Every soldier should not be a commando

[jwsmith26]

One of my issues with the game is the way it handles AI brigades that are cut off behind my lines. There have been other posts in this forum (linked below) about how brigades rout in the wrong direction and end up behind enemy lines (and this needs to be addressed as well) but this post is more about what happens to these brigades after this happens, and it ain't pretty.

These cut-off brigades act as if they are in complete command control and suffer no adverse effects of being out of command and isolated. Instead of attempting to avoid combat and and extract themselves from their precarious position they act as if everything is just peachy; they form line and calmly proceed to attack my line from the rear or form little Bastognes that I have to reduce. Instead of ignoring these formations that should be largely ineffective due to severe morale issues I am forced to devote several units to guard my rear while I attempt to shepherd these errant enemy interlopers back to their own side so I can reform a coherent line. If I attack and demoralize them they simply retreat and reform deeper in my rear and then eventually return to cause more disruptions. 

Preventing enemy formations from being cut off behind my lines is now one of my most important tasks when I consider how I might maneuver against the enemy. If I can't drive the enemy brigade back into its own lines then it's probably not a good idea to attack that brigade. This is the opposite of how it should work. Isolating enemy brigades should be an objective, not a situation to be avoided.

I know there are historical instances of strong points being held tenaciously as the enemy lines move forward around the strong points such as happened at Shiloh, and there are undoubtedly instances where cut off brigades held firm and survived, but to have brigades act as though nothing at all has happened to them when they are cut off behind enemy lines is just wrong. Having them operate intelligently, in apparent cooperation with an army they cannot contact is just wrong. 

Here's a thread that discusses the wrong way rout issue - http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/17732-these-left-over-problems-from-ugg-are-what-drive-me-mad/#comment-342508

[Speedkermit]

+1

 

I've seen people lose battles due to a routed AI unit that runs behind the players front line, and then pull itself together and go and capture the players supplies or even a victory point.

Units that rout behind the players front line should surrender.

[JaM]

I think it would be probably best if there was some mechanics where any unit that was cut off, and routed, would just surrender instead of running around in enemy controlled area, rallying and renewing fight on its own..

It would also allow for some tactical maneuvers, where you could cut off multiple brigades in flanking maneuver, and force them to surrender by routing them while being surrounded.. because right now, they just tend to run through and you have to chase them around...

 

[Koro]

While not surrendering, there could perhaps be a moral penalty for units that are really far away from other friendly units.

Skirmishers could also have a penalty for being far away from their parent unit to prevent them from just roaming the battle field at will.

[P-Dup]

+1

[GS_Guderian]

Also, at Bull Run I had one brigade at the stone bridge surrendering to the Yankees, marching north.

Later Stuart's Cavalry sourrounded the remnants of the Union assault and freed those poor men.

As soon, as they turned red again they had all their weapons back it seems. I could use them to harass the Union from behind.

Edited December 12, 2016 by GS_Guderian

[Koro]

3 minutes ago, GS_Guderian said:

Also, at Bull Run I had one brigade at the stone bridge surrendering to the Yankees, marching north.

Later Stuart's Cavalry sourrounded the remnants of the Union assault and freed those poor men.

As soon, as they turned red again they had all there weapons back it seems. I could use them to harass the Union from behind.

Yeah, I hadn't thought about how silly it is actually that the men somehow return to full power after being rescued :). You send off armed prisoners then? Hah.

"Disarm" button please.

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Agree, completely. 

Nothing worse that a unit in complete and total rout, where the unit is just a mass of men without C&C indicators of any kind, run into the woods and reform back into a functional unit in less than five minutes. 

It is impossible to move forward without leaving a full blown bodyguard at each primary objective because these stealth units are completely armed and well supplied and ready to Urra! to victory 

[Don't Escrow Taxes]

This had not occurred to me either, good point. 

[fallendown]

This has been a recurring problem that the Developers have had since UGG. It's not just the routed units though, it's also the skirmishers who'll act the same way sometimes...

 

[Don't Escrow Taxes]

Yeah the unit routing in UGG was very problematic, i actually had to change my metagame to prevent it.  The way I looked at it was it forced me to keep units in reserve behind my lines, which is probably more historically accurate than having every unit engaged all the time, anyway... 

[GS_Guderian]

Maybe adding division commanders - like one thread allready asks for - might help?

[Speedkermit]

Don't think it will

[GS_Guderian]

Each unit could have a max. range from a commander allowed to be effective.

Snipers might have a higher range than regular Infantry. Cavalry should probably have a very high range. 

Just a tool for brigades and their skirmishers to not go wild. Also allowing some logic in deployment of brigades. Right now nobody cares if I mix them. I can put Brigade I of 1st Division far left and Brigade II of 1st Division far right and still attack with the remaining divisional forces in a huge blop in center. Mixing them within 2nd Division or even units of another corps. 

Military hierachy and chain of command is not represented at all, except for the presence of corps leaders.

A modifier to the command value would be reasonable, I reckon.

[JJPettigrew]

3 minutes ago, GS_Guderian said:

Military hierachy and chain of command is not represented at all, except for the presence of corps leaders.

Not really, you assign a leader to every unit and division, and at least the unit one does affect the unit in battle - as you can test if you try fight with a unit which leader has fallen , not really sure of the divisional commander in battle (I suspect a modification in unit leader ratings)

divisional commaders represented as current "corps" ones would be surely overkill, too micromanagement.

9 minutes ago, GS_Guderian said:

Also allowing some logic in deployment of brigades. Right now nobody cares if I mix them. I can put Brigade I of 1st Division far left and Brigade II of 1st Division

this probably would be a heavy fault if the game engine were to be adapted napoleonic wars , but -to my allegedly limited knowing- chain of commad in CW was far more dinamyc, divisions being (specially south ones) more an administative organization than a "element of maneuver"

[guidon101]

15 hours ago, fallendown said:

This has been a recurring problem that the Developers have had since UGG. It's not just the routed units though, it's also the skirmishers who'll act the same way sometimes...

 

Fortunately, I don't think skirmishers (nor cavalry/arti?) can cap VPs, or at least mine couldn't, but yes I agree with the thread sentiment that it seems a bit unrealistic how resilient the cohesiveness of routing brigades are, especially behind enemy lines.

Possible mitigation: (Efficiency/Morale) Malus for being far apart from any friendly unit for extended periods of time. The longer the isolation, the greater the penalty.

Right now, brigades can have "WIA/KIA leader" malus, which are great in effect. Units could get a similar penalty for being "outside the Chain of Command", based on proximity to nearest friendly unit. If this is a simple check (friendly unit detected within < X distance), then it can easily be avoided by having 1 other friendly (non-routed) unit nearby, so we would still see the "behind enemy lines" problem but probably with a lot less bite and frequency.

This would penalize "lone ranger" units like cav or skirmishers that stray too far away from other friendly units for too long, but could be mitigated by player by running "lone ranger duos", or by simply returning extended units back into line every now and then (like how skirmisher detachments actually worked).

 

[JJPettigrew]

17 minutes ago, guidon101 said:

Right now, brigades can have "WIA/KIA leader" malus, which are great in effect. Units could get a similar penalty for being "outside the Chain of Command", based on proximity to nearest friendly unit. If this is a simple check (friendly unit detected within < X distance), then it can easily be avoided by having 1 other friendly (non-routed) unit nearby, so we would still see the "behind enemy lines" problem but probably with a lot less bite and frequency.

Sounds as something on the line of old Sid Meiers bonus morale for having flanks and rear covered by friendly troops at short distance transformed to a malus if it is not fullfilled...sound appropiate indeed

[Karri]

22 hours ago, Speedkermit said:

+1

 

I've seen people lose battles due to a routed AI unit that runs behind the players front line, and then pull itself together and go and capture the players supplies or even a victory point.

Units that rout behind the players front line should surrender.

I won Malvern Hill because one of my brigades charging the line routed and ran half way to the second VP location through enemy lines. Charges/melee are very much broken at the moment, hopefully fixed next patch.

[jwsmith26]

This does seem to be a thorny problem. Sid Meier couldn't solve it either; his Gettysburg game suffered from a similar issue with enemy brigades resuscitating behind your lines and creating havoc.

[fallendown]

Even though it was turn based, Age of Rifles had a decent routing system where a unit would route in the direction of a friendly supply point which was usually at the edge of the map, an area under friendly control. if it's morale hadn't recovered it would route off the map. By default I think at the very least brigades should route in the direction of their division commanders....then past them until their moral recovers. 

 

[RobWheat61]

I am playing now my third campaign and this happened to me the first time now at Shiloh. I had to detach one brigade for the most part of the battle until the enemy brigade routed finally from the battlefield. Once in three campaign doesn't seem a big issue, imo.

Nethertheless one solution could be, that a brigade, which flees through a hostile unit, surrenders automatically. That of course should be the case for both AI and player units.

Edited December 13, 2016 by RobWheat61