How long does a Detailed Battle Last??

[pecos jack]

I could not seem to end a Detailed Battle. I had to use CTL-ALT-DEL to end the program. I was playing France against the comptuor. Englan landed about 6 units on a Coastal Province where I had a Corps, with 5 units and an Officer, with a small fort garrisoned by 1 or 2 units. I had no supply wagon and I don't believe the AI did either. We both used all our ammo up early and the Battle was late into the 3rd day with neither side gaining an advantage. I started to use the retreat button out of frustration (my wife was waiting to go somewhere). but after 2 tries I just ended the program with CTRL-ALT-DEL. I know you are working on a save feature which I assume will have a quit game button as well, but I would still hate to continue what appears to an endless Detailed Battle. There ought to be a time limit for the attacker to win the Province by or he retreats or even both armies stay in Province till next month.

This was the only battle where I noticed there was no Supply Wagon, but I've only had the game a few days.

Thanks - Good Game
[:)]

[bluemonday]

Hit the 'q' key to have the battle autoresolve.

[Ralegh]

Additionally, each division does have a lower maximum morale with each subsequent day of the battle, so ...

I have NEVER seen a battle reach day 4. Or even the night of day 3. But it might be possible.

One of the tweaks we are talking the developer into is to make this reduction more severe for the attacker, so the defender can adopt a defensive posture and expect to win if the attacker doesn't engage significantly.

[Uncle_Joe]

Something to caution would be to make sure the defender has to DEFEND, not avoid battle. If the attacker is on a strict timetable, especially with his units degrading in performance as time goes on, then the defender should have to set up on some terrain and fight it out and not avoid action. I can very easily see this being abused, especially by Cavalry armies.

I'm not in favor of increasing the morale loss unless some sort of 'objectives' are placed on the map such that the defender cant just play run-away, run-away and then fight once the attackers are all down in morale and strung out trying to corner them.

[jchastain]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

Something to caution would be to make sure the defender has to DEFEND, not avoid battle. If the attacker is on a strict timetable, especially with his units degrading in performance as time goes on, then the defender should have to set up on some terrain and fight it out and not avoid action. I can very easily see this being abused, especially by Cavalry armies.

I'm not in favor of increasing the morale loss unless some sort of 'objectives' are placed on the map such that the defender cant just play run-away, run-away and then fight once the attackers are all down in morale and strung out trying to corner them.

I am a big proponent of degrading attackers faster so that they have to take the initiative, though I agree and have mentioned previously that you can't just make it a game of keep-away. For that reason, I don't think battles should end due to morale degradation issues until after at least 2 full days have passed. That should provide ample time for the attacker to pin down the defender. And if he can't do so within that amount of time, then I have no problem with him being repelled as he likely doesn't have enough troops present to prosecute a proper offensive.

[Uncle_Joe]

Personally I dont think the defender should be rewarded in any way for running around and not fighting. That is nonsense. The idea is to defend the province...not play dodgeball. If you have no intentions of fighting, then concede the battle and be done with it.

The only way I see this not being abused is if the defender is tied to some sort of location. Maybe he can pick it at the end of day one or at the begining of the battle (and it has to be within 'x' hexes of the center of the board). After he picks his area, he has to defend it or else he either loses, or less harshly, suffers morale penalties instead.

Without something like that, the defender just has to bring a smallish Cav army and play around. Thats not tactics, its not strategy, its gamesmanship...yech... [;)]

[Jordan]

Prior to the Napoleonic period, armies who did not want to fight did just that, they played "keep away." Battles were usually not fought unless by mutual consent.

The advent (mature use?) of the corps system enabled Napoleon to bring an opponent to battle even when they didn't want to.

So I'd prefer some sort of distribution of corps upon entry and reinforcments arriving from the direction they would on the strategic map.

[jchastain]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

Personally I dont think the defender should be rewarded in any way for running around and not fighting. That is nonsense. The idea is to defend the province...not play dodgeball. If you have no intentions of fighting, then concede the battle and be done with it.

The only way I see this not being abused is if the defender is tied to some sort of location. Maybe he can pick it at the end of day one or at the begining of the battle (and it has to be within 'x' hexes of the center of the board). After he picks his area, he has to defend it or else he either loses, or less harshly, suffers morale penalties instead.

Without something like that, the defender just has to bring a smallish Cav army and play around. Thats not tactics, its not strategy, its gamesmanship...yech... [;)]

What you say does make a good deal of sense as it would prevent a potential abuse. That said, I worry that it likely would be difficult to code as it would require new interfaces as well as logic changes. When I break this down in my mind, I have to separate single player from multi-player.

Single player - the AI obviously won't do the gamey keep-away game. And if the player chooses to get a cheap victory this way against the AI, who cares?

Multi-player - This is where the real potential for abuse exists. Since there isn't a public server where people just attach into a game with other random players, there should be some friendship or at least contact between the players in advance and I would hope it could be agreed that they would either all win "anyway they could" so it was at least even or all agree to not abuse the system in that way. Some would likely break their word, but I hope that we are talking about a very small minority of players (who would find themselves without invitations to future games).

So, in my final analysis, should we not include the attacker degradation that would benefit everyone, single- and multi-player games alike, because of the risk that friends getting together for a game will either not discuss the issue or will not stick to their agreements? When I look at it that way, I have a hard time recommending against putting it in there.

Your solution might be the best of all. But it might also be too complex to implement in a reasonable timeframe and therefore the decision might be to degrade attackers faster or do nothing. In that case, even though I share some of your concerns, I think attacker degradation is preferable to doing nothing.

[Uncle_Joe]

Prior to the Napoleonic period, armies who did not want to fight did just that, they played "keep away." Battles were usually not fought unless by mutual consent.

The advent (mature use?) of the corps system enabled Napoleon to bring an opponent to battle even when they didn't want to.

So I'd prefer some sort of distribution of corps upon entry and reinforcments arriving from the direction they would on the strategic map.

I agree. And this should be done on the strategic map. But also note that this abuse can be used to defend a capital, or a vital supply line or whatever you wish. You dont have to hold the ground, just stall for time.

Once on the tactical map, your options on defense should be to stand and fight or conceded defeat and risk pursuit. Those options should not include dancing around the map avoiding the attacker until an artificial morale timer declares you the winner...

[Uncle_Joe]

Your solution might be the best of all. But it might also be too complex to implement in a reasonable timeframe and therefore the decision might be to degrade attackers faster or do nothing. In that case, even though I share some of your concerns, I think attacker degradation is preferable to doing nothing.

Agreed. I dont seriously expect some kind of feature like this to be added at this late date. This is doubly true because it would really only effect the handful of TCP/IP games that might be played. And yeah, in those cases, the player can more or less police themselves.

But long experience in MP games of various sorts has taught me that different players have different tolerances for what is considered 'gamey' or not playing 'within the spirit of the game'. So, one player may consider it perfectly valid to play the stall game (as Jordan above...not an indictment, just stating that he sees less wrong with it). Another player might fight it the height of cheese and gamesmanship over strategy.

So, to me, the best thing is to cut the problem off at the root (which would be adding that subsystem). If something like that isnt going to make it, then I'm not sure I would be keen on adding to the capability to win by stall.

[Reg Pither]

ORIGINAL: Ralegh

I have NEVER seen a battle reach day 4. Or even the night of day 3. But it might be possible.

I had a battle reach the morning of day 5 after both sides just sitting there for 4 days waiting for the other to attack. Then both wavered, both routed, and the system crashed when returning to the strategic map. [&:]

[pecos jack]

What does the 'q' key do. I tried it and all it did was go to the next unit.

[vonkohlmann]

My first detailed battle lasted to night of Day 4 as well when I thought 3 was the limit.