@Navalland said in Artillery to defend at 3?:
Just trying to figure out the most balanced unit set up and wondering if +1 defense to artillery would be good idea. Probably better to leave it as it is right now.
Ya I would for now.
Is there room for a defender retreat option?
-
I’m not sure if this has been brought up before, but it’s an idea that I though might be an option for some players that have their own house rules.
During the first round of combat a defender, if they suffer more losses in number of units than the attacker, or perhaps one-third of their stack or more in number of units, they would have the option of retreating. This would be for combat on land only. Perhaps the cost of defenders withdrawing would be one additional combat unit (Infantry, for example).
The attackers would then have the option of moving as many or as few units(at least one) into the captured territory, including air units(since the territory would have sustained less damage than in an all-out battle).
The defender would not be allowed to retreat into a territory under attack, or one that has just successfully defended an attack (since they are happening during the same turn).
This would work on stacks of three or more units, since if you lose one out of three infantry and have to give up one more by retreating, this would leave one Inf to retreat.
Would this slow the game down too much and create stalemates for large stacks? I imagine it would(slow down the game) when playing by forum.
Just a thought -
Cheers! -
Would this slow the game down too much and create stalemates for large stacks? I imagine it would(slow down the game) when playing by forum.
yes it does slow down play-by-forum
in my opinion defender retreat is important
it get rid of another kind of stalemate with meaningless unit trading in border dead zonesI also think relaxed attacker retreat is important
its sad to perform too well in the unit trading and had to give up your game you know -
The defender would not be allowed to retreat into a territory under attack, or one that has just successfully defended an attack (since they are happening during the same turn).
This has to be modified, otherwise the attacker can send just one unit into potential withdrawal areas to cut off retreat.
Either:
a) You can never attack an area with less than 1/2 the total units of the defender (exceptions must be made for SBR etc);
or
b) The defender gets to choose the order in which combats are fought, thus clearing a path for retreats.
c) Combats in which the attacker has fewer units are defined as skirmishes and automatically fought out before major battles. -
its not that bad right?
defender couldn’t retreat at all in OOB, the house rule gives them some abilityI do think you are getting onto something with c) though
its like not as hard as resolving all combats simultaneous but somewhat achieves the goal -
I think this is a good idea. Beacause in real war it was generally the defender that retreated. Not the attacker. (Most of the time)
-
definatly! It makes no sence why one side has to take it. I think the OOB rule is a carryover from Risk. Its just assumed because the results of not allowing the choice of full retreat are borrowed from the impression of other games. I maintain it should evolve to allow for more flexibility and creative choices.
There are many ways to do it if you need a list i can provide, but what it does do is cut down on dice rolling because combat does not got for multi rounds if one side rolls up and the other rolls down, but thats a good thing because the game is less decided by dice.
Also to allow Defender retreat you have to also add the collection sequence at some point before combat occurs rather than after. I have played countless games of all types with both options and they work very well together.
-
I think this is a good idea. Beacause in real war it was generally the defender that retreated. Not the attacker. (Most of the time)
I definatly agree on this. Of course both attacker and defender must be able to retreat. And since a turn is 6 months, the out-of-box rule is even weirder. I guess its a carryover from Risk. That figures. Larry played too much Risk when he was a teen, and borrowed some bad impressions from that retarded and very, very lame game.
So the rules should say, that after first round of combat, the attacker may retreat, or the defender may retreat, or the battle may continue. Easy as that. Of course the defender must retreat to a territory that is friendly, just like a plane after combat must land in a friendly space. If this territory was attacked, but remained friendly, then the defender may retreat there, as long as the combat is resolved. But the defender may not retreat to a friendly territory that are going to be attacked.
Its two ways to solve this issue. The attacker choose the orders of attacks, and may of course attack the defender’s potential redraw areas, just to denie any retreats. This is a common strategy in real world too. To let the defender choose the orders of attacks, just to denie this strategy, is insane and pure bedlam.
The other solution is to use the rule that keep aircrafts in air until all battles are resolved, and then land them in the proper spaces. Then the defender could stop a combat, and make the retreat-move after all combats was resolved.
-
So the rules should say, that after first round of combat, the attacker may retreat, or the defender may retreat, or the battle may continue. Easy as that. Of course the defender must retreat to a territory that is friendly, just like a plane after combat must land in a friendly space. If this territory was attacked, but remained friendly, then the defender may retreat there, as long as the combat is resolved. But the defender may not retreat to a friendly territory that are going to be attacked.
While it intrinsically makes sense, it would severely alter the game balance, I suspect. I think this would make Tanks very overpowered, especially for Germany. Germany can capture a place like Karelia or Caucasus with something like 6 Tanks and an Infantry surviving When the Russians attack, after getting one measly round, the remaining Tanks retreat to safety in Finland/Baltic States or Ukraine. All the Germans really need is to secure a path to Moscow, beyond that, they can retreat freely. As for Russia, once Moscow is attacked, retreating won’t help them as much.
On the other hand, Russia can use this to evacuate their surviving Infantry from Baltic States/East Poland/Ukraine.
Here are some limitations I’d suggest
1. Retreating ground units are considered to be routed. They may not move during their controllers next turn. This keeps a player from simply retreating their units, then counterattacking with even more units, probably resulting in the other player also retreating and so on.
2. Even after sea units retreat, attackers may pursue them. One more round is fought, and only the attacker participates, but their units receive -1 to their rolls. -
This keeps a player from simply retreating their units, then counterattacking with even more units, probably resulting in the other player also retreating and so on.
This is how it actually is in the real world. When the enemy attack your stretched out defence, then they must retreat or get killed. Hitler and Stalin did not allow retreats, so their men got killed. But the more rational generals would allow for tactical retreat, and later they would counter-attack with more units, of course, resulting in the enemy retreating, and later counter-attacking. This is basically how it is. Do you prefer strafe-attacks or this eternal trading of territories ? You do know you can strafe attack an enemy stack, just to annihilate them. But then the enemy may counter-strafeattack your stack, and so on and so forth. Or if the enemy have one man in a dead-zone, you could attack him with one man and a fighter, just to collect the IPC income. But then again, the enemy just may counter-trade your man, with an enemy man and fighter, and then we have it going, back and forth.
As a commander, I want options. I dont need a rule that say I cant retreat. WTF, why can I not retreat ? Am I in charge of my military forces, or are the game scriptet ? No sir, I dont need any lame scriptet game, I want to retreat, I want to strafe, I want to trade back and forth, and once in a blue moon I wanna denie my men to retreat. My men can be sittin’ ducks, but only when I say so, not because the game designer think this importent decision is his call. Cause its freekin NOT.
-
“defender fight to death” makes better sense in hex level variants
where turns represent a shorter periodin this case only one cycle of combat occurs
neither side retreatssimply one move phase, one fight phase per turn
Suggested Topics
