More strange results

[Bertram]

One of the most frustrating things about this game is that the combat results are very often rather strange. Last turn I got two of these.

One is around Koeningsberg. The Russians are coming. I defend in front (outside) of Koeningsberg (I got little choice, my troops are locked). A battle - not to bad, I loose a few men, but do about the same damage, and retreat. A result I can live with. Till I see the end result. My toops retreat all right - but the town is in enemy hands. All enemy troops are inside the fortress, my garrison is sitting outside of the town, with the fortress artillery and their supply. ???????????

Second is in Karlsbad. Enemy troops attacked there last turn. Some of my troops had to retreat (the wrong way - I cancelled the retreat). I send in a strong column and Frederic himself with the army reserves. Turn goes as expected - the non-retreating troops got mauled (though it is a bit strange that the only casualties are - again- the cavalry. 7 of the 19 cavalry units get wiped out by ranged fire. No other units affected). Then the column arrives, and they beat the enemy soundly (the enemy loses 36 units against me none. I expected this, they had been fighting last two turns and this turn). So for so good. But then: the end result is that my column and the troops already there end up besieged in Karlsbad, the enemy camping outside. With me outnumbering them 3-1. ????????????????

Things like this happen way to often. That is - not results like this, but results that are totally unexpected. It is pretty difficult to wage a war when has totaly unexpected outcomes. (though cavalry being wiped out by attacking infantry is something I get used to by now).
(This turn has also some cavalry in retreat and avoid mode being attacked and decimated by ranged fire from infantry).

[Bertram]

Ok, so the barbarians (in the guise of Russian Cossacks) just reached Stettin. The (locked and inside) garrison beat them of.
At the end of the turn the garrison was unlocked - and OUTSIDE of the town!!
It seems that when a garrison is unlocked (by being attacked) it is placed outside.... at least that happened twice in succesion now to me. I think this is a bug!

[squarian]

This turn has also some cavalry in retreat and avoid mode being attacked and decimated by ranged fire from infantry

Bertram has pointed this tendency for cavalry to take it in the neck in battle several times, and here's another example - this time in a siege assault. He's hosting our game, so he will have to post savegames if required, but I'm beginning to think this could use some examination - cavalry seems to be on the front line too often:

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Bertram]

I'll see if I can figure out which saves it was....

Turn23 should be the previous turn, in Turn24 I lose Koeningsberg, and I think in Turn25 my men got positioned outside Stettin.

[Pocus]

I checked the code about 'combat signature' and everything is normal, so for the same number of hits per element, if the cav has a combat signature of 50%, it should be targeted twice less than another element.

Beware, you can also be misled by the summary report, which is listing all the forces you own in the region, but this is not all the forces commited. Take this example from one of your save:



Here you could say there is a suspicion of a bug. Why the cav take all the hits you could ask:


But then, look at the detailed reports. They were the only ones to fight. Cav units are more easily commited into battle, as they are faster, whereas a slower stack or a stack commanded with a leader with a low strat rating (and cav leader again have generally a higher rating on average compared to an infantry general) would fail to be engaged.


To prevent that, you should keep your cav units within stacks made of infantry units, or you can be exposed to this kind of engagements where only your cav stack manage to catch the enemy...

Now, perhaps there is really a bug, but I would need to have the correct saves so that I don't spend time searching too much for ghosts

[Bertram]

I think (I looked the saves up, and this is what they showed - I am not 100% sure I got the right battle though. I am 99% sure.... ) I had two forces in Karlsbad.

One under Gessler. He was set on defend. His forces consisted of two pure infantry brigades and a jager regiment.
One under Wedell. His forces consisted of a three brigades and zeven infantry brigades, supported by 4 artillery units and some supply. He was set on attack posture, and ordered to sortie.

As Gessler had seniority 28, and Wedell 47, Gessler is shown as commander. Both were commanding columns, so it might very well be that Gessler joined in very quickly, but I think Wedell initiated the combat. All cavalry units were in his column anyway - and the infantry outnumbeed the cavalry there about 7 to 3.

As to the force composition under the Swedish, when they lost their cavalry near Stralsund - Squarian would know if the cavalry formed an independent brigade or was part of a larger force.


But even if it would have been an independent brigade: 100% losses in cavalry - I think this is very unrealistic. Cavalry was to expensive to throw away like that, and to quick to be slaughtered to the last men. They didnt fight infantry if they didnt feel like it, and always could break off if needed. Cavalry attacked by cavalry could usually evade as well, or retreat behind friendly infantry. I dont think there ever was a battle where cavalry from a mixed force attacked an infantry force in a sustained way before their own infantry arrived (I am not counting harrassing attacks or skirmishing, that would not get a cavalry force 100% wiped out).

This last is more game design and unit balancing though - the main point is that the cavalry wasn't on its own, and took way more casualties then one would expect.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[PhilThib]

I am just wondering (thinking out loud here ) whether it could be interesting for us, scenario creators, to have some kind of specific syntax for city/fort garrisons that would mean (code-wise): permanently-locked + inside city/fort

That would avoid that strange thing. Also, IMHO, the unlock for a city-garrison should work ONLY in one case: if the city is taken by the enemy and the garrison, for some reason, survives and retreats outside of the city/fort... if not, the garrison should remain inside and locked permanently.

In addition, the new 'command' should be impervious to the SetFixing command (that would also help a lot for events and setups).

To be discussed later on with Pocus when he can find time on his agenda

[Bertram]

Thanks for looking into that - seems I must have placed the garrison outside, probably when I clicked it, to see what it was composed of. Obviously that was never intended!!

I would support the possibility of locking garrison units inside the structure. Either that, or the status of the unit (inside/outside the structure) should be only be changeable by the "enter/sortie" button. (It could be instant if no enemy forces were also in the region).

[Baris]

İt is a good idea to permanently fix garison in the structure to avoid mistakes by player.also i agree that to enter the structure we can use only enter or sortie command, but what kind of events or setups can be created by locking garison?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Baris]

oh ok thank you i understand more clearly.

[Ebbingford]

Concerning the cavalry getting wiped out question. Wouldn't it be an easy option to have those leaders that have the "Cavalryman" ability also have the ability that enables retreat if overwhelmed. This way you can have scouting units which don't run the risk of getting wiped out completely. I always use these leaders for my cavalry and light infantry scouts anyway, but there aren't that many of them. I think some nationalities don't have any, but if it was added to those who also have the cavalry ability then that would probably work.
Cavalry on their own shouldn't even be engaging larger forces, they should just observe them and evade contact anyway.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Pocus]

I am just wondering (thinking out loud here ) whether it could be interesting for us, scenario creators, to have some kind of specific syntax for city/fort garrisons that would mean (code-wise): permanently-locked + inside city/fort

That would avoid that strange thing. Also, IMHO, the unlock for a city-garrison should work ONLY in one case: if the city is taken by the enemy and the garrison, for some reason, survives and retreats outside of the city/fort... if not, the garrison should remain inside and locked permanently.

In addition, the new 'command' should be impervious to the SetFixing command (that would also help a lot for events and setups).

To be discussed later on with Pocus when he can find time on his agenda

Auto-Garrison v2 is meant to replace statics garrisons, I wrote a full article on this new feature on the wiki and you are all welcome to read it

http://www.ageod.net/agewiki/The_Auto-garrison_feature

[Ebbingford]

You raise several interesting points, but I think it should be a separately defined ability and NOT combined with Cavalryman. This would cause problems in AACW (which shares the same game engine) and which already has difficulties with gamey Cavalry raids destroying RRs everywhere and NOT being easily intercepted.

What about just giving the "evade combat if overwhelmed" ability to just the light cavalry units, that was their job after all, and this will then have no effect on AACW.

[Baris]

"Auto-Garrison v2 is meant to replace statics garrisons, I wrote a full article on this new feature on the wiki and you are all welcome to read it"

Thanks for your efforts and good writing , does simple or advanced mode means different systems used in different ageod games for example rise of prussia,or wars in america(like simple supply or advanced supply)?or earlier implementation of rules? its pretty logical to have only garison in case of attack, and good to have artilery, and garisons size change whether its defending a city or depot.? if i understand correctly,looks complicated than it looks

[Pocus]

For a given scenario or game, the designer will have to choose if he uses one mode or another yes ... BUT even if I say that the new Auto-garrison feature (when garrisons are created just before an attack) can replace the static fixed garrisons, both are not really antagonistic, and you can still (as a scenario designer) add fixed garrisons in your setup in addition to what will pop-up if under attack.

[Baris]

So whom uses the simple mode creates permanent units at day 0(or by event later) of hosting and needs further 6 clauses to apply one of them is about replacements, but as written in the advanced mode it doesnt need replacements as it can be prioritizing replacements in unintented places or structures(maybe im wrong). what is the cost of the garison(that appear when enemy comes) units in advanced mode? and if it these rules are used in combination more units will be in garison?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Pocus]

It was not practical to try to make the player pay a cost for the on-the-fly garrisons, how to decide if and when to pay... we rationalize that by saying the cost is factored either when you build the structure (the infamous AACW 'problem': where my artilleries disappear when I create a fort ) or with your supply usage, whatever...

[Baris]

Yes it is fairly logical not to pay for garison units which are temporary and only appear due to situation of emergency. and i agree that to prepare a scenario heavily autogarison it will require to much balance and micromanagement,and it is not necessary.