Two battle questions this time !

[Inside686]

>First one, New Orleans:




I have nothing to say about the battle but can you explain why, since I (csa) won the battle, my stack seems to have retreated and finished the turn in passive mode ???


>Second one, Monore:




Can you explain why my stack (csa) won the battle and not my opponent (since I had far more causalities)?
And in the case I won the battle, why did my stack retreat and finish in passive mode in another region again ???

Thank you.

[Nial]

I have seen alot of this in my latest campaign. Especialy at Ft. Monroe. I have assumed it has to do with the enemy retreating back inside the fort and my forces failing some sort of moral check. Were you assaulting or just attacking forces outside? I have noticed if I am assaulting? I either take the fort or my forces retreat from the region. Rarely if ever does the assault fail and my forces remain in the region.

Nial

[aryaman]

I sent a save to Pocus with a similar result, he answered that 1.12a will be much better at setting which side won

[Jabberwock]

I believe this might also have something to do with comparative rules of engagement.

[soundoff]

I have seen alot of this in my latest campaign. Especialy at Ft. Monroe. I have assumed it has to do with the enemy retreating back inside the fort and my forces failing some sort of moral check. Were you assaulting or just attacking forces outside? I have noticed if I am assaulting? I either take the fort or my forces retreat from the region. Rarely if ever does the assault fail and my forces remain in the region.

Nial

My difficulty with that assumption...(which may well be correct).... is that defenders inside a structure do just that...defend inside the structure. They dont somehow start inside, then move outside, then move back inside (particularly without orders).

I suspect, but cant prove, that its somehow linked with the attempt to make losses more realistic (which is happening) but not necessarily battle results.

[Pocus]

Which version were you using, Inside686? I revised the checks about who is declared the winner in the battle module in 1.12a ... but again I'll say you'll never get something perfect here. Who is the winner when you lose twice as much as the other side but manage to repulse him? Who is the winner if you retreat but kill twice as much as the other side (fighting withdrawal or Pyrrhic victory), this is really hard to come with a perfect, absolute, decision here.

[aryaman]

Which version were you using, Inside686? I revised the checks about who is declared the winner in the battle module in 1.12a ... but again I'll say you'll never get something perfect here. Who is the winner when you lose twice as much as the other side but manage to repulse him? Who is the winner if you retreat but kill twice as much as the other side (fighting withdrawal or Pyrrhic victory), this is really hard to come with a perfect, absolute, decision here.

IMO whoever is declared winner should stay in possesion of the battlefield, even if he has higher casualties, that is at least the traditional view of a battle winner. It is very odd to read that you won a victory, you inflicted more casualties on the enemy but still you are retreating from the region, it would be easier to swallow that despite all that you lost because you were forced to retreat.

[Inside686]

Pocus, I use the version 1.12.
There are two cases here, first case is the behavior of the stack after the battle, second one is who is declared winner of the battle:

- In the first case: USA had more causalities and CSA won the battle, in my opinion the USA stack should have retreated in passive mode and not the CSA one. To me, this is a lost battle for the CSA as New Orleans is still occupied.
-In the second case: CSA had more causalities and didn’t make it to take fort Monroe but won the battle. To me this is a lost battle for the CSA as it had more causalities AND it the fort is still occupied.

This afternoon, I will create a new post with new battle aberrations.
My PBEM opponent and I definitely think there's something that doesn't work properly with battle causalities, who is declared winner and stack behaviors after the battles in version 1.12

[cleveland]

IMO whoever is declared the winner should possess the battlefield. The player himself can determine if it was worth it by looking at the casualities.

[Inside686]

Same thing for me Cleveland and Aryaman.

[soundoff]

Same thing for me Cleveland and Aryaman.

+ another one....winning or losing is never about losses but who controls the battlefield at the end of the day.

[soloswolf]

It's about who meets their objective. If you are looking to gain control over a space, you want the field. If you want to preserve your army, you'll take the smaller losses.

For me, I will always take the smaller losses over maintaining control of the field.

[Nial]

Taking into account that many battles in the Civil War were pyrrhic victory's,
I don't have too much of a prob with declaring the side that lost more men the winner if it's deemed so. But, I must agree with others that the most common definition of victory in war is who controls the field at the end of the day. Therefore, whatever side is declared the victor (for whatever reason) should indeed control the field. JMHO

Nial

[Pocus]

That's in 1.12a and beyond the first check is now: is there is a side the sole controller of the region? If yes, whatever the losses, he is the winner.

[HMSWarspite]

Just to clarify (in case I want to play 1.12 over Christmas ) Is it just the reporting of the victory that is at fault, or is the wrong guy winning? Although thinking about it, even the reporting could be an issue if the NM point changes take place. In which case when is 1.12a expected?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Nial]

v1.12a will be "officially" released when we get all the little glitches removed.

Thanks for the info Gray and Pocus.

Nial

[Pocus]

By the way, Release Candidate 5 is being published, right now.