Retreat direction

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Retreat direction

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Tech Support >> Retreat direction

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Retreat direction - 8/4/2008 11:18:30 PM

Jimmer

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

This is related to a bug report I submitted that has now been determined (by Matrix) to not be a bug. However, since it is extremely counter-intuitive, I figured I should post it here so you guys know:

If you use a crossing arrow to attack into a space on the immediate other side of the crossing arrow, and you lose, you will be retreated further inland (since you can't go back over the crossing arrow). Looked at from the defender's perspective, yes, the enemy will be "retreated" to a position behind your forces when you win.

Apparently there was a long discussion between "testers", and this is the end result. So, crazy as it may sound, yes, you will indeed retreat forward. For example, in the case at hand, if the French attack from Lille across the channel and lose, they will be retreated either north or west (or in-between), depending on which spaces are covered by enemy solders.

This applies to all attacks across crossing arrows. The only time the (losing) attacker would have to surrender is if all other areas on the island are covered (including islands with only one area, like Copenhagen's space).

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

Post #: 1

RE: Retreat direction - 8/5/2008 12:01:58 AM

NeverMan

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

Personally, I think that the attackers should have to retreat back across the arrow or simply be eliminated.

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 2

RE: Retreat direction - 8/5/2008 12:07:57 AM

Dancing Bear

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline

I thought that in the original rules, if you were defeated when attacking across a crossing arrow, all the surviving forces became POW's.

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 3

RE: Retreat direction - 8/5/2008 3:34:45 AM

delatbabel

Posts: 1252
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear

I thought that in the original rules, if you were defeated when attacking across a crossing arrow, all the surviving forces became POW's.

That's not the case, and this is why it has been implemented that way in EiANW.

Nobody can retreat across a crossing arrow but there's nothing to say you can't retreat "forwards" if that is your only retreat path. You have to select the area, amongst all valid areas, that is closest to your depot or home capital, but if all of those areas are in fact "forwards" (areas across a crossing arrow are not considered to be part of the deal) then one of those areas has to be selected.

The only way in which all survivors become PoWs are:

* Retreating off an island, where there is only one space and nowhere to go (e.g. Corsica, Malta).
* Retreating off an island where all other areas on the island are enemy occupied, and you can't run back across the crossing arrow (e.g. can happen in Sicily).

_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to Dancing Bear)

Post #: 4

RE: Retreat direction - 8/5/2008 4:04:15 AM

Jimmer

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

By the way, something I didn't think about before, but I suspect the same rules apply to invasions: Retreat is only precluded if every other space on that island has enemy factors (of one of the right types) in it.

NOTE: I did not set this thread up to debate the point. It's just an FYI since the game's interpretation defies all logic of realism: Nobody would ever guess that this is the way it will happen until too late ("What do you mean you landed in Bristol, and now you are in London?")

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to delatbabel)

Post #: 5

RE: Retreat direction - 8/5/2008 4:56:33 AM

gwheelock

Posts: 563
Joined: 12/27/2007
From: Coon Rapids, Minnesota
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear

I thought that in the original rules, if you were defeated when attacking across a crossing arrow, all the surviving forces became POW's.

That's not the case, and this is why it has been implemented that way in EiANW.

Nobody can retreat across a crossing arrow but there's nothing to say you can't retreat "forwards" if that is your only retreat path. You have to select the area, amongst all valid areas, that is closest to your depot or home capital, but if all of those areas are in fact "forwards" (areas across a crossing arrow are not considered to be part of the deal) then one of those areas has to be selected.

The only way in which all survivors become PoWs are:

* Retreating off an island, where there is only one space and nowhere to go (e.g. Corsica, Malta).
* Retreating off an island where all other areas on the island are enemy occupied, and you can't run back across the crossing arrow (e.g. can happen in Sicily).

In our F2F games; we decided that this created some rather silly scenarios : Spain attacks Morocco; loses & tries to
retreat "toward his national capitol" .... the LONG WAY AROUND THE MED

We made the house rule that retreats were only valid if you could force-march to within range of a supply source
or what COULD BE a supply source - otherwise you surrendered.

(in reply to delatbabel)

Post #: 6

RE: Retreat direction - 8/5/2008 1:32:09 PM

obsidiandrag

Posts: 181
Joined: 3/22/2008
From: Massachusetts, USA
Status: offline

I have noticed a little more than the retreat forward, while attacking north african territories as Spain with invasion supply. If you lose and retreat the armies do not follow the coast where you have supply, instead as on occasion attacking Tunisia - The spanish army retreated into Algeria?? So I had to declare on Turkey later to get it back.

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 7

RE: Retreat direction - 8/5/2008 2:30:34 PM

Soapy Frog

Posts: 282
Joined: 7/16/2005
Status: offline

This is correct, if you cannot retreat across the crossing arrow you must retreat to another eligible space even if this would take you further away from your nearest supply depot or capital.

There are almost no instances in the orginal rules where a force might be forced to surrender after losing a battle. The only obvious example I can think of would be fighting on a one-area island. We used to play also that if you were forced to retreat further away from your supply depot/capital and you then retreated onto an enemy corps (or depot garrison, normally requiring you to retreat a 2nd time) you would then be forced to surrender. A slight inconsitstency in the wording of the rules supported this idea... but I think the intent of the rules is that you can ALWAYS retreat unless there are literally no areas left for you to retreat into.

(in reply to obsidiandrag)

Post #: 8

RE: Retreat direction - 8/6/2008 4:42:38 AM

delatbabel

Posts: 1252
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

This is one of those little rules gotchas that sometimes trip people over in FTF as well as (or so it seems) electronic games. The good thing about this sort of issue is that, provided the game has it implemented correctly, which in this case it has, there is no more "Empires in Arguments" as EiA is often called. The software simply adjudicates on the rules and that's that.

Which is one reason I consider "rules deviation" to be a significant and high priority bug.

Saying that defending or attacking troops can't retreat if their best retreat path is across a crossing arrow makes no sense in certain cases. e.g. if the French had landed troops in Plymouth, built a depot there, and then marched to Kent (5 forage area SE of London for those who don't know where Kent is) and fight a British corps stationed there. The French also have a depot in Lille. What cannot happen is that the French retreat to Lille, because that's across a crossing arrow. What does not happen is that the French surrender (it would make no sense when they have a clear path through to their depot in Plymouth). What does happen is that the French, if they lose, retreat back one space towards Plymouth, even though it's further from their nearest depot in Lille.

Here are two of my favourite other rules gotchas:

* You can't build a depot on a fleet in a blockade box. Nope. The rules specifically say that the fleet has to be in a sea zone and that's the rule. I've caught players trying to build depots on fleets in blockade boxes in FtF games and pointed out the rule. The game actually prevents building a depot on a fleet in a blockade box which is good.

* Examine the rules about conquest and lapse of war carefully. A garrison is not sufficient to prevent lapse of war, only a corps is. For example, take this scenario, which you can set up for yourself in EiANW and it's very instructive: Prussia DoWs Thuringia in January and it becomes Austrian controlled. Prussia marches a corps into Thuringia in their own land phase in January, besieges the city, but doesn't break in. In February, the Austrian land phase happens (before the Prussian land phase), and the garrison starves to death. Prussia in their land phase in February drops a garrison into the city from the corps and moves the corps out. What happens in the March dip phase? Prussia needs to occupy the city uncontested for *one whole month* to effect conquest, and at the start of February wasn't in the city (it was still Austrian occupied). Therefore no conquest occurs at the end of the Feb land phase, and in the March dip phase *war lapses and the Prussian garrison is kicked out*. This may surprise people when it happens but it's correct according to the rules! Moral of the story: Leave the corps behind until conquest is effected, unless you ended your last turn in control of the city.

_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to Soapy Frog)

Post #: 9

RE: Retreat direction - 8/6/2008 1:24:51 PM

Marshall Ellis

Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

Here are two of my favourite other rules gotchas:

* You can't build a depot on a fleet in a blockade box. Nope. The rules specifically say that the fleet has to be in a sea zone and that's the rule. I've caught players trying to build depots on fleets in blockade boxes in FtF games and pointed out the rule. The game actually prevents building a depot on a fleet in a blockade box which is good.

* Examine the rules about conquest and lapse of war carefully. A garrison is not sufficient to prevent lapse of war, only a corps is. For example, take this scenario, which you can set up for yourself in EiANW and it's very instructive: Prussia DoWs Thuringia in January and it becomes Austrian controlled. Prussia marches a corps into Thuringia in their own land phase in January, besieges the city, but doesn't break in. In February, the Austrian land phase happens (before the Prussian land phase), and the garrison starves to death. Prussia in their land phase in February drops a garrison into the city from the corps and moves the corps out. What happens in the March dip phase? Prussia needs to occupy the city uncontested for *one whole month* to effect conquest, and at the start of February wasn't in the city (it was still Austrian occupied). Therefore no conquest occurs at the end of the Feb land phase, and in the March dip phase *war lapses and the Prussian garrison is kicked out*. This may surprise people when it happens but it's correct according to the rules! Moral of the story: Leave the corps behind until conquest is effected, unless you ended your last turn in control of the city.

LOL! You gotta love those debates which usually occur at ~3-4AM and can stop the game.
I love this game!

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games

(in reply to delatbabel)

Post #: 10

RE: Retreat direction - 8/6/2008 1:49:45 PM

bresh

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline

Naval retreats seems to need a overhaul to !

I cant see why a naval force would retreat to a non garrisoned port, so that the victor can follow and hit again.
This would not happen in most EIA games.
If the code allowed it, you should be able to set a priotiry port.

The deviration that a corps inside a garrison dont determine habor defense is not really a good solution eighter.

13.5.3 Using The Harbor Defenses
The major power that controls a port city (indicated in Selection Area Info window) and has a garrison there, determines use of the harbor defenses, regardless of the major power formally controlling the province or minor country in which the city is located. Port cities without garrisons may not use their harbor defenses (NOTE: The program does not allow corps to determine use of the harbor defenses).

Regards
Bresh

< Message edited by bresh -- 8/7/2008 6:25:03 AM >

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 11

RE: Retreat direction - 8/7/2008 7:31:14 PM

Jimmer

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obsidiandragon

I have noticed a little more than the retreat forward, while attacking north african territories as Spain with invasion supply. If you lose and retreat the armies do not follow the coast where you have supply, instead as on occasion attacking Tunisia - The spanish army retreated into Algeria?? So I had to declare on Turkey later to get it back.

This one is a bug, IMO, and should be reported as such. No matter what one thinks of the "retreat forward" option, it should always be towards one of the spaces that is closest to a depot. The coastal ones are all distance 1, and inland is a minimum of 2. I think the game makes a similar miscalculation in both naval retreats and repatriations.

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to obsidiandrag)

Post #: 12

RE: Retreat direction - 8/7/2008 9:48:36 PM

KenClark

Posts: 87
Joined: 1/11/2008
Status: offline

Jimmer, it's not a bug, it's the rules. There are far worse retreat problems (e.g. not being able to pick the area you want to retreat to when you withdraw).

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 13

RE: Retreat direction - 8/10/2008 8:06:00 AM

Jimmer

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenClark

Jimmer, it's not a bug, it's the rules. There are far worse retreat problems (e.g. not being able to pick the area you want to retreat to when you withdraw).

Please explain. What I see is that a space two spaces from a depot is chosen over a space that is only one space from the same depot.

quote:

All retreats are made into an adjacent land area that is closest (any closest area, if several qualify equally) to the nearest depot of any nationality in the losing force, or if none is on the map, towards that force�s nearest controlled national capital city.

If there is a depot on a ship giving invasion supply, then that is 1 space away. There's no possibility of an inland space in Africa can be closer to a depot, assuming there is not also a depot chain running behind the coastline (not likely, since the retreating person came from sea).

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to KenClark)

Post #: 14

RE: Retreat direction - 8/11/2008 2:40:41 PM

KenClark

Posts: 87
Joined: 1/11/2008
Status: offline

There are lots of weird situations for retreating according to the EiA rules. In the board game, if you set it up right, you could retreat someone through multiple areas (like 5+) which of course is impossible in reality. (for example if they had no depots and you put a bunch of corps along a coastline).

As the rules were written, you can have funky retreats where people can retreat further into enemy territory. That was one of the big weaknesses with the original rules. Given that movement is not simultaneous, you have to accept some weirdnesses in the retreat rules otherwise you can engineer some easy surrenders.

For example, assume that the Austrians have no depots on the map and are fighing on Vienna against Napoleon. If they lose the battle and have to retreat, according to the rules, they in fact must surrender since they cannot get any closer to their capital and have no depots to move towards.

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 15