Marching to the sound of the guns

[Ace]

I browsed earlier posts and didn't find definite answer. In my game I had my well entrenched corps march to the sound of the guns of adjacent corps which were attacked by a single cavalry.
At the same time my opponents corps marched unopposed to the region which were previously occupied by me before I involuntary marched to the sounds of the guns.
This way I lost my region without a single bullet fired.
To me it is not logical that someone would march 40000 men to help another 40000 men who are being attacked by a cavalry regiment, or am I missing a point?

Any opinions on the thread?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[GraniteStater]

But then they return to the region from which they started, ne c'est pas? Then may we infer that when they return they may not, or cannot, fight again that turn?

[Ace]

That is the point, they didn't return before the end of the turn, by that time their previous regions was already occupied.
I am sorry but I cannot provide you with the save game, only turn replay since I am not hosting.
So, the corps will march to the sound of the guns regardless of the scale of the battle in the adjacent region? That is good thing to know. If that is the case, I ll congratulate my opponent on a fine move last turn (faint attack on one region, so majority of the force can escape encirclement through another region).

[Baris]

Yes it can be a problem when entrenched corps try to help each other by leaving fortified positions disregarding the size of the enemy. I think additional rule of postures can be(for marching sound of guns) implemented for future AGE engine games. Just an idea

[Mickey3D]

Ace, did the fight happen on the 15th day of the turn ? That could explain why the force that MTSG had no time to come back to its initial region.

[Ace]

It wasn't on the last turn. There were 2 small scale battles, I think on turn 7 and 8(I am not sure, I ll have to look into it) against a cavalry unit and against a lone balloon. I don't know does it have any impact that my corps in adjacent region was in offensive posture trying to catch that balloon. It may also be of some importance, the region my MTSG corps was in, was muddy so the return to it may take longer than usual.

[Ace]

Yes it can be a problem when entrenched corps try to help each other by leaving fortified positions disregarding the size of the enemy. I think additional rule of postures can be(for marching sound of guns) implemented for future AGE engine games. Just an idea

It is a good idea, but I would be perfectly happy if it would be tied with general strategic rating. Lets say that poor general misjudged the adjacent battle, moved to intercept and got caught out of position.

But that would be AACW2 wish list.

[gchristie]

Marching to the sound of guns is modified by several factors, explained in the following link in the wiki

http://www.ageod.net/aacwwiki/Marching_to_the_sound_of_the_guns

Some things may have changed in the MTSG mechanics over time, but this is my understanding. Posture is factored in, if the corps is in defensive posture it receives a -10% chance of MTSG. Putting the corps in passive posture means it won't MTSG, but that may have some dire unintended consequences. The general's strategic rating also has some bearing on whether the corps MTSG.

If the battle occurred on the 8th day, the corps might not have been able to get back to its starting position by the 15th day, unless the regions are linked by rail.

This is a little bit of an exploit, but I try to always have a small unit independent of the corps in the same region entrenching. That way if a corps MTSG, upon its return the trenches will still be manned and in place.

Though I don't think it unrealistic that trenches created by several thousand men over several weeks should still be in existence if the men leave the trenches for a week or two, rather than completely disappearing if they leave their trenches for a few days. This could be something to be worked on if there is an AACW2, maybe entrenchment levels degrade one level per turn rather than all at once.

Ditto if I plan an attack, I will leave some small force in place in case the attack fails and the attackers need to fall back to their trenches.

[Baris]

Yes regions that have railroads have big modifier for movement so troops that responded for help can return original position in that turn.

Wiki info about difficulties for successfull "MTSG" is clear in theory but in practice(as also written in wiki) most of the time leaders respond to SOS call even with "Defensive posture"( -10 modifier for MTSG). Especially in ROP game this can be a problem because there are no railroads. So all the army and corps ends up in the same region even they are positioned seperately in map.

Apart from strategic rating or other modifiers maybe defensive posture should give more minus modifier for MTSG or is it?

[Mickey3D]

It wasn't on the last turn. There were 2 small scale battles, I think on turn 7 and 8(I am not sure, I ll have to look into it) against a cavalry unit and against a lone balloon. I don't know does it have any impact that my corps in adjacent region was in offensive posture trying to catch that balloon. It may also be of some importance, the region my MTSG corps was in, was muddy so the return to it may take longer than usual.

Could you ask the player hosting the game to provide the game files of the turn ?

Offensive posture will just increase the chance MTSG is successful.

Note that movement cost (days to move to another region) has an impact on the probability the MTSG is successful but then the move is instantaneous (the corps leader has been able to anticipate the ennemy move and he arrives just in time) and, as far as I remember, the return should also be instantaneous ("'Beam me up Scotty") !

[Baris]

Corps committing to MTSG on round basis, so each round of battle MTSG of nearby corps is checked seperately. One round successfull(commits to battle) another round is not.. Check is made by modifiers(distance) ,postures etc says manual.

Then, if the movement is abstract(no river crossing) or instant that, helping corps do not physically move, why they sometimes end up on different region?

[Mickey3D]

Corps committing to MTSG on round basis, so each round of battle MTSG of nearby corps is checked seperately. One round successfull(commits to battle) another round is not.. Check is made by modifiers(distance) ,postures etc says manual. ?

Not sure of what you mean by round : My understanding is that committing is computed per battle. once committed the corps will take part to the whole battle. Now if there is another fight in the same region another day the check is done once again.

Then, if the movement is abstract(no river crossing) or instant that, helping corps do not physically move, why they sometimes end up on different region ?

Good question that only developper could answer. Here is what is written in wiki :
[INDENT]

After combat, stacks that have marched to the sound of the guns are put back where they marched from

[/INDENT]

Note that movement may be abstract because it happens instantaneously but the corps may be "physically" (i.e. in the game engine memory) move to the region where battle occurs.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Mickey3D]

Each battle is resolved in a series of rounds, simulating the approach/meeting, closing, melee, breakoff, and pursuit phases of a battle.

Thanks Gray. In fact I know what is a round of battle but I was not sure Baris had the same definition.

[Baris]

Not sure of what you mean by round : My understanding is that committing is computed per battle. once committed the corps will take part to the whole battle. Now if there is another fight in the same region another day the check is done once again.

Note that movement may be abstract because it happens instantaneously but the corps may be "physically" (i.e. in the game engine memory) move to the region where battle occurs.

Yes it must be per battle, not in phases of combat. Message log also indicates "x corps committed battle" no doubt here

In wia manual, a Question and the answer?.
"When the side of the supporting stack withdraws from combat, the supporting stack does not withdraw to a random friendly region, but stays in its “starting” region?

When a stack fails this test, it will not participate in this round of combat (but it will try again in the next round - if there is one). "

It should be about the "memory".
But sometimes they can not return to region they start with , even they are not "physically" there.. Some black magic should have involved.

[Mickey3D]

In wia manual, a Question and the answer?.
"When the side of the supporting stack withdraws from combat, the supporting stack does not withdraw to a random friendly region, but stays in its “starting” region?

When a stack fails this test, it will not participate in this round of combat (but it will try again in the next round - if there is one). "

In WIA there is no MTSG. I think support refers to the possibility for a stack to help in combat another stack in the same region.

[Ace]

Yes. Don't form up your units into Corps if you don't want them to March to the Sound of Guns. That's one of the functions of the Corps.

You might post the saved game files to be examined.

I have no save game, but I have a jpg whit confederate orders on the given turns. It seems my opponent deliberatly provoked battle in Richmond sacrifying a cavalry detachment so Longstreet can escape south through region held by Thomas. Thomas could not return to original region maybe because its military control went to confederate side once he wanted to return there.
It is a legitimate tactic and is nice to know it can be done.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Mickey3D]

It is a legitimate tactic and is nice to know it can be done.

Agree with you but it should have some limit : how could a lone cavalry regiment lure a whole corps ?

Game engine should not trigger MTSG if difference in strength ratio is too large.

[Ace]

Agree with you but it should have some limit : how could a lone cavalry regiment lure a whole corps ?

Game engine should not trigger MTSG if difference in strength ratio is too large.

I agree with you completely. But if your opponent uses that tactic, all you can do is go along with it.

[Ace]

Here is save game, with some delay.