Refuse to retreat

[FightingBuckeye]

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.

The current issue isn't a long time issue. There have been several changes in the past that have led to the current issue. Gray Fox just listed some of the changes and their unintended consequences a couple posts ago and those weren't the only changes either. The current fix is way better than possibly seeing your entire army wiped out. It's also better than having your forces retreat backwards behind enemy lines where they could starve to death. And it's better than chasing small groups of raiders all over the place without being able to bring them to battle.

Take heart, the issues will be resolved eventually as the developers have already taken steps to correct issues in the past. In the meantime you have options in getting your forces out.

[BattleVonWar]

Sticky Issue here:

In The Civil War there was no mass surrender of a healthy enough Army(smaller units did) BUT(!) there was no mislead force into New York 70k strong either. Even if 70 thousand men got routed and smooshed. I imagine like in Soviet Russia of '41, tens of thousands would slip through the lines and reform later in their own territory, given there was territory to slip into.

People are asking could Meade have totally destroyed the Army of Northern Virginia? Could The Confederates attacked and taken Washington after Bull Run? (Antietam?) Was it possible? Or were the Generals playing too safe...with the losses maybe, but that's hypothetical.

Read an interesting Wiki article about Napoleonic and Civil War tactics: They ended up being very much the same due to the limitations of the fire arms. Even the range of the rifles, muskets..obscured views due to smoke.(making ranges unchanged somewhat since Napoleonic Wars) Not enough mass production of Gun Powder due to the technological limitations to have great shots.

Though uhh, the question is here is their a game mechanic that is causing things to go wonky?

[marquo]

Friction does exist and presents problems disengaging; however it is absurd that a corps attacking an entrenched opponent in defensive mode can't execute an organized retreat. The concept of breaking down the corps into multiple ant-like units to retreat is a player's fix for a serious conceptual issue. And such breaking down of the corps into smaller fragments is in fact a loss cohesion which should hinder not enhance ability to organize an orderly retreat.

Forcing a corps into attack mode when everyone from the HQ to the cook wants to go green and evade combat is quite a stretch...especially with the defenders in defensive mode entrenched

My 2 cents

Cheers

[RickInVA]

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.

In the main I agree with Gray Fox regarding giving the losing force 5% MC, as that could cause some strange situations. As the devil's Advocate I will point out that this game does not offer a tactical level to be sure that if I am defending in a region, that I am doing so along the river line. Most of these regions are rather large, and it might well be a huge assumption that the defensive force is at point A and not point B. Point B might well allow them space to coexist.

On the other hand, the idea of MC, and going to attack mode if less than 5% MC, is entirely a game function. If I have an army, and I attack, and I lose, and I want to retreat, I shouldn't have to attack again to retreat. Unless something has happened to cause me not to have a viable retreat route. But to say that every time this situation happens that it represents a "trapped force" is, IMHO, too unrealistic. Still, it should be possible that a force can get cut off and be unable to retreat without outside assistance (a relief force).

One might also take the opinion, that these "repeat battles" represent a series of engagements as the one force tries to retreat and the other harries them at all costs, trying to keep them where they can fight them.

Also, I would hope that a high Strategic Rated leader (or perhaps high offensive rating, not sure which might be better) would have an enhanced chance to "slip away".

Lastly, a "Sneak Away" RGD could be a great idea. It could also be used where two forces ended up in the same region without a battle, and one (or both) of them wants to get away without combat.

[AndrewKurtz]

Does only changing a force to offensive posture when they are ENTERING a region with less than 5% MC solve the issue?

Or am I missing some hole this leaves open?

[Gray Fox]

Since I have uselessly repeated posts explaining in detail that this situation is real world and not something that is broken, or a bug or caused by Satan (and actually has at least two RW solutions), I will skip doing that again.

With apologies, here's the bottom line. If you are determined to launch attacks all over the map that end in defeat and then slow annihilation, maybe the problem isn't with the game? Did leaders in the CW foolishly throw their men away in useless attacks? Gee, that's a hard one...I'm going to go with absolutely F'ing right. I keep reading posts on how the game should be about missplaced orders or commanders not doing what you want in battle. Here you go! The game allows you the player to repeat the senseless slaughter where your commanders refuse to retreat but instead launch one more bayonet charge, historically correct to the T.

However, you should learn how not to let this happen. "Win the battle first, then fight it". Stop launching suicidal attacks and hoping that they will magically go your way. Then you won't have this happening over and over. If it does occasionally still happen, you will hopefully have developed the planning skill and determination to save your men by having a relief force standing by or the patience to break them down into smaller groups so that they escape certain death. An RGD won't make you a better player.

[AndrewKurtz]

Gray,

I respectfully disagree with your stance, but all this is personal opinion, so there is no right or wrong. What matters is what AGEod believes.

Personally, I believe the engine changing orders to offensive posture when a force starts in a region with less than 5% MC is a problem and makes the game un-enjoyable.

But that is my opinion, apparently one shared by others, but not by you.

Also, I have read every post in this thread, and unless I am missing something, I do not think I have read anywhere the unintended consequences of changing when a force switches to offensive posture automatically based on less than 5% MC to only when the force enters a region with less than 5% MC. If I missed it, I apologize.

[Captain_Orso]

It used to be that if you retreated from a battle, that was it, you were impervious to being attacked again that turn. You always got away regardless of how little MC you had in the retreat-target region. Players complained about this for years on end so Pocus fixed the retreat rules so that it is nearly impossible to retreat into a region where you have little to no MC, and if the enemy has enough patrol value vs your evasion value, he will not even allow you to escape the region where your MC it plentiful; basically the normal patrol/evasion rules.

AFAIK if your weaker stack is in a region where they have 0 MC and are trying to escape, if you put them in Passive Posture, they will not change to offensive. The enemy will then have to attack to catch the retreating stack. No attack = escape.

If you think that a retreating stack should always escape, how would you fix the rules to prevent an invading stack from retreating from every battle turn after turn? Or should that be the fact of the matter?

[Gray Fox]

AK I wasn't calling you out. I have nothing but respect for everyone here. Every time I post that this is not a bug, I see more posts about it being a bug. If the alternatives are auto-retreat, auto 5% MC, or Get out of jail free RGD, then I'll stick with what we have. Maybe a setting on the Option screen would satisfy this.

[hattrick]

We seem to have a lack of communication here, let me clarify things.

This BUG has nothing to do with retreat rules, nothing... If you think its right for an attacking army to attack a region then lose, then tries to retreat, cant retreat but yet ATTACKS again??? Its about the milirary control of the region, the stack has no military control, it used to and did in the previous game and in the patches before this patch. If the army did have military control 5 % it would not attack again. So the issue is not about retreating, its about why some armies in regions with the enemy do not get military control after a battle.

[Gray Fox]

The thread is titled, "Refuse to retreat" right?

[hattrick]

The thread is titled, "Refuse to retreat" right?

What really matters though is whats on the INSIDE of the thread.

[Gray Fox]

All right then. I attack Richmond and lose. But I get an automatic 5% MC, so I dig in and Richmond is now under siege.

[hattrick]

Yeah so, why should it not be?

[Gray Fox]

If you absolutely don't see a problem with this, then I would once again offer that a special setting on the Options screen should be available for those who want these results.

[khbynum]

All right then. I attack Richmond and lose. But I get an automatic 5% MC, so I dig in and Richmond is now under siege.

Like what happened at Petersburg in June, 1864?

I think AndrewKurtz has the right of it. Force offensive posture upon first entering a region with less than 5% military control, but not thereafter. Gray Fox mentioned a case of attacking a defended river line, losing, but still maintaining a foothold. Well, Chancellorsville anyone? Lee MTSGed a little late and had to attack to restore his strategic defense. Same thing at Petersburg, but by then he didn't have the means to evict the Union.

[AndrewKurtz]

If you think that a retreating stack should always escape, how would you fix the rules to prevent an invading stack from retreating from every battle turn after turn? Or should that be the fact of the matter?

I do not think they should always escape. My recommended change would be that the force does not automatically change from Defensive to Offensive unless it is moving INTO a region where it has less than 5% MC. So, if the situation occurred where a battle was lost and the forces stayed in the same region, the force could stay in defensive posture and retreat, but only to a location where it was allowed to move based on MC and patrol/evasion (i.e. not blinking red).

If the other side wants a battle, they should change to Offensive and attack.

If MC is 0, then they should not entrench, thus avoiding the issue Gray was concerned with. If MC is greater than zero (or whatever the threshold is), entrench away.

[bommerrang]

I do not think they should always escape. My recommended change would be that the force does not automatically change from Defensive to Offensive unless it is moving INTO a region where it has less than 5% MC. So, if the situation occurred where a battle was lost and the forces stayed in the same region, the force could stay in defensive posture and retreat, but only to a location where it was allowed to move based on MC and patrol/evasion (i.e. not blinking red).

If the other side wants a battle, they should change to Offensive and attack.

If MC is 0, then they should not entrench, thus avoiding the issue Gray was concerned with. If MC is greater than zero (or whatever the threshold is), entrench away.

YES! Excellent suggestion.

[marquo]

YES! Excellent suggestion.

Which is articulated better than I tried above; if the victorious defender wants to leave trenches and counterattack than so be it. And might also lose some entrenchment value...

[Captain_Orso]

All right then. I attack Richmond and lose. But I get an automatic 5% MC, so I dig in and Richmond is now under siege.

No, as long as any defending troops are in the field, no siege takes place.

[Captain_Orso]

I do not think they should always escape. My recommended change would be that the force does not automatically change from Defensive to Offensive unless it is moving INTO a region where it has less than 5% MC. So, if the situation occurred where a battle was lost and the forces stayed in the same region, the force could stay in defensive posture and retreat, but only to a location where it was allowed to move based on MC and patrol/evasion (i.e. not blinking red).

If the other side wants a battle, they should change to Offensive and attack.

If MC is 0, then they should not entrench, thus avoiding the issue Gray was concerned with. If MC is greater than zero (or whatever the threshold is), entrench away.

This would allow the 'attacker' to 'sneak' into and through a region defended by a well entrenched but slightly smaller force.

[INDENT]The 'attacker' sets his force to Defensive Posture/Retreat if Engaged with the Evade Combat SO. Upon entering the region their posture changes to Offensive Posture/Feint-Probe Attack EC-SO, which gives them a great chance of remaining in the region, especially if they enter the region very late in the turn. Even if they were forced to retreat by their probing attack, they may not have time to leave the region, especially if you plan the move well.

Next turn (they are in the region now) they simply cancel the retreat, go to DP and gain MC, because now, event though they are at 0 MC, they are also not moving and will not be forced to go to OP.[/INDENT]

I believe to solve the issue, stacks in DP which are moving to leave the region should not be forced to change their posture to OP.

I would also raise the MC low-water-mark to 25%. If a force is in the region with <=25% MC they automatically go to OP, unless they are leaving the region.

[AndrewKurtz]

I believe to solve the issue, stacks in DP which are moving to leave the region should not be forced to change their posture to OP.

I would also raise the MC low-water-mark to 25%. If a force is in the region with <=25% MC the automatically go to OP, unless they are leaving the region.

Agreed. That accomplishes the same objective.

The only caveat I might throw in is that the MC of the region they are moving into might also be taken into consideration. As long as they are moving to a region in which they have enough MC, they are not changed. If the region they are moving to is low in MC, then change them as it does now. It forces them to retreat to a safe region.

[bommerrang]

I'm so happy that this is getting the attention again that it deserves.
Pocus - when can you put out a "hotfix"?

[Gray Fox]

An army marches blind into a totally hostile region. An enemy army blocks their line of communications so they're trapped. They attack and lose. They're still trapped. If their defeated army tries to march around the enemy, the stronger enemy army counter-marches and they are still trapped in the region with no safe haven.

In this RW situation:

1. The army really must fight to break out and get to safety. Apparently this is the part we must choose to address as a design flaw.

2. The army can fight until a large relief force is sent to rescue them, perhaps by MTSG. However, this requires planning and forethought.

3. The large lumbering army can break down into smaller brigades and out-manuever the enemy army to escape. This is a last resort, but is inconvenient and may spoil enjoyment for playing. It is also absolutely RW and works for that reason.

An enemy may attack one of your units that is low on cohesion, or poorly organized or that consists of second line troops and commanders. You don't really have total control over where you defend. This is not the case with an attack. If you choose to ignore every warning sign and launch an attack with such a force that has practically no chance of success and the above situation happens, it's not a problem with the game design. If a trapped force is suddenly not trapped and gets a free pass, then the game is no longer a simulation of real combat.

[AndrewKurtz]

I very respectfully disagree.

Imagine if Lee had been forced to keep attacking just to retreat from Gettysburg or Antietam. That is effectively what the engine is requiring. I cannot think of many instances where a force was required to make a major attack in order to retreat after just losing a battle (please point them out if I am missing them, but I mean situations where the side that just lost a battle had to be the aggressor). But in the game, it happens frequently.

My opinion, and I am very cognizant it is only my opinion, is that the engine forcing attacks when a previously defeated force is trying to retreat into a region where it can legitimately retreat is a design flaw. In fact, I do not think it was a design decision but instead an unintended consequence of another change.

As far as I can tell from reading this thread, you seem to be the only person voicing that they like it as is, but there may be a silent majority who prefer the current situation. But personally, and again, this is just my opinion, it makes the game un-enjoyable.

[khbynum]

Gray Fox keeps posting about armies being trapped. That's not what anyone is objecting to. Of course, if your retreat is cut off you have to attack to escape. If you lose a battle and have a valid retreat route, it's absurd for the game to make you continue to attack by changing your posture to offense. There are no historical examples to cite, because it never happened.

I waited patiently and with high hopes for the 1.05 patch, thinking it would make this great game as near perfect as possible, but this bug is a game-killer for me.

[Gray Fox]

The game should appeal to a wide variety of players. If some of you want more fun and less realism, then let's get a setting in the options menu where the ZOC, retreat, etc. rules are relaxed. When my army was trapped, I sent in a relief force. If that had not worked I would have exfiltrated. Nothing is wrong here.I'm getting PM's from people who see it this way. However, if some of you aren't going to play the game unless you get your way, then I guess that's that.

[Captain_Orso]

This is a strategic level game. The ability to represent tactical situations such as cutting off the retreat of a force is limited. In-game to actually isolate a force so that it cannot retreat you would have to gain MC in the regions 'behind' the force you want to trap.

[INDENT]ZOC: Police-Value of the trapping force * (1.1 * entrenchment level) / worst Evasion-Value of the retreating force = minimum-MC of a region to be allowed to enter that region. This does not consider fortifications of the trapping force in the region.
[/INDENT]

Lower the retreating force's MC in the regions behind it, and it may become trapped.

The tactics of the era do not allow for tho command and control of forces necessary for actions to easily cut-off forces. Once you sent a force outside of your direct communications (by currier) you lost control of them and may not even know where they are let alone their status. They become an easy target for a consolidated force which could then put up a defensive line to protect their rear while the rest of the force attacked en force the rouge detachment.

If you left one single gap in your front line or did not have your flanks strong and protected, you opened the door to disaster. See the battles of Chickamauga and Chancellorsville.

I agree, that auto-changing a retreating force to offensive to allow them to retreat does not directly represent any historical situation. Not being able to 'follow' a retreating force the moment that it is recognized as having retreated also not. I would like to one day see the ability to 'follow' a retreating force with a days delay instead of a turns delay. But I think being able to retreat at all is something that could be done now with little effort from the devs and would go a long way to helping the game while still maintaining the ZOC rules in their current state.

[Rod Smart]

After re-reading all of these posts, I believe that BOTH sides of the argument are correct.

The side for keeping it the same is correct. If a stack is in a region, and they have zero military control, that stack should be mandated to switch to offense. Its stupid to have two sides entrenching within one region.

The side for changing it is correct. If a stack is in a region, and they have zero military control, and they switch to offense, and they lose, they should retreat. Its stupid for them to remain.

-----------------------------

the problem is not that armies continue to attack until they are destroyed.
the problem is that the army is still there.

[AndrewKurtz]

the problem is not that armies continue to attack until they are destroyed.
the problem is that the army is still there.

Well, I was assuming the game was changed to leave armies in regions where they lose a battle for a reason, although I do not know the reason. That is what I meant by this issue is an unintended consequence of another change.