7.5.2.10.3 Retreat After Losing A 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

7.5.2.10.3 Retreat After Losing A Combat

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] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> 7.5.2.10.3 Retreat After Losing A Combat

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

7.5.2.10.3 Retreat After Losing A Combat - 10/30/2003 4:05:49 AM

Camile Desmoulins

Posts: 115
Joined: 9/15/2003
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: offline

I would like to propose a reflection on the retreats, as withdraw previous to the combat or as a result of combat. The position of retreats of the game has two specially delicate aspects:

1. - The huge possibilities of retreat of certain generals, such as Napoleon, Wellington or FedericK the Great (1740 and 1756 scenarios). The rules allow these generals to withdraw with an extraordinary easiness: it is only possible to defeat them with Asault or Escalated Assault, since the rest of the options allows an automatic retreat. This allows to Wellington, for example, instead of making a landing in the distant Portugal and shy advances in Spain during 4 long years, can make a Tour de France yearly, trusted in the scarce possibilities of failing a retreat. Neither a fence is possible: the rule of retreats allows to jump until arriving to an area free of enemy troops

2. - A second trouble question of this rule: the retreat should be made to the nearest depot. This depot can be placed in very distant areas: do let us imagine Wellington fighting in Lyon, with a depot in London and another one in Cairo. Which is the nearest?. the implications of this answer can be very important, and depending of if the criteious (terrestrial or marine) used.

3. - A third problem is for the possibility of continuing retreat if the destination area is occupied. All the veteran ones in this game have seen, with the rules in the hand, retreats of 6 or more areas, when the maximum of movement of a cavalry corps, not harassed by the enemy, for clear terrain is of 5 areas.

Regards

Post #: 1

- 10/30/2003 7:21:28 PM

John Umber

Posts: 110
Joined: 7/2/2003
From: Sweden
Status: offline

Retreating states to areas not occupied by enemy forces. That means not areas with garrisson. This could very well be several areas away. Normaly it means the closest area in the direction of the depot. It should not be more than two or three areas.

_____________________________

John Umber

(in reply to Camile Desmoulins)

Post #: 2

RE: 7.5.2.10.3 Retreat After Losing A Combat - 3/14/2004 8:24:13 PM

montesaurus

Posts: 489
Joined: 7/27/2003
Status: offline

I don't think it is inappropriate that either Wellington/Napooleon can withdraw so easily. After all, how many battles did they actually lose during the Napoleonic period?
Withdrawing can actually be a risky prospect, especially when an enemy has superior numbers. Because if the withdrawing party does get caught, with an escalated assault, it will be disastrous. I saw a Spanish & British army withdrawing with Wellington in charge, from a French army that outnumbered him by 2:1. They had an unfortunate die roll and were caught. Due to some poor die rolling for the Brits, and good rolling for the French the entire army was defeated, and eliminated in the pursuit phase, and Wellington was captured. As a player, I do not like to place my best leaders in a position where they will have to withdraw. Your best leaders should not be committed to battle lightly, as their loss can be very hard to overcome. When I advance Napoleon/Wellington it is with the intention that they will fight if they have to., and with the idea that that they will survive to be withdrawn during the next reinforcement phase if needed!

_____________________________

montesaurus
French Player in Going Again II 1792

(in reply to Camile Desmoulins)

Post #: 3

RE: 7.5.2.10.3 Retreat After Losing A Combat - 3/14/2004 11:29:47 PM

NeverMan

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: montesaurus

I don't think it is inappropriate that either Wellington/Napooleon can withdraw so easily. After all, how many battles did they actually lose during the Napoleonic period?
Withdrawing can actually be a risky prospect, especially when an enemy has superior numbers. Because if the withdrawing party does get caught, with an escalated assault, it will be disastrous. I saw a Spanish & British army withdrawing with Wellington in charge, from a French army that outnumbered him by 2:1. They had an unfortunate die roll and were caught. Due to some poor die rolling for the Brits, and good rolling for the French the entire army was defeated, and eliminated in the pursuit phase, and Wellington was captured. As a player, I do not like to place my best leaders in a position where they will have to withdraw. Your best leaders should not be committed to battle lightly, as their loss can be very hard to overcome. When I advance Napoleon/Wellington it is with the intention that they will fight if they have to., and with the idea that that they will survive to be withdrawn during the next reinforcement phase if needed!

Good post, this is why the retreat rules work. No one who is serious about winning is going to put Nappy or Wellington in a situation on purpose where there is even a remote possibility that their forces will get destroyed. Imagine if you take this chance, say in 1806 as France against GB and he captures Nappy, or vice-versa, the French captures Wellington, you are handicapped the rest of the game pretty much, as it is unlikely with that GB and FR will ever surrender to each other. This keeps the people from really abusing the withdraw, it keeps them in check. Also, I like the added factor the withdraw chit adds when you outnumber Nappy or Wellington, cuz if he withdraws, you assault or Esc. Assault and he rolls a 6, he is so freaking done. :)

(in reply to montesaurus)

Post #: 4

RE: 7.5.2.10.3 Retreat After Losing A Combat - 4/23/2004 10:54:57 PM

yammahoper

Posts: 231
Joined: 4/23/2004
Status: offline

We adopted a house rule for this circumstance. Retreating corps must retreat into an adjacent area with no enemy corps/garrisons, even if this results in retreating away from supply lines. This means that an army completly surrounded when it loses a battle will be surrender and be captured. Remember that a corp must be left in the area attacked from or the enemy will simply retreat to where you were. We have seen this "fence" occur exactly twice successfully, and fail many more,

Like Napoleans forces getting lost at Waterloo, we wondered if there should be some sort of strategic deployment roll for such a mnv to succeed. After all, those "little" land spaces cover a lot of area on the map.

We played around with allowing corps to split and retreat into diferent areas if two generals were present, or a strategic roll was made, but we never could come up with a solid rule that we liked, so we dropped it.

Yamma

(in reply to Camile Desmoulins)

Post #: 5