We have renewed discussions about Naval Combat Retreats in the phase 2 draft release thread.
*Sea zone is large and movement fluid
(don’t want to restrict to “where you came from”)
*casual hopping-over enemy
(don’t what them to hop-over and launch amphibious assault or attack weaker fleets later)
*Remaiining force should have say
(how many directions can you prevent retreats from retreating to? the way attacker came from? relative unit numbers involved ?)
*Number of cycles
(the further into combat, the less “where you came from” affects where you can retreat to or preventing retreat to)
++++++++++ ok to defeat the entire gambit of problems we could do this:
when you retreat you “remain” in the same zone as the engaged enemy. Combat is over. On the other players turn he can either reattack or move into another new sz.
problems solved.
Thats a big change. (And if anything I think you would be able to retreat into hostile sea zone too.)
We need to analyse it first. It may not be realistic.
How can you remain the sea zone if enemy wants to drive you out?
How can you break off and escape later if enemy attacks from multiple sides?
How about
You can always retreat to adjacent sea zone with friendly units.
You may choose to retreat to adjacent unoccupied sea zone.
Remaining force can block retreat to one unoccupied sea zone.
You can’t retreat to adjacent hostile sea zone.
To be prefect
All combats are carried out cycle by cycle, to handle retreats to unresolved combat zones.
But this may not be welcomed.
I start to look towards theduke’s idea of letting you retreat to unresolved combat zones and just die if it doesn’t work out…
Another idea about “Break off”.
Surface ships can choose to “break off” and remain in the sea zone.
Enemy may then choose to also “break off” or press-on.
If you choose to “retreat” out of the sea zone then they can’t chase you.
Also I am still thinking remaing force can block retreat to one direction. You declare which direction when you declare press-on or remain.
Another idea for both land and naval combat
You should be allowed to retreat even if enemy “break off” or “retreat”.
Duno why there was this restriction in the first place.
I mean nothing stops you from retreating even if enemy retreats. You might think its a trap. You might think its not a strategic location to leave your troops.
Another idea about “Break off”.
Surface ships can choose to “break off” and remain in the sea zone.
Enemy may then choose to also “break off” or press-on.
If you choose to “retreat” out of the sea zone then they can’t chase you.
++++ omg you are really on to something here… this is great stuff…yes yes great! this adds an important element in naval combat. Is that the entire rule?
Also I am still thinking remaing force can block retreat to one direction. You declare which direction when you declare press-on or remain.
Another idea for both land and naval combat
You should be allowed to retreat even if enemy “break off” or “retreat”.
Duno why there was this restriction in the first place.
I mean nothing stops you from retreating even if enemy retreats. You might think its a trap. You might think its not a strategic location to leave your troops.
++++ this works for land combat better. But its kinda self defeating in a way. An army attacks say moscow, then the defender leaves… and then the attacker also leaves and does not take the object of the attack out of “fear”… then why do they attack in the first place? now we are saying “Im too scared to take the prize! but not to scared to risk losing to take it?”
This makes little sence on a strategic setting… Thats why the game needs SR ( strategic redeployment) a limited number of moves where units can be moved into and out of position to balance the battleline.
@Imperious:
++++ omg you are really on to something here… this is great stuff…yes yes great! this adds an important element in naval combat. Is that the entire rule?
Yeah thats all.
You add this break off and chase thing to naval combat.
This makes little sence on a strategic setting… Thats why the game needs SR ( strategic redeployment) a limited number of moves where units can be moved into and out of position to balance the battleline.
Actually, remember partial retreat is allowed.
So this actually has SR (strategic redeployment) elements in it.
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?
