|
ColinWright -> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist (7/12/2008 9:24:52 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rhinobones
quote:
ORIGINAL: ColinWright
. . . they really will RBC when you didn't want them to.
The problem is not that the defender withdraws prior to the combat resolution portion of the round, in fact, retreating is a perfectly acceptable defensive maneuver. The problem is that the offensive units move prior to the designated assault time. The fact that a defensive unit is observed to have voluntarily relinquished a position is not justification for a unit to disregard the assault orders/timing and prematurely occupy the former enemy position. Certainly there will be situations where the local commander can take advantage of an enemy retreat, but this is not doctrine as exhibited in TOAW.
I have seen RCB, but never a RBC/auto-advance during my time in the military, and I seriously doubt that you can find a combat veteran who will support your position that RBC/auto-advance is a common occurrence. The fact is that unit commanders will not advance prematurely and, without support, into a vacated enemy position.
This all makes me wonder why it is so magical that simply targeting the defender with artillery negates RBC. The artillery targets the defender, no rounds are fired down range, the enemy has absolutely no way of knowing that they are targeted and yet the process of assigning artillery support totally prevents the unit from retreating. In TOAW you can target the defender, prevent RBC, plan an assault and then retarget the artillery elsewhere. Some may say that the action of targeting amounts to pinning down the defender with artillery, but with no supply expended and no casualties occurring, there is no artillery fire on the defender . . . there is no reason for saying that artillery fire is preventing the defender from retreating. No, the artillery has simply received an order to support the attack and has yet to fire a round. Somehow this prevents a defending unit from retreating as a massive assault is prepared and probably being observed by the defender. Another Norm oddity . . . artillery magic.
We could debate the concept of RBC's and the automatic advance interminably -- and probably to little profit. Suffice it to say it doesn't bother me -- and the thought of a defender backpedaling ten kilometers or so without any pursuit does.
More to the point, I don't find your argument against the 'artillery preventing RBC' very convincing. Sure it's a trick -- but it prevents those RBC's you object to. You don't want to risk an RBC, set up an artillery bombrdment. Cancel it later if you want to. Substantially nothing has occurred except that you've prevented any chance of an RBC. What's the problem?
quote:
I do have to advance into the vacated hex if I want the RBC.
Then why isn’t there on option not to advance into the hex when you do not want the RBC?
You want to chase someone out of a village, you have to chase them out. Sending a polite note just won't cut it.quote:
What on earth compels the offensive unit to automatically advance into an enemy position, advancing without knowledge that the enemy has completely withdrawn, without support and in spite of the possibility that the enemy may be setting a trap? You don’t have to advance to get the RBC . . . the defender withdrew when they observed the attack forming. The requirement of advancing into the vacated defender position in order to get a RBC has no logical or military merit.
An RBC represents a powerful unit poking its nose into that village to see just how strongly held it is. Naturally, if you don't poke, the defenders aren't especially likely to leave. Once they've left, you're in the village. Now, in an ideal world, maybe only the advance elements of the unit would be in the village, or maybe they would pull back so quickly that no part of their 'turn' would have been consumed (although in most cases, an appreciable part of the turn would have been consumed). However, OPART has to generalize, and I prefer the current generalization to any of the alternatives I've seen presented.quote:
quote:
. . . various would-be Rommels . . . irritating . . . carefully calibrated . . . attackmeisters . .
As a long time contributor to this forum and acknowledged sage of the game, I think it is beneath you to belittle other players. Each individual has a personal way on enjoying TOAW and should not be subjected to your judgment. You should be bigger than that . . . the various Rommels are due an apology.
Oh bullshit. There was nothing particularly offensive about what I said. Naturally everyone wants their turn to go off as planned. However, as I pointed out, that's precisely what usually doesn't happen in war.quote:
quote:
. . . but it wouldn't be war.
As though you would know . . .
Regards, RhinoBones
Right. The great military expert. Tell us about your extensive and varied career and all the combat situations you've been in. How was it, commanding that Kampfgruppe on the Eastern Front? We'd really all like to hear.
You're simply trying to use this unspecified vast body of experience as a club to avoid defending your idea rationally. The bottom line, as far as I'm concerned, is that your suggestion has more drawbacks than advantages. It's a 90/10 split. The current system reasonably summarizes what happens 90% of the time and fails 10% of the time. The alternatives would reasonably summarize what happens 10% of the time and fail 90% of the time. It's vaguely reminiscent of those arguments against wearing a seatbelt.
|
|
|
|
