Defender Retreat, Naval Combat, Extra Move
Yeah thats often the main argument against having Defender Retreat at all. The idea of attacker deciding retreat is interesting. In fact the nature of naval combat is different to land combat, such that I think the player that remains (whether attack or defender) should have this ability.
I’m glad you can see my point as to how that can be realistic. I think that you are right that it’s better if we have the defender choose where the attaker can retreat. For example, in the old rules, Germany could attack Karelia with a large force from Eastern Europe and a small backtracking force Archangel. If combat wasn’t resolved by the frist round, then Germany could retreat everyone to Archangel and thus gaining an extra move (move 2 not 1) for all those units in Eastern Europe to get to Archangel in one move. If the defender (Russia in the example) picks where the attacker (Germany) could retreat then Germany wouldn’t be able to do this unrealistic maneuver. I think this would be a good change.
So if its a USSR NA it would have to be standard. Like Germany’s Biltzreig NA.
But when people don’t play with NA we could have a problem.
Why can’t NAs be thought of as more standard? I know we initially thought of them as non-standard, but why can’t we challenge that idea? I think people would like it because it’s shows a history lesson… what would have happened in WWII if there were or weren’t a Russian Winter? People can see for themselves by either using or not using this NA.
in the old rules, Germany could attack Karelia with a large force…
No I am referring to naval combat where remaining force can prevent retreating forces from retreating to certain spaces.
For land combat individual attacking units can only retreat the direction they came from. Movement on land is not as fluid.
Why can’t NAs be thought of as more standard?
Actually, for realism I’ve always thought NAs should be standard and ALL NAs should be active no picking.
But for that we really need to cut down on NAs per nation.
But by “standard” in my previous message I meant like how German Blitzreig should be a standard NA, no “NA points” used for picking that NA.
So will players have to write down how many attacking units are coming from which territory in case they decide to retreat? How else will the attacker remember how many units came from which territories?
I hope its easy to remember.
Attacks will be conducted by leaving the attacking units in their original territories and moving them in only if the defender has lost. Their is no physical need to “push” the plastic in … its not no limit poker
hehe sometimes leaving units on the game board can be confusing too
oh well, if its a problem write it down I guess
This “retreat to spaces with unresolved combat” is problematic.
This is for both land and naval combat.
I start to consider theduke’s “just die” solution.
Or maybe new combat occurs.
This “retreat to spaces with unresolved combat” is problematic.
This is for both land and naval combat.
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.
If pieces remain in combat territories from where they came from and the defender cant retreat because all possible retreats are blocked by various combats, then they should be forced to fight to the death, or held in limbo until all other combats are resolved and only then can retreat or face additional combats.
example: Soviets trapped due to blocked retreat. 1) resolve other combats and retreats first 2) if still no retreat is possible then its a fight to the death.
Thats simple and realistic. This can work for both land and naval.
Naval retreats: must be among the closest route toward your home nation in terms of spaces available.
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
