Refuse to retreat

[AndrewKurtz]

Pocus did seem to confirm this is faulty logic:

"Good catch on the faulty logic. Can you confirm though that you acquire 5% MC when entering the region and then the next turn, even if you stayed there?"

[Cardinal Ape]

hattrick - I suppose our game is busted unless a 'hotfix' can be implemented.

Don't let the game ruin your fun.

You may be able to resolve your issue with a gentlemens agreement; both issue orders to go into passive postures for an early Christmas ceasefire or something...

While I would agree to this I would also state that the next time you launch an attack that fails you can expect to pay the consequences. I know there may be some bug here, but still, at the end of the day a defeat is a defeat. Without the intervention of other forces or another back-up plan the defeat should carry with it the possibility of a total surrender.

--

As a long time player of Europa Universals I would like to go on the record: Combats resulting in a ping-pong like effect suck ping-pong balls.

[AndrewKurtz]

Without the intervention of other forces or another back-up plan the defeat should carry with it the possibility of a total surrender.

Is there any historical example of this in the war? In what battle did a major army attack, lose and then completely surrender?

As a long time player of Europa Universals I would like to go on the record: Combats resulting in a ping-pong like effect suck ping-pong balls.

Too true!

[BattleVonWar]

Of course, Fort Sumter to begin with. Johnston in NC...(one of the largest I believe over 80k?)

IF an Army occupies Real Estate and has not surrendered(yet is totally and utterly crushed) it must have some MC. For where else is it at? Hiding in toolsheds? It's surrendered effectively at this point anyway.

P.S. I thought I would add a perfect case of a large force surrendering after defeat as you could say that Johnston was less of battle loss and more of a break down of the entire Army of the Confederacy at that point. Harpers Ferry besieged where nearly 12,000 men surrendered. Situations like these would be more common in the Civil War. Why pursuits did not happen I assume was the fear from the Generals of losing men unnecessarily. Some always get away, some should always escape unless you really have them surrounded by a far larger force. Even at Gettysburg the casualty and capture list is "high on both sides % wise." If you examine the %s and fight a few more battles like that you end up losing everyone in short order. In pursuit of Lee... Grant forced this, it took awhile but he was ruthless, in accomplishing a full surrender.

My guess is the doctrine at the beginning of the war influenced things. Piecemeal battle Victories

Is there any historical example of this in the war? In what battle did a major army attack, lose and then completely surrender?



Too true!

[Cardinal Ape]

Is there any historical example of this in the war? In what battle did a major army attack, lose and then completely surrender?

I'm not a historian of the ACW so I will skirt around that question... Maybe 'total surrender' was too harsh a phrase - there is just something that doesn't sit right with me about being able to reliably walk away from a major defeat. However, after giving it a bit more thought (forgive me if I am wrong) in the war both sides did a horrible job of pursuing the defeated after a large battle. This could be used as justification to let defeated armies have an easier time retreating.

--

Back to the Op. Something doesn't seem right about the info of your situation. If the invader is truly in Green/Green posture and the owner of the region is not in Assault or Offensive posture then a battle should not occur. If the owner of the region is in offensive posture then the result of the battle (assuming the invader is defeated) should displace the invading force. In the games I have played with version 1.05 that is what I have experienced. I have never seen my own forces with a Passive posture switch to Offensive on their own.

[AndrewKurtz]

Of course, Fort Sumter to begin with. Johnston in NC...(one of the largest I believe over 80k?)

I said is there an example of when the attacker loses and then has total surrender.

[Durk]

Only one from the American Civil War, Battle of Nashville December 15–16, 1864. A collapse after an attack.

[BattleVonWar]

Excuse,

reminds me of my Amphibious Assaults in CW2 where 5-6 thousand men surrender trying to take a quickie.

[tripax]

Is there any historical example of this in the war? In what battle did a major army attack, lose and then completely surrender?

Two examples that come to mind are the Second Battle of Winchester and the Battle of Appomattox Court House, which ended the war in Virginia. Appomattox fits really well, and I think everyone is familiar with it. Second Winchester was where the phrase, "Milroy's weary boys" comes from. In that battle 12,500 soldiers under Ewell, Early, Rodes, and Edward Johnson (including the Stonewall Brigade) double flanked forces under Milroy numbering 7,000. 4,000 of Milroy's forces were captured, but between 1,500 and 2,000 of those were hospitalized soldiers in Winchester. It isn't a great example because Milroy was treating Winchester and its environs more like a fort (perhaps he ignored orders to evacuate). In that sense, Winchester is more like sieges of forts/towns which resulted in surrenders (large scale examples: the Siege of Vicksburg, Fort Donelson, the Battle of Harpers Ferry, the Battle of Island Number Ten, Port Hudson, and the Battle of Munfordville - most examples involving Forrest were smaller, but should possibly be included).

I'm not a historian, but my main interest in the game is from the perspective of historical game play. My feeling is that this situation should be possible but it should be rare that an entire army is destroyed in this way. I'm looking forward to when piecemeal exfiltration is performed by Athena and included in the manual/wiki. Examples of successful piecemeal exfiltration are numerous, I think. Maybe the union army at First Bull Run and Hood's army at the Battle of Nashville are important examples, but I'd have to think about it more to be sure. In any case, I'd really like it to be clear when to perform this maneuver/trick so that I don't waste a couple turns with an army in passive getting roughed up when I should be breaking it up and humbly riding to safety (and presumably to the rear of an entrenched force in a nearby region).


While writing this, I asked myself how often piecemeal exfiltration should be necessary. My thoughts are that in the war there were 10-20 Army or Corps sized battles during the war per year (less in 1861 and 1865), and maybe 10-20 more division sized battles per year (or involving department or district commands with forces in the range of 5,000-12,000). Quickly looking over lists of these, I'd say that exfiltration is a good description of the result in about 10% of the large battles. That is, in 1-2 large battles per year, the losing army not only retreated in poor order, but in some sense dissolved - retreating in small groups and reforming often with a shakeup of brigade and division structure and command. Here is a a roughly compiled list of battles where I think part of the retreating force would be accurately simulated using piecemeal exfiltration: First Bull Run, Pea Ridge, First Winchester, Second Winchester, Chickamauga, Opequon/Cedar Creek, Nashville, and Appomattox. I'm not sure if this strategy makes as much sense as a simulation of smaller, division sized battles (Mine Creek in Kansas along the Missouri border is an intermediate example which could fit into the previous list but involved less than 10,000 total troops - these were multiple divisions because divisions were smaller in the far west). Many examples of individual regiments retreating apart from the main body exist as well (the 27th Illinois boarded separately from the main body at Belmont, for example), but I don't think this counts, exactly.

[tripax]

I'm not sure if people will agree or disagree with what I have just written, but I do want to note that I am not completely for or against this part of recent patches. Piecemeal exfiltration, as it might be called, seems to be a very tactical maneuver in what is generally a very strategy-focused game. And while I might enjoy more tactics integrated into the game, it can take a while to break down two corps totaling maybe 7 divisions and as many as 35 units (brigades, artillery, cavalry, and support), put them all into passive, and send them on their way in separate stacks. If that is the intention, I am a bit surprised.

That said, this isn't a democracy and the game is always making changes. I'm am definitely in favor of the game continuing to change and improve, even if I disagree some (or even many) of the changes.

[Mickey3D]

I have not yet tested the 1.05a but I'm inclined to follow you on this one Tripax : piecemeal exfiltration is too much tactical for the level of the game.

I prefer the way it was working before : set your force on G/G to move it out of the region (provided the ZoC of your opponent is not preventing you to move into a region). Your ennemy can still try to intercept you but he must switch to offensive posture.

[AndrewKurtz]

piecemeal exfiltration is too much tactical for the level of the game.

That is my opinion too. Too much micromanagement, and the reason is it needed is that the engine decides you want to attack (i.e. change from another posture into offensive).

But again, this was all discussed in the two links I shared before.

[Gray Fox]

Real armies in the real world can be trapped as I posted. The discussion of how this game mechanic resolves such a situation has been an endless ping pong match. In AACW this situation caused the trapped army to be annihilated. Last year during my Pbem against Mickey3D this game had slow death. Then a few months later it was "fixed" to auto retreat. Then back to slow death. Now it's supposed to go back to auto-reteat...until someone complains about chasing stacks all over the map that are slippery as an eel. Perhaps an extra setting should exist on the Option screen for "auto-retreat from battle".

[AndrewKurtz]

My issue is (was) when a stack, that is retreating to a region where it can legitimately retreat to based on the rules, is changed by the engine back into Offensive Posture because MC is less than 5% in the region in which is started (i.e. not upon entering a new region).

That was the original issue I reported back in RC4 and, based on this discussion, it does not seem to be fixed.

I have no issue if a stack is stuck in a region and cannot retreat due to other reasons, but the engine forcing a battle due to MC on a force trying to exit is wrong (IMHO).

If it has been fixed, I apologize.

[Gray Fox]

Can a military force march into a trap? I think the answer is obvious. Everything that happens after that point may certainly be frustrating and undesirable, but it is not wrong for the rules to permit this. Either send in a relief force to save them or exfiltrate and get out of Dodge. These are the real world solutions available to you. We don't have a "get out of jail free" RGD.

Zero MC means that you have no knowledge of the exact whereabouts of enemy forces in the region. Your cavalry may tell you that an enemy is present, but with no real control, i.e. no "safe" areas in the region, you may get welcomed to Mogadishu.

[Rod Smart]

chasing partisans across the map sucks.

I'd rather have situations where you have to try hard to retreat from a region, than a system that makes it impossible to stop raids.

[khbynum]

The problem is, nothing like the described mechanic actually happened during the war. No army ever beat itself to death with repeated attacks when it had an open path of retreat. The only time a field army surrendered by necessity (leaving aside sieges, where the commander let himself be trapped) was at Appomattox. Johnston surrendered in North Carolina because he realized the game was up, not because Sherman maneuvered him into it. The Overland Campaign has been used as an example, but that took almost a year and hardly applies to the game situation. Gray Fox's "exfiltration" is a neat idea, but it's a gamey way of getting around a serious design flaw. It never happened in the war. With the possible exception of the aftermath of Pea Ridge, no army ever broke up into brigade-sized units to retreat from a lost battle. They always retreated, sometimes badly disorganized, along a specific path, screened by whatever units remained intact. Even Hood's shattered army retreated intact from Nashville. Please note, I'm referring to armies, not divisions such as the situation at 2nd Winchester.

This is a problem with the game that needs some creative fixing.

[Gray Fox]

Yes, if we ignore all of military history and focus exclusivley on the four years of the CW, then we can ignore any other reality. Unless it happened within our shores and between April 1861 and April 1865, it just wasn't possible.

For those of you who do not want to read several years worth of old posts, here's the rundown.

Originally, a trapped force with no retreat was destroyed.

A proposal was made that the force should auto-retreat out of a battle it lost so that it is not trapped.

To avoid the trap, it could retreat to the safe region from whence it came.

Except that the enemy sent a large cavalry force to block that region and keep the force trapped.

Well of course the force should just randomly retreat to any region. Great!

Except someone wants to know why their army randomly retreated deep into enemy territory and is now...trapped.

Be careful what you wish for.

[Rod Smart]

The doctrine of the time was to totally destroy the enemy army and win the war in one glorious battle.

This was to be tactically accomplished by flanking the enemy and cutting off lines of retreat.

[AndrewKurtz]

I'll quote Pocus's comment when this situation was discussed previously:

"Good catch on the faulty logic."

I personally also think it is faulty logic.

And for clarity, here is the post by pgr of the logic:

"This was originally posted by AndrewKurtz in the general forum. After playing a bit with the current RC, I have seen it in my games often as well.

It seems to be an unforeseen interaction between the rule which has a stack assume an offensive posture if it is in a region where its side has less than 5% MC, and the new retreat logic where a stack chooses not to retreat outside a region if there is no enemy stack present in an offensive posture.

As an illustrative example, McDowell attacks Mananas in Aug 61 with Beauregard in a defensive posture. McDowell retreats from battle, but does not choose to leave the province because there is no enemy force with an attack stance (as reflected by the battle log). In the next turn resolution, even if the player sets McDowell to passive and orders him out of the region to a completely friendly region, the stack's player issued orders are overridden, McDowell's stack assumes an "offensive" posture, and fights another battle in Mananas. He looses, no enemy in an offensive posture, chooses not to retreat out of region... etc.

It's causing failed attackers to get stuck in 0% friendly MC regions. It might be useful to have a rule that stacks never choose to retreat locally if their side has less than 5% friendly MC."

Entire thread was here:

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?38435-1-05RC3-Not-retreating-after-loosing-a-battle-bug

And from Pocus's question, it sounds to me like the force should potentially be retaining a 5%MC, which would stop the cycle. But that is reading into his question.

[AndrewKurtz]

The doctrine of the time was to totally destroy the enemy army and win the war in one glorious battle.

This was to be tactically accomplished by flanking the enemy and cutting off lines of retreat.

And it happened how many times?

[Rod Smart]

And it happened how many times?

Civil War tactics were based on Napoleonic tactics

Perhaps you've heard of Waterloo

[Gray Fox]

I've already addressed the auto-retreat side, so this is the problem with automatic 5% MC.

The CSA has a line of forces dug in along a river. I cross the river and lose a battle...but get to stay with an automatic 5% MC. Now I get to dig in on their side of the river and the Rebs have to attack me to restore their line. So much for the advantages of the defense.

Gentlemen, I will again propose that a setting on the Options screen should allow "Auto-retreat if trapped" so that the game is still fun for those of you who want this. I submit this is a viable solution.

[AndrewKurtz]

I will throw out another option. Only automatically change a force to offensive posture if it is entering a region with less than 5% MC. This allows it to start in a region with less than 5% and move in Defensive or Passive to a region where it has higher MC, and is allowed to move based on the rules. If the side with MC wants to force the issue, they can set themselves to offensive (i.e. Sherman or Grant). If they choose defensive, they have decided to let them leave if they prefer (i.e. McClellan).

This also solves the issue.

[FightingBuckeye]

I'm wondering if a hybrid of both options would be the best solution? IE, the force autoretreats as the game engine did previously IF there is a 'safe' region with MC to retreat to. Otherwise the game engine reverts to this series of slow death battles where you have to try and exfiltrate or send a relief force either into the region in question or a nearby region so that your trapped force has a valid retreat path. This solution should be a pretty simple design change and should solve both issues. No worries about chasing stacks in your rear or trying to catch and destroy those pesky raiders that used to be sooo very hard to pin down and destroy. And no more of one army repeatedly trying to attack turn after turn when it is already spent and the attack is pretty hopeless.

Yes, there are RL situations where the above happened. But I feel like this problem crops up in the game as it's currently designed a lot more frequently then it did in the real world as well. We're not talking about a once in a blue moon situation, it's something that easily happens multiple times over the course of the game. This is a game that occurs at the theater-level were we move divisions and corps across the map. It's not supposed to be a game where we're managing things at the tactical level. The exfiltration method is a valid 'fix' for a game design flaw. But as someone (sorry can't remember who) said, it's more of an action you'd expect to have to make at the tactical level and not the one where we're operating at in deciding if we should raise taxes or invest in more railroad infrastructure.

I love the game and will continue playing it as this issue isn't a big enough issue to get me to quit playing. It may be gamey, but we do have a way around this issue. And based on previous attempts to fix this issue, I'm confident that Pocus & Co will listen to us and try to figure out something that does work. Hopefully they don't create another issue in trying to address this one.

[donagel]

Civil War tactics were based on Napoleonic tactics

Perhaps you've heard of Waterloo

But in the Civil War I don't recall it happening other than in the final act where armies disbanded/surrendered.

The closest to that comes to mind would be the aforementioned case of Hood's forces after Nashville. It got completely mauled but still retreated as an organized unit back to the CSA. The armies that were destroyed, IIRC, where those trapped in fort/city (donelson, vicksburg, etc.)..(donelson if you dont count bedford's unit)

[tripax]

An alternative solution, if one is needed, would be to create an "Exfiltrate" RGD which increases evasion (and maybe increases speed) for a unit in passive. Alternatively, it could increase MC by 5% assuming all units in a region are passive. Either of these could be done at some cost to fighting ability of the force (for example lower cohesion, temporarilly reduce command points provided by generals, or temporarilly reduce stack generals' strategic scores).

[khbynum]

Yes, if we ignore all of military history and focus exclusivley on the four years of the CW, then we can ignore any other reality. Unless it happened within our shores and between April 1861 and April 1865, it just wasn't possible.

I assume this part of your post was aimed at me. The game is supposed to simulate the War for Southern Independence, not some other. We have all studied military history. If it can be done, someone, sometime, did it. If I offended you by calling your "exfiltration" tactic gamey, I apologize. What I meant was, it gets around a flaw in the game that needs to be fixed.

[bommerrang]

An alternative solution, if one is needed, would be to create an "Exfiltrate" RGD which increases evasion (and maybe increases speed) for a unit in passive. Alternatively, it could increase MC by 5% assuming all units in a region are passive. Either of these could be done at some cost to fighting ability of the force (for example lower cohesion, temporarilly reduce command points provided by generals, or temporarilly reduce stack generals' strategic scores).

Yes tripax, your suggestion makes sense.
I'm very surprised this has not continued to be an issue with the players and not addressed properly by now. I mean, I'm just now learning the game quite well but other players have been playing for a long time and to let this major issue continue without being fixed is kind of funny to me. In my game with hattrick I had Grant frozen in place for 4 turns near Nashville until he finally broke free with a major loss that caused him to retreat. I lost something like 10 NM over those 4 turns. Now I have a corp frozen north of Shiloh and another one frozen near Mobile. All losing NM every turn and nothing I can do...well...except to break them all down into little pieces and let some of them get wiped out.
Pocus - Let us all know when you fix it since you agree it is a design flaw.

[khbynum]

It surprises me, too. I was waiting for the 1.05 patch to start a new campaign, thinking this game-breaking bug had been squashed. Oh well, "Brother against Brother" is out so I'll play that for a while.