User avatar
Jerzul
Captain
Posts: 153
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 10:10 pm
Location: Germantown, MD

"New" Retreat Rules?

Thu Jun 02, 2016 2:46 pm

I keep reading about the "New Retreat Rules" in various posts on this forum. How have retreats changed? Thanks!
I have heard, in such a way as to believe it, of your recently saying that both the army and the government needed a dictator. Of course it was not for this, but in spite of it, that I have given you the command. Only those generals who gain success can be dictators. What I now ask of you is military success, and I will risk the dictatorship.

-Abraham Lincoln, 1863, in a letter to Major General Joseph Hooker.

User avatar
Gray Fox
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1530
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:48 pm
Location: Englewood, OH

Thu Jun 02, 2016 3:33 pm

In AACW, a stack surrounded by regions occupied by the enemy was totally destroyed if forced to retreat. This carried over to CW2. Then players complained this was rather harsh, so it was changed to where the stack could retreat no matter what. Unfortunately, this caused players to chase Athena's CSA stacks all the way to Canada. So it was changed back. This led to more complaints. I pointed out that a trapped stack could be broken down into smaller units that would then escape entrapment (a tactical reality), but a vocal group wanted a game fix that would require less work on their part. So now you can attack, lose the battle and stay put in the region...even if it's their side of a river, or their capital's region or on their supply line.

P.S. I famously referred to this as the "nerfed" retreat rule.
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!

User avatar
Jerzul
Captain
Posts: 153
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 10:10 pm
Location: Germantown, MD

Thu Jun 02, 2016 4:10 pm

Gray Fox wrote:In AACW, a stack surrounded by regions occupied by the enemy was totally destroyed if forced to retreat. This carried over to CW2. Then players complained this was rather harsh, so it was changed to where the stack could retreat no matter what. Unfortunately, this caused players to chase Athena's CSA stacks all the way to Canada. So it was changed back. This led to more complaints. I pointed out that a trapped stack could be broken down into smaller units that would then escape entrapment (a tactical reality), but a vocal group wanted a game fix that would require less work on their part. So now you can attack, lose the battle and stay put in the region...even if it's their side of a river, or their capital's region or on their supply line.

P.S. I famously referred to this as the "nerfed" retreat rule.


AH! This makes sense...I've had a force lose four battles in a row and they can never seem to escape the region, I assume because rebel MC is too high in the surrounding areas. Interesting.

It would be frustrating to beat an enemy on your supply lines/at your capital only to have them stay there.
I have heard, in such a way as to believe it, of your recently saying that both the army and the government needed a dictator. Of course it was not for this, but in spite of it, that I have given you the command. Only those generals who gain success can be dictators. What I now ask of you is military success, and I will risk the dictatorship.



-Abraham Lincoln, 1863, in a letter to Major General Joseph Hooker.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Fri Jun 03, 2016 3:47 pm

Gray Fox wrote:In AACW, a stack surrounded by regions occupied by the enemy was totally destroyed if forced to retreat. This carried over to CW2. Then players complained this was rather harsh, so it was changed to where the stack could retreat no matter what. Unfortunately, this caused players to chase Athena's CSA stacks all the way to Canada. So it was changed back. This led to more complaints. I pointed out that a trapped stack could be broken down into smaller units that would then escape entrapment (a tactical reality), but a vocal group wanted a game fix that would require less work on their part. So now you can attack, lose the battle and stay put in the region...even if it's their side of a river, or their capital's region or on their supply line.

P.S. I famously referred to this as the "nerfed" retreat rule.


Partly true on both counts.

The restriction is on retreating into regions with little or no MC; the presence of enemy units is not necessary. Basically it reinstates the ZOC rules into retreat. No more, "oh, were are desperate, we will do anything to escape, even retreating away from friendly lines toward where we have absolutely no idea of what awaits us there, save us Howard!!". Other than leaders like Caligula, Hitler, and Stalin, most--especially good leaders--did not unduly endanger their men, which including surrendering them in such situations. This is not Velikiye Luki, it's the American Civil War.

Yes, you can "attack, lose the battle and stay put in the region...even if it's their side of a river, or their capital's region or on their supply line" this was requested, so that you cannot escape so easily. Well, not you personally ;)

There are 2 major issues:
- The game has 2 week turns. If the above happens, you have to wait for the end of the turn to react, allowing the retreating force to just slink away hindered.
- You cannot target an enemy stack for attack, if that stack is within your region.

The real solution to these issues, would be to allow the player to interact with the game during turn execution. Like under the proper conditions, you can issue battle orders to your force, when a battle starts, right after the battle you would be able to target a stack within your region for pursuit and attack, and follow it to outside the region.

But this would have required extensive code changes, so we were offered the next best thing. Instead of immediately starting the pursuit and attack, the previous attacking force is detained until the next turn, when the previously defending force can decide to counter attack, or not. Only the time frame has slightly shifted, but against reality, the counter-attacking side has no advantage.

And you still cannot target for pursuit from within the same region. So a force attacking and retreating still has an overall advantage.

BTW IIRC after being attached from within the region (the counter-attack), the defending side can retreat out of the region.

So from a game-play respect, the 'new' retreat rules actually far less 'new'; it's actually mostly old. The results are, that it requires the player to act along historic lines, or face the consequences.
Image

User avatar
Wraith
Sergeant
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:51 pm

Fri Jun 03, 2016 5:39 pm

The reason that I believe that this is happening in our game is that because of the harsh nature of the winter in the territory that we're in, and that I have now 96% MC is that his stack can't actually leave because by the time it tries to leave, it's still "in" the region when a new check of MC starts, flipping him to attack and slamming him back on my guys' defensive works.

It took me a few times of watching the replay to see it, and so now I think I'll offer my opponent an olive branch over it.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Fri Jun 03, 2016 10:40 pm

Once a force has entered a region where it previously had <5% MC it will immediately be changed to OP and gain an Entrance 5%[SUP]1)[/SUP]. If there is an enemy force in the region, there is likely to be a battle. Regardless of the outcome of this first, and any subsequent battle, the perviously moving force will not be reduced to <5% MC, and thus will not be forced to change to OP and attack again for as long as it remains in this region, regardless of how long it remains. If it wins or draws in a battle, it might gain more that the Entrance 5% MC.

This is the way it's designed to work.

If you have a force, which has already fought, but has <5% MC, something went wrong from the way it was intended.


[SUP]1)[/SUP] If a force enters a region where it has <5% MC, but is in PP (Passive Posture), it will remain in PP, but will also not gain the entrance 5% MC. If it subsequently changes to DP, it will be forced into OP, and gain the Entrance 5%. A battle is likely to ensue. If it changes to OP or AP, it gains the 5% MC the the battle rules determine the rest.
Image

User avatar
Cardinal Ape
General of the Army
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:59 am

Sat Jun 04, 2016 6:18 am

Captain_Orso wrote:There are 2 major issues:
- The game has 2 week turns. If the above happens, you have to wait for the end of the turn to react, allowing the retreating force to just slink away hindered.
- You cannot target an enemy stack for attack, if that stack is within your region.


That describes fairly well my frustration with the retreat rules in a recent turn. I launched a successful attack that occurred on day 15, on the following turn I tried to continue the attack and pursue the enemy. It was an abysmal failure. The end result left the beaten defender able to avoid combat whilst somehow canceling my movement orders with their 'defensive positions.'

Thinking back on the orders I issued, I wonder if there was a way to avoid it?

[ATTACH]39040[/ATTACH]

Without the option to target a stack in the same region, I think the only way to pursue the opposition into enemy territory was to adopt a passive posture with evade orders. I just don't get how Johnston managed to block my movement AND avoid combat at the same time. If his force was unwilling to engage in combat then how can it block my army? In the log I see no attempts to engage, only a message that my army was blocked by enemy positions.

I don't think he could have stopped my movement while being in PP? So he must have switched to defensive, but that should have forced him into combat.

Well, at least Grant's force is fully rested now. After getting his orders canceled on day one, he sat idle for 14 days. Though, the exhausted men of his army were given to Gilbert, with orders to follow a day behind Grant's pursuit in passive posture. Their orders were not cancelled so they ended up marching alone, deep into the midst of Johnston's entrenched and rested army. Now a lake of mud separates Grant and Gilbert.

Oh-well, that's the rules. Back to the drawing board. I was probably pushing too hard anyhow; I tried my best to get all the historical Union conquests by June of '62, Memphis is all that remains. So close... I'll have to follow my own advice and send this hothead to a fort garrison duty lest he get us all in too deep.
Attachments
gilbutt.png

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Sat Jun 04, 2016 5:00 pm

First off, this has nothing to do with the Retreat Rules, because nobody is retreating.

The only thing that can stop a stack from moving into another region is ZOC, and yes, an enemy stack can block you without going into combat, if their Police value is hight enough: Zone of Control.

Reality-Argument: To move, your infantry must be put into a marching formation--a column--,and artillery and wagon must prepared--cannon and caisson limbered, and wagons packed up, and everything lined up on the roads--. From this formation a military force is basically defenseless without a cavalry screen. If the enemy has a great enough cavalry advantage, they can drive off your cavalry and simply stand in your way. If you want to fight them or drive them off without cavalry, your infantry must reform into a battle line, which takes them off the road and takes time. By the time they are ready to fight, the cavalry simply backs off a couple hundred yards and waits. Every time your infantry comes closer, they back off. If your infantry has no flanking cover, they are vulnerable, so they won't simply march line-abreast up the road, a hundred yards to the left and right. They're stuck.

Really, you should look at Grant's and Johnston's forces in detail to see what this was.

The one thing that confounds me, is that it sounds like you are saying that Gilbert's force, in PP, simply marched on, while Grant's was blocked. It that correct? Can you break out the turn in question and check the ZOC icon in the Inspection Panel?
Image

User avatar
Cardinal Ape
General of the Army
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:59 am

Sat Jun 04, 2016 11:57 pm

Ya, the situation is not about retreating directly, more so about the 5% rule and how forces disengage from each other. But mostly, its just me wanting to discuss a weird situation. :)

Johnston's force is in the process of retreating to Madison, on day one he arrived there. Because his force just lost a battle it was forced into passive posture and generates zero ZoC points. I don't know if the ZoC shows to me as zero because Johnston is in PP or if it is because he is on the move, or both. Before making my previous post I did look up the ZoC rules, I couldn't find anything about postures in there. I thought there might be a chance that a force with evade special orders would not contribute to ZoC.

So I guess I came to the thought that in order to block my movement, Johnston must have been put into a defensive posture. Having 0% MC he would have then flipped to offensive. Either way, I was expecting to have the chance to fight my way through his blocking action, but I see no attempts to engage. Not a thing in the logs about Grant and Johnston interacting. Perhaps, all of the move actions were resolved first before any combat checks were made.

Grant got stuck on day one, then sat idle for 14 days. In order to avoid this I should have sent him back on a railroad grocery run to Fort Henry for some booze and cheese. Then back to Humboldt on day two, and then march south. That would have given Johnston enough time to vacate the region. Alternatively, I could have refrained from attacking Humbolt on day 15, Johnston only needed a day to finish retreat movement.

Yes, Gilbert did march on his own. He was supposed to oversee the tired and wounded men of the Army of the Cumberland... Jim, this man is clearly not a doctor. :p leure:

[ATTACH]39055[/ATTACH]
Attachments
GilbertGrape.png

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Sun Jun 05, 2016 8:33 am

I was just thinking about this. What patch level are you on? Also, I'm guessing you are playing against Athena.

Specifically, as you noted, the South had 0 MC in Gibson, TN (Humboldt), but that should not be possible, because Johnston, having started in Gibson, and lost a battle there, should not be reduced to less than 5% MC. If Johnston were inside Humboldt, and tried to sneak out of the region, he'd still be forced into OP, which I cannot imagine is the case. But since he was retreating out of the region, he was obviously in the field when the battle took place and was booted out. What also bugs me, is that Grant was blocked, but Gilbert was not.

I've never heard that movement has any affect on ZOC.

Yeah, Grant being blocked for basically 13 day, in which he doesn't even attempt to continue his plotted move is one of those sucky things about turn-based games. It falls into the category of dead-ends, like not being able to plot to cross a guarded river, even though you have a 10% chance of getting across. The rule only comes into play, if the river region you want to cross is free, and the gunboats incidentally move into the river region before your force gets to the other side, and then the entire force simply pops back to its side of the river, even if it had been crossing already for 4 days.
Image

User avatar
Cardinal Ape
General of the Army
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:59 am

Sun Jun 05, 2016 10:09 am

I am playing against a human. We are playing with version 1.06. He is the host so I don't have access to the out of game logs. My info is limited to the in-game messages, hence all of my guessing as to what and how things went down. If you are interested in a closer look I can post the save.

Gilbert's force has an evasion score of 9, Grant has 1. I don't know how many ZoC points Johnston's force has, but looking at the combat report I see that Johnston's force has less cavalry than me. I only have six cavalry elements in the region. Gilbert only has infantry and cavalry elements in his force. Against 3 infantry divisions weak on cavalry he may have had a fair chance to slip through. I'm not sure, I really haven't played around with ZoC in CW2 much, if at all.

---

P.S. Orso, I saw in another thread that you are newly made Grandfather. Congrats!

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Mon Jun 06, 2016 12:40 pm

Cardinal Ape wrote:I am playing against a human. We are playing with version 1.06. He is the host so I don't have access to the out of game logs. My info is limited to the in-game messages, hence all of my guessing as to what and how things went down. If you are interested in a closer look I can post the save.


Are you sure the hoster is at 1.06 too? I would need at least from the last time the CS had 100% MC in Gibson, the turn before Johnston went into retreat I imagine.

Cardinal Ape wrote:Gilbert's force has an evasion score of 9, Grant has 1. I don't know how many ZoC points Johnston's force has, but looking at the combat report I see that Johnston's force has less cavalry than me. I only have six cavalry elements in the region. Gilbert only has infantry and cavalry elements in his force. Against 3 infantry divisions weak on cavalry he may have had a fair chance to slip through. I'm not sure, I really haven't played around with ZoC in CW2 much, if at all.


Only the total police value is important. Mounted elements simply have a higher police value than foot units, so you can get a fairly high police value with relatively few elements.

I imagine Gilbert has only infantry in his stack. They often have around 9-10 evasion. but artillery has '1', and the lowest value of the lowest 'unit' counts; unit, not element, and units are averaged.

[INDENT]Just on a side note, don't send your recovering troops marching across the map. They recover much quicker if they remain motionless.

Also, if you want Grant and Gilbert to move from the same region, to the same region, use the proper Special Order, the Move Together, or what ever it's called. That move was sub-par from the outset. Besides, just because Gilbert is in PP with Evade Combat, doesn't mean he can't get attacked, and if attacked, he fights poorer... no no no, just bad.

Even simply moving Gilbert to just Madison would have been much better, because after arriving in Madison his stack would still have a week or so motionless for recovering cohesion. The next turn, if Grant had actually followed Johnston to Thingy-ardeman--Hardeman? I can't read the whole name--, with Gilbert in Madison, Gilbert could have MTSG'ed the next turn. But even if Grant's move were successful, attacking the Confederate army-line in the middle, with CS corps left and right ready to MTSG to Johnston's assistance... just not good :( [/INDENT]

Cardinal Ape wrote:P.S. Orso, I saw in another thread that you are newly made Grandfather. Congrats!


Thanks ;)
Image

User avatar
Cardinal Ape
General of the Army
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:59 am

Tue Jun 07, 2016 12:01 am

Yup, it is on version 1.06.

Here are the last 3 turns. I'm not the host so I don't have the CSA orders, sorry for the inconvenience; it may take some leg-work.
[ATTACH]39064[/ATTACH]

Yes, with hindsight, it wasn't the best move. I was hot-heading it a bit. The timing seemed crucial to me. Most of the rails coming into the Memphis/Corinth area were cut so I felt a bit confident that there wouldn't be reinforcements coming into the area, and if they did it would have been after Grant completed his move. Though, of course, Stonewall managed to march his force from Winchester, TN, through broken rails and muddy hills in time to support Johnston. So it turns out that Grant being blocked might have saved him from a bad attack. That entire CSA line from Memphis to Corinth was not there when Grant got his orders. My opponent did quite well to form a solid line in a single turn despite my attacks on his mobility.

Gilbert's force wasn't that down on cohesion, I figured a few days of rest in PP would have been enough to get back into fighting shape. I didn't want to slow Grant down with a synchronized move; if I managed to get between Memphis and Corinth, reinforcing Memphis would have been quite tough for my opponent. Previously, when Grant was poised to attack Nashville my opponent bailed rather than fight, so I guessed that he might do the same with Memphis.
Attachments
Cardinal Ape vs Lo.7z
(596 KiB) Downloaded 47 times

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Tue Jun 07, 2016 9:56 am

Oh, that Jackson... :D

BTW FYI only in his start-region is the rail-line damaged. Better is always when an adjacent region has the damaged rail-line. Why? Because, when only the current region's rail-line is damaged, a stack in that region only needs to march one region to be on a rail-line that it can use the rest of the turn. If it's an adjacent region, the stack has to march over two regions, before being able to use a rail-line.

BTW 2, Jackson did not march through the Huntsville region, he marched into Pulaski and rode the train like a young god all the was to Corinth, arriving comfortably on day 10, rested and full of souvenirs :p arty:

--

Management Summery
I don't know. It appears there's a bug in the works.

--

The battle in Gibson was on day 15, and Johnston was forced into retreat. The day before the battle, it would have taken Johnston 4 days to enter Madison, which doesn't include crossing a minor river, I think, but regardless, at least 4 days. After the battle, Johnston needs 1 day to enter Madison(??). I don't know how that is possible.

Additionally, Johnston lost all of his MC in Gibson, while still in the region, which also should not happen. The new retreat rules were specifically written so that a defeated force doesn't lose all of his MC and is then forced to flip to OP and attack again.

The turn after the battle Johnston was changed by the player to DP, which is why he exerted ZOC against Grant's stack. I know Johnston was changed, because on the next turn Johnston is in Hardeman, TN in DP. But if he was changed by the player to DP in Gibson, why didn't the game flip him to OP?(!!)

So, on top of him losing all MC, which shouldn't happen, he also did not change to OP, which should have happened immediately. Maybe the code checks only at the end of each day for flipping posture, and not at the start of the turn, but Johnston should have changed, and attacked, well, maybe attacked, he and Grant could have missed each other in just 1 day, buUuUut of course only if he flips, which he didn't.

Management Summery II

Bugs--in my opinion, YMMV
- Super-Speedy-Retreat™
- Loss of all MC by a defeated stack
- Stack not Flipped™ to OP when starting the turn with <5%, which allowed it to exert ZOC without the risk of combat
Image

User avatar
Cardinal Ape
General of the Army
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:59 am

Tue Jun 07, 2016 9:26 pm

Thanks for the analysis.

Captain_Orso wrote:The turn after the battle Johnston was changed by the player to DP, which is why he exerted ZOC against Grant's stack. I know Johnston was changed, because on the next turn Johnston is in Hardeman, TN in DP. But if he was changed by the player to DP in Gibson, why didn't the game flip him to OP?(!!)


Was it possible that Johnston merged with units Hardeman, TN, to attain his DP stance? In my experience, when you merge a moving stack with a stationary stack, the moving stack will adopt the posture of the stationary stack it merged with. So Johnston may have moved in PP, and then merged with the units in Hardemen which changed him to DP.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Wed Jun 08, 2016 3:10 am

Leadership determines the posture etc, so if Johnston merged with another stack in Hardemen, his stack would determine the posture.
Image

User avatar
Cardinal Ape
General of the Army
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:59 am

Wed Jun 08, 2016 9:43 am

By leadership do you mean seniority?

I'm about 100% sure it works the way I said in my previous post. Have you tried it? Load up that late May turn as seen in post #9. Put Grant in PP. Put Milroy in DP. Order Grant to merge with Milroy. At the start of the next turn, Grant will be in DP.

Also, if you issue that order, it shows Grant's travel time as 17 days, but he arrives on day 14. I'm not sure it why it does that - it is something I have been meaning to bring up - the false reporting of travel times seems like it could be a big problem.. Does anyone know anything about that?

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Wed Jun 08, 2016 10:38 am

Cardinal Ape wrote:By leadership do you mean seniority?


Yup.

Cardinal Ape wrote:I'm about 100% sure it works the way I said in my previous post. Have you tried it? Load up that late May turn as seen in post #9. Put Grant in PP. Put Milroy in DP. Order Grant to merge with Milroy. At the start of the next turn, Grant will be in DP.


Yup, your right! :wacko: .... dang, I thought I knew a thing or two :blink:

Cardinal Ape wrote:Also, if you issue that order, it shows Grant's travel time as 17 days, but he arrives on day 14. I'm not sure it why it does that - it is something I have been meaning to bring up - the false reporting of travel times seems like it could be a big problem.. Does anyone know anything about that?


I've seen that a few times too. I don't really know why that happens. I've always just chalked it up to changes in weather and road conditions, but changes in cohesion, which take place every day, might also apply.
Image

User avatar
Wraith
Sergeant
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:51 pm

Wed Jun 08, 2016 3:13 pm

Orso, if you just found a bug in the works, I might get myself and my opponents last few turns to you for a similar issue with regards to our original issues.

User avatar
Jerzul
Captain
Posts: 153
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 10:10 pm
Location: Germantown, MD

Wed Jun 08, 2016 5:32 pm

Wraith wrote:Orso, if you just found a bug in the works, I might get myself and my opponents last few turns to you for a similar issue with regards to our original issues.


Basically, Lyon attacked McCulloch with a division in Springfield, MO in Nov 61. He lost and is still trying to escape...it's March of 62 now. He was forced into four additional battles (all loses) and by now the entire division will probably disintegrate. Like Wraith said above, the turn files can be made available if that will help to confirm a bug.
I have heard, in such a way as to believe it, of your recently saying that both the army and the government needed a dictator. Of course it was not for this, but in spite of it, that I have given you the command. Only those generals who gain success can be dictators. What I now ask of you is military success, and I will risk the dictatorship.



-Abraham Lincoln, 1863, in a letter to Major General Joseph Hooker.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Wed Jun 08, 2016 5:45 pm

Post them up and I'll have a look at them.
Image

User avatar
Wraith
Sergeant
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:51 pm

Fri Jun 10, 2016 7:07 pm

I was just about to post our saves while talking with Jerzul, but we realized that since we modded our generals a bit, that you wouldn't be able to open the game. We know that it's not those units though (none of the move problems included our generals themselves), but since it isn't a base game then we'd have to send quite a bit out to ensure that you could see what was going on. If you want to get in touch with me to get the whole she-bang, then take a look, I could arrange that.

Teatime
Lieutenant
Posts: 109
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 2:56 pm

Sat Jun 11, 2016 3:23 am

Modded generals shouldn't impact unless you added new ones .. even then just the model and unit cache files would probably be enough.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Sat Jun 11, 2016 11:00 am

It appears that the situation occurs when a defending stack loses a battle and is thrown into retreat. When I have time I can check this without Saves.
Image

User avatar
Wraith
Sergeant
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:51 pm

Tue Jun 14, 2016 3:43 pm

Thanks!

User avatar
Wraith
Sergeant
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:51 pm

Fri Jun 17, 2016 2:59 am

Okay, there's something wrong now, officially. I don't know what it is, but it's now screwed Jerzul over, hard, twice.

I, as the CSA, attacked into Fairfax, fought a hard battle and won. McDowell was retreating across the Potomac with his army, but in the middle of the river, I guess he changed his mind and switched into offensive stance, and attacked into Alexandria. He lost--according to him--25k men and 106 guns because it was an amphibious assault into prepared positions.

Something has to be done about these retreat rules.

User avatar
Jerzul
Captain
Posts: 153
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 10:10 pm
Location: Germantown, MD

Fri Jun 17, 2016 3:01 am

Nope. Id10T error. Please ignore.
Attachments
Humiliation.PNG
I have heard, in such a way as to believe it, of your recently saying that both the army and the government needed a dictator. Of course it was not for this, but in spite of it, that I have given you the command. Only those generals who gain success can be dictators. What I now ask of you is military success, and I will risk the dictatorship.



-Abraham Lincoln, 1863, in a letter to Major General Joseph Hooker.

User avatar
Wraith
Sergeant
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:51 pm

Fri Jun 17, 2016 3:10 am

Not to be cheeky, Ageod, but...

The attachment 1H0eB0t.gif is no longer available
Attachments
1H0eB0t.gif

User avatar
Cardinal Ape
General of the Army
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:59 am

Fri Jun 17, 2016 5:38 am

I don't suppose you cut off his river crossing attempt with boats? That might produce the results you describe, though, the amphibious assault would still be strange.

When during the turn did the battle happen, on day 1? If you have a replay of the turn, watching it at the slowest speed might shed some light.

User avatar
Jerzul
Captain
Posts: 153
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 10:10 pm
Location: Germantown, MD

Fri Jun 17, 2016 11:19 am

Cardinal Ape wrote:I don't suppose you cut off his river crossing attempt with boats? That might produce the results you describe, though, the amphibious assault would still be strange.

When during the turn did the battle happen, on day 1? If you have a replay of the turn, watching it at the slowest speed might shed some light.


I'll go ahead and admit what happened. I did watch the replay last night. I noticed that McDowell got to DC then seemed to turn around and head back south. So I loaded the old turn and somehow, McDowell had been given an order to go to Stafford, VA! Of course this was not deliberate on my part. My only explanation is that this game is laggy/wonky and when I was zooming out or clicked on dc I must have somehow moved McDowell's pointer in DC to Stafford.

Not the first time something completely odd happened. A few turns ago Sedgwick was in the middle of rugged WV. Having apparently been given orders to walk alone into the wilderness.

For sure I'll be double checking things from here on out, but that's going to take forever considering the Union is making moves across the continent and there is no way to scroll through units with move orders.
I have heard, in such a way as to believe it, of your recently saying that both the army and the government needed a dictator. Of course it was not for this, but in spite of it, that I have given you the command. Only those generals who gain success can be dictators. What I now ask of you is military success, and I will risk the dictatorship.



-Abraham Lincoln, 1863, in a letter to Major General Joseph Hooker.

Return to “Civil War II”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests