AGEOD Forums

Not to split hairs here, but I'm wondering about the accuracy of something involving a "probe" ROE against an entrenched enemy.

I recently attacked an entrenched enemy with the ROE "probe" and lost a catastrophic amount of troops. NOW:

1. I had no cavalry
2. I may not have been able to get away without getting harried by enemy cavalry
3. yes the enemy WAS entrenched....

But, considering that the enemy would have had to leave their entrenchments to pursue me I was wondering if there was some kind of code that could eliminate that bonus sometime within a battle to simulate the pursuit.

OR

possibly a better chance for retreat with the "probe" ROE. I suppose I could have used a single cavalry regiment, but I thought I'd send an Infantry division as a "recon in force".

The thing is that even for a probe, the ROE matrix is set to 100% for the first round, so you can get toasted in this phase, if the opposition is very strong.

Then starting with the second round, you have a 150% chance to retreat and all sides do only 40% damages to each other. But in your case, this was too late?

That must have been it. because my division lost over 80 percent....just odd that my "virtual" general would have put his "virtual" troops into a pitched fight with orders to probe instead.

tis the consequence of war I suppose

the general didn't have ANY abilities or anything that would prevent him from retreating either. Just a thought.

Thinking again about that, perhaps the probe ROE should reduce losses as soon as battle start.

Of course before moving on the issue I want folks to weigh in about the authenticity of an adjustment.

You pinpointed the question well...

Should the "probe" ROE mean that there will, from the onset, be fewer casualties on both sides?

OR

Like in cases such as Gettysburg 1st day, or The Battle of the Wilderness, or 2nd Manassas 1st day, all "meeting engagements" where neither side was given orders to commit major forces, but still managed to take major losses.....should things stay the way they are?....I dunno

I always have to play the devil's advocate....

I have been seeing weird battle results as well with heavy losses in situations which would have resulted in retreats in the past.

I don't think the problem is with ROE.... or probably not.

In looking at battle logs, I see retreat checks before the battle starts and troops will retreat.

However I am not seeing any retreats during battle. The results are always "no need to retreat". Even when one side is slowly being destroyed. These results are not with max defend or attack settings.

I haven't seen the right type of battle yet to be sure, but I don't think the retreat during battle process is working properly.

Also I am still using 1.08d patch.

Jagger wrote:I have been seeing weird battle results as well with heavy losses in situations which would have resulted in retreats in the past.

I don't think the problem is with ROE.... or probably not.

In looking at battle logs, I see retreat checks before the battle starts and troops will retreat.

However I am not seeing any retreats during battle. The results are always "no need to retreat". Even when one side is slowly being destroyed. These results are not with max defend or attack settings.

I haven't seen the right type of battle yet to be sure, but I don't think the retreat during battle process is working properly.

Also I am still using 1.08d patch.

I've the same with the 1.09b4... attempts to retreat never succeed.

The code seems fine, I just traced the Bull Run battle and dice were rolled normally...