shattered because cannot retreat ?

shattered because cannot retreat ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> WarPlan

Message

fulcrum28 -> shattered because cannot retreat ? (2/14/2021 10:49:34 AM)
I noticed sometimes a panzer korps with 28 strength is shattered after suffering 0 strength loss, and the only reason i can figure out is because it cannot retreat an hex because another German units are behind, is it true??

ncc1701e -> RE: shattered because cannot retreat ? (2/14/2021 10:52:50 AM)
Yes, retreat paths are very important. You need to think about them always. Otherwise, you may suffer deadly counter attacks like me when I have started to learn the game.

squatter -> RE: shattered because cannot retreat ? (2/14/2021 12:30:21 PM)
Ok so this is probably my biggest bugbear relating to the land combat model in this game. I'm not a fan of this. It leads to unrealistic shattering of high quality, high strength units as reported above. It also leads to slightly gamey tactics of forcing shatters by influencing retreat paths with ZOCs. I can only guess that this rule is in place to prevent building defence lines three hexes deep? Because the rule can't be in place to simulate anything in the real world. When did this ever happen in reality? In what possible real war scenario can it be a bad thing to have masses of reserve forces behind the front to cover your retreat? My suggestion would be to have no limit to ground unit retreat over friendly units, but their effectiveness gets trashed the further they retreat. Possibly even some extra losses for three/four hex retreats.

AlvaroSousa -> RE: shattered because cannot retreat ? (2/14/2021 4:06:45 PM)
I can write a rule that enforces something or I can make a system that is incentivizing for players not to game the system. If I make a retreat as far as you want but lose effectiveness then players will just gimmick it to keep a huge deep line depleting attackers. This method tells the player something exact and what happens if they don't follow the guidelines that is incentive enough to watch your retreat routes. I put a mountain of time into thinking about this situation.

sillyflower -> RE: shattered because cannot retreat ? (2/14/2021 9:03:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fulcrum28 I noticed sometimes a panzer korps with 28 strength is shattered after suffering 0 strength loss, and the only reason i can figure out is because it cannot retreat an hex because another German units are behind, is it true?? A unit can retreat 2 friendly hexes so there has to be a 2 deep line of units blocking retreats to get a shatter

baloo7777 -> RE: shattered because cannot retreat ? (2/14/2021 9:49:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: squatter quote: My suggestion would be to have no limit to ground unit retreat over friendly units, but their effectiveness gets trashed the further they retreat. Possibly even some extra losses for three/four hex retreats. I like this suggestion. It changes the tactics of the game a lot though. I had my arse handed to me when I first started playing when someone retreated a small corps and clogged the retreat path and then he forced my mech to shatter...fun stuff... so now I look for opportunities to do the same.

eddieballgame -> RE: shattered because cannot retreat ? (2/14/2021 10:25:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa I can write a rule that enforces something or I can make a system that is incentivizing for players not to game the system. If I make a retreat as far as you want but lose effectiveness then players will just gimmick it to keep a huge deep line depleting attackers. This method tells the player something exact and what happens if they don't follow the guidelines that is incentive enough to watch your retreat routes. I put a mountain of time into thinking about this situation. Excellent response...thank you.

squatter -> RE: shattered because cannot retreat ? (2/14/2021 10:29:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa I can write a rule that enforces something or I can make a system that is incentivizing for players not to game the system. If I make a retreat as far as you want but lose effectiveness then players will just gimmick it to keep a huge deep line depleting attackers. This method tells the player something exact and what happens if they don't follow the guidelines that is incentive enough to watch your retreat routes. I put a mountain of time into thinking about this situation. Two points I'd make: 1 There are limited opportunities to make defence lines 3 deep in the game - some choke points such as Quatara Depression I accept - but would this really become a major issue to the game in reality? 2 In many cases the worst/most annoying aspect of this rule is not when you are the defender, but when you are attacking and the point of your spear gets shattered because of the retreat rule, despite being full strength.

fulcrum28 -> RE: shattered because cannot retreat ? (2/15/2021 11:22:50 AM)
Thank you, Alvaro, for looking into this carefully. I was playing as German against the AI. Attacking Moscow I found three lines of Russian Armies around the city. I thought it was a very hard task, but 4 or 5 Soviet Armies were shattered because they could not retreat. In addition, in the single counterattack I suffered, the spear panzer korps was shattered after suffering 0 strength losses... So since they can be reconstructed at 90% of industrial points, and I guess it was transported by Ju-52, or teleported to Berlin... It is not realistic at all. The current algorithm checks 1 empty hex and even up to two hexes for retreat, and if not available then the unit is shattered...but could you please modify the script so it also checks three or even four hexes to retreat? In WITE, they have a "routed" unit concept, so sometimes, the attacked unit is retreated multiple hexes...and unable to move by the player. I accept strength loses, effectiveness loss, you could also add extra losses if the path is not found....but historically I didnt see in, for example, Kursk battle that a panzer corps disappeared from the battle field without having any tank destroyed.. :) As a side note, may you also consider scripting a soviet unit permanently located on Minsk and Smolensk? It is too easy to just advance a Panzer Korps and entering into the cities without any opposition. I love this game and can recommend it, just a small changes can make it even better.

AlvaroSousa -> RE: shattered because cannot retreat ? (2/15/2021 3:10:25 PM)
WitE is a different scale completely. Each hex here is 9 hexes in WitE. What I can say is that I listen to player's ideas and implement them often enough. Sometimes I never use them. Sometimes I takes a while. Sometimes they are saved for the next version. Currently I am keeping retreat routes as is. I might change my mind later. Game mechanic decisions depends on a lot of factors sometimes hidden to the player. One in particulate took 6 months to make a decision on and it is now being tested before release. So this one goes on my consideration pile. As for the A.I. realize it will NEVER beat a human. I can stuff the Axis A.I. in SC3 in France in 1940. I never read the rules. I played maybe 10 games of SC2. I am not an expert wargamer. Hubert's A.I. is a little better than mine because he has a decade into it. A game on this scale is too complex internally for an A.I. to handle. Thus why I have so many experience and supply levels to challenge players. The A.I. will make a mountain of mistakes. Unless someone has a Google Deep Mind computer handy.

Harrybanana -> RE: shattered because cannot retreat ? (2/15/2021 4:09:47 PM)
I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand I do think it is unrealistic that units shatter because their retreat is blocked by friendly units. On the other hand I really don't want to see 3 or 4 hex deep lines in France. Part of the problem is the stacking limit of just 1 corps per hex. There are 6 hexes along the border between France and Belgium/Luxembourg. So this means that each side can only have 6 corps (18 divisions) on the front lines. But historically the Germans attacked this part of the line with 65 divisions; of which 45 (Army Group A) were driven through just the 2 hexes that represent Luxembourg and Southern Belgium in the game. Admittedly not all of these 45 divisions were in the spearhead/frontline. But a lot more than 6 were. The Allied Plan (The Dyle Plan) called for the Allies to move into the 6 hexes between the Maginot Line and Brussels with 37 divisions (4 armies/12 corps). This was not to be a defence in depth, these 12 corps would occupy the front lines. Of course, in the game this is not possible. The same can be said about the Allies in Normandy where they had 4 armies (not just 5 corps) in the 5 hexes of Normandy prior to Operation Cobra. So my solution would be to allow 2 corps to stack in each hex rather than only 1. If this were implemented than it would go along ways to solving the problem of units being unable to retreat as they could retreat onto friendly units upto the maximum of 2 units per hex. It would also solve the problem of invasions being too difficult against strongly defended ports as now the Allies can invade with more units. But, of course, a major change like this will have to wait for WarPlan 2.

ComadrejaKorp -> RE: shattered because cannot retreat ? (2/15/2021 4:19:32 PM)
Very interesting +1

squatter -> RE: shattered because cannot retreat ? (2/15/2021 4:56:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Harrybanana I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand I do think it is unrealistic that units shatter because their retreat is blocked by friendly units. On the other hand I really don't want to see 3 or 4 hex deep lines in France. Part of the problem is the stacking limit of just 1 corps per hex. There are 6 hexes along the border between France and Belgium/Luxembourg. So this means that each side can only have 6 corps (18 divisions) on the front lines. But historically the Germans attacked this part of the line with 65 divisions; of which 45 (Army Group A) were driven through just the 2 hexes that represent Luxembourg and Southern Belgium in the game. Admittedly not all of these 45 divisions were in the spearhead/frontline. But a lot more than 6 were. The Allied Plan (The Dyle Plan) called for the Allies to move into the 6 hexes between the Maginot Line and Brussels with 37 divisions (4 armies/12 corps). This was not to be a defence in depth, these 12 corps would occupy the front lines. Of course, in the game this is not possible. The same can be said about the Allies in Normandy where they had 4 armies (not just 5 corps) in the 5 hexes of Normandy prior to Operation Cobra. So my solution would be to allow 2 corps to stack in each hex rather than only 1. If this were implemented than it would go along ways to solving the problem of units being unable to retreat as they could retreat onto friendly units upto the maximum of 2 units per hex. It would also solve the problem of invasions being too difficult against strongly defended ports as now the Allies can invade with more units. But, of course, a major change like this will have to wait for WarPlan 2. Good points. I wouldn't be against increasing the stacking limit, but I suspect that would be counter to the streamlined ethos of the game. A different thought: No-one would want to see lines of defenders 3 or 4 hexes deep, this is true. But the opportunities for this to happen are relatively slim: France, Qatara Depression, one or two other choke points in N Africa. Taking the France example - the only way the Allied player is going to have 3-4 hex deep defences is by employing small corps and divisions. Perhaps the way to counterweight this would be to introduce a significant 'malus' to defending values when the defending unit is smaller than the attacker. Ie, a Large Corps attacking a division gets an added bonus - perhaps an odds shift - on top of absolute combat values. This would discourage creation of deep lines simply by breaking down units into smaller sizes.

AlvaroSousa -> RE: shattered because cannot retreat ? (2/15/2021 6:15:36 PM)
So both of the ideas start over complicating a game mechanic that would now need a complete overhaul. Stacking units means there is several months of work ahead. Changing values when X adds months of work on A.I. But you proved my point.... how often does a player go 3 deep? Almost never. So I would be making modifications costing months of work for something that rarely happens. Coding and testing takes far longer than people think.

Harrybanana -> RE: shattered because cannot retreat ? (2/15/2021 6:25:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: squatter Good points. I wouldn't be against increasing the stacking limit, but I suspect that would be counter to the streamlined ethos of the game. A different thought: No-one would want to see lines of defenders 3 or 4 hexes deep, this is true. But the opportunities for this to happen are relatively slim: France, Qatara Depression, one or two other choke points in N Africa. Taking the France example - the only way the Allied player is going to have 3-4 hex deep defences is by employing small corps and divisions. Perhaps the way to counterweight this would be to introduce a significant 'malus' to defending values when the defending unit is smaller than the attacker. Ie, a Large Corps attacking a division gets an added bonus - perhaps an odds shift - on top of absolute combat values. This would discourage creation of deep lines simply by breaking down units into smaller sizes. I wish this were true; but in fact in order to go 3 deep in France the French would only need to build 7 large corps before May 1940. Along with 5 British Corps plus what they start with they could defend the Maginot line with 8 small corps, the Italian border with 3 divisions (or even HQs) and the border from the Channel to the Maginot line with 21 large corps. They would still have extra units to garrison Paris, Rouen, etc to defend against para drops. In any event, they wouldn't even need large corps in the 3rd line, small corps would be enough.

baloo7777 -> RE: shattered because cannot retreat ? (2/15/2021 6:28:07 PM)
I like the 2 corps stacking rule as Harrybanana mentions. However, what would the attack/defend number of units be (just 1 of each of the stacked units to attack or defend... or both)? Would Infantry assault and Anti-tank be allowed to stack together (or Heavy Armor and Breakthrough)? I suggest allowing a retreated unit to stack up to 2 units but it must be retreated 2 hexes and be able to return to 1 unit per hex on the player's next turn. The retreated unit does not have any combat factors and if the hex it is retreated into is attacked while the unit is stacked, it is shattered instead (just the unit that was retreated).

ncc1701e -> RE: shattered because cannot retreat ? (2/15/2021 6:38:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: squatter Taking the France example - the only way the Allied player is going to have 3-4 hex deep defences is by employing small corps and divisions. Perhaps the way to counterweight this would be to introduce a significant 'malus' to defending values when the defending unit is smaller than the attacker. Ie, a Large Corps attacking a division gets an added bonus - perhaps an odds shift - on top of absolute combat values. This would discourage creation of deep lines simply by breaking down units into smaller sizes. That is what TOAW III was calling the gamey ant tactic. [:)]

Harrybanana -> RE: shattered because cannot retreat ? (2/15/2021 6:38:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa So both of the ideas start over complicating a game mechanic that would now need a complete overhaul. Stacking units means there is several months of work ahead. Changing values when X adds months of work on A.I. But you proved my point.... how often does a player go 3 deep? Almost never. So I would be making modifications costing months of work for something that rarely happens. Coding and testing takes far longer than people think. As I said Alvaro, I would not expect this modification to occur in Warplan now; it is too big a change. But I think it is something to consider for WarPlan 2. The limitation of having 1 corps per hex is not historical given the area covered by each hex. At least in clear terrain you should be able to stack 2 corps. The only reason players do not stack 3 hexes deep is because of the retreat rule, which is itself artificial. But for this Rule I would definitely be stacking 3 hexes deep in France, the Quattra Depression, near Leningrad and other locations.

Harrybanana -> RE: shattered because cannot retreat ? (2/15/2021 9:29:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: baloo7777 I like the 2 corps stacking rule as Harrybanana mentions. However, what would the attack/defend number of units be (just 1 of each of the stacked units to attack or defend... or both)? Would Infantry assault and Anti-tank be allowed to stack together (or Heavy Armor and Breakthrough)? I suggest allowing a retreated unit to stack up to 2 units but it must be retreated 2 hexes and be able to return to 1 unit per hex on the player's next turn. The retreated unit does not have any combat factors and if the hex it is retreated into is attacked while the unit is stacked, it is shattered instead (just the unit that was retreated). There is no reason why both corps stacked in the same hex cannot both attack and defend together. There is no reason why you would not be able to mix unit types. There should still be a stacking limit of one corps for mountain hexes and you can only attack into a mountain hex using one unit from each attacking hex. Probably the same for swamp. But again, this is all just something for Alvaro to consider for WarPlan 2.

stjeand -> RE: shattered because cannot retreat ? (2/15/2021 9:54:49 PM)
Just my two cents... I do not mind the retreat rule...unable to retreat 3. I suspect the unit is not really shattered more "scattered" and the units are spread throughout hexes surrounding where they were. They end up being "reconsituted" back at that capitol. But I would rather if the unit is "shattered" the remenants are added to other units nearby a turn later. So a panzer worth 28 is destroyed. That happens usually when your effectiveness is bottomed out. When shattered other nearby panzers receive reinforcements. Any left over are in the "pool" allowing a rebuilt at a cheaper cost. NO idea what this would take to program...probably to much in this game, perhaps Warplan 2. As for stacking...yes that would be nice. I think I would rather make the map a little bigger and keep the units stacked one. But that adds it own issues.

squatter -> RE: shattered because cannot retreat ? (2/15/2021 10:04:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa So both of the ideas start over complicating a game mechanic that would now need a complete overhaul. Stacking units means there is several months of work ahead. Changing values when X adds months of work on A.I. But you proved my point.... how often does a player go 3 deep? Almost never. So I would be making modifications costing months of work for something that rarely happens. Coding and testing takes far longer than people think. Thanks Alvaro. Admittedly my opinions come with zero understanding of coding implications. Just throwing things into the mix from the perspective of a current player. Fair enough that the above suggestions are overcomplicated, but that does not in itself prove that the 2 hex retreat rule is perfect. If you agree that players going 3 deep in defence isn't a problem anyway, then why have the rule at all? Because as previously stated the rule is often most annoying not for the defender, but the attacker who gets their finest armour snipped off at the tip of a breakthrough. What about trying a BETA with the 2 hex retreat rule changed to 3? Would that take a lot of work to trial? Just a thought. Perhaps fears of deep defensive lines are overblown? Perhaps any benefit the rule's removal imparts to the defender who can build deeper lines will be offset by removing the attacker's need currently to keep shuffling his interior lines around his thrusts to ensure there's retreat paths for his spearheads.

squatter -> RE: shattered because cannot retreat ? (2/16/2021 6:48:53 PM)
Another thought: Change the combat result of 'shattered' to when a retreat path is blocked to 'broken', where the unit is placed in the production queue a month down the line at the strength it was when it broke

AlvaroSousa -> RE: shattered because cannot retreat ? (2/16/2021 7:22:32 PM)
You can always post ideas. Sometimes ideas mutate and give me ideas for other things. Making it 3 hexes also takes quite a lot of work. There are a lot of checks that can break once you go 3 hexes. Right now most of my time is focused on getting out Pacific and retrofitting mechances back to Europe if possible and it is good for the game.

squatter -> RE: shattered because cannot retreat ? (2/16/2021 9:28:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa You can always post ideas. Sometimes ideas mutate and give me ideas for other things. Making it 3 hexes also takes quite a lot of work. There are a lot of checks that can break once you go 3 hexes. Right now most of my time is focused on getting out Pacific and retrofitting mechances back to Europe if possible and it is good for the game. Understood. There's only one of you. Best of luck with Pacific - I look forward to playing it.

Nirosi -> RE: shattered because cannot retreat ? (2/16/2021 11:00:52 PM)
quote: Understood. There's only one of you. Best of luck with Pacific - I look forward to playing it. +1

AlvaroSousa -> RE: shattered because cannot retreat ? (2/16/2021 11:53:05 PM)
Pacific A.I. is proving to be incredibly difficult. I've had to rewrite it 3x now.

kcole4001 -> RE: shattered because cannot retreat ? (2/17/2021 1:15:55 AM)
The only issue I've seen so far is the enemy troops retreating around my attackers and closer to my paras in behind, forcing me to block the adjacent hexes so I can still use my paras. The only time I have seen a line 3 deep was in front of Paris and there's likely no reasonable way to block all outside retreat routes. Maybe making the retreat distance 3 or 4? As you said, it's not a common situation. I'm liking the stacking much better than SC, but it would be better if 3 or even 2 divs could stack since that's what a corps contains. Just ideas.

squatter -> RE: shattered because cannot retreat ? (2/17/2021 12:26:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa Pacific A.I. is proving to be incredibly difficult. I've had to rewrite it 3x now. quote: than I'm afraid to say I've literally never played a hex-based PC wargame that's had what you might call a 'satisfactory' AI. Never. It's only ever any good for learning a game. So coding for the Pacific must be incredibly difficult to the point of being almost a waste of time. I don't envy you.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

8.625