Global Morale Loss

[Russian Guard]

A single line in the manual states that the "attacker" in detailed battles loses .05 morale each turn.

Do I interpret this correcty, that whomever the "attacker" is, will utlimately break, even if both sides just sit there for days, not engaging?

I haven't done the math, but with daylight turns every 40 minutes and night turns at 2 hours per, and 16 hours of daylight...then in 24 hours...the "attacker" would lose over 1 morale point per day?

Is this accurate, and if so, has anyone noticed this global morale loss actually occur?

[cambronne]

Yes. I was fighting a greatly superior force in a detailed battle and tried to sit back on the defensive.
I was holding my own, but on the second day of battle, my troops suddenly started to rout and my army collapsed.

[jimwinsor]

Yes I've noticed it, and measured it.  As far as I can tell, it is WAD.
 
There is one question I've always had, tho, which you just alluded to: How does the battle determine who the "attacker" is?  Since you can have armies moving simultaneously into the same province, this question is not as obvious as it may seem.  Lots of times I can only tell on round 2, by tracking whether or not the auto morale loss occurs to one side or the other.

[Clausel]

Isn't the defender supposed to be the one who first occupied or originally moved into the province? I had thought this was stated in the manual but I can't find any reference to it. Of course that doesn't deal with your case of simultanaeous arrival (same sub-phase within turn) of two powers in the province for the first time. In an encounter battle like that in real life, there would be no defender just opposing attackers. Either the game reflects that or there must be some other criteria used to determine a defender (eg the other side crossing a river or terrain barrier?)

In trying to work out who the game has assigned as the attacker and who the defender could that be discovered from the order in which the powers appear in the summary screen announcing the battle? I haven't checked this out before and its possible that the order may simply be based on size of army, alphabetical order or even random order. However I note that the example of the screen in the COG Guide shows the defending (smaller Austrian) army listed first before the attacking (larger French) army.

Another thought - what determines whether your army appears in the top or bottom half of the detailed battle map or on the left or right hand side of the quick battle screen?

[Clausel]

So much for that bright idea! The summary screen seems to be randomly generated. I have just reloaded a saved battle opening and the screen order was the reverse of the screen order when first saved. No doubt the battle map position (whether top or bottom) is also randomly selected.

[Russian Guard]

I reloaded a turn numerous times, where I engaged in a Swedish/Russian detailed battle. The Nation with fewer troops (I manipulated the turn so that battles were fought with Swedes outnumbering Russians, and vice-versa), and the Nation with fewer troops was ALWAYS listed first, at the top of the screen that allows you to choose either quick battle or detailed battle.

When I played out several detailed battles, I noted that when one side routed, there was a blurb that said "the attacker routs"...but the word "attacker" in that blurb was probably intended to mean "enemy" because it didn't matter which side broke, it always used the word "attacker", it never said "defender routs".

I played out over half dozen of these detailed battles and quite frankly, it seemed random to me, who was the attacker. I definitely ruled out that the Nation with fewer troops was automatically the defender. Further, it was the Russians moving into a province where the Swedes were sitting, but the Swedes were the attacker several times, so it doesn't seem to matter who is moving.

If there's a pattern to it, I can't figure it [8|]

[Russian Guard]

ORIGINAL: Russian Guard

When I played out several detailed battles, I noted that when one side routed, there was a blurb that said "the attacker routs"...but the word "attacker" in that blurb was probably intended to mean "enemy" because it didn't matter which side broke, it always used the word "attacker", it never said "defender routs".

Quoting myself above - I was wrong. I just fought a detailed battle where the word "Defender" was used to describe the force that routed...still, I have not yet figured out how to determine who will be designated the Attacker/defender, assuming it isn't random...