Defender retreats and forts

[Captain]

ok after the many discussions about forts I decided to PBEM as the sth using forts as anchor points. To it, I built a new fort in NO and Richmond and captured fort munro.

Now fort Munro, Island no10 and NO were all given fairly hefty divisions to defend them (outside).All given full strength naval guns.
Net result;

Fort Munro-force under Alexander posture blue/orange entrenchment 4, retreated NOT inside the fort but across the water ! Result Munro lost and the whole operation a waste of time.Naval guns lost.

Island no10 given Lee and a beefed up division, same posture. Lee retreats sth and I lose No 10 and guns again.

NO Magruder in very entrenched position again with strong division, same posture retreats to fort pike when attacked.

Summary, All the resources I spent building forts and guns was essentially a waste of time if the Generals refuse to retreat into their fort.I built depots inside all these forts to prepare for long seiges. Nope not a single seige. Nth just walked straight over each one in a single move.

Now I know some of you will say its good the generals retreated because their force lives to fight another day. However sometimes in critical chokenecks you want them to hold the fort and delay the enemy.

As I am writing this the only thing I haven't tried and just thought of is to click on the box move inside structure, but I actually don't want them to do this unless they are bounced out of their entrenchments.

Any suggestions crew?

As it seems apparent it would be impossible to replicate Vicksburg unless your troops were actually placed inside the town.

Forts must be such a bad idea that not only their own generals want to defend them

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[arsan]

As it seems apparent it would be impossible to replicate Vicksburg unless your troops were actually placed inside the town.

Forts must be such a bad idea that not only their own generals want to defend them

As Gray states, this si WAD.
Are you really sure you want to recreate the Vicksburg blunder??
I mean, letting a whole army to be bottomed up, sieged and surrendered to the last man insides a fortified town is not a good idea at all Grant would agree with me
You should put your big force outside and a reasonable but much smaller gun and infantry garrison inside. If the force outside is forced to retreat, the garrison can hold out for a while (or at least make the assaulter pay) and give you time to send reinforcements, cut supply lines of the attacker...

In any case, i think that if you click the enter town button the force outside will retreat inside if attacked... but also will move inside next turn even if not attacked.
You should move them out again each turn and i'm not sure the entrenchment levels would be keep


Cheers!

[Vegetius]

Anyway, the retreat of Magruder's division in strong fortified position shows the same problem i told about just yesterday in the french forum.

I do not understand why the defender leaves his positions so quickly when attacked, it makes me wonder if it is useful to prepare deep defense for the confederate.
And if it is no use preparing fortified positions, the confederate loose a very important way to resist by breaking the assault waves of the north.

In that case, i wonder if the south could resist beyond the fall of 1862, wich prevent a lot of interest in the game.

[Pocus]

Can be done, because the order 'Move into structure asap' will change the default behavior of not retreating into a structure.

[Franciscus]

Sorry Pocus, but I think we have here two different problems.
- Forces not retreating to forts (I personally do not think this is such a problem, like arsan, but we can discuss it)
- Forces retreating from heavily entrenched positions. This maybe a serious problem, probably related to the new auto-retreat rule that does not take into account level of entrenchment (maybe also something to do with the new skirmisher ability of cavalry units ??).
I would like to here from Berto, who apparently has tested extensively this new rule. Did he just test it in "open" filed battles ?

[berto]

Just open-field battles, but in several varieties of terrain (clear, hills, wooded).

Results are so variable from battle to battle, that for each test situation, I had to run up to 10 tests (e.g., four test battles, 40 tests) in order to get a statistically clear picture of results and effects. That's ~40 tests for each set of test parameters, implying up to a hundred or more tests across multiple test rounds as each parameter tweak is tried.

As you might imagine, that's a very time consuming process. I devoted the better part of three weekends to testing auto retreat. I would have liked to test all situations, but there are only so many hours in a day, days in a weekend, weekends in a month.

That said, if an entrenched force suffers 20% or more casualties in a single day (near the historical maximum for single-day casualties), if we don't have auto retreat in such situations, we are once again going down the slippery slope toward ahistorical bloodbaths.

Remember: In the Real War, maximum entire-battle casualties for any engagement, one side entrenched or not, never exceeded 30%; and single-day casualties never exceeded 25% (and in nearly all cases were well under 20%). In the Real War, losses on the high side were all in open-field battles.

If an entrenched force suffers 20% casualties, I think the "problem" is not with auto retreat; rather perhaps with entrenchments providing insufficient protection. In the Real War, did entrenched forces ever incur more than 10% daily casualties? I don't think so.

In other words, entrenched forces should really never suffer 20% single-day casualties (and thereby auto retreat). If they do, something else is wrong somewhere.

[bigus]

I did test The auto retreat with different entrenchment values. It seemed to be working fine.
Perhaps it is the skirmisher addition?

[Coregonas]

I believe the problem can be related with the big quantity of troops than can shoot from the very first round.

Combine this with my feared 2,5 to 1 odds ->

Trenches are nearly unuseful then.

If 4 elements can fire in the first round versus every defending single element, it is normal a desire to retreat. These are going to be overwhelmed, so run is the best option.

-----
According with Dixicrat / Jabber analysis on artillery frontage....

Seems frontage is 45 infantry and 45 artillery
If these can shoot every round -> thats a minimum 4 divisions shooting in a single round!!!
---------------

I believe a initial big frontage reduction (going up to the base frontage in the 6th round) should be considered. (Both for retreat & combat resolutions)

This way, at least battles could last a few hours without achieving these 20% ratio so quickly,

perhaps this way... automatic retreat should not be magically invoked so frequently.

[Coregonas]

Vegetius & Captain:

I ve had once and again fights with 2 / 3 enemy divisions versus a single well trenched one of mine, and around 100% of the time the battle was a disaster, unless some lucky roll allowed me to retreat in the very first round of fight... this way perhaps I ve lost only a few more men than the enemy (that means losing of course 20% of my troops).

IMHO you need (minimum) 2 defending divisions to succeed in a battle.

I ask you please... those divisions severely entrenched were attacked big forces? (i.e. a 3 or 4 divisions sized corps every time?)

In case YES -> I believe the best a general can do is to flight from the fight.

[Pocus]

A bug has been spotted where in some rare cases the auto-retreat code would use the damage done in a previous battle. This can explains some oddities in retreat by auto-retreat. This would not explains oddities in the standard retreat procedure.

Some retreat messages were re-activated by me some weeks ago in the message panel, perhaps they are confusing you. If you can screenshot them to me, I can remove them. Note: since the start, forces in a structure check for retreat even if this is pointless. There is no adverse effect except unwanted messages for that

Another note: entrenchment are already rather strong. They reduce by 10% the to hit chance against you, for each level (meaning if you are protected by a level 4 trench, you are fired upon with a 0.9x0.9x0.9x0.9 percentage. So in effect, they reduce losses, and so auto-retreat triggers much more rarely.

Finally, I added a tweak to auto-retreat where the retreat will (derived from the ROE posture of the Commander in Chief of the region) alters the auto-retreat %. For example if you have a retreat will of 50% in defend at all cost, then you must suffer double the normal % of losses to trigger auto-retreat.

[Franciscus]

(...) I added a tweak to auto-retreat where the retreat will (derived from the ROE posture of the Commander in Chief of the region) alters the auto-retreat %. For example if you have a retreat will of 50% in defend at all cost, then you must suffer double the normal % of losses to trigger auto-retreat.

Sounds good !

When ?

[berto]

Finally, I added a tweak to auto-retreat where the retreat will (derived from the ROE posture of the Commander in Chief of the region) alters the auto-retreat %. For example if you have a retreat will of 50% in defend at all cost, then you must suffer double the normal % of losses to trigger auto-retreat.

Sounds like a good tweak. If it raises the possibility of battle casualties going above their historical maximums, at least the players have the option of avoiding Hold at All Cost (and also All Out Attack?) except in the rarest of circumstances.

Some players can choose anything goes, and others can choose strictly historical game play. It's a win-win situation.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Ebbingford]

Hi all, over on WIA we're having another problem with auto retreat, see this thread
[url=http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=11089&page=2]
Problems with static units involved, has anyone noticed this or tested it here?

[Ebbingford]

Why didn't my message have the link inserted as a clickable link? I clicked on the "insert link" button?

[Rafiki]

I imagine you may have unknowingly deleted part of what was inserted straight aftwerwards? Part of the text gets auto-selected (at least in my browser), so pressing the any key could be the cause of this.

[Captain]

Thanks all for replying, certainly opened a can of worms. Let me reply;

1. Gray thanks for pointing out the rules, I was unaware of that and shall play accordingly in the future.

2. Arsan, if that fort delays a Union army and its supply for a significant period than I judge that an acceptable sacrifice, (but only if it does its job as intended!)

3. Veg and Pocus, as you all know I rarely get into the math unless it is required but yes well prepared entrenchments seem to be easily vacated and one wonders re the protection they afford. I make 2 points in realtion to entrenchments;
a-Petersburg, it is said the the line was so thin for the CSA they couln't even throw ammo to the next man. Given this the Petersburg line held for a significant period AND inflicted significant loss on the Union. In game terms however I would imagine the Petersburg works to be abandoned and the Union take the position at minimal loss.

b-entrenched/defensive positions afford MUCH more than just protection. Any soldier will tell you a good defense is like living in a Taj Mahal compared to the advance, attack and retreat phases of war. In defense you usually have supplies and ammo stockpiled. Men tend to be more rested. Replacements are received and wounded more easily cared for.
But above all, defensive positions have DFs(modern) or fields of fire prearranged and laid down. Preperpared killing zones and orgainsed retreat paths if needed.

c.I don't want to get into an arty debate here, but arty in defence 'should' be the optimum application of the weapon and entrenchments should reflect this. Conversly attackers arty "has" to accept terrain and deploy simply where it can. If the defender has chosen his ground well , the attacker will find it difficult to adequately deploy his arty and fire spt groups, especially in this period.

Coreg,
Of course in my examples I was outnumbered as the sth will usally be (see the fort busting debate tactic).
I think this irrelevant given historical precedence.
Vicksburg did bog down Grant ! whilst being outnumbered, so did Petersburg.
Some of the coastal forts never fell ! Even Atlanta slowed Sherman down.
A division is a large commitment by the south and if the position is adequately prepared there should be some payoff for this as there was historically.

Now as far as tactics go, the reason I was building new forts was to take advantage of the frontage rules. As Gray pointed out I misunderstood the retreat process so it was all for nothing.

In summary a fort with heavy guns, a well supplied depot and a good division, outside entrenchments. Should be able to hold of a besieger for an acceptable time period and inflict significant losses on an attacker who wishes to assault the position.
Forts often 'had' to be attacked as they sat blocking supply and or communication/transport routes. So they should be more than a one turn speed bump.
From what we are hearing this doesn't seem to happen.

Maybe we can get a few different experiences with this type of example to get some sort of pool of data for the techos to play with.

I am interested to hear what others have found regarding this situation.

[Pocus]

rule nugget #546: Artilleries in defense have their entrenchment value used to increase their to hit %. i.e an artillery firing from a trench level 2 is firing at 121% efficiency (1.1 x 1.1).
It is in the engine since more than one year

[arsan]

Captain,

I don’t agree with you about the entrenchments being too little effective.
I think they are Ok.
The combat system is very complex and one cannot judge if its right or wrong just by looking at some particular battle results.
And using historical examples as a backup is kind of complicated too. I’m not and ACW expert, but I have read some books about it and found that real historical battles had wildly different results.
Petersburg is in no way a typical ACW defensive battle. Was a unique campaign that give a glimpse, 50 years before, of how the WW1 battlefields would be.
If you want, you can find other historical battle results that backup just the contrary (that entrenchments are too effective, as other players had complained about lots of times) like Chattanooga where on Missionary Ridge, a highly entrenched CSA force in an ideal defensive position was ousted of their trenches by a no bigger USA force with little effort.
In any case, you don’t give any precise info and/or pics about your problematic battle results (numbers, entrenchment levels, leaders, force composition, force ratios… ). Its impossible to know if things are good or not.
Another consideration, if you look at famous defensive battles (Fredericksburg, Cold harbour…) you will see that the ratio numbers between both sides are not that extremes (usually not more that 2:1…). If in game the USA has a 3, 4 or 5:1 local ratios I don’t find ludicrous that the CSA trenches are abandoned after some battling. Historically, that was a hopeless situation and soldiers don’t like to fight to the death if they can withdraw.
Regarding forts, both historical and game forts are mostly medium/little sized fortifications used to control waterways. The function is to fight and damage enemy fleets, not make a defence to the death against enemy corps or armies.
Mainly, because a big force bottle up in a fort/fortified town like in Vicksburg or Ft Henry have little option besides surrender and starve once they are surrounded.

The CSA forts that were not took by the USA was because they were not important enough to risk enough men and ships in taking them and or was situated on extremely difficult terrain. Not many forts resisted a determined and land/naval attack, but they use to give a good account of themselves against naval attacks

It’s your game and you can try to use forts as you like, but I would not expect good results with this tactic, as in history.

Regards

[Captain]

rule nugget #546: Artilleries in defense have their entrenchment value used to increase their to hit %. i.e an artillery firing from a trench level 2 is firing at 121% efficiency (1.1 x 1.1).
It is in the engine since more than one year

I was hoping someone would point that out.
That's ok then the system then "should" take that into consideration.
This then narrows the field of discussion.

[johnnycai]

Thanks all for replying, certainly opened a can of worms. Let me reply;

3. Veg and Pocus, as you all know I rarely get into the math unless it is required but yes well prepared entrenchments seem to be easily vacated and one wonders re the protection they afford. I make 2 points in realtion to entrenchments;
a-Petersburg, it is said the the line was so thin for the CSA they couln't even throw ammo to the next man. Given this the Petersburg line held for a significant period AND inflicted significant loss on the Union. In game terms however I would imagine the Petersburg works to be abandoned and the Union take the position at minimal loss.

b-entrenched/defensive positions afford MUCH more than just protection. Any soldier will tell you a good defense is like living in a Taj Mahal compared to the advance, attack and retreat phases of war. In defense you usually have supplies and ammo stockpiled. Men tend to be more rested. Replacements are received and wounded more easily cared for.
But above all, defensive positions have DFs(modern) or fields of fire prearranged and laid down. Preperpared killing zones and orgainsed retreat paths if needed.

c.I don't want to get into an arty debate here, but arty in defence 'should' be the optimum application of the weapon and entrenchments should reflect this. Conversly attackers arty "has" to accept terrain and deploy simply where it can. If the defender has chosen his ground well , the attacker will find it difficult to adequately deploy his arty and fire spt groups, especially in this period.

Coreg,
Of course in my examples I was outnumbered as the sth will usally be (see the fort busting debate tactic).
I think this irrelevant given historical precedence.
Vicksburg did bog down Grant ! whilst being outnumbered, so did Petersburg.
Some of the coastal forts never fell ! Even Atlanta slowed Sherman down.
A division is a large commitment by the south and if the position is adequately prepared there should be some payoff for this as there was historically.

Now as far as tactics go, the reason I was building new forts was to take advantage of the frontage rules. As Gray pointed out I misunderstood the retreat process so it was all for nothing.

In summary a fort with heavy guns, a well supplied depot and a good division, outside entrenchments. Should be able to hold of a besieger for an acceptable time period and inflict significant losses on an attacker who wishes to assault the position.
Forts often 'had' to be attacked as they sat blocking supply and or communication/transport routes. So they should be more than a one turn speed bump.
From what we are hearing this doesn't seem to happen.

Maybe we can get a few different experiences with this type of example to get some sort of pool of data for the techos to play with.

I am interested to hear what others have found regarding this situation.

Captain,
Your examples of defending the forts says it all. There is no way currently to make forts a viable defenders strategy.
I agree that there should be someway to make better use of forts in CSA strategy. Perhaps adding a ROE option that would make the stack retreat to the structure (fort or town)after a retreat due to battle should be considered since I dont think anybody chooses the option to 'enter structure' when in defence as this causes your troops to enter the structure and giveup the outside trenches without a fight to the enemy. I see this option leading to more strategic choices, thereby making a superior US force for example fight the CSA outside the fort and then, should the CSA retreat into the structure, again force the US to seige or assault the structure with the retreating forces added to the garrison. This would make decisions about attacking and assaulting regions with minimal garrisions but strong defensive forces outside more problematic for the US. As it is now, a US strategy is to scout the region/fort/town and if the garrison is miminal then use the assault stance knowing that a successful attack on any outside defenders will result in the US stack taking on only the garrison as the outside stack wont have options to retreat and help the fort. This has a huge impact on strategy obviously once a structure/region is taken.
I have tried a single unit entrench both inside and outside a structure and try the 'enter structure' command with the big stack that is to fight the enemy. The big stack will enter the structure immediately and not upon contact with the enemy so you end up giving up the outside trenches and getting seiged. If my single unit that I have outside the structure is still in place, I can move my big defender stack back the outside and merge to re-obtain the trench values but it wont help if the enemy moves enough troops to dislodge the trench-sitters while my big defending stack moves into the structure and doesnt help hold the trenches.

[Yellowhammer]

In real life, the "star forts" in the game were designed to hold out against a siege for only about two weeks - i.e., forts like Jackson, Gaines, Morgan, Pickens, etc. They were designed and built in the 1830s as a port defense / coastal artillery system, which depended on a robust naval response to a siege. These forts also had no real possibility of a land-based response to a siege (usually located on remote islands / peninsulas accessible only by sea). The forts themselves are kinda small, with limited food, water, and ammo supplies (and therefore limited garrison).

Forts Henry and Donelson were also designed as 'coastal' (anti-riverine) artillery platforms - Fort Henry was not designed to withstand an infantry assault (and in fact was located in a flood zone - it is underwater now due to dam).

Fort Donelson was better-sited, better designed, and more complete (the forts only had a couple of months construction time). About the same with Island Number 10.

Just like the star forts, these small earthen forts were not expected to resist a siege for long.

I think that the player-built forts in the game are supposed to simulate defenses like Vicksburg, Petersburg, and Nashville - earthworks with miles of trenches, redoubts, and supply...

[nilam]

Hi Captain,

See you have stirred up a techno hornets nest again.......

ive just started a new pbem game with the new patch (62 campaign)
as usual i went for Winchester again got there first with one div and some
horse arty,my finger was hovering over the "enter structure" button but
i resisted (phew).I put Jackson in charge,i saw a chance to take Manassas
(reinforce)and sent the whole army there and built a fort.

Heres the interesting bit,union attacks Manassas,Army HQ and 4 res brigs
get sent packing,Johnsons 3div corp enters fort and is besieged.
(did"nt press the button honest)"very strange""
and the 60.000 union attack 14000 at Winchester and i won (twice)
"even stranger" ........

I still think being in a siege is strategically sound as CSA,but tactically bad.

[Pocus]

rule nugget#547: Stacks with the special order 'Move into structure asap' will retreat into the structure of the region instead of retreating to another region.

[arsan]

I think that the player-built forts in the game are supposed to simulate defenses like Vicksburg, Petersburg, and Nashville - earthworks with miles of trenches, redoubts, and supply...

I think that kind of fortifications are better represented in game by stacks with high level entrenchments (7-8).
Player built forts in game work exactly the same that "star-forts" already in game for what i know. Only they are limited to cities (not sure why...)
Cheers!

[lodilefty]

I think that kind of fortifications are better represented in game by stacks with high level entrenchments (7-8).
Player built forts in game work exactly the same that "star-forts" already in game for what i know. Only they are limited to cities (not sure why...)
Cheers!

...except the entrenchments don't have inherent supply as forts do, and forts can be 'abandoned' and reentered later without losing the defense value.

...but entrenchments are free!

[Heldenkaiser]

Ever wondered how a division (that's many a thousand men, and then some, plus guns and trains and stuff ...) would fit into a fort designed for a small garrison consisting mainly of gunners?

I saw Fort Knox on the Penobscot Narrows a couple of months ago. We were told this was one of the largest Civil War vintage forts in existence (not sure about *the* largest, but anyway). It's a huge structure to be sure, but we also learned that when they garrisoned it with a ME volunteer regiment in the Spanish-American War, they had trouble finding room for those men--less than a thousand--and they ended up camping on the parade. No way you'd ever cram a division in there. And I suppose most forts were a good deal smaller than this.

So in my book a fort is something to give strength to a small garrison--a brigade and a couple of guns or so--to help it hold out for a while against a larger force. A division belongs into field fortications, i.e. entrenchment levels in game terms.

My € .02.

[Pocus]

According to the initial design, player built fortification represents the extensive fortifications like around Washington or Vicksburg to a lesser extent.They are level 2. Starting forts, like Sumter are much smaller and are level 1.

[Vegetius]

Pocus, I hope the modifications you made would increase the effectiveness of fortified positions, it sounds good to me.

@ Coregonas : the battles i reported involved at least 3 divisions in defense and between 5 and 9 divisions in attack in several corps. The difference was quite enough to overwhelm the defense after some days of fight but what really surprised me were the quick retreat (the first day) and the poor ratio of men lost (none element destroyed and those hit were around 30 and 70% of their fully strenght).