Refuse to retreat

[Gray Fox]

I don't want anyone to stop playing the game.

One last time. A region is a really big area, with hundreds of square miles or more. An army can be trapped. The trapped army marches blind to the east...within the same region. The enemy, with full knowledge of the region, countermarches. They are still trapped...within the same region. Same if they go west. Because they have no MC, no safe haven, they are constantly trapped and must fight their way out to a safe region. "This didn't happen in the CW". Do we have 1400 days of SITREPs from hundreds of units to read over? Maybe it's possible for a player to stay trapped when even Butler or Bragg would have sent in a relief force to get his army untrapped.

At the strategic level, a Division is like any other Division. However, the player can put a sharpshooter in a Division to give its sub-units more initiative. You can change the tactical nature of that Division. Same if you add a Marine or an elite brigade, or don't. Your strategy is constructed by using tactical bricks. None of these are in the manual. Someone figured it out and everyone correctly used these sub-units to gain a tactical edge. No one said change the game so that Divisions can have more initiative or cohesion. It wasn't necessary.

You can sit down with a beer and a bag of pretzels and play CW2, or you can try to visualize a few of the trees in the forest. Change the game or don't. Nothing is wrong.

[Captain_Orso]

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.

Not too long ago the retreat rules --a stack having lost a battle and being put into retreat by the game-- did not take ZOC into account. This allowed a stack in surrounded by regions with 100% enemy MC to constantly retreat away from an attacking force. It was often see for stacks to retreat all the way from Pittsburgh or Wheeling to Cleveland or elsewhere far from Southern territory. These many week long retreats were not only frustrating to the players, but they just seemed extremely unrealistic.

The solution was to improve the targeting of the retreat region --which I believe Pocus did very well indeed-- and the inclusion of ZOC in allowing retreat at all.

The affect is that if a player now invades deep into enemy territory and does not maintain a retreat path --a region(s) adjacent to his current region and leading back to friendly territory where he has high MC-- his stack may well become trapped in its current region when losing a battle and otherwise being put into retreat. Such stacks, from my understanding, once in retreat, are still protected from further attack during that turn, even if they cannot retreat out of the region.

--

The issue addressed by the OP is a stack entering an enemy held region, changing to OP, losing a battling but not succeeding in retreating to outside of the battle region. In the next turn, if that stack is put into DP, because it has =<5% MC it will automatically be changed to OP, causing it to attack again, even if it were trying to retreat.

This does not make a lot of sense. If the stack is 'retreating', and has a movement target conform to movement and ZOC rules, it should be allowed to 'retreat' unhindered. In this case, if the player controlling the region wishes to attack the 'retreating' stack or try to prevent it from 'retreating', he should be required to actively take measures to do so, and not be automatically given this results by the 'retreating' stack being forced to attack.

[Rod Smart]

If a southern army marches to Pittsburgh, and loses control of the regions it passed through, it should be forced to fight its way out
If a southern army marches from Manassas to Alexandria (while retaining control of Manassas Leesburg and Falmouth), and loses the battle, it shouldn't be forced to fight its way out.

[Gray Fox]

Apparently Pocus has posted that a change is coming where you just get 5% MC, no matter what. So that is that. We'll see how this works out.

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?39391-Military-control-bug&p=345833#post345833

The quick fix is posted.

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?39414-Quick-fix-CW2-fixed-executable-April-24&p=345838#post345838

[BattleVonWar]

Both sides are sort of right. Good lord, after playing more and more I can see that both sides have a point. This is just a game ultimately! In other threads I've searched there is a RGD(other AGEOD Games) for this.

To me there are so many factors involved. Leadership, terrain, leadership, loyalty, Military Control. Units don't go bust and poof for any reason during this time frame to another dozen reasons including LUCK :P I might march my 5000 men into a region not seeing 50,000 men and never even be seen. Never engage, and evade... I might make them believe I am a massive army and get to run away. Anything is possible. I think everyone has a great argument and totally agree with everyone here this is worthwhile to explore, discuss and see what makes the game most enjoyable(historical in feel without destroying anyone's point totally)

P.S. Total surrenders happen when you have total control and the right men controlling the situations. Escape happens when you don't have these things. Breaking up 0 cohesion units running buttsore to their own lines doesn't sound Civil War ahistorical(Bull Run) in fact isn't that about right???

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.

[Bullman]

Apparently Pocus has posted that a change is coming where you just get 5% MC, no matter what. So that is that. We'll see how this works out.

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?39391-Military-control-bug&p=345833#post345833

The quick fix is posted.

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?39414-Quick-fix-CW2-fixed-executable-April-24&p=345838#post345838

I actually thought this thread dealt with an issue that might have seemed complex but was simple to understand/address. Given the four pages of discussion it doesn't seem that way.

Would be good if the two "opposing sides" in this debate care to share their thoughts on how the new "5% MC no matter what" fix will affect things now. In particular how it might affect other things and situations. Was this a suitable "fix" or were you thinking of something else?

[Captain_Orso]

It's not new. It's the way it was supposed to work.

- Enter a region where an enemy force is sitting; your force must fight to remain in the region.
- Your force did not retreat out of the region, regardless of anything else the happened during the previous turn, your force should now have at least 5% MC (Pocus' quote was, "the men must be somewhere!") and not be forced to attack again.
- Your force has 5+% MC, it may remain in DP and not be auto-changed and my move off to some other region without being forced to attack again and again.

[tripax]

- Your force has 5+% MC, it may remain in DP and not be auto-changed and may move off to some other region without being forced to attack again and again.

If the force it faces is large enough in a relative sense, won't all the regions around it be red? In this way, it is still possible to trap a stack and grind it down, right?

Edit: typo "long" -> "large"

[BattleVonWar]

If the force it faces is long enough in a relative sense, won't all the regions around it be red? In this way, it is still possible to trap a stack and grind it down, right?

Possible but not easy if you understand the game mechanics. I am learning myself how to avoid these situations. "Push a spear too far into an enemy formation, the tip will be broken and you will be pulled into the jaws of death by your own weapon." ~Me

[Bullman]

OK, then it sounds like we have the best of both worlds then. Stacks can in theory get "trapped" but won't be compelled to attack every turn. Sounds like the perfect situation.

Possible but not easy if you understand the game mechanics. I am learning myself how to avoid these situations. "Push a spear too far into an enemy formation, the tip will be broken and you will be pulled into the jaws of death by your own weapon." ~Me

I like this Art of War style analogy! Paints a good picture of what can actually happen.

Just curiously though, come to think of it, I am not 100% sure of how the game deals with MC when a stack moves through several regions where they have 0% MC. What determines the change of MC in the regions a stack moves through?

[Captain_Orso]

It is possible to have such a high police value in a region and the enemy such a low evasion value that they couldn't even enter a region where they have 100% MC, but then the difference in power would be so great that I have no idea why the larger force wouldn't simply destroy the small in battle.

The one thing which I think is still not working is that when a stack moves into a region, fights a battle, loses, but remains in the region, that faction isn't gaining 5% MC, which will cause it to go to OP again if not put into PP. That should not be the case.

Also, with all the reports of battles and stacks not being able to escape, even if in PP, I've never heard reports of what exactly the enemy force was doing at the time; only that another battle took place. Did the battle take place because the enemy force went to OP and attacked, or were there other mechanics in play?

[Bullman]

The one thing which I think is still not working is that when a stack moves into a region, fights a battle, loses, but remains in the region, that faction isn't gaining 5% MC, which will cause it to go to OP again if not put into PP. That should not be the case.

The one thing still not working??? That is the only thing. Are you saying that the one change added by the fix isn't even working? Where are you getting that from?

Just curiously, has this issue been a problem in all the other AGEOD games? Why has it been such an issue here?

[Captain_Orso]

I'm saying that the rules have changed and that one aspect of the rules is not working. Nothing more, nothing less.

It's the same game engine being used in many different games. Yes, the same issues are occurring.

[ifailmore]

the thing is i find winning a battle at harperferry one turn and the next turn seizing the town sometimes union forces are stuck somewhere inside the province but it also attracts forces redeploying to the east to west theatre making it possible for me every turn simulation to have battles the captures supply wagons and art moving via train trough harpers ferry eventhough they are mine but there some lands the trapped union force have making it possible tfor the railway to be open

[Captain_Orso]

After reading your post twice carefully, I still have no idea what you are trying to say. What is your native language? Maybe somebody in the forum could translate for you. Most certainly you should, regardless of your mother tongue, use proper grammar and punctuation.

*shakes head and mutters* what a waist of time

[bommerrang]

I actually thought this thread dealt with an issue that might have seemed complex but was simple to understand/address. Given the four pages of discussion it doesn't seem that way.

Would be good if the two "opposing sides" in this debate care to share their thoughts on how the new "5% MC no matter what" fix will affect things now. In particular how it might affect other things and situations. Was this a suitable "fix" or were you thinking of something else?

hatrick and myself are continuing to be amazed at the discussion on this matter. 4 pages already. The issue is simple. A force that had entered an enemy territory lost a battle but not bad enough to be forced back out of the territory. On the next turn the defender had all settings for his force on "defend". the attacker wanted to pull back out of the territory from whence he came but was not allowed to because the program would immediately change the retreating force from green/green to attack and another battle would happen. Turn after turn over and over. The attacker was stuck until he lost large enough to actually retreat via the battle simulator.
I'm not sure if the "hotfix" will correct this but if the Captain is happy then I'm happy.

The territories in the game cover a enough large area for two large armies to occupy the same territory but not have to fight if both chose to defend. That is the way the game should work.

[Gray Fox]

Ten months ago I had a stack pinned down. I sent in a relief force and extracted the stack. Had I failed then I would have exfiltrated. These RW solutions are no longer part of the simulation. So for almost a year this was part of the game.

From post #53, a stack can now cross a river and attack, lose the battle and remain across the river. The defender did everything right, but the enemy stack can dig in and rest on their side of the river. Can both stacks in the region build a structure (depot, stockade, etc.)? If not, why not? Does the next enemy stack into the region have to fight a river-crossing battle or does the entrenched force have a beach-head?

From my other post #73 which the good Captain explained would not leave Richmond besieged, the CSA covering army MTSG and doesn't make it back after the battle, leaving the previously defeated enemy army alone with the city defenders. Is Richmond now under siege? If Richmond or any city is under siege and a small force enters the region, loses a battle and remains in the region, is the siege lifted because a covering force is now present?

[Captain_Orso]

hatrick and myself are continuing to be amazed at the discussion on this matter. 4 pages already. The issue is simple. A force that had entered an enemy territory lost a battle but not bad enough to be forced back out of the territory. On the next turn the defender had all settings for his force on "defend". the attacker wanted to pull back out of the territory from whence he came but was not allowed to because the program would immediately change the retreating force from green/green to attack and another battle would happen. Turn after turn over and over. The attacker was stuck until he lost large enough to actually retreat via the battle simulator.
I'm not sure if the "hotfix" will correct this but if the Captain is happy then I'm happy.

The territories in the game cover a enough large area for two large armies to occupy the same territory but not have to fight if both chose to defend. That is the way the game should work.

When the 5% MC Solution is fixed, it will only lighten the plight of the force trying to escape. It will be able to remain in DP, but IIUC, if the enemy force in the region goes to OP and engages the escaping force, I believe the escaping force will be stopped to do battle and if it loses, will not be allowed to continue moving or retreat out of the region. So, again, no escape.

Ten months ago I had a stack pinned down. I sent in a relief force and extracted the stack. Had I failed then I would have exfiltrated. These RW solutions are no longer part of the simulation. So for almost a year this was part of the game.

From post #53, a stack can now cross a river and attack, lose the battle and remain across the river. The defender did everything right, but the enemy stack can dig in and rest on their side of the river.

You make it sound far more appealing that it will be. The attacking force will take the river-crossing penalty, which can be very costly at the start of battle. In the next turn that the lack of MC will again hamper the 'invasion' force in battle --low MC = higher movement costs = reduced frontage--. It's not only a question of keeping the enemy out of the region, but for the enemy, how the heck is he supposed to get out if the 'defender' can nail him down? Two sides of the same coin.

Can both stacks in the region build a structure (depot, stockade, etc.)? If not, why not?

No. It's part of the game mechanic. Per region only 1 structure location, a combination of city/fort/depot/harbor/industrial structures. Only one faction may control that location.

Does the next enemy stack into the region have to fight a river-crossing battle or does the entrenched force have a beach-head?

If your side has, I believe it's 25% MC, there is no river-crossing penalty. Your side is considered to have a guarded bridgehead.

From my other post #73 which the good Captain explained would not leave Richmond besieged, the CSA covering army MTSG and doesn't make it back after the battle, leaving the previously defeated enemy army alone with the city defenders. Is Richmond now under siege? If Richmond or any city is under siege and a small force enters the region, loses a battle and remains in the region, is the siege lifted because a covering force is now present?

Good question and I'm not sure of the answer. I recently saw a siege icon in a region with a friendly stack inside the city and one outside with one enemy stack also outside.

Whether the icon is simply triggered because of the enemy stack in the region or the actual siege combat takes place, or if there are specific situations in which it takes place and others where it does not, I honestly do not know.

I'm nearly 100% certain that siege didn't used to take place and no icon was displayed if there were two enemy land forces in the field in the region.

[Gray Fox]

And the "controller" of a location is...?

[Captain_Orso]

The last player to have a infantry or late-war-cavalry inside the location or unopposed in the region.

Don't like the other player controlling the location? Drive him out.

Can't drive him out? Then you have no claim on the location.

[Cardinal Ape]

If your side has, I believe it's 25% MC, there is no river-crossing penalty. Your side is considered to have a guarded bridgehead.

Its 10% MC.

ctlNoBeachHead = 10 // Minimum control to have so that a region is not a beach/riverhead if you have to cross a body of water before attacking

[Captain_Orso]

Thanks for clearing that up

[RickInVA]

After reading your post twice carefully, I still have no idea what you are trying to say. What is your native language? Maybe somebody in the forum could translate for you. Most certainly you should, regardless of your mother tongue, use proper grammar and punctuation.

*shakes head and mutters* what a waist of time

Waist of time? Physician heal thyself!

I will gladly translate for ifailmore:

"I find that when winning a battle in Harper's Ferry on one turn, and then taking the town the next turn, is that sometime Union forces seem to get stuck in the area. This also seems to attract forces moving from the East to the West along the railroad that passes through HF, which makes it possible for me to have a battle there every turn and capture supply wagons and artillery. Even though I own HF there are some Union land forces trapped there making it possible for the Union to use the railroad." QED

[Captain_Orso]

Thank you, but no thank you. You are guessing at what ifailmore --a worthy nom de plume-- means, because nobody can do better than to guess.

What you are describing I do not believe is possible in the game. Let's assume your translation is correct. Then ifailmore is playing the South --nowhere mentioned, but probably safe to assume--, he moves into Harper's Ferry and wins a battle against the Union defenders in the field, who, of course with the current rules, remain in the field in Harper's Ferry. Losing a battle in a region will also cause you to lose a lot of MC in the region, and to be able to use Rail Movement through HF you need a minimum of 25% MC; remember that.

Then on the next turn he changes his force's posture to AP (Assault Posture) to attack the garrison, and destroys it. The only difference between between OP (Offensive Posture) and AP is that with AP you also attack enemy units inside the city location. So he's saying that on the second turn he destroyed the garrison, but not the enemy in the field and the enemy has still maintained 25% MC so that they can still use Rail Movement through HF. Really? I believe I have grounds to doubt that story.

And now he sits back while the AI tries to rail units through HF with a know enemy force sitting there and swats them all like flies, capturing artillery and supply units every turn.

I can't remember ever seeing any body maintain that much MC in a region where they lost two consecutive battles. And I can't think of any time where the AI tried to move through an enemy held region unless the AI attacked it first during the same turn and could have expected the region to be cleared of an enemy force.

Beyond that, if the Union did have 25% MC in the region, no Union force entering the region would change to OP, so for a battle to take place, the CS force would have to be in OP and attack not only stacks moving through HF, but the "trapped" force too, every turn.

No, I smell something fishy in this story.

[FelixZ]

I'm with Gray Fox on this one.

My reason is that players should learn to play by the game rules and existing coding. Gray Fox is a successful player because he has learned to play by existing rules and coding.

[Durk]

OMG - FelixZ and RickInVA hang in there. You are making not only important points about how the game is played and how the rules function, but also about how civility ought to work on this forum. I love this forum because almost everyone is so civil. Captain_Orso your are so often helpful and that is appreciated, but you also have a nasty manner at times. There is not a need to make fun of someone (or dismiss them) simply because they do not explain something in way so that you can understand. But what is worse is dismissing the next someone who attempts to understand and explain this person because you cannot believe that others can hear what was meant. That is more tragic than getting caught at Harpers Ferry.

[Captain_Orso]

Dear Durk, I appreciate your words of concern and believe I understand where you are coming from. I cannot however completely agree with your assessment of the situation.

Civil behavior does not exclude expressing disdain and anger over the actions of others. That belongs to human nature and communication. Communication is not simply expressing ones self. If the expression is not understood in the way it was intended by the conveyor, than no or only partial communication has taken place.

As I appear to have miscommunicate some points, I'd like to take the opportunity to apologize for that.

I honestly cannot understand what ifailmore posted in any logical sense; only snippets of phrases without a continuity of thought which makes them meaningless. I honestly attempted to wrestle coherent meaning out of that text, but could not. And that is frustrating to me, not simply because I could not understand, but because it is apparent to me that the poster made no effort at all to be understood, which I have come to expect from an adult posting in these forums, but also for the time and effort I put into trying to understand ifailmore.

Yet I had the feeling that ifailmore did wish to communicate something. I do not know if he is a native English speaker, although I have the notion that he probably is, but these day non-native English speakers often pick up expressions and jargon through the internet that surprise when one realizes who the person is behind such candor actually is. If the sincerity of my offer to ifailmore to find somebody who might assist him in expressing his mind, I am sorry for that. It was honestly meant, although I can see that my aggravation has overshadowed that sincerity --communication; my failure to do so.

Yes, I dismissed ifailmore's post, but I believe that is not the core of your issue with me. It is that I publicly dismissed it and expressed my anger. That you are publicly calling out what you feel is my improper behavior, for my calling out what I feel is ifailmore's improper behavior is ironic indeed. Without wishing to dismiss your point of view in the least, as I do appreciate your point of view, I find some humor in this.

With regard to RickInVA's post, it starts out already with an accusation of my not putting an effort into trying to understand ifailmore, which is simply not true. Further, I did not dismiss it. I analyzed it thoroughly and presented my conclusion that either his translation was incorrect, which it may not have been, or that what ifailmore wrote sounds like a wild story to me, because it is not logically plausible.

I'm going to end here hoping that you can now understand my point of view at least a little bit more.

[ifailmore]

its all good I dont really get ticked off or get annoyed by post online addressed to me :P I just hope they could find a fix atleast to prevent the AI redeploying troops from east to west going trough Harperferry eventhough I own the town and most of the lands


edit: 2 mins after i posted this post i opeened steam and it detected a patch for civil war 2 @.@

[charlesonmission]

It takes 25% or more MC to use the RR through a region. If you want to stop the use of the RR, then you'll need to increase your military control (MC) to greater than 75%. This is WAD.

its all good I dont really get ticked off or get annoyed by post online addressed to me :P I just hope they could find a fix atleast to prevent the AI redeploying troops from east to west going trough Harperferry eventhough I own the town and most of the lands


edit: 2 mins after i posted this post i opeened steam and it detected a patch for civil war 2 @.@

[Gray Fox]

However the game is changed, someone will figure it out and let the rest of us know what seems to work best. If a solution to a minor problem doesn't work for everybody, then the game will change again. AGEOD has been uniquely wonderful about this. Thanks to everyone involved.