Ok the first point is simply brilliant add it to the draft
the second point is assumed under partial retreats so i guess it works as it is.
If you have reserves about retreat after enemy retreats being strategically weird…
what about partial retreat instead? then change of land control still happens
the idea in general (retreat after enemy retreats, not partial retreat) can be quite significant
so don’t agree just as compromise
OK fixed:
fixed right?
OK fixed:
- the attacker declares retreats first
- defender goes second.
fixed right?
er…what are you referring to?
in OOB/LHTR attacker always declare press-on or retreat intentions before defender
this break-off thing isn’t as simple as I thought
I am thinking partial break-off should be allowed
like you break-off damaged BB/CV because you still wanna push on but don’t wanna lose the BB/CV
enemy then choose to chase your break-off units or not…he might not chase because he wants to hold the SZ and now that your damaged BB/CV in not fight he thinks he has a good chance…or he might choose to chase at which point you can recall the break-off units and optionally were those who are not being chased
so complicated
this is probably over the top
OK fixed:
OK another solution:
as i proposed before. all units conducting attacks stay in their original teritories and attack adjacent territories. This helps solve retreats because you know where land units and ships came from. here is the different cases in each case the attacker makes the first decision to retreat followed by the defender.
attacker wants to continue, defender retreats… result: defender retreats and attacker now has option to capture the territory with any portion of his army/navy.
attacker retreats, defender wants it to continue… result: attacker ends attack and remains in original territories and defender stays put in the attacked territory.
all other cases dont need any clarification. If both retreat they remain in the original territory where they came from.
so in case #1 the attacker is no longer “stuck” in a territory by the defender.
I maintain this can also be done with the same method but allowing the units to move into the attacked territories as per OOB. Just apply the same rules
- attacker wants to continue, defender retreats… result: defender retreats and attacker now has option to capture the territory with any portion of his army/navy.
so in case #1 the attacker is no longer “stuck” in a territory by the defender.
Great. I got you to agree with my double retreat idea.
Realistically I don’t think you should even be forced to commit that 1 INF if you don’t want to capture the territory.
But I feel our variant has gone very far.
For “comfort zone” reasons I better not push too far.
But for naval combat no capturing is involved. Why should you be forced to leave behind a DD or something?
P.S. I am turning crazy pushing for this and that. I need to chill and not touch land and naval combat til phase 3. So many ideas…
*retreat to unresolved spaces (close to finish)
*double retreat (close to finish)
*naval retreat to which direction
*naval break-off
*sonar model
*“continue naval movement if combat resolved in 1 cycle”
…
maybe naval combat should be done really from adjacent zones to avoid the retreat problem. if the defender wants to retreat i suppose the attacker can pursue by making a saving roll and forcing addtional round of combat.
oh no thats not what I was talking about
anyway I want to take a rest from combat soon so let just finish the retreat to “unresolved places” and “double retreat” and wrap up other bits for phase 2 (like national victory condition and national advantage)
so what do you think about that last idea about naval combat’s “double retreat”
since no control needs to be established should remaining force be allowed to retreat all units and not leave behind one unit?
Can you make an example of this double retreat? i assume you mean that both sides leave the attacked sea zone. Is that correct?
actually, I am WRONG :lol:
letting the attacker retreat even if defender retreats adds EXTRA movement/option
oh I got so distracted
I only mean to address the small problem with reduced defender options (not able to retreat) just because attacker retreats
so its just this:
1. Attacker: press-on or retreat
2. Defender: remain or retreat (even if all remaining hostile units retreated)
previously, defender can’t retreat if attack retreats
Yes its mostly semantics. this will not force the attacker into getting stuck… they can decide to leave even if the defender leaves and they dont get stuck
oh but I am saying I was (and also this is) WRONG
the attacker decides and performs something, then the defender decides and performs something
no more after that
going down the line of OOB model of attacker declare than defender declare…
defender’s retreat might be caused by on attacker’s decision to press on
if the attacker can then retreat after the defender retreat, defender should be able to reassess and chose to remain…
btw this is for general combat
for naval combat we’ll consider a break-off rule later
ok
@Imperious:
battleships should only be preemtive unless another battleship is present. In naval combat Battleships fight each other and take hits off each other. All other ships fight each other except transports cannot be taken as loses unless no other ships are left.
The only change in your description is BB (battleship) do not fire preemptively when enemy BB is present.
This is like the once sugguested “air units fire preemptively only during air superiority”. It actually has no effect.
Or maybe I am missing something.
you got it right… they fire preemt only if no enemy BB is present.
I think this should be for Bombers and heavy tanks
bombers fire preemtively if no enemy planes are present
heavy tanks fire preemtively unless the enemy has heavy tanks.
what you think?
Ok this is what I am thinking.
Whether enemy has Battleships your Battleships still out range Destroyers.
So when 5 BB + 1 DD –-attack—> 1 BB + 1 DD…
defender having 1 BB shouldn’t stop defender’s fleet from getting annihilated before defender’s DD can fire.
bombers fire preemtively if no enemy planes are present
Yeah you probably read the other thread by now. Air units fire preempetive regardless already.
heavy tanks fire preemtively unless the enemy has heavy tanks
Recall you wanted SS Panzer Heavy Tanks to have this ability but not normal Heavy Tanks.
I understand Heavy Tanks like Tiger out range normal Tanks by far. But if anything shouldn’t Artillery have even greater range?
@Wikipedia:
Tigers were reported to have knocked out enemy tanks at ranges greater than a mile (1,600 m), although most WW2 engagements were fought at much closer range.
Ok add those rules (in cases where they dont allready apply)
we should just forget SS panzers and consider them heavy tanks instead with the preemtive attack. That way its generic for all nations and not some special thing.
We can introduce a special german NA for SS panzers that further elaborates what the SS did in the war and solve it that way.
Quoted from the NA’s topic;
SS (submarine) 8 IPC, 2/2, move 2
DD (destroyer) 8 IPC, 2/2, move 3
CA (cruiser) 12 IPC, 3/3, move 3
CV (carrier) 16 IPC, 1/3, move 3 (2 hits)
BB (battleship) 20 IPC, 4/4, move 2 (2 hits)
Can we go with this proposed change in CA and DD costs? So that the Pocket battleship and UK Battlecruisers NA’s can excist?
Yea i love those values. I vote for them as well …. except cruisers take one hit? Carriers and cruisers were built on the same hull and the cruiser has better protection on its deck.
Also destroyers should move 2 otherwise subs are totally outclassed.
SS (submarine) 8 IPC, 2/2, move 2
DD (destroyer) 8 IPC, 2/2, move 2 (3 if machted with CV)
CA (cruiser) 12 IPC, 3/3, move 3 (2hits)
CV (carrier) 16 IPC, 1/3, move 3 (2 hits)
BB (battleship) 20 IPC, 4/4, move 2 (2 hits)
Like this then. DD only move of 3 when matched with CV, CA remain 2 hits.
