Rout Across Sea

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Rout Across Sea

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Tech Support >> Rout Across Sea

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Rout Across Sea - 9/2/2011 2:40:43 PM

buffcoat

Posts: 10
Joined: 4/13/2007
Status: offline

Hi,

My Finns just eliminated the Soviet pocket on the south coast and one of the units routed across the open water onto the north coast of the baltic states.

This strikes me as somewhat unlikely. Is this a result that is regarded as possible or is it a bug?

Thanks

Best computer game I have yet purchased . My wife hates you and thinks I am addicted

Post #: 1

RE: Rout Across Sea - 9/2/2011 3:31:52 PM

marty_01

Posts: 288
Joined: 2/10/2011
Status: offline

I've had the same occur to me but on the other side of the map. I had Soviet unit trapped in a pocket against the sea of Azov near but west of Rostov. Some six divisions routed across the Sea of Azov to the opposite coastline.

I think - but will confirm with my opponent -- that these formations succeeded in carrying away a fair percentage of their organic heavy equipment.

I'm all for a Russia Front Dunkirk rule and all -- ala the sea evacuation of Talin in 1941. But I'm thinking this should perhaps be limited to units that "retreat in good order" rather than "route". Or if unit are allowed to route across a major body of water, than the units should loose just about all of their heavy equipment and suffer an additional route attrition hit in personnel. Just sayin'

< Message edited by marty_01 -- 9/2/2011 3:34:30 PM >

(in reply to buffcoat)

Post #: 2

RE: Rout Across Sea - 9/2/2011 6:58:01 PM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

Yes, ideally there would be something checking paths over water that didn't have sufficient port capacity. Something for the suggestion list as it's not technically a bug. I can't argue with you that this type of routing could be improved.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to marty_01)

Post #: 3

RE: Rout Across Sea - 9/3/2011 3:27:14 PM

marty_01

Posts: 288
Joined: 2/10/2011
Status: offline

Okie-Dokie...thanks. Its always easier to bitch about such things than to invoke new code to deal with such subtleties. But i also think its important to post our bitches.

I also forgot to mention the sea evacuation of Odessa in 1941. Perhaps not Hungnam in terms of orchestration, but again Odessa ala Talinn appear to have been well planed and executed evacuations rather than a route retreat that finds itself trapped by a major body of water.

(in reply to Joel Billings)

Post #: 4

RE: Rout Across Sea - 9/3/2011 3:32:26 PM

mmarquo

Posts: 1376
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline

OTOH...the unit is in a large port with much sea evacuation potentional...there is a full week of time to marshal ships to evacuate with...they may already be in the port...what is wrong with the defenders "routing" onto waiting ships to take them away; this is just a pecularlity of the IGOUGO system.

Marquo

(in reply to marty_01)

Post #: 5

RE: Rout Across Sea - 9/3/2011 7:13:29 PM

marty_01

Posts: 288
Joined: 2/10/2011
Status: offline

The in-game examples I am referring to have no port facility involved. The units are routing across open bodies of water from encircled positions. Conversely the historical examples I have refered to are examples of well ordered sea evacuations conducted during the war in Russia - aside of course from Hungnam.

Of course such operations are relatively complex, requiring a huge amount of well coordinated work between both naval and army staffs even for military systems that are at the top of their form in terms of naval and amphibious operations.

(in reply to mmarquo)

Post #: 6