgr]

Those aren't the types of encirclement that we're referring to here, pgr. You're talking about encirclement at the strategic level, through maneuver, which had been a principal tenant of warfare since at least Napoleon's wars early in the century. What people are complaining about here are "blitzkrieg" style tactical encirclement.

Anyway, Ace:
"Something in the battle engine is stopping retreat despite available retreat options."
That would clearly be the ZOC rule that Pocus enabled for this patch. Unless you think that he just messed up the combat code in general somehow (based on some other information that I'm not aware of?).

There is a bit more going on than just the ZOC stuff. He tweaked the retreat code a bit, and he added a check based of presence of an enemy in an offensive stance. This is causing instability (some retreats are happening normally, while others mis-fire).

Ohms, I think you are splitting hairs a bit between tactical and stratigic levels. In game terms, "tactical" encirclements happen in region after every retreat via the pursuit system. (based on. cav units in both sides, x number of hits are inflicted on the retreating stack). This system dosen't get people riled up... even though one could argue ACW cav wasn't used that often in the tactical pursuit role (or in battfield charges for that matter either).

What you call, stratigic level encirclements in game would be at the regional level when a region gets completely surrounded by hostile MC. I put my examples above firmly in this category. The ZOC rules applying to retreat seem completely appropriate to me, because they apply to every other kind of movement.

If at the start of a turn I am cohabiting a region with a hostile stack, and I have to fight through him to get to the red ZOC regions beyond, why should I be able to loose that battle and retreat to those very same regions? (which is what disregarding the min MC and ZOC rules in retreat allows)

[Captain_Orso]

That is way off. The "crying" is precisely for opposite reasons. I'm not playing to "win," I am playing to see what happens in the beta version. I am not an "under the hood" guy. I am simply a "player" and would like the game to meet my expectations, or, at least find out why my expectations are wrong.

Anyway, I feel like something is wrong and am just trying to bring that to the attention of other players & the developers to consider. I have started 4 campaigns thus far with this patch and the results have been similar in all - both due to my moves AND Athena's. Easily reproducible.

As an example: I have attached 3 turns & logs. At Manassas, Longstreet is attacked by Athena with a corps numbering 19,000. They are wiped out. In another case, Magruder moves to Hampton Roads to relieve a besieged garrison. Forces are fairly equal. Battle ends & nearly all of Magruder's elements are apparently "in the red" [completely red]. This could be a graphical error, as the next turn his division still numbers 7,000 men. Not sure if I am reading reports properly. I am the CSA.

So:

• Possible graphical/battle report glitches
• retreat and/or disengagement is heavily skewed toward continuing the battle regardless of factors that ought to dissuade further action
• small, independent units make suicide moves

When I play, I want to assume, and be comfortable in the knowledge, that game mechanics are functioning according to plan. That's why I always try the betas.

Hi richfed,

so I finally found some time to have a look at you backups, and I can't make hide nor hair of them. They don't seem to be 3 consecutive moves, but 3 moves which coincidentally are in chronological order (3 consecutive turns), but not turns which were executed one after the other.

[Captain_Orso]

There is a bit more going on than just the ZOC stuff. He tweaked the retreat code a bit, and he added a check based of presence of an enemy in an offensive stance. This is causing instability (some retreats are happening normally, while others mis-fire).

Actually, only forces in PP are NOT taken into account. All others are.

Ohms, I think you are splitting hairs a bit between tactical and stratigic levels. In game terms, "tactical" encirclements happen in region after every retreat via the pursuit system. (based on. cav units in both sides, x number of hits are inflicted on the retreating stack). This system dosen't get people riled up... even though one could argue ACW cav wasn't used that often in the tactical pursuit role (or in battfield charges for that matter either).

What you call, stratigic level encirclements in game would be at the regional level when a region gets completely surrounded by hostile MC. I put my examples above firmly in this category. The ZOC rules applying to retreat seem completely appropriate to me, because they apply to every other kind of movement.

If at the start of a turn I am cohabiting a region with a hostile stack, and I have to fight through him to get to the red ZOC regions beyond, why should I be able to loose that battle and retreat to those very same regions? (which is what disregarding the min MC and ZOC rules in retreat allows)

The closest thing the game has implemented regarding the direction a stack is facing is the direction of retreat of a stack which moved into a region during the turn in which it had to retreat. The last region the stack left when entering the battle region has its retreat-value multiplied by 2.5, when the engine is trying to decide in which direction it will retreat. So it is still very possible for the stack to retreat in another direction; just not very likely, depending on the circumstances. This only happens on the first retreat the stack makes during that turn, which practically negates the possibility of a stack ping-ponging back and forth between two enemy forces.

The combination of regional MC and ZOC does in some respect also emulate one force blocking another, but the conditions are actually circumstantial.

[richfed]

Hi richfed,

so I finally found some time to have a look at you backups, and I can't make hide nor hair of them. They don't seem to be 3 consecutive moves, but 3 moves which coincidentally are in chronological order (3 consecutive turns), but not turns which were executed one after the other.

I don't know, Captain ... those were the 3 most recent turns - at the time - I am way past that now. Trying to avoid slaughters at all cost. On the one hand, it makes the game interesting [different, at least], but, on the other, I feel like you are forced to play with one hand tied behind your back. I cannot explain the turn situation - I just play, one turn after another.

[Captain_Orso]

On the one turn before the nasty battle in Manassas Ord's Corps is railing up into the Valley through Manassas with two division, with McDowell in another stack making the exact same move with a supply train.

Looking at the results of the turn, the two divisions, which were destroyed according to the battle plan, are in the Valley with McDowell, while Ord is on sick-leave in Washington. I can't follow what happened.

[richfed]

Game Over.

After the initial debacles, I sat pat - pretty much. I just left forces where they appeared and built them up to protect the key locations. I finally built up the Army of Northern Virginia to the point it could take DC without losing corps. That was the game The only place I faced stiff opposition was in Missouri, where a 50,000+ man force under Grant repeatedly beat back my attempts to take St. Louis. Other than there, the AI was very passive. I did lose Donelson at one point and lost a fleet late in the game in the northern Atlantic. I held Bowling Green with only the militia and used that town for building KY troops for elsewhere. No serious attempt by the AI was ever made on that town. I put the aggressiveness down to normal for this game - it had been in the middle [which I thought was normal but turned out to be "aggressive" - the severe bloodbaths I experienced in the previous 3 starts were under that setting]. Will try again under the more aggressive setting.

[ohms_law]

Union Athena seems to always go passive in 1863, for some reason. If you outlast her to that point, then you've already won the game, it's just a question of how long it'll take you. It doesn't appear that the AI knows what to do with the middle to end game, unless she's had some major success in the opening.

[Pocus]

If some of you want to help with a few AI scripts or 'agents' then that's quite feasible. Some betas knowing nothing about that did some good work in EAW, this is not technical at all. You just need a few hours to do improvements in the game, and there is no need for the developer here

[minipol]

And suddenly the thread went silent...
Pocus maybe you could explain a bit more on what the purpose is, and what our input would be and how to do it?