I should have added that, on the open sea, “pursuing” ships might have to make a search roll to continue the combat. On the other hand, the “retreating” fleet might be trying to draw them away from certain areas.
Another of my HRs effecting naval combat is that, on each and every one of its own nation’s turns, each and every ship must refuel. That is it must demonstrate that at some stage on the turn it is in a SZ bordering a friendly or neutral (not pro-the enemy) land territory.
A fleet crossing the Atlantic, for example, can start by refueling off Washington and end its turn in the mid Atlantic. On the next turn it sails to the coast of Britain (or friendly France) and refuels there. But it cannot spend at entire turn on the open sea without refueling, nor can it end a turn in such a position as would make refueling next turn impossible.
This can make otherwise unimportant land tts or islands much more valuable as “fueling stations”
As far as defender retreats on land are concerned, I have no objection to these either, though unlike naval combat the retreating defenders should have to undergo a round of enemy fire without shooting back. I even allow them to “evacuate” by sea if transports are available.
i]Another of my HRs effecting naval combat is that, on each and every one of its own nation’s turns, each and every ship must refuel. That is it must demonstrate that at some stage on the turn it is in a SZ bordering a friendly or neutral (not pro-the enemy) land territory.
A fleet crossing the Atlantic, for example, can start by refueling off Washington and end its turn in the mid Atlantic. On the next turn it sails to the coast of Britain (or friendly France) and refuels there. But it cannot spend at entire turn on the open sea without refueling, nor can it end a turn in such a position as would make refueling next turn impossible.
This can make otherwise unimportant land tts or islands much more valuable as “fueling stations”
The idea is good and I thought the same thing but I add the tanker in the fleet so …
But with the defender the situation is more complicated. If they retreat to the sz they currently occupy (i.e. not really a retreat, but just a way to force combat to stop before being resolved) then you’re going to basically treat all naval units like subs, where they stay in the same zone but are immune from further attack? It will result in a lot of fleets co-located with enemy fleets.
- No, retreat to adjacent sea zone and the attacker take control of the sea zone.
If on the other hand you do allow the defender to actually retreat (ie move to an adjacent sz, then you have the issue of extra movement and drafting some rules that make clear where you can move, or what conditions might negate it.) For example, what to do when all adjacent sz are blocked with enemy units?
- Well, simple….if you can retreat you have to fight till the end.
In that case you’d probably have to remove “blocking” during the non combat phase entirely? Or defender can only retreat (move forward?) into friendly sea zones?
- You retreat just after the combat in unoccupy sea zone or friendly sea zone.
Basically you need to create a situation where, the attacker doesn’t give the defender a movement advantage simply by attacking, or they at least need a way to hem the enemy in right?
- Well, same situation when the attacker retreat. If the attacker can move back why not the defender!
My concern would be that attaching this ability to the presence or absence of air, would provide further advantage to the attacker who has air, and further priviliedge air vs naval dynamic in the battle at sea.
- If attacker used airplanes, no retreat…that’s it that’s all….
There is some valid points which I bolded.
Attackers which no more continue an attack is called a retreat.
Based on an old Sub rules, defenders retreat should be called withdrawal.
So there will be retreat conditions and withdrawal conditions which are not exactly the same.
I have the impression that a good withdrawal rules should combined some ideas of Flashman with yours.
So there will be retreat conditions and withdrawal conditions which are not exactly the same.
yes but what kind of condition?
