I'm playing the North in a PBEM game using 1.05a. In situations where we have a battle the loser may stay in the territory. I order my unit to move to adjacent friendly territory but it refuses to move. no matter what I set the move/attack options it will not move and the opponent just sits there and attacks over and over turn after turn with nothing I can do. It has happened every time we have a battle.
Is this a bug?
-
bommerrang
- Sergeant
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 1:40 am
-
BattleVonWar
- Major
- Posts: 221
- Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 3:22 am
Are your forces being pinned down by a force strong enough to force them to stay where they are? Have you tried to evade in the special orders menu? Set your stances very passive?
For every Southern boy fourteen years old, not once but whenever he wants it, there is the instant when it's still not yet two o'clock on that July afternoon in 1863 ~~~
-
bommerrang
- Sergeant
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 1:40 am
Hi,
I am bommerrang's opponenet, this has been going on since RC 8,9. What also happens is that after the battle he does not get any military control in the region. Then on the next turn he is unable to leave the region and during turn execution he attacks again resulting in more devestating losses. I believe he is changing the posture each time trying to avoid this.
Any help is greatly appreaciated!
I am bommerrang's opponenet, this has been going on since RC 8,9. What also happens is that after the battle he does not get any military control in the region. Then on the next turn he is unable to leave the region and during turn execution he attacks again resulting in more devestating losses. I believe he is changing the posture each time trying to avoid this.
Any help is greatly appreaciated!
-
BattleVonWar
- Major
- Posts: 221
- Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 3:22 am
Does he have a region to retreat to that he has Military Control over suitable enough for a retreat? I believe it has to be at least 1%.(correction the manual says 5%)
hattrick wrote:Hi,
I am bommerrang's opponenet, this has been going on since RC 8,9. What also happens is that after the battle he does not get any military control in the region. Then on the next turn he is unable to leave the region and during turn execution he attacks again resulting in more devestating losses. I believe he is changing the posture each time trying to avoid this.
Any help is greatly appreaciated!
For every Southern boy fourteen years old, not once but whenever he wants it, there is the instant when it's still not yet two o'clock on that July afternoon in 1863 ~~~
BattleVonWar wrote:Does he have a region to retreat to that he has Military Control over suitable enough for a retreat? I believe it has to be at least 1%.
Hi,
Yeah I am 99% sure he does, he can confirm though. We have saves if you want to take a look. After all these candidates we run into this now, is it possible our game got corrupted some how since we are the only ones experiencing this?
-
BattleVonWar
- Major
- Posts: 221
- Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 3:22 am
One game I played vs Athena, I got P.G.T. Beauregard caught up in the Shenandoah. I think his stack was fairly large at that particular time. It kept engaging and engaging, I set every retreat and evade method I could dream of but I don't recall Military Control at the time(it seemed Athena had me pinned). It seemed I fought 7 or 8 or 9 battles continually like a bug. The irony was he kept winning the battles. Someone here may be able to help but I avoid putting large stacks in places they cannot be relieved now.
For every Southern boy fourteen years old, not once but whenever he wants it, there is the instant when it's still not yet two o'clock on that July afternoon in 1863 ~~~
If you are in a region with <5% MC, then your force will be automatically switched to Offensive posture to improve your MC. Unfortunatley, this usually is the case when your stack has lost a battle and is locked in the region. So your force gets gradually ground to bits turn after turn. This was the original game mechanic. Then it was changed to allowing any force to retreat, no matter what. This created the situation where a game against Athena had the player chasing a force all over the map and never defeating it. So the game mechanic was changed back to gradual destruction.
If you break your stack up into small groups of 1-4 elements each and switch these small groups to Green/Green, Evade Combat, then they should have a great enough evasion value to withdraw to an adjacent friendly region without being switched to Offensive Posture. You can also use the Cavalry Screen RGD to further improve their Hide value which adds to their evasion. Good luck!
If you break your stack up into small groups of 1-4 elements each and switch these small groups to Green/Green, Evade Combat, then they should have a great enough evasion value to withdraw to an adjacent friendly region without being switched to Offensive Posture. You can also use the Cavalry Screen RGD to further improve their Hide value which adds to their evasion. Good luck!
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!
-
FightingBuckeye
- Lieutenant Colonel
- Posts: 280
- Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 7:27 am
- Location: Englewood, CO
Gray Fox wrote:If you break your stack up into small groups of 1-4 elements each and switch these small groups to Green/Green, Evade Combat, then they should have a great enough evasion value to withdraw to an adjacent friendly region without being switched to Offensive Posture. You can also use the Cavalry Screen RGD to further improve their Hide value which adds to their evasion. Good luck!
I never thought of using my RGD cards in this situation, it definitely makes sense and now I'm wondering why this never occured to me.
-
bommerrang
- Sergeant
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 1:40 am
I see. I find the design very bad and doubly bad if you have to break your whole corp down into individual stacks. The better solution would be that whichever force loses the battle it must retreat to the adjacent territory. The game is basically broken with this design intent. An alternative is to allow green/green retreat.
Does the AI break itself down into small stacks to get away? Nope, it just sits there and you ground it to death. Not very enjoyable.
I recommend a hotfix to correct the problem.
Hattrick - I guess our game is on hold until this major "bug" is corrected. Real shame.
Does the AI break itself down into small stacks to get away? Nope, it just sits there and you ground it to death. Not very enjoyable.
I recommend a hotfix to correct the problem.
Hattrick - I guess our game is on hold until this major "bug" is corrected. Real shame.
In AACW, if you couldn't retreat, then your entire force was totally annihilated on the spot.
This was deemed rather harsh, so the slow death mechanic came in.
This was then switched to the auto-retreat.
Unfortunately, auto-retreat created the situation where you had to chase one of Athena's stacks to Canada and back.
So this was "fixed" by going back to slow death...or do the real world tactic of exfiltration. The sun sets, you light 1000 campfires and your force skidaddles. Washington did this to the British. Mosby did this to the Union.
This was deemed rather harsh, so the slow death mechanic came in.
This was then switched to the auto-retreat.
Unfortunately, auto-retreat created the situation where you had to chase one of Athena's stacks to Canada and back.
So this was "fixed" by going back to slow death...or do the real world tactic of exfiltration. The sun sets, you light 1000 campfires and your force skidaddles. Washington did this to the British. Mosby did this to the Union.
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!
bommerrang wrote: The better solution would be that whichever force loses the battle it must retreat to the adjacent territory.
You've never won a battle and had to retreat?
Its fairly common.
For example, last turn in my current game, a 30,000 force under AS Johnston beat a 70,000 man force under McDowell that was crossing a river. Both sides took about equal losses. Which meant that a 60,000 man strong union force was in the same region as a 20,000 CSA army.
The south retreated.
Which isn't historically inaccurate. You could argue that Lee tactically won the battle of Antietam, by repulsing every piecemeal attack. But the next day, he was leading a tired army that was outnumbered 4-1, so he retreated.
Hello,
Just to clarify, he has a viable retreat path, the region he is retreating to is not a red flashing region. So he really is not locked in place. I could understand the above if he was really locked in place, this is not what is happening. If you are telling me that he is locked in place now with a viable retreat region then something is wrong.
Just to clarify, he has a viable retreat path, the region he is retreating to is not a red flashing region. So he really is not locked in place. I could understand the above if he was really locked in place, this is not what is happening. If you are telling me that he is locked in place now with a viable retreat region then something is wrong.
An entire Corps that was just in combat the previous turn has practically no chance of going undetected. You set this Corps to Passive and try to move out to a friendly region with decent MC. However, the MC in the region where you are located is less than 5%. Your Corps automatically switches to Offensive Posture at the start of the next turn. Your Corps is still tired from the previous turn's combat. This turn you fight to exhaustion. You withdraw from battle with low cohesion and can no longer exit the region in one turn. The next turn starts with no change in the tactical situation.
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!
-
FightingBuckeye
- Lieutenant Colonel
- Posts: 280
- Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 7:27 am
- Location: Englewood, CO
A possible fix might be to give a defeated army a higher evasion value, maybe a small multiplier of some sort. Not large enough that it'd be impossible for them to be brought to battle. But enough that they have a higher chance of escaping the region without further battle. After all, a force that's running for it's life tends to have more getup and go then a force that's pursuing it.
Another option might be if a battle between a retreating army and the victor ensues, have the battle fought in two actions. First a skirmish with the cavalry elements of each engaging each other. One trying to screen the bulk of it's army's forces as they try to withdraw and then other trying to clear out the screening element in order to force another battle. I know this happens in the game engine in the direct aftermath of a battle. But I'm talking about once a battle has concluded and one force is clearly trying to make a clean getaway. One real world example would be what happened in the aftermath of Gettysburg.
So if the victorious force locates the retreating force and tries to pin it down, a small scale cavalry skirmish ensues. The game engine would be designed to tone down the casualties on both sides and the cavalry forces would each try to do their job. If the screening element does it's job, the army might be short a couple dozen troopers but would live to fight another day. Otherwise a second real battle would ensue. Just a thought.
Another option might be if a battle between a retreating army and the victor ensues, have the battle fought in two actions. First a skirmish with the cavalry elements of each engaging each other. One trying to screen the bulk of it's army's forces as they try to withdraw and then other trying to clear out the screening element in order to force another battle. I know this happens in the game engine in the direct aftermath of a battle. But I'm talking about once a battle has concluded and one force is clearly trying to make a clean getaway. One real world example would be what happened in the aftermath of Gettysburg.
So if the victorious force locates the retreating force and tries to pin it down, a small scale cavalry skirmish ensues. The game engine would be designed to tone down the casualties on both sides and the cavalry forces would each try to do their job. If the screening element does it's job, the army might be short a couple dozen troopers but would live to fight another day. Otherwise a second real battle would ensue. Just a thought.
When a Leader is injured in combat, his card is removed from the map. Several turns later he shows up with zero cohesion locked in a friendly region while he recovers. I suggested a Stack that was trapped could suffer the same fate, simulating that it exfiltrated and then had to reform over a period of weeks. This would be a game mechanic, so Athena would do this as well. I gave an historical example, but the idea was not well received.
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!
-
bommerrang
- Sergeant
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 1:40 am
hattrick wrote:Hello,
Just to clarify, he has a viable retreat path, the region he is retreating to is not a red flashing region. So he really is not locked in place. I could understand the above if he was really locked in place, this is not what is happening. If you are telling me that he is locked in place now with a viable retreat region then something is wrong.
I had similar situation in recent PBEM. Very frustrating. Almost costed me entire army.
An army marches into a region.
The enemy show up unexpectedly.
The enemy are between the army and the region where the army came from.
The army must fight its way through the enemy to return to the region where it came from.
The break-out may not work.
The army may be destroyed.
The leader may choose to have his army sneak away in less detectable smaller groups.
What part of this needs to be "corrected"?
The enemy show up unexpectedly.
The enemy are between the army and the region where the army came from.
The army must fight its way through the enemy to return to the region where it came from.
The break-out may not work.
The army may be destroyed.
The leader may choose to have his army sneak away in less detectable smaller groups.
What part of this needs to be "corrected"?
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!
-
bommerrang
- Sergeant
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 1:40 am
-
bommerrang
- Sergeant
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 1:40 am
-
bommerrang
- Sergeant
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 1:40 am
My opinion is it is wrong. It's not that I don't like it. If I'm playing the side that has won a very close battle and I now freeze my opponent in place then I'm loving it. But if that is the way the game was designed then it is a bad design. Too bad though. the game does so many things to make it a good game but then this issue takes it all away.
-
AndrewKurtz
- Posts: 1167
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:49 am
- Location: Greenville, SC
Thank you AndrewKurtz!!
Yes this is the issue and there is something wrong, I believe its because there is no MC control given to teh army that lost the battle in the region. This in turn forces them to go in attack posture and creates the issues we are seeing. This never happened from previous patches. What changed, should an army that is still in the region have some militiary control?
-
bommerrang
- Sergeant
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 1:40 am
Yes, thanks Andrew.
hattrick - I suppose our game is busted unless a 'hotfix' can be implemented.
Pocus - please try and get one out if you can. At least green/green. The complaint about not being able to chase an enemy stack that green/greens is not so bad. I would love for my opponent to vacate all territories I have him locked in because then I capture the territory.
hattrick - I suppose our game is busted unless a 'hotfix' can be implemented.
Pocus - please try and get one out if you can. At least green/green. The complaint about not being able to chase an enemy stack that green/greens is not so bad. I would love for my opponent to vacate all territories I have him locked in because then I capture the territory.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests