RE: Direction of Retreat

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Direction of Retreat

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

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

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Direction of Retreat - 7/30/2006 5:37:47 AM

Arimus

Posts: 145
Joined: 7/2/2006
Status: offline

I don't think a unit should be considered to be in such a chaotic state that it forgets where the rear is and where the enemy is, just because it didn't retreat from an attack that hasn't occured yet. In other words, an organized retreat in a logical direction should be the norm unless the attack is overwhelming.

(in reply to TOCarroll)

Post #: 31

RE: Direction of Retreat - 7/30/2006 6:59:26 AM

TOCarroll

Posts: 215
Joined: 3/28/2005
From: College Station, Texas
Status: offline

I did a poor job of explaining myself. Like in Avalon-Hill's Advanced Squad Leader, "Wheen the shooting starts, anything is possible." Not probable. Like industrial says, a well supplied, proficient unit should usually undergo a normal retreat, while corralled & Shanghied POW's looking to desert might be less prone to follow orders. The system should model that, as well as the increasing likelyhood of an overwhelming series of attacks breaking down discipline. HOWEVER, where retreats are concerned, the computer, not the player should run the show. Random events do occur.

EX: Suppose a crack formation loses command control prior to retreat (bomb hits officer's breifing). That can screw things up, no? Or a Russian Guards formation stumbles on a huge cache of schnapps? Compass wont be much help there. Take it to the other extreme and as the scales of battle tip, a trusted officer says follow me, we can cut around behind them?

All these, and more ludicrous occurences happen during war. All I am sugguesting is that, As Industrial sugguests, units normally retreat to a preselected direction in the rear. Lowered organization, supply, proficiency, ect should cause the retreat to become more random, more of a rout. IN ADDITION, there should be a finite chance of a FUBAR occurance, with incremental randomization. LAH should not be immune to error.

_____________________________

"Ideological conviction will trump logistics, numbers, and firepower every time"
J. Stalin, 1936-1941...A. Hitler, 1933-1945. W. Churchill (very rarely, and usually in North Africa). F. D. Roosvelt (smart enough to let the generals run the war).

(in reply to Arimus)

Post #: 32

RE: Direction of Retreat - 7/30/2006 7:55:49 PM

Curtis Lemay

Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Industrial
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.

Any breakthrough (again, internal to the hex - thinking of it as a battlefield) in the defender's lines will both sub-divide the defenders and deny each half one direction of retreat. Then the breakthrough may be exploited, denying more retreat paths. That's not a rout, except at the point of the breakthrough. The rest of the defenders can be in excellent shape yet still be denied their desired retreat path by the breakthrough and its exploitation.

quote:

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.

It doesn't matter how much they train or delay if their desired retreat path is blocked by the attacker's advances internal to the hex.

Again, try to think of the defender's hex not as a hex but as a giant tactical battlefield, like in one of the tactical wargames. The attacker's advance isn't going to ever be uniform across the entire front. It's going to be channeled into defender weakpoints and exploit them, if it is to be successful (and that is the case we're discussing). That's going to manifest itself as one or more breakthroughs. When the time comes that the defender has to retreat, he will not, by definition, have control of the battlefield, and his options will be limited by the attacker's control of it, regardless of his force's condition or his command and control.

And that condition and command and control is almost always going to be worse than it was before the assault. That means the sort of withdrawal options available to the defenders during their movement phase should not be as functional during their forced retreat from an adverse combat result, even if the path is available.

It all adds up to something similar to chaos. And that's about what the current system models.

(in reply to Industrial)

Post #: 33