AGEOD Forums

Following the Unit moving too fast thread, I think one of the main problems we have is that there is a very low incentive to use the Force march order.

Units move quite fast without this order, specially when they have good leaders, and this order is only ever useful in a few situations when you really need a unit to arrive fast to cover a structure or break a siege...

I think a significant redo of the movement should be possible using the force march trait and leaders traits together :
- The fast mover and the slow mover trait should represent the ability of generals to speed up their forces when they have to rush to achieve a goal. The normal movement rate should be quite similare for all generals, adjusted marginally depending on the strat rating.
- Force march should be twice as fast as normal march : ie 50ks/day against 25/day. Obviously this type of distinction would be more adapted to a game where turns were less than 2 weeks, as in 2 weeks the speed of force march and normal march tend to get a bit closer.
- the difference between a fast moving general and another one should be : it can get its troop to move faster when force marching AND it can get its troops to suffer less cohesion losses from force marching so that they are more usable than others after a force march.

What I mean is that if we want to reproduce Sherman's march or The KEntucky campaign we should consider that these moves were done under force march orders. Our definition becomes operationnal force march rather than tactical, but such is the scope of the game anyway.

Generals like Jackson or Sherman would have characteristics such ass fast mover : speeds up march speed by 20% and reduces cohesion losses induced by 20% if level 2, only 10% if level one..
and slow mover trait would have several similar levels.

What I would like to see is a real incentive to use force march, as I think in this game the advantage is really marginal (ie arrive in 6 rather than 7 days or 15 instead of 18...)

Force march should not remove a lot of cohesion. I know cohesion is also the morale of the troops and that forcing them to march is not really good for morale, but it also represents simply cohesion, brigades staying together, officers with their men, etc...
And to force them to march, troops management is very strict. While a corp would normaly move with some men going to chat with friends in another brigade and officers letting them do, while in force march, I don't see this happen to avoid people lazyness.

I think force march should cost some hits to the troops. Diseases, horses dying exhausted, feets hurting so much that people get infected, canons and carts droped because of broken wheels, etc...

No ?

Forced march being not used much is an artifact of the 2 weeks turns I think.

I only use forced march when I otherwise arrive in 17 days or so, and want to arrive in the turn. But usually I have a bit of time left after the move, so what is the difference if I arrive after, for example 9 days or 11 days? In both cases my troops sit there for the rest of the turn. The only case where this is different is when they do combat, and then I certainly dont want to have them arrive exhausted.

I could imagine using froced march when racing my opponent to a choke point or a town, but with FOW I will only know it was so close after the fact, and I prefer arriving later with cohesion, to arriving first without.

I could imagine forced march being usefull when marching several turns, over a long distance, but that is prohibitive because of the cohesion loss....

exactly, right now their is no incentive in using force march. I think it should be used a lot more...

Interesting notes...

I often use forced march outbound for amphibious raiding. Most high cohesion land units only take two days to traverse a water region, and maybe 5-6 to land somewhere. If the landing can be cut to 3-4 days (or even less for cavalry), then that's one complete additional region I can project into. So a relatively fresh cavalry unit could theoretically travel six water regions in one turn, and then land somewhere. Considering the size of some water regions, that can be about 500 miles without worrying about passing through enemy lines, or taking extra cohesion loss from traversing hostile territory. Moving that extra region by water while using forced march generally causes less cohesion loss than regular movement by land for single regiments. (Seems to, anyway). I just have to watch out for oddly placed shore batteries and gunboats. Oh, and riverine movement with or without forced march is the best way to lose pursuers.

Works great in areas like Chesapeake Bay, Altamaha River, Tennessee River (now requires a touch & go around Muscle Shoals), Ohio River, Upper Mississippi River, Sabine River, Arkansas River, Illinois River/I&M Canal/Lake Michigan/Grand River (that last combo really annoys some people) ...

Historical players, don't try this at home.

I use forced march a lot in my human v human game agaist my nephew - he raids and cut RR a lot - Forced March in necessary.

However against Athena I only really use it whn a move will take mor tahn one turn or especially ou west where there are no RR and I am in race with Feds to get to a particular point in map.

Although I agree that forced march should be used more, I don't agree that it should be used as an excuse to ratchet back down the hard-won increase in overall movement rates. There are simply too many historical situations where fast movement rates were achieved without undue forced marching. (Note: In my extensive Gettysburg and Kentucky tests, I was only able to achieve historical rates of march with the new, faster movement rates and with forced marches.)

I used forced march quite a bit. like someone already said. To arrive somewhere within 15 days. But more importantly...when you know you need to just GET to an objective...even if it isn't pressing for the CURRENT turn....or even the next. For instance:

I force march to get Kirby Smith to Lexington and in a position to threaten Louisville. or force march Jackson down the valley to take a weakly defended Winchester or Harper's Ferry. Just a couple of examples. I use it quite often....relatively speaking that is.

deleted