The situasion is as follows. Pic included below. US AI landed two forces 1 in New Orleans and 1 in Galveston. 4 5 turns ago. I send forces down to dispace them. By then the force in NO had taken the city and advance into Red river province and was sieging it. The Galveston force was still sieging Galveston.
In the case of NO / Red River force following happens. I battle and win over the division in Red River. It retreats to NO. It has the fort and city but naturally havent taken the province since it has no adjcent province. Personally i dont see a problem but i'd like a clarification.
Question/clarification number one: Does that not go against the "usual" rule that containers cant retreat to non owned provinces and would be eliminated in that case?
After it had retreated i followed it into NO in the next turn. Here i beat the division in QC a number of times over the following 3 turns. It never retreated and they "co-excisted" in same province for those 3 turns until the at this point last brigade surrendered to the 15% retreat rule i assume.
Question/ clarification 2: Shouldnt it retreat via naval to own port tho this is 7 8 turns after it landed or retreat to another province and be eliminated?
Galveston. I battled and beat the divisions there and it retreat inland to Trinity province.
Question / clarification 3: Again it retreat to a enemy owned province so shouldnt it be eliminated or here also retreat to own port?
Read:
• Amphibious invasions that are defeated will now retreat to the nearest friendly port as long as there is a friendly fleet adjacent to them when they are defeated
From the patch msg, but not sure if they apply only to the actual landing turn.
I've only notice this in situasion where naval landings are involved.
Pic is from turn after AI retreated from Galeveston to Trinity and in NO the forces still "co-excists"
Kind regards,
Rasmus
