Explantion needed (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Civil War II



Message

KamilS -> Explantion needed (12/17/2013 9:50:59 AM)

Island 10 is controlled in 95% by USA.


Johnston army changes automatic to offensive stance and I understand that, but I don know why arriving units targeting his army fight separately and why battles take place in first place despite both sides being in defensive stance.

And in second battle Jonhston numbers increased due to arrival of reinforcements - yet each fight separately.

Plus there is MuCulloch (around 2000 cavalry) that arrived on day 5 without interference from USA forces.



Below situation at the end of turn.

[image]local://upfiles/37480/972113F6468840B5A88043BD66061AEE.jpg[/image]



TulliusDetritus -> RE: Explantion needed (12/17/2013 10:25:37 AM)

I would like to know too.

If an army adopts an offensive posture then they should attack? Or not?

But sometimes they don't and sometimes they do.

So what's the deal exactly?

Kamil, different stacks may not fight together (coordination malus or something like that), this is WAD.



Michael T -> RE: Explantion needed (12/17/2013 10:33:58 AM)

Kamil, I think its ill advised to enter enemy controlled regions piecemeal if a large enemy force with a good leader is present. That being the case at Island Number 10 here.

TD, I have noticed even if a Leader is active, sometimes they do not attack. I think perhaps there must be another check made before they assault.

I am really starting to get a grip on this game now. My initiation with Q-Ball was invaluable.



TulliusDetritus -> RE: Explantion needed (12/17/2013 10:41:50 AM)

Michael, I thought that rule (adopting offensive posture) was to sort of punish the forces entering into a 100% enemy controlled region. They were forced to engage the [fortified] enemy.

So in fact these negative checks are indeed POSITIVE [:D] = 1) you gain some military control (offensive posture) and thus you will not be forced to attack an entrenched enemy on the next turn; and 2) you start entrenching your troops ie kicking you out should not be cheap.



KamilS -> RE: Explantion needed (12/17/2013 10:46:16 AM)

Well, I expected it will happen like in McCulloch case and all units will fight together.

My idea was Grant will be worn out a bit in initial struggle, some ground maybe gained (so arriving units won't change automatically into offensive posture - they didn't change posture yet there was battle) plus I expected there won't be enough time to initiate combat with stacks arriving later.


My problem is that I don't understand what were chances of such outcome. Knowing it would let me judge when to gamble and undertake such action and when not.



Michael T -> RE: Explantion needed (12/17/2013 6:02:50 PM)

Things happen day by day even though the turn is 2 weeks. So I think control changes throughout the turn. So it might start out at 80% enemy but if you don't get there till day 10 maybe its 100% by then and you go from defensive to offensive. I could be wrong. But it explains some things. The manual is one of the worst I have encountered. And considering this is basically CW1 with a new map it's quite appalling really.



Jim D Burns -> RE: Explantion needed (12/17/2013 6:34:15 PM)

I am no dev, but I have been playing the AGEOD game engine for years, so let me try and explain how I understand what may have occurred. This is all conjecture and some or all of it may be totally wrong.

If your armies enter a region piecemeal and you have low combat delay set in your options, then you are pretty much guaranteed they will all fight their own separate battle as it checks for a battle quite frequently. Medium and long delay settings may give your other forces time to arrive depending on the gap in days between the arrival of your armies. Generally speaking the shorter your delay setting the more you do not want to enter enemy regions with multiple stacks moving at different speeds. Longer settings give you some leeway, but no guarantee the delay will be long enough for everyone to get into the same battle.

That said, what I think happened here was each of your stacks that got beaten were set to green/green orders after their lost fight (only victorious units can partake in future battles in a region unless another enemy army arrives that has orders to attack the defeated stack and catches it). But they were still in the region when the next fight occurred, so their numbers were still displayed and I ‘think’ they were at risk of taking further pursuit casualties for each additional lost battle, but I’m just guessing about that. The battle reports screen has never been a perfect tool for giving players information about what happened during their fights, and this is one of its worst issues. Including the numbers for non-engaged forces on the screen always leads to bad assumptions about the results. So even though Polk and Bee’s battle shows you had 18k men, actually only Bee’s division was engaged in the fighting so perhaps 6k-8k guys were actually fighting. It appears that your other troops had left the region by the time your last two brigades got destroyed.

And I learned something recently in one of the tech threads my recent PBEM game generated over at the AGEOD forums that I never knew. There is no guarantee a battle will occur. I always assumed that the delay setting meant a battle will occur after x amount of time, but that’s not the case. What it affects is the frequency of the die roll that checks to see if a battle might occur.

So units set to attack will roll x number of times during a turn determined by the delay setting for the game. What exactly x is, I don’t know. And what all the die roll modifiers for the battle die roll check are is also a mystery to me.

Jim



KamilS -> RE: Explantion needed (12/17/2013 7:00:55 PM)

Thank you for help.



Queeg -> RE: Explantion needed (12/17/2013 11:24:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Kamil, I think its ill advised to enter enemy controlled regions piecemeal if a large enemy force with a good leader is present. That being the case at Island Number 10 here.



I think that's the answer. Targeting a friendly unit sitting on the defensive in friendly territory is reasonably safe. But entering enemy territory - effectively attacking - piecemeal is a risk.



Toro12 -> RE: Explantion needed (12/18/2013 7:49:27 PM)

I'll add a couple points, too.

1) I believe armies will not attack if they are the only force in a region (read: stack). That's why it appears that sometimes they don't attack (unless attacked, of course). Now, a separate stack with attack orders may force the issue. That's why in defensive situations (eg, Alexandria, VA) I always have a separate stack (a brigade w/out a leader) set to orange/orange.

2) the above folks are right: piecemeal entries to a region are a great risk, even if they are the same army. Using coordinated movement helps, but still no guarantee that they'll all arrive at the same time for the battle.

3) Johnston appeared as leader for both first battles because he was present for both (even if not leading the stacks in battle). You'll often see this where a senior general (even in adjacent regions, I've noticed) appear as the primary leader. He was not present for the last, I suspect, because he had vacated the region and was green/green. That left poor Gustavus to get body-slammed.

4) just because all players are orange-red/(blue or higher) in a zone does not mean a battle will occur, or if one does, all stacks will participate. Such is warfare in the 1800s.



KamilS -> RE: Explantion needed (12/22/2013 12:45:48 AM)

Weird and annoying situation I encountered and once more I didn't understand.


N.Lyon moves to Lauderdale (Ft Pillow)

Action was anticipated so Johnston is transferred by rail and successfully merges with cavalry that was stationing there, yet despite control of province battle is being fought between assaulting USA force and garrison of the fort.

The way I understand it, new unit was formed and with support from fort it engaged Lyons force. Fort defenders were in defensive posture.

It was the case indeed it is absolutely ridiculous.

[image]local://upfiles/37480/46CCAB47BCAC4E3EA2EFCB5B9B1369D4.jpg[/image]



Michael T -> RE: Explantion needed (12/22/2013 1:36:36 AM)

It would appear to me Lyon has engaged the garrison not Johnston (only garrison forces in the battle). This happens. I have seen it before. As for the exact reasons I don't know.



KamilS -> RE: Explantion needed (12/22/2013 1:56:20 AM)

Yes, but I can't understand why one unit appeared out of nowhere and initiated fight.


This unit didn't exist in previous turn - it wasn't trained or moved into province.




Michael T -> RE: Explantion needed (12/22/2013 3:14:51 AM)

Some structures spawn garrisons when the enemy approaches.



Ace1_slith -> RE: Explantion needed (12/22/2013 6:22:52 AM)

Auto-garrisons are local boys grabing guns and defending their home town. I have suggested it that they only spawn in loyal territory and towns though, but it seems since AI does not garrison its forts properly, they are spawning to protect the forts as well.



KamilS -> RE: Explantion needed (12/22/2013 11:33:27 AM)

Thanks for answers.

So it is not bug, just very counter logical feature.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.357422