User avatar
Hobbes
Posts: 4438
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 12:18 am
Location: UK

Retreat Problems

Sun Aug 05, 2007 5:13 pm

Hi folks, people have posted both in the AACW and BoA forums about problems with units retreating to ridiculous regions. I've never come across this before but a recent attack resulted in an entire Corp being marooned in a dead end with no real possibility of getting out again.

My Union opponent made a bold amphibious attack against Wilmington and took the town. I decided I had to get it back and sent a Corp down from Richmond to engage his forces. The battle was going well and my opponents forces made two attempts to retreat. Unfortunatly for me there was nowhere for him to retreat to and I didn't have the power to destroy him completely. I assume that in this scenario the game will force the attacker to retreat as my opponent was defending outside of the town so we couldn't begin the next turn with both forces in the same region.

Unfortunatly instead of retreating to the region I was last in I was actually made to retreat past Wilmington and into fort Fisher. The only way out of fort Fisher is through Wilmington across a river into a marsh region. So basically I was stuck. My opponent holds Wilmington, cuts a main rail line and
corners an entire CSA Corp. If I sent an army down to try and relieve the situation it might also be forced to retreat into fort Fisher.

My main points about this are :-

1. Retreat regions need some work - at least make some dead ends like fort Fisher very low priority as a retreat path (snag with this is if you came from fort Fisher in the first place). Ideally the game should remember where the attacker came from and make this the priority retreat region if it is still valid.

2. I'm worried that a superior attacker is forced to retreat just because he cannot eliminate a cornered opponent?

3. Does anyone live in or know the area? Would it be possible for a force in fort Fisher to move from there to Burke/South Port? If so at least a fix for this one area could be to add a region link.

I worry that any union player worth his salt will always attack Wilmington to exploit this problem. You can't take it back without the chance of being shunted into fort Fisher.

I have to say that Gene my PBEM opponent actually went inside Wilmington rather than defending outside to allow me to escape. (He said he was going to do this anyway but I'm not sure about that - a fine opponent!)

Cheers, Chris
P.S. I've told Gene that I won't attack Wilmington before he has a chance to build up his defences again but when I do there is a very good chance I will end up once more stuck in fort Fisher. In the meantime I'm losing a huge amount of supply :(

User avatar
McNaughton
Posts: 2766
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:47 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Sun Aug 05, 2007 5:51 pm

I looked over the scenario you describe and have come up with a few observations/conclusions.

1) I don't necessarily think that this is a 'bad' tactic on the point of view of the retreating corps. Here are the options it had.

A) Retreat back down the rail line.
B) Cross a river to retreat into South Port
C) Retreat into Fort Fisher.

Realistically, choice C) is the best choice over choice A) and B). Choice B) is difficult, as you have to cross a river to get into the safety of South Port. Choice A) throws you back down the rail line, with the next closest supply base being a town accross another river. Choice C), Fort Fisher, can be accessed without crossing a river, and is a fortress full of supplies. The Corps was drawn to the supply and safety of Fort Fisher.

2) A problem with the opposite is that one can simply just use 'bullying tactics' to crush opponents with pure force. This would severely hamper the CSA as the USA would be able to smother the CSA in sheer numbers, and push their way to VP territories.

3) No idea about the region.

To me, the game is functioning as designed. Forces retreat to the safest and best county. In this case it was Fort Fisher (safety of the Fort).

The creation of supply depots along your routes is an often overlooked aspect of the game. Wilmington is the regions supply depot, and with its loss the entire region became deficit in supply (wth Goldsborogh being the closest base of supply). The problem wasn't that you retreated to Fort Fisher, the problem is Fort Fisher is now cut off and cannot support such large forces with the loss of Wilmington.

My advice is to watch the supply map, to ensure that you have depots nearby.

Also, carry supply trains in all of your spearhead corps units, so they can survive temporary bockups.

Your best bet, is what you did, to send a relief force to crush his troops in the field to the point that they have to retreat into the city. One Corps probably wasn't sufficient to crush opposition.

The absolute best way to avoid this happening again is to ensure that Wilmington is garrisoned by a brigade of troops. A Union force will have to defeat this force before they can get the depot at Wilmington, leaving you plenty of time to gather and send a relief column before they can really exploit the situation. Guard your depots with care, Wilmington was the key to the entire region's system of Forts and Towns. Its loss is what caused Fort Fisher to be untenable.

PBBoeye
General
Posts: 563
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 12:59 am
Location: Richmond, VA

Sun Aug 05, 2007 6:16 pm

I'm a little lost. Who won the battle?

I've got some problems with this whole thing. Gotta get out of town now, and I don't have time to type out all my thoughts. But I'll check back into this thread in a few days.

Bottom line, I think the retreat parameters need work.

User avatar
McNaughton
Posts: 2766
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:47 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Sun Aug 05, 2007 6:45 pm

PBBoeye wrote:I'm a little lost. Who won the battle?

I've got some problems with this whole thing. Gotta get out of town now, and I don't have time to type out all my thoughts. But I'll check back into this thread in a few days.

Bottom line, I think the retreat parameters need work.


He won the battle, but didn't have the power to win the field. In my opinion, the force should default try to escape to a neighbouring free territory, in lieu of that, retreat into the friendly town, in lieu of that to surrender.

Jagger
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 949
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:31 pm

Sun Aug 05, 2007 8:24 pm

I suspect it is impossible to create a perfect retreat logic.

When the rare odd retreat occurs, the best solution may be an agreement with your opponent to rectify the situation artificially as Gene and Hobbes did.

Although I had something very similiar happen recently in a PBEM. A full corps retreated behind rebel lines into mountains as winter set in...rather than retreat back down the railroad tracks towards their supply source. The corps almost completely dissolved before they finally staggered back into friendly lines.

PBBoeye
General
Posts: 563
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 12:59 am
Location: Richmond, VA

Sun Aug 05, 2007 8:34 pm

McNaughton wrote:He won the battle, but didn't have the power to win the field. In my opinion, the force should default try to escape to a neighbouring free territory, in lieu of that, retreat into the friendly town, in lieu of that to surrender.


OK, I'll agree with that. A more detailed description of what happened (forces, leaders, etc) would be helpful.

I've looked over the map and without any confirmation of information, I'll take a stab at the strategic situation. He railed down the line from Richmond, through Goldsboro, NC, then through the Duplin region and then into Wilmington for combat. Correct?

I like the point about not being able to take the field; ie., drive the Federals off. OK, but I don't think retreating into Fisher was good. He should have gone back towards Duplin since Goldsboro was close, and also a supply depot. North Carolina has to pretty much be Reb country, so they should have backed it up. Aside from Wilmington (being occupied now), they were on home turf. All of NC was there for them as safe territory.

I'll assume that the rest of the regions around Wilmington were still Rebel friendly and controlled, in lieu of the facts. So while Fisher was a source of supply, if it is a bottleneck, then I can't view that as 'safe'. Shades of Sumter there. Better to back up and live to fight another day.

Now, I would like these retreat/withdrawal options to be affected by a leader's strategic rating. Not sure if it is or not.

I found one more thing in the manual:

"If there is a non-besieged structure in the region and the force has the "Seek Shelter" special order, it will withdraw into the structure; otherwise it will withdraw to an adjacent region under friendly Military Control. Depending on the level of enemy Military Control in the region chosen for withdrawal, the force may be forced into another battle by the pursuing enemy force."

So I don't know but if his rebel force had the 'Seek Shelter' order or not.

Jagger wrote:I suspect it is impossible to create a perfect retreat logic.


You've got that right for a certainty. And even what might look good in some tough circumstances to one player wouldn't look right to another. But all we can do at this point is debate it and hope the developers keep plugging on it.

My maxim is this: [color="Blue"]while it's being tweaked, debate it. Once they move on completely, then it's time to start rationalizing and making house rules[/color] (not that anyone here is doing that).

User avatar
Hobbes
Posts: 4438
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 12:18 am
Location: UK

Sun Aug 05, 2007 9:50 pm

"Realistically, choice C) is the best choice over choice A) and B). Choice B) is difficult, as you have to cross a river to get into the safety of South Port. Choice A) throws you back down the rail line, with the next closest supply base being a town accross another river. Choice C), Fort Fisher, can be accessed without crossing a river, and is a fortress full of supplies. The Corps was drawn to the supply and safety of Fort Fisher."

I disagree, choice B - I have to cross a river into friendly lines - not a big problem and choice A I'm one region away from the massive supply depot of Goldsboro. Choice C is odd as I don't think they should even be able to reach the fort given the enemy position. Even if I could what commander would lead his troops into such a dead end position?

"2) A problem with the opposite is that one can simply just use 'bullying tactics' to crush opponents with pure force. This would severely hamper the CSA as the USA would be able to smother the CSA in sheer numbers, and push their way to VP territories."

I agree - no easy solution to this (but a decent retreat path for the unfortunate attacker would help :) )


"The problem wasn't that you retreated to Fort Fisher"

I would say that was the problem.


"the problem is Fort Fisher is now cut off and cannot support such large forces with the loss of Wilmington."

Tell me about it!

"Also, carry supply trains in all of your spearhead corps units, so they can survive temporary bockups."

I had 2 with me - and 2 transports ships on their way until Gene helped me out.

"Your best bet, is what you did, to send a relief force to crush his troops in the field to the point that they have to retreat into the city. One Corps probably wasn't sufficient to crush opposition."

The snag was it was marsh ground and you can't bring many troops to bear.


"The absolute best way to avoid this happening again is to ensure that Wilmington is garrisoned by a brigade of troops."

I had a fair garrison but not enough to stop Gene's force.


McN I'm just trying to address your points and it may seem a bit off on my part I think (It seems so to me :) ). I hope it doesn't come across that way - I am very grateful for your views. An interesting discussion.

Cheers, Chris

PBBoeye
General
Posts: 563
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 12:59 am
Location: Richmond, VA

Sun Aug 05, 2007 11:39 pm

McNaughton wrote:The problem wasn't that you retreated to Fort Fisher, the problem is Fort Fisher is now cut off and cannot support such large forces with the loss of Wilmington.


I had overlooked this. This is like 1+1=3; the problem is that his forces did retreat to a location where they'd be cut off, regardless of whether it was a fort or not. It's like the commander said, "Well, we couldn't force them out and gain control of Wilmington, and Fisher would be putting us in a corner with no escape. However, Fisher is a fort so we'll go there."

I totally agree with the 'could not force the enemy from the field so had to retreat'. Well, actually I don't know why he had to retreat. Not sure but I think I've seen forces after battle stay in the same region?

User avatar
McNaughton
Posts: 2766
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:47 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Sun Aug 05, 2007 11:52 pm

I understand as well, but there is logic to what the retreating force did. Crossing a river is a big deal, especially if you are in the midst of battle (retreating or attacking accross a river can be devestating, most of the historic instances of this were with severe trepidation on the part of the commander). Rivers are a big deal in this game.

I think that this is a specific situation where the logically best place to retreat to is actually not the best place to retreat to. The problem with Goldsboro is that it, as well as all other supply depots, are significantly far away (2 provinces) plus all beyond rivers as well.

Given 99 retreats out of 100, the value of where this unit retreated to would be positive, and generally historic (troops tendc to retreat into strongpoints). It happens to be that this is a 1 out of 100 instance where the default retreat does not pay off for the retreating partner.

Computers cannot think like humans, they cannot think beyond the immediate situation. We all know that this fort, in its current state, could not supply more troops, but, at the moment of retreat there probably was enough supply in the fort for its garrison to last for a period of time. The retreat AI saw the force needed to retreat, it cannot tell that the fort is 'cut off', as it still has supply but wasn't producing any.

In regards to seeing two forces in the same county, I think that this is a graphic error, as there appear to be weird inconsistencies with where some units appear to be stationed and where they actually are.

User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 25673
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:37 am
Location: Lyon (France)

Mon Aug 06, 2007 8:43 am

Both side can station in the same region, and if at day 15 the fight is still raging, no forced retreat will be applied to a side... So if you retreated, this is because either you suffered much more losses, or you were weaker.

As for the retreat logic, it can be improved by counting the number of valid land links and give a penalty for regions which are in a corner. I will note that for a future patch.
Image


Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."

grenna
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:03 am
Location: Ashford, CT USA

Mon Aug 06, 2007 4:55 pm

Pocus wrote:Both side can station in the same region, and if at day 15 the fight is still raging, no forced retreat will be applied to a side... So if you retreated, this is because either you suffered much more losses, or you were weaker.

As for the retreat logic, it can be improved by counting the number of valid land links and give a penalty for regions which are in a corner. I will note that for a future patch.


I like this!

I am Hobbes' Federal tormentor :niark:

To my great dismay, it seems that Hobbes is now alert to my coastal forays as Farragut and Butler, upon arriving at the New Orleans wharves, have decided that there are altogether too many Rebs hanging about the place. :fleb:

User avatar
Caltone
Private
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 6:43 pm
Location: North Carolina

Mon Aug 06, 2007 8:46 pm

Just a quick note on Hobbes' original question about the region.

I live in NC and we just spent a week at Fort Fisher :) Actually Kure Beach as Fort Fisher is all a state park today.

Fort Fisher resides on the point of the barrier island that protects Wilmington's harbor. The only way to get to SouthPort from the island is via a ferry so a retreat that direction is impossible.

The walls of the fort still stand. It's a well kept park and certainly worth a trip if you're in the area.

http://statelibrary.dcr.state.nc.us/nc/ncsites/fisher.htm

http://ils.unc.edu/parkproject/visit/fofi/home.html

PBBoeye
General
Posts: 563
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 12:59 am
Location: Richmond, VA

Tue Aug 07, 2007 4:34 am

Very interesting.

I can certainly understand the point about retreating to a strongpoint, if you're a numerically inferior force or have been devastated.

The thing about all of this is that we know very little about the force compositions, status and such after the battle. So truthfully, we can't debate the particular situation with much merit, other than to talk about certain logical principles. So I guess as Pocus says, there are things that can be done and we leave it to them.

We all have the faith. :coeurs:

User avatar
runyan99
Posts: 1420
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:34 am

Tue Aug 07, 2007 5:06 am

Yeah, a corps attacking the Wilmington region from the north, and somehow bypassing the enemy and retreating into a fort on the coast is a little crazy. I know I would want the corps to retreat back up the rail line to Richmond.

I had big problems with this in BoA, but haven't really come across a bad situation like this in AACW yet. Possibly that is because the front lines are a bit more linear in AACW.

Adding in some additional code to count land links like Pocus suggested might be all that is needed. Usually, these 'trapping' situations occur when the retreating force decides to move towards the ocean, creating a Yorktown situation.

User avatar
Hobbes
Posts: 4438
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 12:18 am
Location: UK

Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:47 am

Thanks Pocus for the explanation and possible fix for the retreat path and for the info Caltone.

And Gene, alert I now am - but it's a lot of coastline to defend! :p leure:
Cheers, Chris

User avatar
Hobbes
Posts: 4438
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 12:18 am
Location: UK

Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:08 pm

For interest - a very good site here. From the maps I don't think it likely a
force would retreat past Wilmington and into Fisher :sourcil:


http://www.ah.dcr.state.nc.us/sections/hs/fisher/fisher.htm

Cheers, Chris

User avatar
Hobbes
Posts: 4438
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 12:18 am
Location: UK

Wed Aug 08, 2007 2:26 pm

Hi folks, reading a little more on the Fort Fisher site I wonder if the game reflects the importance of forts or makes it too easy to land anywhere along a coastline :-

“Colonel Lamb recognized the importance of Fort Fisher to the defense system of the Cape Fear, to the security of Wilmington, and to the survival of the entire Confederacy. Massive and powerful, Fort Fisher kept Federal blockading ships at a distance from the Cape Fear River, protecting Wilmington from attack and ensuring relatively safe passage for Confederate naval travel. Wilmington was the last major port open to the Confederacy and the destination of steamers called
blockade runners, which smuggled provisions into the Southern states and supplied General Lee's Army of Northern Virginia.”

The exact opposite has happened in our PBEM with Wilmington being the first port to fall with not a shot fired from Fisher as it is in a different region to Wilmington.
In reality Fisher was finally captured by frontal assault in 1865 but why didn’t the Union forces simply land further up the coast and attack Wilmington cutting
off the neck of land holding Fisher and avoid the frontal assault? This seems to be what happened in our PBEM game.

Cheers, Chris
EDIT: Having given it more thought I suppose the problem is that Wilmington should have a harbour with an exit to the Cape Fear river
rather than the Ocean. It should not be possible to supply Wilmington directly from the coastal region – thus the fort then becomes
far more important as it covers the river entrance. (I’m at work at the moment so all this is difficult to check)

But then again the game doesn't stop river supply when an enemy fort covers a river.

grenna
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:03 am
Location: Ashford, CT USA

Wed Aug 08, 2007 5:37 pm

Hobbes wrote:Hi folks, reading a little more on the Fort Fisher site I wonder if the game reflects the importance of forts or makes it too easy to land anywhere along a coastline :-

The exact opposite has happened in our PBEM with Wilmington being the first port to fall with not a shot fired from Fisher as it is in a different region to Wilmington.
In reality Fisher was finally captured by frontal assault in 1865 but why didn’t the Union forces simply land further up the coast and attack Wilmington cutting
off the neck of land holding Fisher and avoid the frontal assault? This seems to be what happened in our PBEM game.

Cheers, Chris
EDIT: Having given it more thought I suppose the problem is that Wilmington should have a harbour with an exit to the Cape Fear river
rather than the Ocean.
But then again the game doesn't stop river supply when an enemy fort covers a river.


I was thinking this about our game - the coastal forts seem to be rendered irrelevant by the ability to land directly on the port location, and bypassing the forts. As I'm thinking ahead to future landings, I would only assault a coastal fortress if the port itself turned out to be heavily.

I understand that having taken a coastal fort, the Union can easily hold it, while defending a port may be much more difficult. However, I am able to reinforce Wilmington in our game with astonishing ease.

Of course, in reality, Farragut was able to pass by the Mississippi Delta forts and to bull through the forts in Mobile Bay (?)

Certainly an interesting topic for discussion!

cheers,
Gene

User avatar
Jabberwock
Posts: 2204
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 12:12 am
Location: Weymouth, MA
Contact: ICQ

Wed Aug 08, 2007 9:59 pm

Hobbes wrote:The exact opposite has happened in our PBEM with Wilmington being the first port to fall with not a shot fired from Fisher as it is in a different region to Wilmington.


Benefits of hindsight / game mechanics.

Hobbes wrote:In reality Fisher was finally captured by frontal assault in 1865 but why didn’t the Union forces simply land further up the coast and attack Wilmington cutting off the neck of land holding Fisher and avoid the frontal assault? This seems to be what happened in our PBEM game.

Having given it more thought I suppose the problem is that Wilmington should have a harbour with an exit to the Cape Fear river rather than the Ocean. It should not be possible to supply Wilmington directly from the coastal region – thus the fort then becomes far more important as it covers the river entrance. (I’m at work at the moment so all this is difficult to check)


Masonboro Inlet was often used by blockade runners as an alternative harbor. It was only six miles from Wilmington with a good road almost straight between them. Senior federal commanders seem to have dismissed this alternative landing site, proposed by Commander W. A. Parker in 1863, and focused on landing near Ft Fisher (18 miles downriver) or an overland march from New Bern (approx. 100 miles). Never could figure that out. My guess is that they saw this massive fort with a somewhat vulnerable land side, and got fixated on it.
[color="DimGray"] You deserve to be spanked[/color]

Image

User avatar
Hobbes
Posts: 4438
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 12:18 am
Location: UK

Thu Aug 09, 2007 8:32 am

“But then again the game doesn't stop river supply when an enemy fort covers a river.”

Am I wrong about this? Is it only oceanic supply that is not affected by enemy forts? Riverine supply is I think.

If so Wilmington could realistically lose it’s ocean access (why do ports have so many entrances anyway?) and Fort Fisher would need to be controlled to receive supply.

Is there a game problem that Wilmington cannot get all it’s supply by riverine rather than oceanic? It should really be oceanic supply using riverine supply rules.

I have no problem with an amphibious invasion of Wilmington further up the coast, bypassing Fisher, but then
the Union forces in Wilmington should only be able to get supply by using transports off the coast or supply wagons.

This would seem far more realistic and add a lot to the game I think.

Cheers, Chris

Return to “AGEod's American Civil War”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests