Winning the battle but losing the region

[Morbio]

I'm playing a SP game as the Celticii and was attacked by Rome (no surprise there!). My main, wealth producing lands of Padus and Insubria quickly fell to an army of about 16 23 point legions, they quickly overwhelmed my smaller army of mostly 9 point heavy infantry. However when Rome attacked Taurinia my smaller army was in a forest and so had a narrow frontage (6) and wasn't flanked and gave better defence to my units and the legions were less effective. I drew the first battle and because of some fortunate rolls I won the re-match and manage to destroy a few legions. I was feeling good and hopeful at this point but then Rome attacked again in the same turn! Rome won the battle and I lost the region

How is this possible? I thought that once a battle had a result the army would stop. Logically, to me, if I've defeated the opposition then they should retire to the region they attacked from and their moves for the turn should be over. Is this not the case?

[caranorn1]

I'm playing a SP game as the Celticii and was attacked by Rome (no surprise there!). My main, wealth producing lands of Padus and Insubria quickly fell to an army of about 16 23 point legions, they quickly overwhelmed my smaller army of mostly 9 point heavy infantry. However when Rome attacked Taurinia my smaller army was in a forest and so had a narrow frontage (6) and wasn't flanked and gave better defence to my units and the legions were less effective. I drew the first battle and because of some fortunate rolls I won the re-match and manage to destroy a few legions. I was feeling good and hopeful at this point but then Rome attacked again in the same turn! Rome won the battle and I lost the region

How is this possible? I thought that once a battle had a result the army would stop. Logically, to me, if I've defeated the opposition then they should retire to the region they attacked from and their moves for the turn should be over. Is this not the case?

Might it have been a second Roman army moving into the region from further away?

[Morbio]

No, just one army.

It's just happened again, but this time I won the second re-match, but lost key units I can't replace

I think it is because the invading army is going straight to assault the city. It loses in the field but then continues to assault the city and thus triggering a second set of battles.

I really think that once an army is beaten it must retreat rather than continue onwards. I see this behaviour with rampaging armies, that are region hopping, you beat them, but what's left continues and it takes several turns to continually chase them to beat them into non-existence.

I also think that an army shouldn't be allowed to attack a city if there is an army in the field in the region. I think this allows armies that struggle in certain terrain to avoid having to beat the field army and yet they can assault the city and avoid the terrain malus.

This behaviour is really making the game unplayable for minor powers. This along with the MP script issue is ruining a great game... MP is generally not viable because of modders and now SP is wasting my time. I'm investing a lot of time and effort in these games only to be frustrated by bad design.

[SpeedyCM]

The only time I have seen an army fight again after losing a battle is if they had no avenue of retreat.

[Morbio]

Well the game is over, the final battle was again one which I won, then had to fight again and then lost. It really isn't fun when the odds are stacked against you... it's bad enough being the Celticii against Rome, but to repeatedly have to fight battles you win again and again it's soul destroying.

No comment from the devs?

[rs2excelsior]

I've had the same issue from the opposite side. Playing as Rome, attacking a single province German nation in the forest. Played in FoG2, manage to win a tough fight in poor ground, import result, get a "battle won" screen. My army immediately re-engaged the enemy that should have already been defeated, and after a couple of draws I lose and am forced to retreat. Not crippling, but annoying. On the bright side I do think it's a known bug already.

[caranorn1]

I've had the same issue from the opposite side. Playing as Rome, attacking a single province German nation in the forest. Played in FoG2, manage to win a tough fight in poor ground, import result, get a "battle won" screen. My army immediately re-engaged the enemy that should have already been defeated, and after a couple of draws I lose and am forced to retreat. Not crippling, but annoying. On the bright side I do think it's a known bug already.

But that is a good example of an army that had no retreat path but had not been destroyed in the previous battle. I know sometimes such armies just disband after the battle (but that might only be the case for independants), but if the army is still in good shape another battle makes sense.

Maybe Pocus or someone else from Ageod could respond whether this is WAD...

[Blathergut]

I've seen Romans do odd things. They are very fast.

https://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewto ... 34&t=93105

[Pocus]

Without a retreat path, the army would stand in the region and generates another battle, even if defeated. This will change in the next patch, any army that need to retreat and can't will be destroyed. Note also that independents, rebels and slaves are always disbanded when the lose a battle, even if they had a retreat path.

[Morbio]

My original comment wasn't about no retreat path battles, this is one where there is a clear retreat path but the army fights 2 battles. I'm fairly sure it is when the attacker is going straight for the city, it will first fight the army outside the city, and even if it loses it then goes on to fight for the city and this is the frustrating part.

I've had this work for and against me and I think it is just wrong. If the first battle is lost then the army should retreat, or be destroyed if no retreat is possible.

I even question if an attack on a city should be possible if there is a defending army in the field. Part of me thinks this should be a 2-turn process, 1st turn fight the field army, 2nd turn attack the city. The downside here though is that it may mean that an army could continually be held up by new defending armies arriving in the field... but maybe that's OK and what could happen in history.

[devoncop]

My original comment wasn't about no retreat path battles, this is one where there is a clear retreat path but the army fights 2 battles. I'm fairly sure it is when the attacker is going straight for the city, it will first fight the army outside the city, and even if it loses it then goes on to fight for the city and this is the frustrating part.

I've had this work for and against me and I think it is just wrong. If the first battle is lost then the army should retreat, or be destroyed if no retreat is possible.

I even question if an attack on a city should be possible if there is a defending army in the field. Part of me thinks this should be a 2-turn process, 1st turn fight the field army, 2nd turn attack the city. The downside here though is that it may mean that an army could continually be held up by new defending armies arriving in the field... but maybe that's OK and what could happen in history.

No ..........that suggestion could definitely be exploited by just feeding a single skirmisher into the city region each turn to prevent the city ever being stormed.

[Morbio]

My original comment wasn't about no retreat path battles, this is one where there is a clear retreat path but the army fights 2 battles. I'm fairly sure it is when the attacker is going straight for the city, it will first fight the army outside the city, and even if it loses it then goes on to fight for the city and this is the frustrating part.

I've had this work for and against me and I think it is just wrong. If the first battle is lost then the army should retreat, or be destroyed if no retreat is possible.

I even question if an attack on a city should be possible if there is a defending army in the field. Part of me thinks this should be a 2-turn process, 1st turn fight the field army, 2nd turn attack the city. The downside here though is that it may mean that an army could continually be held up by new defending armies arriving in the field... but maybe that's OK and what could happen in history.

No ..........that suggestion could definitely be exploited by just feeding a single skirmisher into the city region each turn to prevent the city ever being stormed.

I agree, that whilst in theory it could be realistic, in practice it could be exploited and therefore it should be avoided. I think the best solution is to allow the attack on the city provided that the field army has been defeated first. In this way a single skirmisher, or some other light force, wouldn't stop the attack. If the attacking army loses in the field then it should retreat or be destroyed.