Question about "retreating" screenshot

[Amish John]

"The odds were too great and orders
were issued to fall back to Cemetery hill. The men retired in
good order, fighting as they went, the only confusion being
that which resulted by crowding the narrow streets of the
town."

[Amish John]

From Hancock's report on Gettysburg:

"The two regiments sent from the Second Division to General Humphreys' assistance Nineteenth Massachusetts, Colonel Devereux, and Forty-second New York, Colonel Mallon, both under command of Colonel Mallon had not arrived on the ground, though under musketry fire, when, observing that General Humphreys' command was rapidly retiring, they formed line of battle, delivered a few volleys at the advancing enemy, and themselves retired in good order to their position in line in the Second Corps, having suffered a heavy loss."

[Amish John]

A short time later Schurz was attacked by Rhodes’s Division and fought them off until Doubleday and Wadsworth’s Divisions had retired safely thru the town to Culp’s and Cemetery Hills, and when forced by superior numbers to retire, its officers’ reports say they retired in good order, and Gen. Early, who had ridden over to see if Rhodes had made proper connection with Hill’s Corps, witnessed the retreat of Schurz, and says:

“They withdrew in comparatively good order,” and Early had no reason for paying any compliments to the Eleventh Corps.

[Gfran64]

You gentlemen are correct in that in the previous game it is difficult to withdraw a brig/div in good order. Not to mention the accidental retreat button click. Buford's defense in depth on Gettysburg's first day was a 4 hour tactical withdrawal designed to stall Heth/Hill as long as possible. Buford scouted the position for days before the battle. He also prepared breastworks beforehand on ground he chose to fight on. He also used Videttes, (groups of about 5 men), placed well forward of his position in a semicircle to warn of the advancing ANV. The first Vidette opened up a a range of 800 yards on the Cashtown Pike. The way the game is currently configured it is almost impossible to fight a large scale tactical withdrawal well.

I would propose a new approach. Why not have the ability to place a commander back some distance and set the formation, probably battleline, and then have the regiments withdraw while firing to that new position either fast or slow. In the current game if you want to do that I think you have to turn your back to the enemy and run back to the new position. Not really desirable. You could still have the retreat button which would be used for emergencies. Just a thought.

Greg

[Ephrum]

ironsight wrote:

Ephrum,
i think the need for ordered retreats are in part proportional to the aggressiveness style one plays the game. For me, this situation usually arises when my guys are surprised by another enemy brigade that was hidden in the heavy woods. It doesn't happen every battle but often enough where trying to manually retreat a unit to keep em intact is a royal PITA...much harder than it should be.
The problem with letting regiments retreat on their own is they typically end up scattered and isolated in a panic>broken mode possibly soon to route. The commander can only rally one regiment at a time and thats if he's not TC'd which is typical in my case.

In real battles, a good commander would sense his brigade (or division) is overwhelmed and in serious trouble. He would most likely fall back, retreat and regroup to better ground or near another friendly brigade instead of fighting on to destroy his unit.

A retreat command would be just one more tactical maneuver option which would make the game a little more realistic and interesting.

Actually, I was just trying to be funny. I'm not against a Retreat option, like you guys talking about, at all.

[ironsight]

Gfran64,
that idea of yours is pretty dang close if not idenical to what i suggested earlier which I think is the best and most realistic approach for a new retreat command. And lets not forget separate independent retreat order options for arty and cavalry commanders since they are under Divisional command and would not obey Brigade level retreat orders. However they should obey a Division retreat as well as Brigade Commanders. A Corps level retreat though might be a bit too much and messy now that i think on it. Maybe, maybe not!
At this point, i'd be satisfied with just Brigade and arty retreat commands.

Amish John,
some good examples for orderly retreats of which those that you described were only during the Gburg battle. If one reads enough CW history books, the words 'orderly' used in conjunction with retreat is common place. Against overwhelming odds, only a suicidal commander with a death wish would choose to destroy his unit rather than retreat, its only human nature.

Ephrum,
OH, OK! Hard to tell these days who's serious or not

[Gfran64]

Thanks Ironsite,

I have been thinking about this for sometime now. The entire first day of Gettysburg was a tactical withdrawal. One could argue that following Sickle's rather ambitious positioning on the second day the battle on the Union side was a tactical withdrawal. Antietam was fought as a tactical withdrawal on the ANV side. Many of Jackson's victories were tactical withdrawals in combination with a flanking movement.

In open play, it is very difficult to do a bait and switch. IE: come take my unprotected brigade so I can hit you with my (hidden) division, because it is difficult to recover the brigade once it is engaged. With multiplayer just around the corner play is going to be more difficult. The old game as it is currently designed does not fight well going backwards. That leaves grabbing the high ground or flanking as the major tactical movements. If tactical withdrawal can be refined before the release, that would add a entirely new set of tactics. You might not be as inclined to rapidly pursue that wavering unit/brigade. Currently, most units that are withdrawing are in trouble. They might as well have a red balloon over them saying "I'm ready to retreat/rout!"

[Ephrum]

Ephrum,
OH, OK! Hard to tell these days who's serious or not

ironsight, it was hard to tell, because it wasn't funny!!:P

One of the reasons I don't use the Retreat command, is because of the Fallback command. That works well for me. Maybe a Fallback command for a whole division? If you could pick the rally point. I guess that would be similar, or the same, as a Tactical Withdrawal.

[ironsight]

Gfran64,
Excellent points, hope Norb is listening to all this!:)
I haven't even thought about possible multi-play awkwardness with no orderly retreat options.
Yeah, Lee's retreat from Gburg was as orderly as events could have it. Lee also provided for a strong rear gaurd to counter a possible major counter attack. Though Lee was seriously harassed during his retreat, he somehow managed to take what was left of his army back to the safety of Virginia to fight another day.

Ephrum,
i tried using the fallback command early on with unpredictable and sometimes disappointing results. The problem as i recall is they fallback too slow or not at all if heavily engaged. And if i DQ fallbacks, sometimes the regiments would run. Maybe i'll experiment with it again since it seems to work for you.

Even if the fall back command worked perfectly all the time, it still doesn't allow the regiments to orderly retreat and reform to their commander's new chosen position which i think is a big big plus....just like a real commander would do during the war.

[estabu2]

The fallback command needs to be reworked. I agree with ironsight that the fallback command was very unpredictable and unreliable. The men would fall back very, very, slowly. IMO they should fall back at least twice as fast, if not faster. When I think of fallback I think of a retreat without the running. Also, the distance that they fallback should be longer. It seemed like they would fall back 10 yards and reform. I think they should continue to fallback until you have them get back into battleline.

Just a few humble thoughts...