Retreat before combat

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Retreat before combat

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Retreat before combat

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Retreat before combat - 6/15/2008 3:51:33 PM

rocketman71

Posts: 441
Joined: 2/20/2007
Status: offline

In my opinion one should get the option if you want to advance into the vacated hex by a unit retreating before combat. It is annoying sometimes when clicking on the unit to bring up the attack planner and suddently the unit retreats and you advance, and sometimes lose a part of your turn as well as advancing into a hex you might not want to be in. Any thoughts/comments?

Post #: 1

RE: Retreat before combat - 6/15/2008 6:03:03 PM

Karri

Posts: 1137
Joined: 5/24/2006
Status: offline

Well this can be bypassed fairly easily, just right click with arty/weak unit first. It doesn't cause you to lose a part of the turn though...

(in reply to rocketman71)

Post #: 2

RE: Retreat before combat - 6/16/2008 6:22:37 PM

Heldenkaiser

Posts: 58
Joined: 8/8/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rocketboy
... and sometimes lose a part of your turn ...

Does it really do that? I have never noticed. Under which circumstances?

(in reply to rocketman71)

Post #: 3

RE: Retreat before combat - 6/16/2008 8:16:50 PM

Veers

Posts: 1324
Joined: 6/6/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Heldenkaiser

quote:

ORIGINAL: rocketboy
... and sometimes lose a part of your turn ...

Does it really do that? I have never noticed. Under which circumstances?

As Karri says, it does not cause you to loose part of your turn.

_____________________________

To repeat history in a game is to be predictable.
If you wish to learn more about EA, feel free to pop over to the EA forums Europe Aflame Forums.

(in reply to Heldenkaiser)

Post #: 4

RE: Retreat before combat - 6/16/2008 11:49:15 PM

rocketman71

Posts: 441
Joined: 2/20/2007
Status: offline

I guess you can the way I describe it (I have frequently lost 2 stars at beginning of the turn, seems to depend on how many movement points your unit spends to advance into the vacated hex), but you don't the way Karri describes it.

(in reply to Veers)

Post #: 5

RE: Retreat before combat - 6/20/2008 5:15:13 AM

DeadInThrench

Posts: 318
Joined: 12/27/2006
From: NE Pennsylvania, USA
Status: offline

I believe the difference here is your whole army or just that one unit. In a retreat before combat, yeah, that one unit spends movement points and thus will take more stars (typically) if it then plans an attack. But, your whole army is not affected.... other attacks will still take the same number of stars they took before the retreat before combat.

DiT

(in reply to rocketman71)

Post #: 6

RE: Retreat before combat - 6/21/2008 9:15:54 PM

rhinobones

Posts: 1540
Joined: 2/17/2002
Status: offline

quote:

Well this can be bypassed fairly easily, just right click with arty/weak unit first. It doesn't cause you to lose a part of the turn though...

It�s nice that we have a work around, but the base problem is that during the movement and planning phase of the turn a unit can prematurely attack and move into a vacated hex before �End Turn� is activated. As stated above, this may not be the intention, or to the advantage, of the attacking unit. If a defending unit intends to withdraw prior to being attacked, fine, then there needs to be four defensive settings . . . Ignore Losses, Limit Losses, Minimize Losses and Retreat Before Combat. I am not particularly thankful that Norm can preempt the defensive posture that I select for my units. The game engine needs to be changed so that the �retreat before combat� occurs during the combat phase of the turn, not during the movement/planning phase.

Regards, RhinoBones

< Message edited by rhinobones -- 6/21/2008 9:27:32 PM >

(in reply to Karri)

Post #: 7

RE: Retreat before combat - 6/24/2008 6:31:13 PM

Karri

Posts: 1137
Joined: 5/24/2006
Status: offline

To my undrestanding RBC represents a situation where the unit simply canno't offer any resistance, thus not engaging in combat. Making it happen during combat would create a whole new line of problems. For example you can only advance one hex, whereas with the current system you can 'chase' the unit to the worlds end...so in theory with your proposal even units that canno't offer combat would in reality delay the enemy considerably WITHOUT taking casualties.

(in reply to rhinobones)

Post #: 8

RE: Retreat before combat - 6/25/2008 3:58:11 AM

rhinobones

Posts: 1540
Joined: 2/17/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri
To my undrestanding RBC represents a situation where the unit simply canno't offer any resistance, thus not engaging in combat. Making it happen during combat would create a whole new line of problems.

There is more to this story listed under the Comprehensive List thread. My real problem with RBC is that the unit receiving orders to attack automatically occupies the vacated enemy position. I have no big problem with a defending unit deciding to retreat before they are overrun by a vastly superior unit, but I have no desire to have Norm�s programming automatically push the attacking unit into a vacated hex. There are three major deficiencies in the current RBC model:

1. Automatically pushing a unit into a vacated enemy position is not a common military doctrine.
2. The enemy ZOC seems to be deactivated while this RBC and advancement is being played.
3. The player loses control over the movement, and timing of movement, of the unit due to automatic advancement.

quote:

. . . with the current system you can 'chase' the unit to the worlds end...

If you think that chasing a defending unit is a realistic model of warfare . . . well, you are welcome to that opinion.

quote:

...so in theory with your proposal even units that canno't offer combat would in reality delay the enemy considerably WITHOUT taking casualties.

First of all, if this same unit is set on Limit or Ignore Losses and is entrenched, it will probably put up a fight instead of automatically retreating.
Secondly, units performing an RBC usually do sustain a small percentage of causalities. You know this because after five or six RBCs the unit is Kaput.

In the beginning of this tread there is a work around offered where artillery is used to pin down the defending unit. After being pinned down the Attack Planner can be used to set up other units for the attack. When the attack is made, the defending unit backs away and the attackers occupy the hex if (and possibly it was a �Minimize� attack) they were ordered to occupy the hex. I suspect that you use this work around and are quite happy that it is available.

Most people seem to be satisfied with this work around. It prevents an inadvertent RBC and if desired, the attackers get to occupy the hex. For the most part I am also satisfied with this work around, however, it requires artillery and in many pre WW I scenarios artillery is not available. Besides, the work around does not address the base problem, it is not a true fix, but only a work around.

The final point is that your comment that my suggestion would in reality delay the enemy is exactly what the artillery work around does! My suggestion does not violate the principle of the work around . . . in fact I think it makes for a more realistic model without the need to employ a work around.

Regards, RhinoBones

(in reply to Karri)

Post #: 9

RE: Retreat before combat - 6/25/2008 5:21:58 PM

Curtis Lemay

Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones
1. Automatically pushing a unit into a vacated enemy position is not a common military doctrine.

The unit was following orders to attack the hex that the player issued to it, just as per military doctrine.

quote:

2. The enemy ZOC seems to be deactivated while this RBC and advancement is being played.

Just as it is in normal combat, for the good reason that the enemy attacker is closely engaged with a friendly defender. This is different from normal movement where the enemy unit is the only target in the ZOC.

quote:

3. The player loses control over the movement, and timing of movement, of the unit due to automatic advancement.

Unless he uses the readily available workaround.

quote:

The final point is that your comment that my suggestion would in reality delay the enemy is exactly what the artillery work around does! My suggestion does not violate the principle of the work around . . . in fact I think it makes for a more realistic model without the need to employ a work around.

On the contrary, the workaround is voluntary. Your suggestion would eliminate RBCs altogether. They are fundamentally necessary. Could they be improved? Yes. But eliminating them is not the answer.

(in reply to rhinobones)

Post #: 10

RE: Retreat before combat - 6/28/2008 4:47:02 PM

rhinobones

Posts: 1540
Joined: 2/17/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
The unit was following orders to attack the hex that the player issued to it, just as per military doctrine.

Actually the order to attack has not been issued. The attack happens when the �End Turn� button is pushed. RBC and unit movements happen during the planning stage of the turn.

So you are trying to tell us that it is doctrine that a unit takes it upon itself to automatically occupy previously controlled enemy territory during the planning stage of an attack. To complete this blunder, the unit will do this with out regard to the deployment of adjacent enemy units and without the support of friendly units. Of course you are just making this up . . . right? In the event you are not making this up, from which army did you get this doctrine?

quote:

Your suggestion would eliminate RBCs altogether.

Sounds like you either have not read the entire thread (here and on the Wish List), or you are intentionally misrepresenting my suggestion. The idea has evolved a bit, however, I am not proposing the elimination of RBC, only that the player has control over the movement of his unit.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 11

RE: Retreat before combat - 6/28/2008 5:18:54 PM

Curtis Lemay

Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
The unit was following orders to attack the hex that the player issued to it, just as per military doctrine.

Actually the order to attack has not been issued. The attack happens when the �End Turn� button is pushed.

Not in the case of overruns.

quote:

quote:

Your suggestion would eliminate RBCs altogether.

Sounds like you either have not read the entire thread (here and on the Wish List), or you are intentionally misrepresenting my suggestion. The idea has evolved a bit, however, I am not proposing the elimination of RBC, only that the player has control over the movement of his unit.

Here's your suggestion:

"The game engine needs to be changed so that the �retreat before combat� occurs during the combat phase of the turn, not during the movement/planning phase."

If you now agree that that would be a bad idea, then say so.

< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 6/28/2008 5:19:26 PM >

(in reply to rhinobones)

Post #: 12

RE: Retreat before combat - 6/28/2008 6:28:46 PM

Karri

Posts: 1137
Joined: 5/24/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

Actually the order to attack has not been issued.

Actually it has been issued...why else would you right click that enemy unit? IF it is your intention to conduct a limited attack, then that's what the workaround is for.

(in reply to rhinobones)

Post #: 13

RE: Retreat before combat - 6/28/2008 6:43:30 PM

rhinobones

Posts: 1540
Joined: 2/17/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri
Actually it has been issued...why else would you right click that enemy unit? IF it is your intention to conduct a limited attack, then that's what the workaround is for.

To bring up the Attack Planner screen. After planning the attack the order to conduct the attack is given by selecting the End Turn button. The current RBC takes this away from you.

Regards, RhinoBones

(in reply to Karri)

Post #: 14

RE: Retreat before combat - 6/28/2008 6:53:32 PM

rhinobones

Posts: 1540
Joined: 2/17/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Here's your suggestion . . .

You seem to be selective in the quotes you use. There is quite a bit more in the post you quoted that provides the reasoning behind the suggestion. You also neglected to quote post #8 that evolves and clarifies my original suggestion.

Regards, RhinoBones

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 15

RE: Retreat before combat - 6/28/2008 8:15:07 PM

Karri

Posts: 1137
Joined: 5/24/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri
Actually it has been issued...why else would you right click that enemy unit? IF it is your intention to conduct a limited attack, then that's what the workaround is for.

To bring up the Attack Planner screen. After planning the attack the order to conduct the attack is given by selecting the End Turn button. The current RBC takes this away from you.

Regards, RhinoBones

And in case you don't want to attack, why would you bring up the attack planner screen? And as said, if you don't want to attack and occupy then use the workaround.

(in reply to rhinobones)

Post #: 16

RE: Retreat before combat - 6/28/2008 8:59:16 PM

Curtis Lemay

Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones
You seem to be selective in the quotes you use. There is quite a bit more in the post you quoted that provides the reasoning behind the suggestion. You also neglected to quote post #8 that evolves and clarifies my original suggestion.

If you claim the suggestion was "misrepresented" then the only issue is what the suggestion was, not the reasoning behind it. If you had claimed I was misrepresenting the reasoning behind it, instead, then I would have quoted that part of the post.

Post #8 was Karri's. I assume you mean post #9. I don't see any revision to your suggestion in that post. Regardless, it's obvious that both Karri and I were responding to your original suggestion, not the mysterious revision to it you're now claiming. Let's just assume that that original suggestion is now a dead issue and move on.

(in reply to rhinobones)

Post #: 17

RE: Retreat before combat - 7/9/2008 2:07:04 PM

rolypoly

Posts: 105
Joined: 2/7/2007
Status: offline

im quite new to this game and have a hard time managing combat rounds�already, but how if I would want to occupy a single hex so that there would be several units occupying it from 2 different hexes connected to the hex with would cause this RBC? of course in a situation where there would be no artillery or weak units available to attack on that hex. (like barbarossa 1941 which has a lot of RBC.s at the start). if the units does RBC, the rest of my forces which�I would want to go over that hex�would cause movement penalty from moving next to enemy hex now would it? (it appears that unit suffers less movement penalty when attacked hex does RBC?) <-edit

or do I get this right...by all means correct if i have missed something or there is a way to do it.

I have had a hard time in barbarossa movement penalties and some of them has been due to the RBC, I just need to figure out a way to do it.

< Message edited by rolypoly -- 7/9/2008 2:08:16 PM >

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 18

RE: Retreat before combat - 7/10/2008 5:24:11 AM

sPzAbt653

Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline

'I have had a hard time in barbarossa movement penalties and some of them has been due to the RBC, I just need to figure out a way to do it. '

Excessive planning. I consider Rbc's an excellent bonus, not to be normally expected. But in a Barbarossa turn 1 situation, you need to plan for them. I assume that every attack will result in an Rbc, and think about what effect that will have on the local situation. The Rbc'er will be the only unit to enjoy the movement bonus (less penalty for movement into/thru the hex). It is best to plan for Rbc's, if you get any, only do one hex at a time, take time to rethink the situation, don't just run amuck chasing the Rbc'd unit. A combination of Rbc's and regular attacks on non-Rbc'd units can make a devastation of the enemy front. This can help in reducing the movement penalties by not trying to move thru one little hole in the line. Try to plan so that the Rbc's will channel other units retreated by normal attacks to where you want them.
Also, to reduce movement penalties, some scenarios have good helping 'traffic cop' units like mp's, HQ's, Todt brigades, etc. (they have 'Traffic Control' ability). They only reduce movement penalties due to stacking (not enemy zones of control), but this can help alot in moving large groups of units farther.
For managing combat rounds, it's most important to check the movement points of units that you use in an attack. If two attacking units have 10 mp's left, and one unit has 2 mp's left, that 2 mp unit will burn you. Leave the lower mp units out of combats. This goes for artillery and air units, also. Other things are involved, but then it gets complicated.

Cheers!

(in reply to rolypoly)

Post #: 19

RE: Retreat before combat - 7/17/2008 2:35:37 AM

wmorris

Posts: 46
Joined: 5/25/2008
Status: offline

I have a rhetorical question regarding this thread-

To what degree is the concern about RBC one about things that actually happen on the battlefield, and to what degree is it a desire for godlike control over units? I understand the concern over turn burn affecting the whole theater, but putting that aside for the moment, it seems to me that a little unpredictability is appropriate- given that in actual combat in certain historical contexts, units given directions would occasionally do nothing, go attack something else, or go the wrong way.

< Message edited by wmorris -- 7/17/2008 2:42:03 AM >

(in reply to rocketman71)

Post #: 20