AGEOD Forums

So, I captured Pittsburgh this turn:
[ATTACH]31268[/ATTACH]
Yay me!

Well, then General Berry's detachment comes to the Union's rescue and beats up on Johnston's victorious, but worn out troops:
[ATTACH]31269[/ATTACH]
Well, darn. OK.
But then I notice that "-1 National Moral point lost" associated with that battle.
Still... I had captured the city, so it ought to be a wash anyway, right?

...Actually, I still hold the city! And, instead of letting Johnston retreat, I stuck him inside the (soon to be snowed out, anyway) besieged city and am sending Jackson's Corp to relive Johnson:
[ATTACH]31270[/ATTACH]

But wait, what's this... ?
[ATTACH]31271[/ATTACH]
So... not only did I not get rewarded for conquering Pittsburgh (!), I was punished for it seemingly twice!
leure:

By the way... following an assault, especially a successful one, why isn't the unit's posture changed to defensive? ...or even passive?
It doesn't make any sense to me that Johnston's Army would remain in an assault posture following a successful assault.

I have been bitten by the posture not being changed after an inital good attack. It sure can sting...

I can see the -1 NM, since you lost the final battle pretty bad (setting aside the posture switching question).

Still, it is a bummer that you did not get the NM and loyalty checks that you should have gotten from capturing Pittsburg. I guess that is because you "lost" the last battle there on the turn in question? I wonder if you will get the NM when it is no longer contested (the blizzard/Jackson lifts the siege).

Nope, never received a bonus for capturing Pitt.

Is Pittsburgh CSA objective city? Did you loose any other city this turn. Save game would help.

Pitt is a Confederate Objective.

I don't have the save any longer, I don't think (I'll look later). However, I don't recall any other cities being taken that turn, on either side.
I do know that the message is specific about Pittsburgh being the reason for the NM change. See the message area in the first screenshot.

The message says - 1 NM from battle which is fine since you lost more men. The only question is -1 MM for objective loss.

...it never says anything different, though.
And I won a battle the day before (same turn) with no NM change.

So, does the Confederacy lose 50 NM for losing Richmond, or losing the battle that lost Richmond?

Loosing Richmond. The battle is extra.

Exactly, that's my point.

I've seen bigger battles not give NM, anyway. Besides, Johnston gave pretty much as good as he got.
So, no, the battle isn't the reason. Or rather, if that battle was the reason, then there's a bigger problem here.

ohms_law wrote:I was complaining about it specifically not changing, recently. I know for a fact that posture doesn't change, when it probably should.
I'd like to see this behavior all the time, incidentally. After a force succeeds in an attack or assault, the force really should switch to defensive posture.

I can see some reasoning behind this. The biggest issue is, exactly when (under what conditions) should a stack revert to DP?

Maybe other conditions too, but switching to defensive after capturing a structure sounds pretty reasonable to me.

But entering a region with a town which is garrisoned and a stack outside the town means you could win the battle with the stack outside of the town but not touch the garrison. Then what?

What if your stack is lead by Hood and another enemy stack is entering the region? Do you still want to go to defensive?

I'll probably get argument about this, and that's ok, but I'd find that situation ("town which is garrisoned and a stack outside the town means you could win the battle with the stack outside of the town but not touch the garrison.") to be perfectly reasonable. Regardless of anything else, it's quite a different operation to assault a garrison inside either a city or fortification, than it is to attack or assault a formation of enemy troops, even if they're well dug in.
Cavalry should probably be exempt, though (unless part of a mixed division, of course).

Note that the game already incorporates this idea, basically. You have to use assault posture in order to assault a structure.

Also, it'd be perfectly acceptable to me for the game to only switch a force to defensive after successfully assaulting a structure.

I've seen this for some time. If stack was on offensive posture and has a big battle (which it wins), it will switch to defensive posture to rest a bit. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

apy: Alzheimer's medicine ..... has anybody seen my Alzheimer's medicine? It was right here in my hand and now.. oh- there it is .... who put this in my hand?....

I've been doing so much research and testing... I know I've seen so many times that I've assaulted a small garrison with a division or corps and the turn after the assault my stack is still in assault posture. The same with battles, but I honestly don't remember exactly.

My point is really, you might get Pocus to make a small change like this--I'm sure there is some code deciding, after a battle depending on certain factors, what your stack's posture is anyway--but you should be sure of exactly, I mean exactly what you are proposing--think of conditions, exceptions, various configurations, everything--before suggesting it. Otherwise you will get a change that only partly meets your expectations and it is unlikely that Pocus will then take the time to change it again. Beside, it really sucks when you take time to make some preference changes and then get complaints about it not being what the requester actually wanted.