Is Grant procrastinating ???

[Mickey3D]

I'm playing a PBEM game with the 1.11a patch.

Last turn I sent Grant to attack Memphis. He should have reach the city on day 7 but, unexpectedly, he stopped his move in Covington after one day

[CENTER][/CENTER]

I have the backup files at disposal. Please !!!! explain me why such a sudden fit of lazyness

[johnnyreb6]

Maybe his liver failed on him early.

[Barker]

Stopped for some ky corn whiskey at the local tavern, got something to eat...passed out....hangover...did not feel like doing anything for a few days

[Pocus]

Please send me the current turn and backup1 (need HST in it) to pmalacher@age-studio.com, referencing this thread. thanks.

[Banks6060]

probaby because he knew he'd get his butt kicked there. Hardee looks to have a pretty sizeable force there. .

[CristoFire-Ice]

You bet!

You should see the other corps led by Forrest and Longstreet, waiting for any bluecoat to cross...

[J.Longstreet]

He`s drunk for sure

[Vegetius]

Can we consider that Grant's scouts (cavalry inside the division) reported the size and the fortification level of Hardee's Corps before assaulting ?
In that case, maybe the previous assault could have been canceled ?

[arsan]

Can we consider that Grant's scouts (cavalry inside the division) reported the size and the fortification level of Hardee's Corps before assaulting ?
In that case, maybe the previous assault could have been canceled ?

If on the next turn the stack of Grant was on passive, then its definitely the case.
Stacks can decide on their own not to follow orders like attacking a vastly superior force or remain on defense against overwhelming odds (if out of a structure)
Usually its a nice feature that works great
With fog of war and 15 days tuns sometimes you send a brigade sized stack to occupy a seemingly empty town and when he gets there he founds Lee and the whole ANV entrenched there

[Mickey3D]

If on the next turn the stack of Grant was on passive, then its definitely the case.
Stacks can decide on their own not to follow orders like attacking a vastly superior force or remain on defense against overwhelming odds (if out of a structure)
Usually its a nice feature that works great
With fog of war and 15 days tuns sometimes you send a brigade sized stack to occupy a seemingly empty town and when he gets there he founds Lee and the whole ANV entrenched there

Grant was sent with assault order and he still have this order at the end of the turn.

[W.Barksdale]

There is a rebel fleet on the Mississippi. The game abstracts movement by them into those tributaries inland. This may have prevented Grant from following orders.

[arsan]

There is a rebel fleet on the Mississippi. The game abstracts movement by them into those tributaries inland. This may have prevented Grant from following orders.

Really??
I have never heard or see that... those small rivers are no navigable and only have a penalty on movement and on attacking across form what i know
Mickey,
Then its not what i said. When a stack refuses to attack it moves to an adjacent area on passive and on the next turn they are still on passive posture.
If a stack is still on assault i have no clue about what happened.
Maybe he got drunk on the way
(ups! the joke has already been done! damned stereotypes! :neener
Regards!

[W.Barksdale]

I have a similar situation in a game of mine. Unless it is a bug I'm almost certain it is because of the fleet blocking movement on the Loosahatchie.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Mickey3D]

Pocus had a look to the backup files and has found the answer :

l'interdiction vient de Forrest et de ses canons... Effectivement pour cours d'eau mineur c'est peut être abusif et en tout cas pas clair du tout pour le joueur. Je pense que je vais le restreindre aux cours d'eau majeurs.

Next to Memphis region (on the east side) was Forrest with a corps and cannons. He was creating an interdiction on the Loosahatchie river (the one between Covington and Memphis).

Pocus agree that such an interdiction could be excessive and at least not clear for the player. He think this "feature" will be retricted to major waterway.

I do not remember that such a behaviour exists in previous version (but perhaps I failed to see it). Does someone know ?

Moreover I hardly understand it : a player could hinder any river crossing just by the presence of some artillery ?

I'm disappointed : this rule makes me fail an attack on Nashville and makes me loose several brigades that were forced to move in ennemy region.

[Pocus]

I should have posted also here, I identified the bug and responded by mail to Mickey3D.

Between the 2 regions (570 and 571) there is a minor river. Forrest force to the east of these regions was adjacent to both, with guns, and the game allowed the minor river link to be interdicted.

I would say that this is abusive, and that only major river should be interdictable this way.

[arsan]

Guns interdicted a land stack?
I thought guns entrenched by a river interdicted supplies and would shot on naval stacks... don't think they would do anything with a land stack
Whats is the idea behind this? how it works ans what it tries to simulate?
I'm totally lost here!

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[arsan]

and that only major river should be interdictable this way.

Yes, but that part make me think that there is a game mechanism i had never heard of before... guns interdicting land units crossing rivers...
Regards!

[CristoFire-Ice]

I'm disappointed : this rule makes me fail an attack on Nashville and makes me loose several brigades that were forced to move in ennemy region.

My dear opponent, I really think that your attack on Nashville would have failed, should you had the possibility to launch it. I was heavily entrenched and had good army/corps support. But anyway, we cannot go back.

[Mickey3D]

But anyway, we cannot go back.

No, we can't. But that's a real pleasure to know that I can't trust any planned move through a river

[Pocus]

Yes, but that part make me think that there is a game mechanism i had never heard of before... guns interdicting land units crossing rivers...
Regards!

My mistake, the error made me says stupid thing. Re-checking the code I see that you can interdict a river passage only if you are stationed yourself in a river.

This was another thing, everything should be ok for the next patch now

[Mickey3D]

My mistake, the error made me says stupid thing. Re-checking the code I see that you can interdict a river passage only if you are stationed yourself in a river.

This was another thing, everything should be ok for the next patch now

Not sure to understand : what was the cause of the interdiction ?

[Pocus]

An pretest existed (before the I'm on river thing) to see if you were crossing a minor river, and the test was erroneous. Removing it, it work as expected, so I moved to another thing

[Daxil]

So the Loosahatchie can be blocked by naval units stationed in the adjacent miss? Just want to get this straight so I can abuse it on my opponent.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[bigus]

Glad it's been fixed.
Since I also noted this in a Vicksburg scenario I was playing.
A small force was unable to move across a minor river. It had me moving east across a region then back to where I wished to go.

I was going to post some info later since I'm at work right now.

Bigus