How come the defender did not withdraw?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

How come the defender did not withdraw?

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] >> Combat Command Series >> How come the defender did not withdraw?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

How come the defender did not withdraw? - 5/24/2011 12:48:20 PM

Fred98

Posts: 4430
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline

I am playing the German side against a US AI opponent.

The Germans have just completed their Assault phase.

You can see from the screenshot that the US unit should have withdrawn. The unit began the scenario in a level 2 fort.

How come the unit did not withdraw?
-

Post #: 1

RE: How come the defender did not withdraw? - 5/24/2011 3:16:33 PM

PirateJock

Posts: 465
Joined: 9/14/2006
From: North West, UK
Status: offline

Is it because the game's still in the Direct Fire phase? The Withdraw/Advance phase hasn't started yet.

Cheers

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 2

RE: How come the defender did not withdraw? - 5/24/2011 10:48:12 PM

Fred98

Posts: 4430
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline

Page 38 Combat Sequence.

During the Assault Phase, Defender retreats then the Attacker advances.

But sometimes the defender does not retreat. I have seen this a few times.

-

(in reply to PirateJock)

Post #: 3

RE: How come the defender did not withdraw? - 5/25/2011 12:33:08 AM

Budas

Posts: 9
Joined: 4/28/2011
Status: offline

I've noticed this too. There is further reference later in the manual on withdrawal. It states that if a unit cannot withdraw due to the presence of EZOCs or enemy units it takes a withdrawal check, assumes a defensive posture and remains in place.

I assume this applies in the case illustrated. The presence of substantial Axis forces has caused your unit to take a check and disruption is increased leaving it in a precarious position for the next turn.

I suppose the rationale behind it is that it is very difficult to extricate troops successfully from the front line when faced with a large body of the enemy.

This issue could benefit from further explanation I think.

Bud

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 4

RE: How come the defender did not withdraw? - 6/1/2011 4:44:46 AM

Obsolete

Posts: 1492
Joined: 9/4/2007
Status: offline

Often a unit fails to withdraw because it fails its withdraw checks.

Also remember, if a unit finds itself not in an E-ZoC after a battle, it doesn't have to withdraw anymore. So technically, you could have an enemy unit right next to your hex, but your own unit doesn't have to withdraw if you knocked him down to say... a level 4 disruption (units that badly disorganized have no ZoC). Anyhow, I'm very tired right now, but that's at least how I remember it right now.

_____________________________

King-Tigers don't let Tiger-I's get over-run.

(in reply to Budas)

Post #: 5

RE: How come the defender did not withdraw? - 6/1/2011 5:28:50 AM

Fred98

Posts: 4430
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Obsolete
........a level 4 disruption (units that badly disorganized have no ZoC).

This must be the answer! The attacker reached a disruption level of 3 or 4. Such a unit exerts no ZOC so the defender will not withdraw!

-

(in reply to Obsolete)

Post #: 6

RE: How come the defender did not withdraw? - 6/1/2011 4:00:34 PM

Obsolete

Posts: 1492
Joined: 9/4/2007
Status: offline

I've played so many similar games that sometimes it's hard to tell one rule-set from another. So I could be wrong, but I THINK a unit at level 3-disruption also may exert no ZoC. Or was that just the cut-off for force d withdrawls, or both. ARggg... I'll have to re-check on all that when I get back again.

_____________________________

King-Tigers don't let Tiger-I's get over-run.

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 7