Defenders being able to retreat?

I think this entire HR idea becomes a mute point if units can’t return fire if retreating.

In real life, tactical withdrawals performing retrograde set-up rear-guard ambushes on the tactical scale or momentary defensive strong points at the operational level.

A person can also stop, shoulder his rifle and fire.

Good debate on this house rule. I’d accept the HR for the defender being able to retreat if he couldn’t fire back and had to declare it before hand. However, again, I don’t think this HR really changes anything enough to make a new way to play.  Â

The defender does get a return shot.

Defender
3 inf roll a 2,7,12  Thats 1 hit and 2 misses. Now 1 inf has to retreat. You use the die roll for a defense roll and at the same time use it for the retreat roll.

My 2 cents on this as we have discussed it but never tried yet.
Attacker rolls attack rolls,
Using a D6 as currently prescribed maybe any 6’s rolled by the attacker allow the defender to withdraw an equivalent number of units of his/her choice? This would represent a lack of unit readiness. Sort of like your infantry/artillery wet their pants at the moment of truth or your mechs/tanks/planes broke down. In naval situations this could be a dud shell or dud torpedo.

Defender fires defense and makes withdrawals until they are dead or fully retreat.

Thoughts or ideas… or just poop can be slung at this.

I"m looking at it more of a if attack has a couple auto retreats do to rolling a 12 then attacker has to decide if he’s going to retreat. The defender would not have the option of retreating. His pieces would only get to retreat if he rolls any 12’s.
Granted the defender will wish he rolled 12’s to save his troops in some battles.

But want the rule to stay in place of defender can’t retreat if he decides too.
Still give the attacker some power from attacking.
Defender looks at it 2 ways. Some auto retreats will help block for next turn, reinforce another stack or attacker has to retreat do to to many auto retreats from his die rolls and defender wins the battle.

Lets say attacking or defending 3 inf roll 3 D6’s and 3 D12’s for retreat. Rolls for D6 die rolls are 1,3,6 = 1 hit 2 misses.  Rolls for D12 die rolls are 4,11,12 = 1 inf has to retreat.

Roll all 6 die at same time.
Ground troops can retreat to off shore transports next to territory. If no place for defenders to retreat to, they fight to the death.

Have not tried the auto retreats with Naval units yet.

Just to add a few comments to this discussion.  In real life, what armies can and cannot do when they’re retreating is dictated by some of the general principles that govern ground warfare.  (I’m leaving sea warfare and air warfare out of the picture for purposes of clarity.)

First: there’s the principle that an army can only fight to its front.  Armies fight most effectively when the operate as a coordinated group, not as a bunch of individuals acting as they each see fit.  From ancient times to (roughly) the era of short-range, unrifled, muzzle-loading firearms, this meant soldiers from one side disposing themselves in long lines facing towards the enemy troops, who were likewise disposed in long lines facing them.  The two relevant points here is that the soldiers on each side are all doing the same thing (because as I’ve said armies function best as a coordinated group), and that they’re all facing the opposing forces (because soldiers, regardless of how they’re armed, can only use their weapon against people who are in front of them, which is why a military front is called a “front”).  Things became more complicated when long-range rifled firearms arrived on the scene around the middle of the 19th century, and became even more complicated when the rate of fire of rifles became faster as breachloaders and then machine guns were developed.  Those developments made massed infantry formations dangerously obsolete in many tactical situations – a point which WWI generals were surprisingly slow to grasp – but they didn’t alter the fact that the “front” concept was still applicable in land warfare.  In WWII, the sheet size of the armies involved and the fact that some of them were mechanized to various degrees meant that “fronts” went from being tactical in scale to being strategic in scale.  The classic example from WWII was the German-Russian conflict during the period from 1941 to roughly 1944: the zone of conflict was more or less linear, it stretched from northern to southern Europe, so it was quite appropriately called “the Eastern Front”.

Second: there’s the principle that defense tends to be stronger than attack because an attacking infantryman must (to put it simply) stand up and more into the open and expose himself to enemy fire in order to advance, whereas the defending infantryman can stay in his foxhole or crouch behind something or even lie on the ground while he’s pointing his weapon at the attackers.  The attacker, in other words, is a physically larger target than the defender in terms of how much of his body is exposed to flying bullets, which is why there’s a rough rule of thumb saying that an attacker typically needs three times the numbers of the defender in order to take a position.

What does all this have to do with retreats?  Because it all means that, generally speaking, an army can either fight or retreat but it can’t do both at the same time.  At least not as a unified formation.  The compromise method of having it both ways at the same time is for an army to divide itself into a covering force and a retreating force; this works to some extent, because it allows part of your army to escape, but the price to be paid is that the covering force will usually be annihilated.  A good example is the Falaise campaign in France in 1944, in which the Germans were compressed into a pocket by the British to the north and the Americans to the west and to the south.  The Germans formed a defensive perimeter and fought desperately to keep open the “Falaise gap” through which part of their army was trying to escape, while the Anglo-Americans were fighting just as desperately to link up in order to seal the gap – which they ultimately did, trapping and/or destroying the German forces that were still inside the pocket.

So your kinda saying to scrap the whole idea ? There is lack of supplies, moral, leadership and so forth to this idea for certain pieces needing to retreat.

I’m saying that the only realistic way I see of allowing an A&A ground force to retreat would be to split it into two groups, one of which – the covering force – would automatically face 100% destruction 100% of the time.  The retreating force would be allowed to retreat, with two automatic guarantees: that parts of it would be guaranteed to succeed and that parts of it would be guaranteed to be destroyed, based on some sort of dice roll.  Just to make up some figures off the top of my head, the odds could be that 25% of the force would be sure to escape, 25% would be sure to be destroyed, and the remaining 50% would randomly have a result ranging from complete success to complete failure – perhaps with the odds being plotted on a normal distribution that would be weighted towards the centre, so that most of the time rouyghly half of the 50% would escape and roughly half the 50% would not.

I was responding to Piscolar who said that the defender has to declare before hand, and then retreat without returning fire that round. My point was ok, but then it would make this whole HR rule idea a mute point. It would be rare for someone to take lots of hits and retreat without killing anything back.

I think any HR changes need to be simple and straight forward not complicated.
I propose:

1. Defender has to complete a minimum of 2 full rounds of combat. Then retreat or decide to stay another combat round. Not complicated stuff like (if an infantry rolls a 3 it can do this or only these types of units can retreat).
2. No partial retreats, all or nothing except 1 unit must remain behind to represent the rear guard action.
3. Territory retreated to must be owned by a friendly nation.
3. Retreat by sea zone to one space and land is an option also (no enemy warships present in loading/landing zones).

I think this would change the game dynamics enough to add a different fun interest without too much complications.

CWO Marc, I’m not sure your point on the Falaise gap where the defeated Germany Army tried to stop a superior Army from trapping them. In 1941, Germany trapped many Russian Armies who desperately tried to escape a trap.

In theory, Armies can retreat systematically, by moving back at night or a lull in the fighting, setting up a rear guard defense, fighting a little bit, and then retreating again during another lull in the fighting. Mobile defense was pretty common in WW2. I see this explanation as similar to the game of the defender rolling hits back representing a hasty or deliberate defense and then performing more retrograde operations. Remember, this is all representational.

Fun debate over a HR I probably will never see on a real table top game.

Ya I hear ya on what your saying. Also thought of having to have so many rounds of combat before retreats start or auto retreat only used on first round of combat.

Nice discussion. Later.

I like my mechanism best. Attacker rolls a six that many defenders can retreat. They fire and casualties are counted for the attacker hits and defender hits. Defender can now retreat for each 6. Attacker can always retreat as usual. This continues until attacker wins or withdraws so the defender may have to stay in order to stop them or face even more people while they run.

We found this to be very simple. We have argued that this would be fun but no one has the nuts to try it in our group because you would have to completely rethink the whole battle plan.

I have NEVER thought about this, but I fking love the idea!! You got my gears turning! Ill give my 2cent after some thought. Again, dude, I fking love it!

Ichabod, I agree with you. In fact, prior to seeing your post I thought about the idea a bit more on a walk today and realized it either a) would never be used considering the strictness of the stipuations and b) Without the stipulations I didn’t like how it would affect gameplay. Imagine you’re trying to take out a fleet of transports or a battleship… they get away and you have to pursue them later, the latter one getting repaired? Ok, so units that can’t defend can’t escape… but now you’re getting complicated. Truth is so much of what makes an attack matter is timing, and there is an opportunity cost of an attacker not being able to utilize his units fully that turn. Next turn he may need that those fighters or those tanks for another target; not being able to resolve battles bogs down the game.

SeanCb’s idea is cleanest imo and has the potential to introduce the most fun dynamics with the least amount of complication. But still think I’m going to take this one off table (literally - ha).

Plus, as some of you have seen - I’m already overdoing it as it is. Feels good to say “no.”  8-)

@seancb:

I like my mechanism best. Attacker rolls a six that many defenders can retreat. They fire and casualties are counted for the attacker hits and defender hits. Defender can now retreat for each 6. Attacker can always retreat as usual. This continues until attacker wins or withdraws so the defender may have to stay in order to stop them or face even more people while they run.

When attacker rolls a six is this roll just a separate die roll ? Defender can now retreat for each six. Are these rolls of sixes part of there Attackers attack roll ?

part of the attackers roll. There is no separate roll.
Example
attacker has force of 2 ftrs 2 tanks 2 arty and 2 inf.
Defender has force of 5 infantry

Attacker
4 x D3 result is 1,3,2,6
4 x D2 with combined arms in this case result is 3,5,6,1

Defender
5 x 2 result is 1,6,4,2,3

Defender assesses the 3 hits from attacker first. Attacker rolled 2 (6’s) so the remaining infantry that lived have option to retreat one space or continue to fight.

Defender opts to retreat the 2 remaining units.

Attacker assesses 2 hits on infantry and wins the battle.

This is how we envisioned a retreat mechanism would work.

I gave this some serious thought, even though I really love the idea, I feel it will make this very long game even longer. Prolonging attacks, chasing around, etc. You, as the defender should already see the writing on the wall, and should had moved your units already on your non combat. The attacker shouldn’t be penalized if the defender forgot to move them, or didn’t see the attack.

Good luck with this rule, like I said I really do like the idea, just for me I don’t want to increase game time.

A successful defenders retreat, that is half a victory. The attacker has wasted a lot of resources and time to set up the decisive battle that would catch and crush the enemy, yet they are deprived of the glory and have even lost the initiative to the defender. But, and I cant stress this enough, the quintessence of a successful defenders retreat is to move your men and gear out of the mice trap before the attacker start the attack. If you wait too long it turn into defenders panic escape with huge casualties and loss of gear.

The way I see it is like, lets say Germany move a huge stack into Poland, and Russia have a stack in Eastern Poland, and it is obvious that Germany want to attack the Russian stack in next turn, then a successful defenders retreat will be if Russia non/combat move their stack into Belorussia in their turn, and leave a lone inf as blocker in Eastern Poland. This is already covered by the OOB rules. What you dudes want is the option to let Germany attack that Russian stack for a few rounds, and then suddenly the surviving Russians escape to an adjacent territory. It is extremely difficult for the defender to support and supply this kind of escape, usually all heavy equipment are lost. To keep it A&A style simple too is even more difficult, without getting too gamey where one step infantry can double move both in own and opponents turns. I figure the best is to just let it be. If the Russian inf stack can retreat back to Belo when Germany attack them, and then non combat move again in the Russian turn, that is not a punishment, its a gamey reward.

Naval battles on the other hand, should be treated different than land battles. Naval war is true maneuver warfare with all mobile units. Nothing would stop a defending ship from sailing away. But then it would not be A&A any more.

When it comes to attacker can retreat, I would change even that. If your assault get bugged down in the mud, your Tanks are out of gas and your men exhausted, its not like this units suddenly retreat to another territory just like a piece of cake,. man. In this case we should use the A&A 1914 rules with contested territories. The attacker in a land battle should never be able to retreat to another territory, but he could press to stop the attack and just contest the territory. Then the defender get the option to combat move out of that contested territory in his turn. The rule of thumb should IMHO be that you can only move your units during your turn. During other players turns your units are pretty much stuck. No more duble dipping.

But, like I said, naval warfare should be threatened different from land warfare, but that’s another topic

After reviews scrapping the idea.

IL you have any thoughts ?

@Ichabod:

Retreat by transport makes me think of the British and Common Wealth forces evacuating from Dunkirk…then evacuating from Norway, then more training by evacuating from Greece to Crete…followed by one more evacuation from Crete to Egypt. No Army at that point in time had that kind of expertise on how to retreat from port or the shore line.

I would like to comment this, man.

Defenders retreat from Dunkirk by sea. How was it possible ? In the real war Hitler suddenly, and surprisingly, pressed a stop to the German attack, because Goering wanted to take a shot at the Brits with his Luftwaffe. Now the Brits got a break and choose to embark their men on boats and sail home. In a game of A&A it would be like Germany attack the British stack in Belgium for a few rounds of combat, then suddenly press to stop the combat and contest the territory as with the 1914 rules. Playing by G40 rules the Germans would have to retreat back to Western Germany. Now on the UK turn, the surviving units jump on a tranny and move back to UK. Simple as that. No special rules.

The UK retreat from Narvik was not a defenders retreat. UK made a Dieppe raid on Narvik. First UK battleships shore bombarded Narvik, the naval battle where the German fleet got sunk was the turn before, then UK infantry made an amphibious assault on Narvik and killed a lot of Germans. Luckily a German unit survived, letting UK press for an attackers retreat and sail the men home to UK. Now if all German units were killed, then UK would have been stuck in Narvik, even in the real world. Sadly, and most historically not correct, the OOB rules dont allow attackers retreat after an amphibious assault, even if it was in fact done in the real war. This is because the game designer dont got enough knowledge of the real war, and maybe a bit for playability too.

Well most of the violations of historical example in AnA is usually done due to balance rather than history. I personally like the idea I had where defense can retreat after the attacker attacks.

Narvik,

I don’t understand your comment, “Defenders retreat from Dunkirk by sea. How was it possible?” Well, it was possible because it did happen. And the UK did retreat by sea several times in the early part of the war as Germany repeatedly booted UK led forces from the continent over and over. As noted in the other historical instances as written in my post…Norway (UK), Greece (UK and Commonwealth), and lastly Crete (mostly Commonwealth forces). I don’t think you read my post in entirety. I demonstrated several examples of retreating by sea in history to show (if adopting my HR suggestion) that there could be an argument made for this board game HR to permit defenders retreating by sea.

There were several more factors that permitted the miracle of Dunkirk. More source documents now available show it’s not just the Hitler decided to let the British live and it was Goering’s turn narrative. That was partly to play for the halt in German attacks. There was a national effort to evacuate the Royal Army with every boat and ship available. Also, many of the German tanks were spent from mechanical breakdowns after several weeks of non-stop operation. The German High Command didn’t want to take too many risks as their success was way beyond their expectations. Tanks breakdown…and the ability to repair them, replace complete engines…ect. is an important logistics requirements of a modern Army. Germany was good at this…but the turn around was probably not fast enough to maintain the Operational Readiness Rate (OR %) that would make the High Command feel comfortable. Â

Source Documents for Dunkirk:

1: � West Point US Military Academy Text Book series for WW2 history classes located at Amazon for public sale: �

https://www.amazon.com/Second-World-War-Mediterrean-Military/dp/0757001610/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1481308984&sr=1-3&keywords=the+west+point+history+of+world+war+ii

2: � Dr. Robert Citino’s…current US leading professor for studies on German Operations. Professor at NW Texas Univ. and frequent guest speaker at the Army War College at Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/death-of-the-wehrmacht-robert-m-citino/1117654815?ean=9780700617913

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-german-way-of-war-robert-m-citino/1112140764?ean=9780700616244