Unexpected retreat in 1.13b. Thoughts?

[77NY]

Hi, I ran into an unexpected result in my current PBEM. I ordered two CSA corps under Longstreet and Jackson with 2000 power each (~5000 combined) to attack Alexandria, both set to assault/assault (red/red) posture and both corps set to coordinate time of arrival. Clear weather, 3-day march for each force to Alexandria. Both corps were supplied and fully rested.

The Union had a very strong (~3000 power estimated) force entrenched 4 or 5 outside of Alexandria, so I knew I was gambling with the attack.

What surprised me was that the turn history says Jackson's corps engaged on day 8 but then retreated successfully in hour 2 of day 8 before the battle was joined, taking 20 hits. His corps changed to green posture and remained in Alexandria. So instead of combining with a 3:2 power advantage, Longstreet's corps attacked alone... with predictable results. Unlike Jackson's corps, Longstreet's corps retreated back to Manassas after the loss.

I am a new player so I can't really gauge whether this is an odd result, but it surprised me because I thought red/red is a "no retreat" mode and Jackson is one of the best leaders in the game. I was surprised that his corps retreated in hour 2 after having a red/red assault posture but then remained in the region.

1. Why did Jackson retreat in hour 2 with a red/red posture?
2. Why did the engagement start on Day 8 after a 3-day march?
3. Why did Jackson stay in the region after retreating but Longstreet went back to Manassas?

Is it worth asking my PBEM opponent to post the turn files here for a post mortem or can a more experienced player let me know whether this is a common result? Any thoughts?

[Redeemer]

Hi, I ran into an unexpected result in my current PBEM. I ordered two CSA corps under Longstreet and Jackson with 2000 power each (~5000 combined) to attack Alexandria, both set to assault/assault (red/red) posture and both corps set to coordinate time of arrival. Clear weather, 3-day march for each force to Alexandria. Both corps were supplied and fully rested.

The Union had a very strong (~3000 power estimated) force entrenched 4 or 5 outside of Alexandria, so I knew I was gambling with the attack.

What surprised me was that the turn history says Jackson's corps engaged on day 8 but then retreated successfully in hour 2 of day 8 before the battle was joined, taking 20 hits. His corps changed to green posture and remained in Alexandria. So instead of combining with a 3:2 power advantage, Longstreet's corps attacked alone... with predictable results. Unlike Jackson's corps, Longstreet's corps retreated back to Manassas after the loss.

I am a new player so I can't really gauge whether this is an odd result, but it surprised me because I thought red/red is a "no retreat" mode and Jackson is one of the best leaders in the game. I was surprised that his corps retreated in hour 2 after having a red/red assault posture but then remained in the region.

1. Why did Jackson retreat in hour 2 with a red/red posture?
2. Why did the engagement start on Day 8 after a 3-day march?
3. Why did Jackson stay in the region after retreating but Longstreet went back to Manassas?

Is it worth asking my PBEM opponent to post the turn files here for a post mortem or can a more experienced player let me know whether this is a common result? Any thoughts?

I have some thoughts.

Jackson has the fast move ability which is why he probably arrived first. The delay between arrival and the battle is determined in part by an options setting under the game tab. Jackson has higher abilities (unless changed by your experience in game) and thus followed your orders but was not suicidal in his attack, he lost but instead of retreating stayed in the region (you told him not to retreat). Longstreet arrived later and still following your orders but was forced to retreat due to a battle result (ie routed forces etc.)

[77NY]

Jackson has the fast move ability which is why he probably arrived first.

Could be, but I chose the double-arrow coordination button for both corps. And both corps engaged on day 8, though I don't know whether Longstreet started at a later hour. If you are right and there is still an important difference in arrival times even with "elite" corps generals, that means attacking with multiple corps is far more risky than I thought.

The delay between arrival and the battle is determined in part by an options setting under the game tab.

Yes, good point. I don't know what the settings and should ask my PBEM partner what they are.

Jackson has higher abilities (unless changed by your experience in game) and thus followed your orders but was not suicidal in his attack, he lost but instead of retreating stayed in the region (you told him not to retreat).

But he did retreat prior to battle...

Longstreet arrived later and still following your orders but was forced to retreat due to a battle result (ie routed forces etc.)

If you are right above that would make sense.

[77NY]

Here's a screenie showing Jackson's orders. I was wrong above when I said it was a 3-day march for both corps stacks. It was an 8-day march due to mud and engagement must have happened immediately upon arrival.

[Redeemer]

They started in different regions. I believe, someone correct me if I am wrong, that the simultaneous move order only works if they started in the same region.

[77NY]

Here's a screenie of Jackson's orders. I was wrong when I said it was a 3-day march. It was an 8-day march for both corps stacks because of mud.

So that means there was no real delay between arrival and engagement. (We're using the default delay setting.)

They started in different regions. I believe, someone correct me if I am wrong, that the simultaneous move order only works if they started in the same region.

Yes, Redeemer, you're correct that they started in different regions. If you're right about simultaneous move only being for corps in the same region that would probably be the answer.

Here's a post from last year that seems to support that:
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showpost.php?p=94538&postcount=17

It looks like the game uses the term "synched move" or "synchronized movement" for this button.

[arsan]

Hi!
Redemeer is right!

You can only coordinate movement of corps and army HQ if they start on the same region.
So in your case, you ordered two separate uncoordinated attacks.
Jackson got there first, and even being Jackson , thought that attacking superior numbers heavenly entrenched was not a good idea and was able to retreat before combat (this retreat before combat happens... well, before combat so for what i knew it doesn't matter what RoE you have)
Longstreet arrived latter and faced with the same predicament decided to follow orders (in other words, failed the retreat before combat roll :bonk
I guess the result were ugly...

Two comments:
1- as a player you don't have control over this kind of retreat before combat. Its a decision taken by the stack by himself when he finds himself on a dire situation. Most of the times its for the better (like in this case for Jackson :thumbsup but you cannot count on it to work all the time.

With 15 days turns i think this follow orders flexibility is good. Imagine you order a division to assault Harpers Ferry held by a single militia unit. After a week of travelling they arrive there and find than a whole USA corps has arrived before them. If they would follow orders 100% of the times, like automatons they will get trounced. But if their commander pass a roll he will use his hear and retire before attacking on a hopeless situation.

2- you should be very wary with using the red RoE it means they will not be able to retreat for several rounds no matter what they find. Very risky.
I guess Longstreet got badly trounced and you are lucky Jackson was smart enough to retire practically unscathed
If not both of your corps would have been mauled on succession

Regards!

[77NY]

Hi!
Redemeer is right!

You can only coordinate movement of corps and army HQ if they start on the same region.
So in your case, you ordered two separate uncoordinated attacks.

Thanks, guys! That solves the mystery.

I guess the result were ugly...

Pretty much!

With 15 days turns i think this follow orders flexibility is good. Imagine you order a division to assault Harpers Ferry held by a single militia unit. After a week of travelling they arrive there and find than a whole USA corps has arrived before them. If they would follow orders 100% of the times, like automatons they will get trounced. But if their commander pass a roll he will use his head and retire before attacking on a hopeless situation.

I think you put this very nicely. Thanks again.

[Ace]

Here's a screenie of Jackson's orders. I was wrong when I said it was a 3-day march. It was an 8-day march for both corps stacks because of mud.

If it was mud, even with both corps assaulting the result would be disastrous. Never provoke a mayor offensive battle in a muddy terrain. You could only praise Jackson he was smart enough not to go through with it. You can even draw a link between this event and a history events. On the last day of Seven days battles in 62, Jackson refused to assault a heavily fortified hill (he was ordered by Lee to take the hill if possible). One year later, Longstreet protested, but went with the similar suicidal attack (known as Picket's charge).

[Captain_Orso]

This+

Mud raises movement costs, the higher the movement cost the more each element uses up in frontage, the fewer elements you have in frontage the larger the difference between the number of elements you have fighting at one time compared to the number of elements your opponent has fighting at one time; ergo : disaster.

Also remember, you are attacking a well entrenched formation in open terrain; their artillery will be very effective. The only thing worse is if they are entrenched on hills . I hate such attacks with a passion and will do all I can to avoid them. They scare the hell out of me as they can reduce a well trained army into a smoldering heap very quickly.

You need to adjust your strategy to hit where the enemy is weak. Brute force in not a strategy. Coerce the enemy to leave their entrenchments and come after you. When neither of you have good entrenchments you have evened the odds, especially if you have the larger force. And if it takes a turn or 2 for the enemy to reach you to counter-attack you will have gained some entrenchments to enjoy even if they aren't extensive.

[INDENT]On a side note, to get a good, clear screenshot of the game you can use Irfanview. It's completely free and very versatile. Just hit your print button -- or <Alt><Print> if you are in windowed mode -- open Irfanview if not already open and hit <Ctrl><V> to create a hardcopy. Now simply save it to disk. You can then use MS Paint or any other graphics editing software to crop out the parts you don't want and then you have a wonderfully clear illustration.[/INDENT]