The solution must be universal and easy. The just die thing can be rigged in such a way to kill too many units for nothing.
I’d like to point out that “many units can be killed for nothing” only when the defender chooses to retreat there. I would look at the combat in the territory I’m retreated into, and only choose to retreat there if there was only <5% chance I’d lose that battle. If I then lose that battle by some miracle, then I knew my odds and took that chance. The moral of this example is that “many units are killed” only if the defender accepts the risk. The defender knows what he’s doing, let him choose. And why is the defender force sandwiched between the 2 enemy forces an unrealistic annihilation anyway? I like the rule… simple and justifiably realistic IMO.
Ok rewrite the exact wording on this so the idea is clear in: 1) cases where a retreat is blocked and the defender loses the battle and 2) cases where a retreat is blocked and the defender wins the battle. Please use an example for each case using territories on the map. I am not sure exactly what the proposed rule is.
If all fails, for land combat we just print off more combat boards :-P
For naval combat I see Imperious you have a focus on not letting naval retreat place them closer to the an enemy territory.
That addresses land invasion (amphibious assault).
But there are pure naval combat to consider too. In the middle of the Pacific.
How about just let remaining force block one adjacent sea zone. That should be achieveable in real life.
Check list for any potential naval retreat solution:
*single fleet attack single enemy fleet
*single fleet attack one fleet of adjacent enemy fleets
*multiple fleets attack single enemy fleet
*multiple fleets attack one fleet of adjacent enemy fleets
Another weekly update.
The biggest update in Technology section.
You can really see the form of our rule set now.
Here’s an example of what I’m talking about… let’s say Russia has a large force in Karelia, a small force in West Russia and controls Archangel with a negligible force. Let’s say Germany has a large force in Eastern Europe, a small force in both Belorussia and Ukraine. It’s Germany’s turn, and Germany decides to send in the large E. Europe and small Belorussian armies to attack Karelia. Also, Germany decides to send in the small Ukraine force to attack West Russia. Germany decides to conduct the Karelia battle first. The Russian player decided to retreat from Karelia first chance he gets. He can retreat to Archangel without any risk, but a retreat to West Russia would allow him to attack Ukraine next turn and surprise the Germans and thus be a better retreat option. Russia is now at a strategic dilemma… should he do the safe retreat into Archangel (where there’s no unresolved combat) or the riskier but better positioned retreat to West Russia? Well, the Russian player needs to weigh the odds of losing the West Russia battle. Even though it’s not likely the Ukraine force will deafeat the West Russian defending force, if he happens to lose the West Russia battle and decided to retreat the Karelia army there, then the large force coming down from Karelia will be sandwiched in and killed off. This would give him a large loss, but still at an unlikely outcome (because the attacking Ukraine army is so small compared to the West Russia army).
The type of thinking that the Russian player is doing is the type of strategic thinking that I would like to introduce to the game. I think the game needs more strategic thinking in that respect. Not only is the Russian player doing more strategic thinking, but the German player made a nice move to put the Russian player in this difficult spot. The German player didn’t need to attack West Russia with such a weaker force, but he did it just to put Russia in this tough position. This is added strategic maneuvering on both player’s parts, IMO.Â
thats interesting and much like I was guessing
“sandwiched” is very important
(especially for wars in ancient times and you only have swords and arrows)
like Battle of Bludge Germany tried to round up Allies troops, or USSR tried to round up Germany armies in Operation Babarossa at all costs of lives
we’ll see what others think
I need time to sort this… but i will…
ah…how about just resolve the relevent combats cycle by cycle where necessary and when a player chooses to then
and to retreat to adjacent friendly territory at the end of cycle 3, should the territory be free of hostile forces at beginning of cycle 3? or cycle 4?
(like how DAS takes 1 cycle…so maybe you only need the territory free next cycle)
why are poeple so opposed to this “instant killing of retreats” idea? It’s not that big a thing that will hardly ever come up, it really simplifies the game a lot, and if it does come up I think it invokes some intersting stategy to the game and is not that unrealistic anyway.
Ok i also think its not a big deal, plus the defender can just fight on and die like Romans. No complaints here. Tekky just add it to the draft.
sure I’ll add it now
I am not exactly against the rule
cycle by cycle is troublesome and we miss out of this sandwiching effect
ok I’ve put it in
now
1. what about attacker? why and why not
2. what about naval combat? why and why not
3. need example of “sandwiched” in WWII for iltalics in draft
ok I’ve put it in
now
1. what about attacker? why and why not
2. what about naval combat? why and why not
3. need example of “sandwiched” in WWII for iltalics in draft
I don’t know what specifically about the attacker retreats you are asking about. Since there are no territories of unresolved combats that are currently under their control this sandwiching rule can’t affect attackers.
I think we can make naval retrats better. What if we say defender naval retreats stay in that sea zone and move out on their next turn? The defneder also has the choice of not moving and sending in reinforcment naval units to attack in that sea zone again (a faint retreat). We should restrict where the units could retreat so that they still can’t move where attacking units came from. The defender would remember (or write down?) where he can and can’t retreat to until his next turn.
Battle of Kursk
Here is from Wikipedia (notice what I made bold):
On July 4, the Wehrmacht launched a much-delayed offensive against the Soviet Union at the Kursk salient. Their intentions were known by the Soviets, and they hastened to defend the salient with an enormous system of earthwork defenses. Both sides massed their armor for what became a decisive military engagement. The Germans attacked from both the north and south of the salient and hoped to meet in the middle, cutting off the salient and trapping 60 Soviet divisions. The German offensive was ground down as little progress was made through the Soviet defenses. The Soviets then brought up their reserves, and the largest tank battle of the war occurred near the city of Prokhorovka. The Germans had exhausted their armored forces and could not stop the Soviet counter-offensive that threw them back across their starting positions.
Germans trapped the Soviets behind enemy lines so the Soviets had no where to retreat. They would have died had the Soviet reinforcements not saved them. This example doesn’t result in the killing of the would-be retreaters so maybe we should use a different example?
1.) forget question 1, I was going crazy before thinking that…
defender can retreat to friendly territories with unresolved combat, can attacker retreat to hostile territories they are contesting?
nope! attacking units don’t have freedom of movement until they’ve gain control of the territory. they can only retreat the way they came from
2.) this is like the break-off idea, where you withdraw and remain in the sea zone
(since a sea zone is a large place)
Imperious is happy with it too
but you would have to let remaining force chase, or at least for the attacker
I ended up with some complicated issues implementing it (ideas in the other thread)
the retreat sequence became a bit complicated
3.) sure, we use a different example then
we want a famous WWII retreat mistake with the retreater ending up trapped and killed/captured
That example is a good point but it does not reflect the notion that the Salient had to be trapped in a few days or the bulk of Soviet forces would have escaped. IN game turns we are talking about 4-6 months ( mostly 6 months) so what we are saying is to create a more refined “tactical” idea within the span of a much larger time frame of 1/2 a year. The possibility to trap armies in say Stalingrad or Kursk took days to perform and this represents a problem to reconcile the two. I feel that because the idea would probably work because:
still looking for
*case of poor retreat resulting in armies rounded up and destroyed/captured
*case of unforced retreat for purposes of regrouping (hope this is not weird hehe)
in WWII
from wikipedia’s overview of wwii:
Germany withdrew from the Balkans and held Hungary until February 1945.
Romania turned against Germany in August 1944, threatening German lines of retreat from the Ukraine.
i think a good example would be Dunkirk. Talk about how Germany surprised the Allies by sweeping down and cutting off their ability to retreat from there. Even though the Allies evacuated a surprisingly large amount of troops by sea, the units that were left behind were annihilated (sandwiched).
still looking for
*case of poor retreat resulting in armies rounded up and destroyed/captured
++++ keiv pocket 1941
*case of unforced retreat for purposes of regrouping (hope this is not weird hehe)
++++after the first Soviet counteroffensive after the failure of operation Typhon, the Germans were pushed back and exposed 2 rather troublesome sailents. Hitler ordered them to retreat to avoid them being encircled. This was the first voluntary “retreat order” One salient was south of Leningrad and the other west of moscow.
in WWII
thank you
