Direction of Retreat

Direction of Retreat (Full Version)

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

Message

Arimus -> Direction of Retreat (7/20/2006 3:58:13 AM)
A question for TOAD, what determines the direction of retreat and why does it seem like units tend to retreat to the flanks rather than to the rear? Also it seems like since the patch, units that would have routed now divide and retreat to the flanks.

larryfulkerson -> RE: Direction of Retreat (7/20/2006 4:56:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arimus A question for TOAD, what determines the direction of retreat.... I always thought that units retreated toward their HQs or the nearest HQ if they didn't have one. I could be wrong however.

Industrial -> RE: Direction of Retreat (7/20/2006 10:49:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson I always thought that units retreated toward their HQs or the nearest HQ if they didn't have one. I could be wrong however. That is correct

Arimus -> RE: Direction of Retreat (7/20/2006 2:59:41 PM)
My game play experience doesn't seem to support that. It seems to me like they retreat to the nearest friendly unit and if divided, a part will retreat in a different direction, even if that direction is toward the enemy.

golden delicious -> RE: Direction of Retreat (7/20/2006 4:50:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arimus My game play experience doesn't seem to support that. It seems to me like they retreat to the nearest friendly unit and if divided, a part will retreat in a different direction, even if that direction is toward the enemy. Sometimes but not always. I think there's a degree of randomisation.

JAMiAM -> RE: Direction of Retreat (7/20/2006 4:57:07 PM)
They will retreat toward the nearest supply source, or HQ unit, and generally into a "safe" location (i.e., a friendly unit) to minimize disengagement attacks. Unfortunately, when supply sources are very near by in lateral, or forward, positions, rather than "to the rear" the units will drag themselves along the front line making things worse, or even forward, where they often get stuck in an exposed bulge. Making unit retreat more intelligently is on our list of things to work on.

Industrial -> RE: Direction of Retreat (7/20/2006 7:03:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JAMiAM Making unit retreat more intelligently is on our list of things to work on. Allow players to place 'rear area' pins on the map, and units will always try to disengage towards the neares pin, that way players would have the most control over retreats.

golden delicious -> RE: Direction of Retreat (7/20/2006 7:10:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Industrial Allow players to place 'rear area' pins on the map, and units will always try to disengage towards the neares pin, that way players would have the most control over retreats. Units don't generally necessarily flee where their commanders want them to.

Arimus -> RE: Direction of Retreat (7/21/2006 1:22:58 AM)
More player control isn't necessary, just slightly better retreat logic.

Industrial -> RE: Direction of Retreat (7/21/2006 12:08:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote: ORIGINAL: Industrial Allow players to place 'rear area' pins on the map, and units will always try to disengage towards the neares pin, that way players would have the most control over retreats. Units don't generally necessarily flee where their commanders want them to. cough cough.... units will always try to disengage towards the neares pin.... Of course they wont always manage to do it, but as long as the tactical situation permits it and they weren't outright routed they should be able to retreat towards that pin, which might for example be the last remaining bridge over a super river. A retreat is a somewhat organized withdrawal, while a route is a unit beeing overrun, panicking and not really following orders. So retreating units should in most cases be able to follow orders and move towards the pin.

Menschenfresser -> RE: Direction of Retreat (7/21/2006 3:00:54 PM)
The best is when one of the attacking units evaps, leaving a hole in the line and the defender retreats forward, as if attacking. Seen this one quite a few times...and it only gets funnier. [:)]

golden delicious -> RE: Direction of Retreat (7/21/2006 3:38:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Industrial cough cough.... units will always try to disengage towards the neares pin.... Of course they wont always manage to do it, but as long as the tactical situation permits it and they weren't outright routed they should be able to retreat towards that pin, which might for example be the last remaining bridge over a super river. A retreat is a somewhat organized withdrawal, while a route is a unit beeing overrun, panicking and not really following orders. So retreating units should in most cases be able to follow orders and move towards the pin. When Manstein's Army Group South was retreating out of the Ukraine, he had a disagreement with one of his commanders over which direction in which to retreat. Manstein wanted the unit to retreat one direction to continue to present a continuous front, whilst the subordinate wanted to retreat in another direction to ensure the survival of the greatest possible part of his command. I think in the end Manstein had his way- but you can see how the man on the ground might make a decision which doesn't correspond to the desires of his superior. If the unit is retreating from combat (which is the situation we are discussing) then it is the authority of the man on the ground which will matter. The sort of centrally orchestrated retreat you're describing would be done on the player's own turn- not in response to an attack. The current system does produce some wierd results. But I think your solution gives the player too much control.

golden delicious -> RE: Direction of Retreat (7/21/2006 3:39:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Menschenfresser The best is when one of the attacking units evaps, leaving a hole in the line and the defender retreats forward, as if attacking. Seen this one quite a few times...and it only gets funnier. [:)] I believe this is actually a deliberate feature. Surrounded units do sometimes break out, you know.

Industrial -> RE: Direction of Retreat (7/21/2006 5:00:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious The current system does produce some wierd results. But I think your solution gives the player too much control. Easy fix, base the likelyhood of retreat towards the retreat-pin on unit and force proficiency, done.

golden delicious -> RE: Direction of Retreat (7/21/2006 5:39:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Industrial Easy fix, base the likelyhood of retreat towards the retreat-pin on unit and force proficiency, done. Yeah. That would be just the ticket.

Arimus -> RE: Direction of Retreat (7/23/2006 5:29:57 AM)
One thing I hate when a unit retreats to the flank is it sometimes ends up in a hex salient which is attacked again leaving the unit out of movement and supply the following turn. With zero movement, there is a good chance it will get left behind when the force falls back. Yes, I realize this may have happened in a real war, but if it happened this often then you would think that some military history books or some of my military manuals would have said something to the effect of "retreating to the flank is a death sentence".

a white rabbit -> RE: Direction of Retreat (7/23/2006 8:06:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JAMiAM They will retreat toward the nearest supply source, or HQ unit, and generally into a "safe" location (i.e., a friendly unit) to minimize disengagement attacks. Unfortunately, when supply sources are very near by in lateral, or forward, positions, rather than "to the rear" the units will drag themselves along the front line making things worse, or even forward, where they often get stuck in an exposed bulge. Making unit retreat more intelligently is on our list of things to work on. ..wot he said..

tblersch -> RE: Direction of Retreat (7/27/2006 8:06:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Industrial Allow players to place 'rear area' pins on the map, and units will always try to disengage towards the neares pin, that way players would have the most control over retreats. Couldn't you do the same thing now just by carefully positioning a unit's HQ?

Industrial -> RE: Direction of Retreat (7/27/2006 10:06:27 PM)
maybe, but than you'd lose the supply boost bonus and also any artillery support from the HQ, as designers often put divisional arty into the HQs. Another problem would be that with so many HQs in most scenarios, it won't always be clear which which HQ really is the closest, not to mention our lacking insight into the retreat algorhitm, meaning as to what radius the game will check for HQs to determine the retreat direction, what it does if the path to the closest HQ is blocked by enemy units etc.

Arimus -> RE: Direction of Retreat (7/27/2006 11:51:22 PM)
Supply points seem to have the largest influence on direction of retreat if they are close to the unit. Adjacent friendly and enemy units have a big effect also, even if you play with disengagement off. Direction of enemy attack seems to have little effect.

TOCarroll -> RE: Direction of Retreat (7/28/2006 5:34:20 AM)
I was under the impression that (at least the PO) retreats were generally in the direction that was most inconvienent to the opponent, provided that no major rules infractions were detectable.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: Direction of Retreat (7/28/2006 6:27:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JAMiAM They will retreat toward the nearest supply source, or HQ unit, and generally into a "safe" location (i.e., a friendly unit) to minimize disengagement attacks. Unfortunately, when supply sources are very near by in lateral, or forward, positions, rather than "to the rear" the units will drag themselves along the front line making things worse, or even forward, where they often get stuck in an exposed bulge. Making unit retreat more intelligently is on our list of things to work on. A retreat is an adverse combat result imposed on defeated, fleeing, defenders by the victorious attackers. It isn't a voluntary action, like a planned retreat taken during movement. As such, forcing the retreat path to comply with the defender's best interests is not necessarily realistic. Don't think of the combat hex as a "hex", think of it as a battlefield - mentally divide it up into 0.1km hexes if necessary. Then it's easy to imagine actions within the hex comparable to the same things that happen beyond the hex - breakthroughs and flanking actions, etc, that can deny a desired retreat path to the defender and dictate an undesired or unexpected one, including defenders scattering in multiple directions. Be careful you don't "fix" something that isn't broken.

Industrial -> RE: Direction of Retreat (7/28/2006 6:37:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay A retreat is an adverse combat result imposed on defeated, fleeing, defenders by the victorious attackers. It isn't a voluntary action, like a planned retreat taken during movement. As such, forcing the retreat path to comply with the defender's best interests is not necessarily realistic. That would be 'routed' and is also a status a unit retreating from combat can take. I agree that a routed unit is basically panicking and wouldn't necessarily follow orders, but if we compare 'routed' to 'retreated' the latter can only be a forced, yet still controlled withdrawal. And as such the retreating unit should indeed still be able to follow orders given in case of withdrawal, and as long as no enemy units or unpassable landscape blocks the way, retreat into the given direction.

PaladinSix -> RE: Direction of Retreat (7/28/2006 6:43:53 PM)
It seems worth pointing out that there is also a question of scale involved with this problem. While it is perfectly plausible (maybe even likely) for a battlion to be forced out of its position and to retreat into the teeth of an enemy attack, it seems a lot less likely that the same thing would have to a division or corps. Any changes to the retreat mechanics should probably take into account the questions of scale and unit size. PaladinSix

golden delicious -> RE: Direction of Retreat (7/28/2006 7:13:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Industrial That would be 'routed' and is also a status a unit retreating from combat can take. I agree that a routed unit is basically panicking and wouldn't necessarily follow orders, but if we compare 'routed' to 'retreated' the latter can only be a forced, yet still controlled withdrawal. And as such the retreating unit should indeed still be able to follow orders given in case of withdrawal, and as long as no enemy units or unpassable landscape blocks the way, retreat into the given direction. I'd say an organised, planned retreat is carried out in the player's own turn. If the unit is evicted from a hex by force, whether it goes to "routed" status or not, it is not following the plan. It may or may not be in touch with its HQ, but matters may well be out of the hands of even the commander of that unit.

Industrial -> RE: Direction of Retreat (7/28/2006 7:52:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote: ORIGINAL: Industrial That would be 'routed' and is also a status a unit retreating from combat can take. I agree that a routed unit is basically panicking and wouldn't necessarily follow orders, but if we compare 'routed' to 'retreated' the latter can only be a forced, yet still controlled withdrawal. And as such the retreating unit should indeed still be able to follow orders given in case of withdrawal, and as long as no enemy units or unpassable landscape blocks the way, retreat into the given direction. I'd say an organised, planned retreat is carried out in the player's own turn. If the unit is evicted from a hex by force, whether it goes to "routed" status or not, it is not following the plan. It may or may not be in touch with its HQ, but matters may well be out of the hands of even the commander of that unit. And, as we already agreed a few posts before this, that can easily be simulated using unit/formation/force proficiency, as a higly trained, well lead unit is more likely to retreat following given orders than a peasent militia with a commander who was a blacksmith 3 days ago. Even if a retreat isn't planed, as long as it's not a rout, formations should still be able to retreat in good shape by using rearguards, without having to sacrifice much material or men. As it was done countless times during countless wars ;)

TOCarroll -> RE: Direction of Retreat (7/29/2006 3:08:38 AM)
My reference to Murphy's law in the previous post was not serious......but-The system isn't perfect, but it works. Most of the time I have observed units retreating in odd or random directions it was after multiple attacks, or a unit in a low organizational state. Sort of like the Germans trying to swim the Diepner to escape the Russians. In a panicked rout there is not gonna be a heck of a lot of logic involved. Industrials idea is sound, I just don't know if it can be incorporated in a patch, or have to wait for TAOW4.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: Direction of Retreat (7/29/2006 7:51:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Industrial quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay A retreat is an adverse combat result imposed on defeated, fleeing, defenders by the victorious attackers. It isn't a voluntary action, like a planned retreat taken during movement. As such, forcing the retreat path to comply with the defender's best interests is not necessarily realistic. That would be 'routed' and is also a status a unit retreating from combat can take. I agree that a routed unit is basically panicking and wouldn't necessarily follow orders, but if we compare 'routed' to 'retreated' the latter can only be a forced, yet still controlled withdrawal. And as such the retreating unit should indeed still be able to follow orders given in case of withdrawal, and as long as no enemy units or unpassable landscape blocks the way, retreat into the given direction. No, it would be any retreat from combat. The defenders are being forced out of their positions by the attackers. And you're missing the point about the hex being an entire battlefield. Attacker advances internal to the hex can deny the defender's desired retreat path regardless of their capacity to follow orders, and force it to take an undesired or surprising one.

Industrial -> RE: Direction of Retreat (7/29/2006 10:08:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay No, it would be any retreat from combat. The defenders are being forced out of their positions by the attackers. And you're missing the point about the hex being an entire battlefield. Attacker advances internal to the hex can deny the defender's desired retreat path regardless of their capacity to follow orders, and force it to take an undesired or surprising one. The defender is beeing forced to leave it's position, that much is obvious, but in the situation you described, where the attacker basically overruns the defender, because hes so fast that he's able to block off a retreat path, that's a rout in my book. A retreat is something every army trains, it's a tactic to delay the attacker long enough to allow the defender a halfway ordered retreat to a new position, so a retreat for me is something where the retreating unit manages just that, to use rearguards or minefields, or ambushes etc to slow down the attacker and preventing him from overrunning the main bulk of the retreating formation. What I'd like to see would be an internal counter, and with every time a unit is forced to retreat during one turn the risk of it evaporating should raise. This raise should be proportional to the max. movement points of a unit, or it's mobility if you want.

TOCarroll -> RE: Direction of Retreat (7/29/2006 10:37:26 PM)
I originally got into this discussion as an opportunity to put in a one-liner about a pet peeve.[:D] However, it seems to be a valid discussion between intelligent....[>:](you get the point). Both the "structured" (Industrial) and "semi-random" (various others) have good points. I would tend to go with Industrial & Co. with the caveat that war is not an organized event! The less player input into retreat direction the better. I remember boardgaming days (Stalingrad) where the German would attack at 1-3 odds, hoping (by packing the adjacent hexes) that the attacking untis would be forced to retreat 2 hexes into Russia! In the BOARDGAME DNO Russian units that had lost command control (OK, that's a rout) retreated in a randomized direction. I'm behind Industrial & Co., I just want to avoid a solution that players find a gamey way to take advantage of. I do not think the proposed solution has that problem, just give it a long hard look.[:)]

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.7661133