Surrender in Detailed Battle

Surrender in Detailed Battle (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865

Message

GShock -> Surrender in Detailed Battle (12/11/2007 11:45:51 PM)
Eh...i've just spotted this : First of all, during retreats in detailed battle, i've noticed sometimes units just become invisible and this happens very often with caissons. Sometimes switching to chit view shows them and when you go back to normal view you don't see them anymore... Secondly, when the enemy begins to waver, i've set all of my forces on column formation (even though some of the enemy are still shooting me) to try to intercept them along their fleeing route. 1) Enemy bdes surrender only when they are totally surrounded. Stinks a bit...if we are on the run, 2000 of us and 6000 enemies are around us (adjacent) i'd say is enough...but well, it looks like in order to have them surrender you totally need to surround them. 12000 to capture 2000 seems a bit too much to me, 3 adjacent units should do imo. 2) In my biggest battle i've managed to capture 10 USA bdes. That's a lot of men counting to excess of 20.000 in case those bdes were filled. I've seen in the battle log that the casualties counted though do not come even close to this value. The total loss was around 8000 for USA but the 10 Bdes lost are already way beyond that. Odd...to say the least. Something to definitely check. 3) Finally...i wouldn't have expected USA to rebuild its forces so quickly. Are we sure it takes 4 turns to buy an inf bde and 8 to buy a arty bde? Otherwise it looks to me a bit...a bit...off-balance. I've been playing the default no-bonus-for-either-side in 1.10.10 ..even though the nation overview screen marks -5 to money production due to "difficulty" is this right? the no-bonus means -5 for the player? :)

ericbabe -> RE: Surrender in Detailed Battle (12/12/2007 1:02:12 AM)
No one has ever reported invisible units before. Are you sure they aren't just so depleted they are hard to see? From what I've seen of detailed battle AAR's, people manage to capture brigades in detailed combat frequently enough that I don't see much of a need to make it easier to capture units. The surrender rate in detailed battle is probably already a bit larger than historica the way the rules are nowl. We have had some people (correctly) point out that pursuit wasn't all that organized/common in most CW battles, and that usually when one side started to run away the other side would just cheer and let them skedaddle, and that (consequently) we shouldn't have as long of a pursuit period... and I'm sort of sympathetic to this suggestion. I remember reading an account by a British military commander who was observing with the South and his shock at the failure to pursue aggressively after each of the various battles he observed. Units that surrender don't count toward casualties on the battle log. It's been this way for a while. The surrender of units should be reported on the events report. We could have made surrendering much more complicated (having parole rules and then the revocation of parole rules, and such), but we had much more complicated surrender rules for our last game (COG) and the general sentiment among players seems to have been that those rules were more complicated than most people wanted to deal with. The USA is generally building units all the time... The manual has the difficulty level with which there are no penalties for the player off by one. This is in the manual errata somewhere, if I remember correctly.

Sabotteur -> RE: Surrender in Detailed Battle (12/12/2007 3:09:12 AM)
I've had the supply caissons dissappear on me a few times. I'm playing with the most recent patch. I've also had units dissappear, though it only seems to happen to units that have less than 500 men in them. You can still tell they are there by the fact you can't move anyone into the hex, or when you mouse over with a unit in range you get a target icon. I've also only seen this towards the end of a battle. Not sure if this helps or not....If I see it again, I'll try to upload a savegame file for you guys to tinker around with. Sabo.

ericbabe -> RE: Surrender in Detailed Battle (12/12/2007 3:21:27 AM)
Hmmm, could be that it's just not showing any figures then. I'll take a look at the code.

GShock -> RE: Surrender in Detailed Battle (12/12/2007 9:23:11 AM)
Eric they just disappear trust us ...luckily the chit view shows them. And i confirm what Sabotteur just wrote, sometimes it's the pointer telling you the unit is there because it turns into the attack icon :) As of surrendering, the question is simple: If i capture 10 bdes that's 20000 men more or less, and they should count in the losses as i'm certainly not giving these men back to the enemy (same as killed with all the consequences). It does appear in the log and in the events that they surrendered but they do not count in the total losses, which is wrong imho. The episode i'm talking about was roughly with csa 50.000 men and usa with 80.000 and about 30 vs 50 bdes. It should have been 16000 losses + combat losses, it was actually reported only 8000 losses. Sad. :( Routers drop equipment and flee as fast as they can while the pursuers are still in formation and following orders (and cheering as u justly say). Consequently, with the exception of cavalry, the router is much faster than the one who flees. Isn't it possible to make the router rout faster than the average inf+gen+column+forced march? At that point it would make sense that 3 adjacent units would capture it but this would be much much harder to achieve and there would be no need to make units disappear or interrupt combat at all as in 3-4 turns all the routers would have gone off the map.

moose1999 -> RE: Surrender in Detailed Battle (12/12/2007 10:00:36 AM)
Yes, units dissappear when they are very depleted. Sometimes they dissappear completely because they are actually destroyed - all men in the unit are killed. Other times they only dissappear "graphically", i.e. they are depleted to a degree that they don't show up as figures, become invisible. This mostly happens with cavalry units for me. As soon as they go below 500 or so the only thing thats showing will be the flag. This is when they are in column formation, when I put them in line the 'figures' usually appear again. (Sometimes I mistake a very depleted infantry unit for a cavalry unit because only the attached general on his horse is showing... [image]http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/image/s1.gif[/image] ) I have never seen a unit in line formation or dissordered/panicking become invisible, other than in situations where they are obviously wiped out (for example by repeated charges while fleeing). So it must come down to the way the number of men in a unit is displayed graphically for each formation type. And then of course there is the known problem with split units - when you destroy a split unit it just dissappears without any announcements and without it showing as captured after the battle (which it shouldn't of course, as the other half of the unit is probably still intact). I regularly see supply wagons go invisible, especially when one of the sides sound the retreat. I suppose there should be a rule saying that the unit graphics should always show at least one man/horse, no matter the formation/morale of the unit. And maybe the unit graphics jumps to "very depleted" state (i.e. a single or no figures shown) a bit too early... But I'll also add, that the fact that you can see units loose men as the battle unfolds by seeing men fall and formations shrinking graphically is a very cool feature that really adds atmosphere to the detailed battles. Perhaps a destroyed unit (also split ones) could be graphically represented by a particularly big pile of dead bodies on the ground in the spot where it happened. A "Custer-graphic" so to speak. Without the scalping, of course.

GShock -> RE: Surrender in Detailed Battle (12/12/2007 11:12:27 AM)
To make things simpler, i would just remove them from the map...garrisons are disbanded, ultra-depleted units should be disbanded as well (routed off the field and so few men that pursuer didn't deem needed to capture). Here i see during the "their forces are beginning to waver" that i can just switch everyone into column formation and begin movement to surround the pursuers because i know where they will go. When the moment comes, i am already there and surround them. Some i make in time to capture, some others just get surrounded and disappear (without capture) when the battle is over (very fishy since it takes lot of time to manouver and surround them and they just...poof, battle over!). Routers should rout much faster than the average unit force-marching but they would also surrender when charged or "touched" by 3 units. Makes sense as once they take the run you can't catch them anymore, unless you have Cav. I just got out of "Bull run": Usa took 8000 casualties but also got 5 bdes captured. These 5 are the ones on my left side, the ones who didn't fight at all as battle was fought on the right side (and they were captured by my force-marchers coming from my right side). I basically got credited 8000 combat kills + 5 bdes captured. See the difference with real capturing i would have taken 8000 combat kills + 5bde for 10.000 men total = 18000 losses for USA. I could attack from Fredericksburgh because those 50.000 men are now supposed to only be 50-18=32.000 (as USA got reinforcements so did i) and i just can't because usa basically only lost 8000 vs 5000 of mine. Sad, so sad.

jkBluesman -> RE: Surrender in Detailed Battle (12/12/2007 12:11:18 PM)
No, they lost the 18000, surrendering brigades are just not counted in the battle log. And it is the key to victory to capture brigades. They are hard to replace, espacially when they had some quality.

GShock -> RE: Surrender in Detailed Battle (12/12/2007 1:02:57 PM)
Very well it's exactly what i wanted to hear. So it does make sense to capture them because while they are not counted in the combat losses, they are still lost to the enemy. So the log shows the surrenders as surrenders and, separately, the combat losses, correct? That's a "patch" for the manual only, then, to clarify. What happens to bdes who surrender when they have a general attached? Is the general lost as well?

jkBluesman -> RE: Surrender in Detailed Battle (12/12/2007 2:25:51 PM)
Correct. Generals are lost (sometimes capture is a cheap way to get rid of bad generals because you do not have to demote them).

Erik Rutins -> RE: Surrender in Detailed Battle (12/12/2007 3:19:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: briny_norman I suppose there should be a rule saying that the unit graphics should always show at least one man/horse, no matter the formation/morale of the unit. And maybe the unit graphics jumps to "very depleted" state (i.e. a single or no figures shown) a bit too early... Sounds like this would solve the problem...

sadja -> RE: Surrender in Detailed Battle (12/14/2007 2:09:19 AM)
Supply disapear right after forces retreat. They usually come back the second round. One easy way to spot is a clear hex that you cant move into that you should be able. When the enemy is ready to flee I will split some of my brigades to double the number ie half the needed ones to surender. Artillery will surender if they are below moral (don't know the min) and have a couple of units next to them. They may be tangled. I have noticed artillery will abondon thier guns, but I won't get any if thier better. I rarley build artillery, I just capture the yankee stuff. It can be bloody and I will leave other units to get away to get that Art. One other comment. The North is still pretty agressive even in the winter. I will smash an army 10-15 thousand causlties plus 5 cap units and they will come back after 1 turn sitting out recouping. The union will also use thier Cav pretty recklessly. They will charge behind the lines in the middle of battle and I will surround them to kill them off. All cav is pretty tough against fire power because of the deduction. The union will just sit infront of a line and soak off a lot of attacks.. I have not had a battle that crashed from Cav attacks lately. Hope that problem has been solved. I have been charged and I have charged both Inf and Cav. Been away for awhile lost my hard drive, (thats a bitch). love the game have to reload WITP and all those updates.

GShock -> RE: Surrender in Detailed Battle (12/14/2007 11:23:53 AM)
There's something not working right in the whole detailed battle, not only about the surrender picture. First of all, i don't see how a column+force march can catch a router. One thing is force-marching, another is pursuit...so actually i insist, regardless of the fact you shouldn't need to totally surround enemy troops to capture them, there's still a point in being able to catch them at all. Yes, then after 2 turns more or less, you've surrounded 4 bdes and they just vanish into nothingness and you don't get credited for those unit captures which really pisses me off. They just....disappear when the battle ends and are not calculated even though u had them surrounded. I believe something more useful could be done with captured units anyway. CSA has limited population numbers and prisoner exchanges could be really useful. Ok i ve taken their rifles, yes the enemy has lost some bdes but what...the north comes back next turn with roughly the same numbers. Not only...even in huge defeat their group ratings INCREASE and the quality of single bdes who lost the battle but escaped most times increases more than mine...which means, i did win, i did capture many but actually i will lose soon. It's the opposite of what happens in reality when after winning the enemy is BADLY down...routers leave equipment on the field but in FoF their quality improves and in overall improves more than mine who just won the battle? Mah... Another interesting issue is related to the volley-countervolley concept. I fail to understand how 2000 men can fire a volley, not moving, on the enemy rear and cause 10 losses, then being hit by the countervolley and taking more casualties than i had delivered. Furthenmore...when u shoot a bde and u hit, u hit the men in the front line so, the countervolley coming should be much weaker than the volley... What about this, during the enemy rout and my pursuit, from 6 hexes away i shoot a routed infantry bde with my napoleon (line formation, correct facing and not moved) which takes 16 casualties...the routed inf from 6 hexes away countervolleys for 35 hits on my battery...what with, a laser guided missile? Want to talk about charges? 4 flankers on a single enemy bde, the one on the enemy's rear side charges with springfield, roughly 1500 men (vs 2000) and equivalent morale...enemy takes 100 casualties i take 500. I ... I'm sorry but i don't know what else to say [:@]

jkBluesman -> RE: Surrender in Detailed Battle (12/14/2007 12:39:27 PM)
You should really turn the attack report on during detailed battle (you may do that on the battle screen), which will help you to understand the mecanics. I assume that the enemy brigade you mentioned had brigade artillery and thus was able to fire back. Reagarding the quality improvement: it all depends on where they started. So a bad unit will learn more than an experienced one.

GShock -> RE: Surrender in Detailed Battle (12/14/2007 1:27:38 PM)
1) Losing armies suffering stunning defeats, with captured bdes acquiring more quality than my winning armies. (this must have smthg to do with their initial quality but i don't think the loser should earn more quality than the winner) 1.1) Losing div/corps/armies improving logistics/command (etc) and gaining lots of experience. 2) Routers being caught by column+force march. 2.1) Routers only surrendering when totally surrounded. 2.2) Routers shooting back. 2.3) About-to-surrender troops, surrounded, vanishing with no credit when battle is over (battle ends before all troops fled off the field). 2.4) Battle report not counting surrendered bdes in count of total losses (i presume this fakes the decisive battle nw/vp status along with many other things). 3) Countervolleys stronger than volleys. 4) Charges from the rear failing miserably with enemy bdes totally surrounded. 5) Runners disappearing/dead with no explanation in log. 6) Supply units disappearing when routing (doesn't happen in chit view luckily). 7) Enemy generals being wounded twice (the general horse is not removed in standard view when wounded and yes he can be wounded again). I think this is my complete list. [:D] Some of these things are marginal, very marginal, some others are really incomprehensible but i am sure enjoying it. [8\|]

Erik Rutins -> RE: Surrender in Detailed Battle (12/14/2007 4:41:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GShock 1) Enemy bdes surrender only when they are totally surrounded. Stinks a bit...if we are on the run, 2000 of us and 6000 enemies are around us (adjacent) i'd say is enough...but well, it looks like in order to have them surrender you totally need to surround them. 12000 to capture 2000 seems a bit too much to me, 3 adjacent units should do imo. Actually, I think it's a bit easy to get brigades to surrender in detailed combat - most experienced detailed combat players can still bag some remarkable numbers (the recent Will to Fight change has helped a lot with that though). quote: 2) In my biggest battle i've managed to capture 10 USA bdes. That's a lot of men counting to excess of 20.000 in case those bdes were filled. I've seen in the battle log that the casualties counted though do not come even close to this value. The total loss was around 8000 for USA but the 10 Bdes lost are already way beyond that. Odd...to say the least. Something to definitely check. That's because of the abstracted prisoner/parole rules. Prisoners are not permanently lost like casualties in the grand scheme of things. There's been a lot of discussion on this though - perhaps if and when we do a FOF expansion, we can consider some simple parole rules (simpler than those in COG) to make this more explicit. quote: 3) Finally...i wouldn't have expected USA to rebuild its forces so quickly. Are we sure it takes 4 turns to buy an inf bde and 8 to buy a arty bde? Otherwise it looks to me a bit...a bit...off-balance. Manufacturing centers modify this. For example, at the start of the war Boston has three manufacturing centers and thus can build an Infantry Brigade in 1 turn and an Artillery Brigade in 5 turns. You should expect the Union to be resilient, they have more manpower and a much stronger economy. Regards, - Erik

Erik Rutins -> RE: Surrender in Detailed Battle (12/14/2007 4:48:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GShock There's something not working right in the whole detailed battle, not only about the surrender picture. First of all, i don't see how a column+force march can catch a router. One thing is force-marching, another is pursuit...so actually i insist, regardless of the fact you shouldn't need to totally surround enemy troops to capture them, there's still a point in being able to catch them at all. Yes, then after 2 turns more or less, you've surrounded 4 bdes and they just vanish into nothingness and you don't get credited for those unit captures which really pisses me off. They just....disappear when the battle ends and are not calculated even though u had them surrounded. It's not easy to capture brigades - I agree this could be done better so that it requires a little less suspension of disbelief, but for now that's how it is. quote: I believe something more useful could be done with captured units anyway. CSA has limited population numbers and prisoner exchanges could be really useful. Ok i ve taken their rifles, yes the enemy has lost some bdes but what...the north comes back next turn with roughly the same numbers. Not only...even in huge defeat their group ratings INCREASE and the quality of single bdes who lost the battle but escaped most times increases more than mine...which means, i did win, i did capture many but actually i will lose soon. Perhaps in the expansion we can do something. I could see Paroles being an option on the Nation screen. If both sides have them enabled, then surrendered troops could gradually return via the replacement system. Poor quality troops will get a bigger increase in quality than high quality troops. It doesn't mean they are better than you, it means they've got a lot to learn. If your troops are already higher quality, they're not going to catch up with you as their quality gain will slow down as they gain quality as well. Preserving high quality brigades is key. The North can rebuild pretty quickly - they probably have a lot of camps going too. quote: It's the opposite of what happens in reality when after winning the enemy is BADLY down...routers leave equipment on the field but in FoF their quality improves and in overall improves more than mine who just won the battle? Mah... That's a pretty bad exaggeration. In FOF routers do drop equipment and they lose Disposition which can make them much easier to beat the next turn. If they were low quality and got some quality gain due to battle experience, it doesn't outweigh what they lost in equipment + disposition. quote: I fail to understand how 2000 men can fire a volley, not moving, on the enemy rear and cause 10 losses, then being hit by the countervolley and taking more casualties than i had delivered. Furthenmore...when u shoot a bde and u hit, u hit the men in the front line so, the countervolley coming should be much weaker than the volley... Turn on the combat reports and you'll see what's going on. Facing modifiers are most certainly taken into account, but there is also randomness. quote: What about this, during the enemy rout and my pursuit, from 6 hexes away i shoot a routed infantry bde with my napoleon (line formation, correct facing and not moved) which takes 16 casualties...the routed inf from 6 hexes away countervolleys for 35 hits on my battery...what with, a laser guided missile? Turn on your combat reports, then you won't have to wonder what happened. quote: Want to talk about charges? 4 flankers on a single enemy bde, the one on the enemy's rear side charges with springfield, roughly 1500 men (vs 2000) and equivalent morale...enemy takes 100 casualties i take 500. Sounds like extremely bad luck. Does this happen to you regularly or was this a one time "worst charge ever"? Regards, - Erik

Erik Rutins -> RE: Surrender in Detailed Battle (12/14/2007 4:52:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GShock 1) Losing armies suffering stunning defeats, with captured bdes acquiring more quality than my winning armies. (this must have smthg to do with their initial quality but i don't think the loser should earn more quality than the winner) Inexperienced troops learn more from a battle than experienced troops. However, losing troops will also lose disposition and equipment. quote: 1.1) Losing div/corps/armies improving logistics/command (etc) and gaining lots of experience. Why shouldn't they also have a chance to learn? Both sides participating in a battle have an equal chance to gain experience research and staff ratings. quote: 2) Routers being caught by column+force march. 2.1) Routers only surrendering when totally surrounded. 2.2) Routers shooting back. These balance out each other really. quote: 2.3) About-to-surrender troops, surrounded, vanishing with no credit when battle is over (battle ends before all troops fled off the field). Necessary abstraction for now. quote: 2.4) Battle report not counting surrendered bdes in count of total losses (i presume this fakes the decisive battle nw/vp status along with many other things). By design due to historical paroles. quote: 3) Countervolleys stronger than volleys. Not true as a rule, turn on your combat reports to find out what's going on. quote: 4) Charges from the rear failing miserably with enemy bdes totally surrounded. Also very rare case, not the rule. quote: 5) Runners disappearing/dead with no explanation in log. Should be mentioned, but agree that we could report runner losses more clearly. Runners that go below Strength 3 are automatically disbanded. quote: 6) Supply units disappearing when routing (doesn't happen in chit view luckily). Haven't seen it, sounds like a bug. quote: 7) Enemy generals being wounded twice (the general horse is not removed in standard view when wounded and yes he can be wounded again). Doesn't seem like a bug really, generals were wounded more than once in real life too. Regards, - Erik

ericbabe -> RE: Surrender in Detailed Battle (12/14/2007 5:02:18 PM)
It's not necessarily that the losers gain more quality, it's that the lower-quality side tends to learn more in a battle than the higher-quality side. When an experienced chess player defeats a novice in a game of chess, the chess-master isn't going to improve very much, but the novice may learn a great deal. This is reflected in the chess rating-system: the higher your chess rating is, the more slowly it is possible for your rating to increase. Quite a few people have been baffled by this feature of FOF, however: they tend to think of the quality increase as some sort of reward of which the winner should get a larger share simply as a reward for winning, but this is not what we intended to try to model. Reading Nosworthy's "Bloody Crucible of Courage", there was a huge difference in quality between green troops, who had either never seen an actual battle or who had never fought up-close, and troops who had been in even a single close action fire-fight. We try to reflect this difference in quality in FOF by making the performance of very low quality units much worse than middle-ranged quality units, but we also let low quality units gain quality quickly, to reflect their losing their "green" status after only one or two battles.

GShock -> RE: Surrender in Detailed Battle (12/14/2007 6:10:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins quote: ORIGINAL: GShock Inexperienced troops learn more from a battle than experienced troops. However, losing troops will also lose disposition and equipment. Yes, i know, and it also rebalances with the fact that when those depleted units receive replacements from camps, their quality will also go down, but the same goes with the winner. It's true that participating to a battle (whether won or lost) accumulates experience anyway, but it's also true that it feels a bit wrong to see in that report that losers accumulated more quality than winners. After all, winners didn't rout. Don't you think a "penalty" to the quality gain would be more appropriate to the loser? quote: 1.1) Losing div/corps/armies improving logistics/command (etc) and gaining lots of experience. Why shouldn't they also have a chance to learn? Both sides participating in a battle have an equal chance to gain experience research and staff ratings. Because of the same reasons as above...Losers shouldn't gain more experience than winners. :) quote: 2) Routers being caught by column+force march. 2.1) Routers only surrendering when totally surrounded. 2.2) Routers shooting back. These balance out each other really. Column+force march is still a formation, routers drop equipment (if they have to) and run as fast as they can. It's evident the routers are faster than pursuers if they escape but i very very often manage to catch them with column+force-march and I also split bdes. In the meanwhile, routers should be very very far...and considering i can surround them (1 hex = 6 sides) it seems to me these routers are too slow. Sure, it's rebalanced by the fact you need SIX bdes to surround ONE enemy, but they travel in mass and you can often use water/cliffs. Add to this that 2 adjacent enemy BDE do not need 12 hexes to be surrounded. It seems just too unrealistic that an organized force march can catch a disorganized "run for it" party. Routers shooting back, i insist, seems totally inappropriate. (I've noticed anyway that sometimes shooting a router has no effect, the unit just skips its turn...very strange because it doesn't seem to happen with a reason) quote: 2.4) Battle report not counting surrendered bdes in count of total losses (i presume this fakes the decisive battle nw/vp status along with many other things). By design due to historical paroles. To make it clear: If i hit 7000USA casualties and capture 10x2000 bdes, the total losses would be 27000. This makes a difference as 7 is not a decisive battle while 27000 certainly is one. Regardless of what the events log shows, are these computed as 27 or as just 7? quote: 3) Countervolleys stronger than volleys. Not true as a rule, turn on your combat reports to find out what's going on. Is there any penalty to the countervolley? I.E. attacker is penalyzed according to the remaining movement points (among the several) while the "defender" isn't. Are there any penalties in the countervolley as a rule ? Seems to me ruling the same attacker's movement-penalty onto the "defender" would be a good counterbalance. quote: 4) Charges from the rear failing miserably with enemy bdes totally surrounded. Also very rare case, not the rule. Am starting to believe part of this had something to do with difficulty levels, but it did happen to me to even lose a charge against a caisson. The problem is that weapons do give charge protections but in the information pop-up on the enemy bdes you aren't told either who their general is, or what weapon they are employing. The only thing you see is the enemy facing and the terrain. Nothing else and it leaves it out to chance... quote: 5) Runners disappearing/dead with no explanation in log. Should be mentioned, but agree that we could report runner losses more clearly. Runners that go below Strength 3 are automatically disbanded. LoL ok that's indeed something i didn't know. I thought they had to go down to zero. This solves a big mistery, thx! quote: 6) Supply units disappearing when routing (doesn't happen in chit view luckily). Haven't seen it, sounds like a bug. Picturing it's impossible for an army to attack or defend without even a single supply cart, has it ever happened to you to see that there's none in the enemy army? I mean, is it possible that an army spawns without supply carts (this might have something to do with the fact that the strategic caissons are independent from the placing of a group and group is placed ahead and the caisson has to catch up)? Anyway, when you see them routing, pay attention to the texts below "Supply has routed!" and the screen goes to indicate a cyan-highlighted hex. You will see in that hex there's neither the supply cart nor its group designation. That will tell you the supply cart was there (invisible) :) Anyway, luckily this doesn't seem to happen in chit-view, but it's very marginal. quote: 7) Enemy generals being wounded twice (the general horse is not removed in standard view when wounded and yes he can be wounded again). Doesn't seem like a bug really, generals were wounded more than once in real life too. I'd agree with you if the manual didn't state clearly that wounded generals do not affect battle anymore. Sec10:182 LIGHT manual. Marginal wounds where general is still there, could be omitted but when general is considered wounded and he doesn't help in battle anymore, he should be removed from the bde imo (wounded= removed, not wounded = no change). On a final note on this "observation" post, i'd like to point out 3 more things i hadn't mentioned in my previous list (though mentioned elsewhere in other thread). 1) The AI seems a bit too passive during the night where i manage to surround and capture enemy bdes very easily. AI just turns facing but doesn't carry out any plan. Perhaps shooting by night should automatically cause fatigue (considering the troops have fought all the day), that would rebalance towards the AI making this "exploit" very risky (next morning they still have to fight a fresh enemy while they are all fatigued). 2) Obj. Location, probably the only tactic that pays is to wait for the AI to come to you at one of the 2 or 3 spots. In case of 3 spots, the AI "burns" 2 of its troops to occupy them and fights sometimes outnumbered. If the goal is still to rout the enemy army, rather than sneaking to capture all victory locations, perhaps the capture of one of those should affect the will-to-fight. What i mean, is to give some material importance to these locations or they can easily be exploited to outwit the AI who goes for it. 3) Some "initiative" options do not make much sense. I refer, in particular, to the one where you can raid the enemy supplies before battle. What possible use is this if a single caisson can refill all enemy units before i get to them? I was wondering perhaps if that "200" number over the caisson would mean the total number of supplies available and if these weren't unlimited, then raiding those supplies would really give an edge in the upcoming combat. Just scattered thoughts...thanks for answering me, i know i'm a pain... :)

pzpat -> RE: Surrender in Detailed Battle (12/14/2007 8:10:14 PM)
This discussion of troop quality brings up a question I mentioned in passing elsewhere. I think it's unrealistic that a brigade you have just bought will have a higher quality than one that has been in combat for a year or two, even counting replacements. Having said that, when playing the North I buy brigades whenever I can. [:'(]

Gil R. -> RE: Surrender in Detailed Battle (12/14/2007 8:41:50 PM)
pzpat, One thing to consider is that many men in such units might previously have fought in the war, but only had to serve for three months, a year, two years, etc., and then rejoined when the new units were raised. Many of the regiments created starting in 1862 already had veterans, and in 1864 there were a lot of old regiments expiring and men from these reenlisting. Also, purchased brigades take so much longer than mustered/conscripted ones because of all of the training they receive. If you think of some of the better units, they received extensive drilling before ever seeing battle. I'm curious, though, what change you might suggest.

Ironclad -> RE: Surrender in Detailed Battle (12/15/2007 2:14:02 PM)
GShock: Re your latest points: quote: ORIGINAL: GShock 1) The AI seems a bit too passive during the night where i manage to surround and capture enemy bdes very easily. AI just turns facing but doesn't carry out any plan. Perhaps shooting by night should automatically cause fatigue (considering the troops have fought all the day), that would rebalance towards the AI making this "exploit" very risky (next morning they still have to fight a fresh enemy while they are all fatigued). The change that altered night time behaviour states that "Any fire attack at night now always results in fatigue for the attacker and defender". From what I have seen I had assumed this meant contributing towards fatigue but perhaps we need clarification. Note that units recover from fatigue losses more swiftly at night as an added incentive for both sides to use the hours of darkness for recovery and preparation. quote: 2) Obj. Location, probably the only tactic that pays is to wait for the AI to come to you at one of the 2 or 3 spots. In case of 3 spots, the AI "burns" 2 of its troops to occupy them and fights sometimes outnumbered. If the goal is still to rout the enemy army, rather than sneaking to capture all victory locations, perhaps the capture of one of those should affect the will-to-fight. What i mean, is to give some material importance to these locations or they can easily be exploited to outwit the AI who goes for it. It does affect WTF at present - the attacker gains 1 per VL captured. There are some comments on this in the wish list thread. You may want to add some of your suggestions there too. quote: 3) Some "initiative" options do not make much sense. I refer, in particular, to the one where you can raid the enemy supplies before battle. What possible use is this if a single caisson can refill all enemy units before i get to them? I was wondering perhaps if that "200" number over the caisson would mean the total number of supplies available and if these weren't unlimited, then raiding those supplies would really give an edge in the upcoming combat. Actually this option can be very effective in delaying an enemy's attack, especially if he is short of supply caissons. Very useful if one is heavily outnumbered and if defending as it gives a better chance to prolong the battle overnight and so improve the WTF score and to bring up any reinforcements. Of course if you have a cavalry advantage you may still prefer to opt for cavalry reserve. The effects are best noticed when the AI does it to you! I don't know how much chance you have had to study the patch readmes' but its well worthwhile as the game has been significantly updated since the manual. It was very good to start with but the updates have made it even better - into a true classic.

GShock -> RE: Surrender in Detailed Battle (12/15/2007 8:34:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ironclad The change that altered night time behaviour states that "Any fire attack at night now always results in fatigue for the attacker and defender". From what I have seen I had assumed this meant contributing towards fatigue but perhaps we need clarification. Note that units recover from fatigue losses more swiftly at night as an added incentive for both sides to use the hours of darkness for recovery and preparation. After a day's combat i can manouver and take the morale bonus with flanking against the fatigue penalty to increase damage on already depleted and passive AI units. I do get tired but i do rout them much more easily; furthenmore, those units i capture or rout still count against the WTF for the AI, and it's lame to beat it like that as a night's combat can turn the odds since the AI does nothing but counter-volley. I suppose it doesn't even resupply the units who, surrounded, are constantly countervolleying. quote: It does affect WTF at present - the attacker gains 1 per VL captured. There are some comments on this in the wish list thread. You may want to add some of your suggestions there too. Too little. I am getting attacked by AI sometimes when the attacker has half my WTF and adding +1 or even +2 matters very little in these cases. Maybe a stronger modifier would do. quote: Actually this option can be very effective in delaying an enemy's attack, especially if he is short of supply caissons. Very useful if one is heavily outnumbered and if defending as it gives a better chance to prolong the battle overnight and so improve the WTF score and to bring up any reinforcements. Of course if you have a cavalry advantage you may still prefer to opt for cavalry reserve. The effects are best noticed when the AI does it to you! It takes the enemy at least 4 turns to get to me. In those 4 turns i have 4 newly resupplied units in front line, entrenchments and the supply caissons easily refilling the other ones as the time goes by. Since these ones do not start totally unsupplied, they can shoot too before going unsupplied and if the night falls...well, you can refill safely as the AI sleeps. Armies can't fight without supplies...maybe this option should affect: a ) total number of supplies all units can carry in current battle b ) total number of caissons with X caissons missing in current battle quote: I don't know how much chance you have had to study the patch readmes' but its well worthwhile as the game has been significantly updated since the manual. It was very good to start with but the updates have made it even better - into a true classic. I came by with 1.10.10b already. Can't look at the past (I'll never know how it was before) but i can look at the future. The things i mentioned, just don't look right to me.

Ironclad -> RE: Surrender in Detailed Battle (12/15/2007 10:27:28 PM)
As the patches amend and add to the original game (as covered in the manual) I think it helps to know their contents, particularly the major updates. Still whatever you feel comfortable with - we each have our different ways of becoming familiar with a game. Edit: I think you misunderstood my raid supply scenario. I agree that a defender can get by, I was referring to the delaying effect on the attacker when he is subjected to the raid supplies and he has few supply caissons relative to his force size.

Falconius -> RE: Surrender in Detailed Battle (12/16/2007 5:58:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jkBluesman Correct. Generals are lost (sometimes capture is a cheap way to get rid of bad generals because you do not have to demote them). In my current game as Dixie, I was fortunate enough to capture U.S. Grant when his unit surrendered (I had him outnumbered in detailed combat and was successful in picking "Surprise Attack" from the scouting options). It's only March of 1862. So he's really out of the game permanently? No chance for Generals to return due to a parole? Also, is there a list of captured Generals or units I can view? I'd like to be able to see Grant in a POW camp and make sure he's still there, and maybe even taunt him a little! [:D]

Gil R. -> RE: Surrender in Detailed Battle (12/16/2007 8:48:27 PM)
No, we thought that a parole system would involve micromanaging. Please put your suggestions in the Wish List thread, so that they will be preserved long after this thread has sunk out of sight.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.8598633