RE: Gamey or no?

RE: Gamey or no? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

witpqs -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/5/2010 11:28:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hemajor Well, I have to reply to this, because I'm the Allied part of the game. I have never complained about using recce units as intended and blocking the retreat route. But the retreat hexes were not blocked. The units went INTO the "combat hex" and left the two hexes empty. By entering the hex I felt they used (or rather mis-used) the new hex side control feature to control the retreat direction. Just my opinion. Erik I see the difference. I think the problem here is that the game engine does not allow the units that entered the hex from the opposite direction (of the main force) to be attacked separately. If they could be attacked separately, then your forces could try to fight their way out. I have to say I've changed my opinion on this due to that limitation of the game engine.

ckammp -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/5/2010 11:57:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hemajor Well, I have to reply to this, because I'm the Allied part of the game. I have never complained about using recce units as intended and blocking the retreat route. But the retreat hexes were not blocked. The units went INTO the "combat hex" and left the two hexes empty. By entering the hex I felt they used (or rather mis-used) the new hex side control feature to control the retreat direction. Just my opinion. Erik Using units, regardless of whether they are recon or not, simpy to establish a ZOC in order to block a retreat route, without actually occupying the hex, is gamey. I do hope the devs look into changing this rule.

Titanwarrior89 -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/6/2010 12:01:13 AM)
Not gamey.

whippleofd -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/6/2010 12:12:08 AM)
Not gamey. Even with the new ZOC rules, look at it this way: His recon units encircled the enemy and starting engageing the rear of the troops on the MLR. This means beating up on the supply trains, HQ and other support units. If the units in the trenches want to bug out, no way are they going to be able to organize an "attack in a different direction" through the support troops who are freaking out, spreading panic and generally clogging the axis of advance. Whipple

ckammp -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/6/2010 12:39:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Whipple Not gamey. Even with the new ZOC rules, look at it this way: His recon units encircled the enemy and starting engageing the rear of the troops on the MLR. This means beating up on the supply trains, HQ and other support units. If the units in the trenches want to bug out, no way are they going to be able to organize an "attack in a different direction" through the support troops who are freaking out, spreading panic and generally clogging the axis of advance. Whipple I look at it this wy: He sent two recon units to establish control of a potential route of retreat. Immediately after establishing control of the hex, he recalled the units to his main force, leaving nothing in the retreat hex. With no forces present, why should the defenders be prevented from retreating thru that hex? Why couldn't the defenders do a recon-in-force to determine whether or not the hex was occupied? Given the choice between surrender, retreat into the desert, or breaking out towards friendly forces, which option would you choose? While the attacker's moves were in accordance with the letter of the rules, I feel they were not in the spirit of fair play. And I take exception to your claim that support troops, when faced with enemy attack, would be "freaking out, spreading panic, and generally clogging the axis of advance". After all, those support troops are soldiers, not civilians, and it would not have been a surprise attack. And especially if the enemy was just a couple of recon units.

vonTirpitz -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/6/2010 1:04:18 AM)
First off, gamey...NO (with exception of the 11 man example. [8\|] ) quote: ORIGINAL: ckammp quote: ORIGINAL: Whipple Not gamey. Even with the new ZOC rules, look at it this way: His recon units encircled the enemy and starting engageing the rear of the troops on the MLR. This means beating up on the supply trains, HQ and other support units. If the units in the trenches want to bug out, no way are they going to be able to organize an "attack in a different direction" through the support troops who are freaking out, spreading panic and generally clogging the axis of advance. Whipple I look at it this wy: He sent two recon units to establish control of a potential route of retreat. Immediately after establishing control of the hex, he recalled the units to his main force, leaving nothing in the retreat hex. With no forces present, why should the defenders be prevented from retreating thru that hex? Why couldn't the defenders do a recon-in-force to determine whether or not the hex was occupied? Given the choice between surrender, retreat into the desert, or breaking out towards friendly forces, which option would you choose? While the attacker's moves were in accordance with the letter of the rules, I feel they were not in the spirit of fair play. And I take exception to your claim that support troops, when faced with enemy attack, would be "freaking out, spreading panic, and generally clogging the axis of advance". After all, those support troops are soldiers, not civilians, and it would not have been a surprise attack. And especially if the enemy was just a couple of recon units. ckammp, I agree in principal that establishing a ZOC is more complicated and is much more involved than what is modeled. Someday perhaps somebody might add a "ZOC value" similar to the "entrenchment" value that now exists (hypothetically, AV x terrain value x time, etc) which affects the likelihood that units can retreat through a particular hex). They may already have such a formula in use (I really don't know). However. Historically, I imagine that many more far fetched circumstances probably occurred. I'm not certain as to the exact condition of all the forces in play but moderate to high disruption and fatigue would (and should) play hell with what a unit would (and could) do. [&:] And depending on HQ support (or lack of) it is not unusual to read about units that collapsed, retreated, surrendered or did something (in hindsight) dumb due to poor leadership and morale conditions. I think there might be a random chance that a unit cannot retreat successfully (whether surrounded or not). However, I do not know know this for a fact nor what conditions that might affect such a rule.

Jim D Burns -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/6/2010 1:18:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Q-Ball Was that gamey to send the Recon units around to block escape path? Using a fragment I think is gamey, but not sure about a Recon Regt. I at first like others also thought it was not a gamey move. But upon reflection there are some very serious implications to a move like this. Especially if all retreat paths are blocked and a surrender of forces would be the ultimate outcome instead of just forcing a specific retreat path. If the units moved into the hex and immediately attacked, I’d have no issue. But for arguments sake let’s assume the defending force consist of 600 AV and the attacker consists of 600 AV. Let’s also assume the attacker has much faster recon/armor type units, so moving away in good order with an all infantry defending force would be all but impossible. So the attacker sends 100 AV to each adjacent hex and then moves all units into the defenders hex on the same turn, thus creating ZOCs on all 6 hex sides and effectively blocking any possible retreat. Of course because the defender has equal strength it is probably impossible to dig him out via assault, so all the attacker can do is sit and wait as the defenders slowly starve to death. The problem of course is the fact that only 100 AV created the blocking effect in any given direction, so theoretically the defenders should easily be allowed to assault a given hex side and break out. But since all the attackers are now in the hex, the defenders would have to defeat all 600 of the attackers AV, something he too could not hope to do if we assume everything about the two stacks is equal in ability and strength. So in the end I say it’s a game mechanic issue/problem that needs to be tweaked. I think a possible in game rules fix would be to say no hex side should remain blocked for more than 24 hours if no defending unit remains in the adjacent hex. It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s better than what the game has now. A perfect world would allow targeted assaults against just the forces on that particular hex side to allow breakout attempts, but I doubt that could ever be implemented. Jim

treespider -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/6/2010 4:34:47 AM)
Why did the defender sit tight in his cubby hole while watching the attacker make a 120 mile flanking march to his rear? The defender could simply have moved one or two units one hex to engage the flanking forces....while the attacker had to move at least three hexes to reach the same locale.

Jim D Burns -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/6/2010 6:50:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: treespider Why did the defender sit tight in his cubby hole while watching the attacker make a 120 mile flanking march to his rear? The defender could simply have moved one or two units one hex to engage the flanking forces....while the attacker had to move at least three hexes to reach the same locale. Is it possible attacking units in the hex with the defender were bombarding every turn to interrupt any movement attempts to leave the hex? Jim

JeffroK -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/6/2010 7:14:27 AM)
Not to sure of how the game handles HEXSIDE control? Do the (in this case) japanese keep the hexside control of the 2 vacated hexes after they move out of them?? I thought that maybe they lose control once they leave and the Allies still contest the hexside? I've seen that control was lost of a complete hex on my LOC without the enemy being anywhere close.

JeffroK -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/6/2010 10:50:31 AM)
From Manuel 8.3.1.2 ZONES OF CONTROL EFFECTS ON MOVEMENT Hexes are comprised of seven components – the six hex sides and the hex. A hex side is not shared with an adjacent hex; the adjacent hex has its own six hex sides. One side or the other or neither can control each of these components. The last side to have solely occupied the hex establishes control of a hex. The last side to have an LCU cross a hex side to enter a hex establishes control of that hex side. A side loses control of a hex and its hex sides when that side has neither an LCU and/or a friendly controlled base in the hex. A side will maintain control of a hex so long as the side has a LCU and/or a friendly base in the hex. A side will maintain control of a hex side until an LCU of the opposing side crosses that hex side to enter a hex. Control of that hex side will then revert to the opposing side. Note: Units may only LEAVE a hex across hex sides that their side controls. ...... ZOC also affect the path a unit will choose when force to retreat. This aspect is discussed in Rule 8.4.1.2.1.1 ZOC Effects on Retreat

Jim D Burns -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/6/2010 12:05:21 PM)
The problem is there are actually two parallel hex side lines that can be controlled along each hexside and either or both block a retreat path or supply draw. So even though you lose control of the empty hex’s hexsides when you leave, you take control of the combat hex’s hexside as you enter, thus effectively you still control the hex side for retreat and supply purposes. At least I think this is how it works, would need a dev to confirm this. The only possible advantage I can see for the side that is in the defending hex, is that if he then subsequently moves a unit into the just vacated hex he can then block that hex side for the attacking side’s supply purposes. But as I read it the attacker still controls the hexside for supply purposes for the defending side in the combat hex, even with the defenders units moved into the vacated hex. So potentially you could have a situation where an attacker controls all six hex sides in a combat hex and the defender controls all six hexsides in the surrounding hexes. Thus all units in the combat hex, both attackers and defenders would be out of supply. Here’s a rough image of what I mean, I hastily drew the hexes by hand so they aren’t exactly uniform, but they’re close enough for a visual example. [image]local://upfiles/5815/D704290B51FC46049E25DB3FDBD7237C.jpg[/image] Jim

treespider -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/6/2010 12:15:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns quote: ORIGINAL: treespider Why did the defender sit tight in his cubby hole while watching the attacker make a 120 mile flanking march to his rear? The defender could simply have moved one or two units one hex to engage the flanking forces....while the attacker had to move at least three hexes to reach the same locale. Is it possible attacking units in the hex with the defender were bombarding every turn to interrupt any movement attempts to leave the hex? Jim In AE the defender can place some units into reserve, effectively pulling them out of the line, and then move them out without suffering any of the ill effects of the bombardment...and in AE IIRC Bombardments do not reset movement like they did in WitP.

treespider -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/6/2010 12:20:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns The problem is there are actually two parallel hex side lines that can be controlled along each hexside and either or both block a retreat path or supply draw. So even though you lose control of the empty hex’s hexsides when you leave, you take control of the combat hex’s hexside as you enter, thus effectively you still control the hex side for retreat and supply purposes. At least I think this is how it works, would need a dev to confirm this. The only possible advantage I can see for the side that is in the defending hex, is that if he then subsequently moves a unit into the just vacated hex he can then block that hex side for the attacking side’s supply purposes. But as I read it the attacker still controls the hexside for supply purposes for the defending side in the combat hex, even with the defenders units moved into the vacated hex. So potentially you could have a situation where an attacker controls all six hex sides in a combat hex and the defender controls all six hexsides in the surrounding hexes. Thus all units in the combat hex, both attackers and defenders would be out of supply. Here’s a rough image of what I mean, I hastily drew the hexes by hand so they aren’t exactly uniform, but they’re close enough for a visual example. [image]local://upfiles/5815/D704290B51FC46049E25DB3FDBD7237C.jpg[/image] Jim That happenstance is possible albeit would be very rare. Picture Stalingrad. The Soviets in the City are "in essence" surrounded (especially when ice flows formed on the Volga). The Germans in the City surround the Soviets and are in turn surrounded by the Soviets. And yes I realize the Soviets in the City were "never" surrounded...but its close enough for our purposes.

treespider -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/6/2010 12:23:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffK Not to sure of how the game handles HEXSIDE control? Do the (in this case) japanese keep the hexside control of the 2 vacated hexes after they move out of them?? No quote: I thought that maybe they lose control once they leave and the Allies still contest the hexside? they lose control of the hex and hexsides when they vacate the hex. quote: I've seen that control was lost of a complete hex on my LOC without the enemy being anywhere close. Correct.... it reverts to uncontrolled rather than enemy controlled.

Jim D Burns -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/6/2010 12:31:13 PM)
Would it be possible to make it so players cannot gain control of a hexside unless they have at least 25% of the AV of the opponent’s forces as they enter the hex? So in a case where 100 AV entered a hex with 600 defending AV, the hexside would remain uncontrolled and either side could still draw supply or retreat across it. I just have this nightmare scenario in my head where a large stack is being pinned by regular bombardments/combats being launched against it as a small recon/armor unit moves into the hex across hexside 1 and then leaves via side 2. Then re-enters via hexside 3 and exits again via hexside 4. Finally entering across side 5 and exiting across side 6 thus gaining control of all six hexsides with just a tiny fast unit in a matter of a few days. Of course not many would continue play against someone who did this, but in a no house rules PBEM game, this kind of exploit can be a real army destroying game killer. Jim

treespider -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/6/2010 12:44:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns Would it be possible to make it so players cannot gain control of a hexside unless they have at least 25% of the AV of the opponent’s forces as they enter the hex? So in a case where 100 AV entered a hex with 600 defending AV, the hexside would remain uncontrolled and either side could still draw supply or retreat across it. We tried something like that in testing and it proved unworkable...first what happens if you bring in multiple Battalions (25 AV) across the same hexside over multiple days? You'd have to keep a running balance of each hexside and the AV in a given hex fluctuates every day...so what may have been 25% today is only 20% tomorrow. And a unit that crossed a hexside with 25% (or a fixed value which is what we used) may take casualties and now be less than the required threshhold. quote: I just have this nightmare scenario in my head where a large stack is being pinned by regular bombardments/combats being launched against it as a small recon/armor unit moves into the hex across hexside 1 and then leaves via side 2. Then re-enters via hexside 3 and exits again via hexside 4. Finally entering across side 5 and exiting across side 6 thus gaining control of all six hexsides with just a tiny fast unit in a matter of a few days. Of course not many would continue play against someone who did this, but in a no house rules PBEM game, this kind of exploit can be a real army destroying game killer. Jim Again it is not possible to pin a large stack with bombardments...the defender can simply place a unit or two or three in reserve and order them to move and they are unaffected by the bombardments. Secondly even if a stack is attacked with a bombardment it continues to move if it has movement orders...so you can stage a fighting withdrawl.

Jim D Burns -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/6/2010 1:03:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: treespider Again it is not possible to pin a large stack with bombardments...the defender can simply place a unit or two or three in reserve and order them to move and they are unaffected by the bombardments. Secondly even if a stack is attacked with a bombardment it continues to move if it has movement orders...so you can stage a fighting withdrawl. But you shouldn't have to withdraw just because a tiny unit is grabbing up control of the hexsides. That's the problem. Especially if you don't have a tiny unit of your own to retake a hexside and sending a large one would then cost you the battle. Perhaps a better rule would be to say only divisional or larger sized units can ever take control of a hexside. Smaller units are just too small to control 30+ miles of terrain. Jim

treespider -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/6/2010 1:19:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns quote: ORIGINAL: treespider Again it is not possible to pin a large stack with bombardments...the defender can simply place a unit or two or three in reserve and order them to move and they are unaffected by the bombardments. Secondly even if a stack is attacked with a bombardment it continues to move if it has movement orders...so you can stage a fighting withdrawl. But you shouldn't have to withdraw just because a tiny unit is grabbing up control of the hexsides. That's the problem. Especially if you don't have a tiny unit of your own to retake a hexside and sending a large one would then cost you the battle. Perhaps a better rule would be to say only divisional or larger sized units can ever take control of a hexside. Smaller units are just too small to control 30+ miles of terrain. Jim Define Divisional sized unit? You can have "Divisions" with 20 squads...or "Divisions" with 729 squads...What if its all tanks? What if you set a minimum threshold of 100AV then what happens when the unit becomes 99AV? What if you set a minimum threshold of 100AV and 4 units of 25AV cross the same hexside on the same day? ..... on different days? What if you set the minimum threshold to 100 AV and the 105 AV division is bombed the turn it crosses the hexside reducing it to 99Av when it crosses the hexside...but then it recovers to 110 AV? What if you have all of the components of a division cross a hexside at separate times and the reform them into a division? What if ... etc etc... The outlier event you describe is able to be countered within the existing framework.

Jim D Burns -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/6/2010 1:28:47 PM)
The simplest answer is a divisional unit period nothing else matters. Forget AV, TOE, components of a division or anything else. The fact is you’d have far fewer opportunities to exploit a rule like that than what currently exists. Currently tiny recon and armor units can force huge armies to either retreat or starve and they can do it readily and repeatedly if players wish to exploit it. A divisional limitation would hardly ever have a chance to be exploited except in rare instances where players had a shattered division to use. And Divisions move far slower than recon and armor so even if you had one to exploit the rule with, it would be much easier to counter than dozens of fast tiny recon and armor units zooming all over the place around the much slower lumbering huge armies they are trying to isolate. Jim

witpqs -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/6/2010 3:29:57 PM)
Jim, I think this idea would make things much worse. One great aspect of AE is the ability to work with sub-divisional sized units. In fact, I hope for advancements in that area if they take on additional changes to the land combat model. The kind of example that we are talking about in this thread can easily be handled by agreement between the players. I think the reason it wasn't in this case is that it was new and the various aspects of it had not been talked over for people to get a feel for what was really going on. At first I thought it was fine, but that was before we got into more details. So, in a game, I might also have done the 'gamey' thing in this case without realizing it was exposing a weakness in the game engine.

Q-Ball -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/6/2010 3:42:21 PM)
In this particular example, it would have been relatively easy to just leave the Recon Regts in the rear hexes, rather than bring them back into the Katherine hex. Would that have been more kosher? I think it would have produced the same effect, which is blocking the retreat to the south.

treespider -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/6/2010 4:12:46 PM)
I still don't see the issue...I do not feel that what Q-Ball did was gamey. Shame on the opponent for failing to react. The opponent could simply have detailed a unit or two to move to the Southwest and engage the Recon Regts. Instead they choose to sit tight and not respond and allowed themselves to be outflanked, so that when they were routed and forced to retreat, the path of least resistance was followed. Just as Hooker failed to react to Jackson at Chancellorsville so to did Q-Balls opponent fail to react to Q-Ball's flanking move.

Jim D Burns -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/6/2010 4:18:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs One great aspect of AE is the ability to work with sub-divisional sized units. In fact, I hope for advancements in that area if they take on additional changes to the land combat model. Early in the war I agree it’s a sub-divisional game. But as Andy has mentioned in the past, the game pretty much evolves into a divisional level game since the sub units are pretty brittle in the face of later war firepower. I think the intention in the design was for players to eventually combine all or most of their units into their divisional units to make them more survivable, but I can see players now intentionally keeping units broken up in order to increase the number of fast moving ant sized units they have available to sweep around large combat formations. India and Australia are where this kind of exploitation can be used to great effect I think, since there is enough room to actually take control of all surrounding hexsides around a unit two or three hexes away from it, thus keeping your ants out of harm’s way. In a no house rules game I think it would be suicidal to try and hold any isolated base in the face of enemy armor without several fast moving armor units of your own. This also makes the allies critically weak in game since they get hardly any tank replacements while as we’ve seen in some AAR’s, Japan can produce upwards of 150-200 tanks a month or more if it wants to. So Japan can afford to send his armor units on deep raids to take control of hexes and quickly replace any losses to allied armor and the allies just end up with no tank units left eventually due to lack of replacements. Jim

Jim D Burns -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/6/2010 4:29:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: treespider I still don't see the issue... The issue is he would have lost the battle sooner rather than later had he “simply detailed a reaction”. I guess the forces involved in this particular battle aren’t large enough to press home the problem, so for arguments sake let’s assume it is a large battle in China where numbers are very close but very large (100,000+ on a side) and moving even a single unit out of the hex causes the battle to be lost. Comparatively speaking the tiny recon units aren’t even a pimple on the rear end of the large units involved in our hypothetical, but because of the game mechanic a player is forced to either remove an entire division+ sized unit to react to the tiny pimples or get surrounded. That’s the issue. So the tiny recon units become these super powered force magnifiers that they never were historically. In the OP the forces were pretty evenly matched trying to counter the move would have caused him to lose the base for sure. A base he probably didn’t want to lose and thought he had a chance to hold, thus he stayed to try and hold it. But in a larger ‘close call’ fight where taking out even one unit causes you to lose, it’s totally out of whack that a tiny recon unit or two can block anything, but they still do and just as effectively as they did in the OP’s battle. Jim

witpqs -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/6/2010 4:35:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs One great aspect of AE is the ability to work with sub-divisional sized units. In fact, I hope for advancements in that area if they take on additional changes to the land combat model. Early in the war I agree it’s a sub-divisional game. But as Andy has mentioned in the past, the game pretty much evolves into a divisional level game since the sub units are pretty brittle in the face of later war firepower. The only reason that this is so is that the land combat model puts disproportionate casualties into a couple of units. It does not split up what units are on the receiving end of the enemy's firepower in a realistic fashion. If it did, then when small units were in combat you would have a bunch of them getting woomped in place of one or two getting (literally) wiped out (destroyed/deleted) and the rest taking no damage or a trivial amount.

treespider -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/6/2010 6:00:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns quote: ORIGINAL: treespider I still don't see the issue... The issue is he would have lost the battle sooner rather than later had he “simply detailed a reaction”. I guess the forces involved in this particular battle aren’t large enough to press home the problem, so for arguments sake let’s assume it is a large battle in China where numbers are very close but very large (100,000+ on a side) and moving even a single unit out of the hex causes the battle to be lost. Comparatively speaking the tiny recon units aren’t even a pimple on the rear end of the large units involved in our hypothetical, but because of the game mechanic a player is forced to either remove an entire division+ sized unit to react to the tiny pimples or get surrounded. That’s the issue. So the tiny recon units become these super powered force magnifiers that they never were historically. In the OP the forces were pretty evenly matched trying to counter the move would have caused him to lose the base for sure. A base he probably didn’t want to lose and thought he had a chance to hold, thus he stayed to try and hold it. But in a larger ‘close call’ fight where taking out even one unit causes you to lose, it’s totally out of whack that a tiny recon unit or two can block anything, but they still do and just as effectively as they did in the OP’s battle. Jim I still don't see the issue...happens all the time in history...one side gets outflanked by the other...which simply reinforces the concept of maintaining a viable reserve to react to such a situation...

ckammp -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/6/2010 6:47:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: treespider quote: ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns quote: ORIGINAL: treespider I still don't see the issue... The issue is he would have lost the battle sooner rather than later had he “simply detailed a reaction”. I guess the forces involved in this particular battle aren’t large enough to press home the problem, so for arguments sake let’s assume it is a large battle in China where numbers are very close but very large (100,000+ on a side) and moving even a single unit out of the hex causes the battle to be lost. Comparatively speaking the tiny recon units aren’t even a pimple on the rear end of the large units involved in our hypothetical, but because of the game mechanic a player is forced to either remove an entire division+ sized unit to react to the tiny pimples or get surrounded. That’s the issue. So the tiny recon units become these super powered force magnifiers that they never were historically. In the OP the forces were pretty evenly matched trying to counter the move would have caused him to lose the base for sure. A base he probably didn’t want to lose and thought he had a chance to hold, thus he stayed to try and hold it. But in a larger ‘close call’ fight where taking out even one unit causes you to lose, it’s totally out of whack that a tiny recon unit or two can block anything, but they still do and just as effectively as they did in the OP’s battle. Jim I still don't see the issue...happens all the time in history...one side gets outflanked by the other...which simply reinforces the concept of maintaining a viable reserve to react to such a situation... The issue is whether or not the defender was actually outflanked. The attacker sent recon units to a hex to establish a ZOC to block the defender's line of retreat, a perfectly legitimate tactic. However, the units did not stay in the hex, but continued on and returned to the main attacking force. Thus, the hex itself was not controlled, just the hexside, which within the rules prevents the defender from moving into the hex. But what if the recon units had stayed in the hex? According to the manual, page 191: "A side will maintain control of a hex side until an LCU of the opposing side crosses that hex side to enter a hex. Control of that hex side will then revert to the opposing side. Units may only LEAVE a hex across hex sides that their side controls". In other words, had the recon units stayed in the hex, the defender would have been free to move into the hex, but because the recon units simply moved thru the hex, the defender could not move into a now-vacant hex. Given the size of the defender's force, I find it doubtful that two recon units could effectively prevent the defenders from breaking out. Were the blocking units of a larger size, I could certainly see them encircling the defenders, but in this case, it seems, however unintentional, to be gamey.

rader -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/6/2010 7:14:04 PM)
What if it was modified to (CAPS): "A side will maintain control of a hex side until an LCU of the opposing side crosses that hex side to enter a hex. Control of that hex side will then revert to the opposing side. Units may only LEAVE a hex across hex sides that their side controls UNLESS THEY ARE MOVING TO A HEX THAT IS NOT OCCUPED BY THE OTHER SIDE". Wouldn't that solve the problem because total encirclement would require both what Q-ball did plus leaving something in the hex behind? I.e., it would be a bit harder to accomplish but would still be possible?

treespider -> RE: Gamey or no? (1/6/2010 7:22:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ckammp quote: ORIGINAL: treespider quote: ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns quote: ORIGINAL: treespider I still don't see the issue... The issue is he would have lost the battle sooner rather than later had he “simply detailed a reaction”. I guess the forces involved in this particular battle aren’t large enough to press home the problem, so for arguments sake let’s assume it is a large battle in China where numbers are very close but very large (100,000+ on a side) and moving even a single unit out of the hex causes the battle to be lost. Comparatively speaking the tiny recon units aren’t even a pimple on the rear end of the large units involved in our hypothetical, but because of the game mechanic a player is forced to either remove an entire division+ sized unit to react to the tiny pimples or get surrounded. That’s the issue. So the tiny recon units become these super powered force magnifiers that they never were historically. In the OP the forces were pretty evenly matched trying to counter the move would have caused him to lose the base for sure. A base he probably didn’t want to lose and thought he had a chance to hold, thus he stayed to try and hold it. But in a larger ‘close call’ fight where taking out even one unit causes you to lose, it’s totally out of whack that a tiny recon unit or two can block anything, but they still do and just as effectively as they did in the OP’s battle. Jim I still don't see the issue...happens all the time in history...one side gets outflanked by the other...which simply reinforces the concept of maintaining a viable reserve to react to such a situation... The issue is whether or not the defender was actually outflanked. The attacker sent recon units to a hex to establish a ZOC to block the defender's line of retreat, a perfectly legitimate tactic. However, the units did not stay in the hex, but continued on and returned to the main attacking force. Thus, the hex itself was not controlled, just the hexside, which within the rules prevents the defender from moving into the hex. But what if the recon units had stayed in the hex? According to the manual, page 191: "A side will maintain control of a hex side until an LCU of the opposing side crosses that hex side to enter a hex. Control of that hex side will then revert to the opposing side. Units may only LEAVE a hex across hex sides that their side controls". I know how it works...I designed it. When the Recon Units reentered the hex from the Opposite side they didn't magically "rejoin" the other units perse ...They re-entered the battlefield in a different "area" hence why they maintain control of the hexside they crossed entering the battlefield but still participate in the whole battle. Think of the hexsides as ethereal "areas" as opposed to lines in the sand....A hex would have essentially 7 ethereal areas, 6 for each of its hexsides and the 7th roughly being the center of the hex. When you enter the hex...you enter the "area" corresponding to the hexside you crossed to enter the hex...thus controlling the "area" or "hexside". quote: In other words, had the recon units stayed in the hex, the defender would have been free to move into the hex, but because the recon units simply moved thru the hex, the defender could not move into a now-vacant hex. Given the size of the defender's force, I find it doubtful that two recon units could effectively prevent the defenders from breaking out. Were the blocking units of a larger size, I could certainly see them encircling the defenders, but in this case, it seems, however unintentional, to be gamey. What was the size of the defending force? ....2 Bdes and some supporting battalions...Including Gull and Sparrow Battalions... I'd say 1 recon regt would be sufficent to set up a roadblock to cause routed and retreated units to choose a diiferent path. In this case there were two recon regiments.... Again why didn't the defender manuever Gull and Sparrow to parry the outflanking maneuver? At the least the attacker would have had to move the recon regt's two hexes before being able to reenter the encircled hex. While the attacker is performing this maneuver why didn't the defender move the 2 battalions SE to counter? [image]local://upfiles/15342/1AAEF37265734F2B9263386D93758D37.jpg[/image]

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.703125