Retreat

metolius · Post by **metolius** » Sat Jan 07, 2012 6:10 am

As we were discussing Sicilian garrison armies in another thread, the idea emerged that we could improve on the retreat mechanism. In that vain, a few ideas, just for fun:

+ Let units retreat 'over' other units -- moving back 2 hexes, in effect.
+ Let retreating units 'push' back other units behind them.
+ Make a keyboard command for units – 'r' for retreat or 'f' for flee – that ordered units to *always* retreat if they are attacked on the ground (a good way to give up ground and prevent getting overrun).

rkr1958 · Post by **rkr1958** » Sat Jan 07, 2012 11:42 am

Personally, I'm opposed to any fundamental change that's this drastic to a basic game mechanic and that's been in place since the very beginning. This would result in game play, in my estimation, that's so different from what anyone has experience as to require a year or more of playtesting to re-balance the game. Also in my estimation the side that held the initiative would devastate the other side with this change.

What I don't understand is what exploit is this proposed fix suppose to address?

Diplomaticus · Post by **Diplomaticus** » Sat Jan 07, 2012 1:00 pm

rkr1958 wrote:Personally, I'm opposed to any fundamental change that's this drastic to a basic game mechanic and that's been in place since the very beginning. This would result in game play, in my estimation, that's so different from what anyone has experience as to require a year or more of playtesting to re-balance the game. Also in my estimation the side that held the initiative would devastate the other side with this change.

What I don't understand is what exploit is this proposed fix suppose to address?

I agree completely. The way retreats are handled is so fundamental to the game that changing the retreat mechanics as proposed would likely have unpredictable results. And I just don't see that we'd gain anything from this change.

Blathergut · Post by **Blathergut** » Sat Jan 07, 2012 2:09 pm

This would be a major change to the game. I say leave as it.

PionUrpo · Post by **PionUrpo** » Sat Jan 07, 2012 6:30 pm

Too big a change... Effects would be too significant and require a whole new long testing phase.

As I said on the other thread, while the CEAW system regarding retreat etc. is somewhat annoying to me, it's not broken, just different from other games. I still play the game after all

Peter Stauffenberg · Post by **Peter Stauffenberg** » Sat Jan 07, 2012 6:42 pm

This is not so easy to program.

This change will make it very hard to break through a double defense line because the depleted units get to safety and you have to attack the rear line units which are at full strength. So destroying units will be harder than it's now. I'm not sure I like that.

The combat mechanism is made around picking targets and harass that target with multiple attacks until it's destroyed so you can pick the next target.

In many other games you let a stack of attackers attack one hex in a single attack and you apply losses. Such games usually let a unit have 2 steps (full strength and depleted strength). So you inflict step losses and if you inflict more than the total number of steps in the hex the unit is destroyed.

A very good game is War in Europe where destroyed divisions become cadres and you build new divisions from cadres. So you can then as the defender get the cadres at the front line to a production city and build it back to a full strength unit. In the real war we rarely saw utter destruction of units. That happened when the unit was completely surrounded. Usually a unit was so battered that it ceased to function and the remaining cadre was used as a basis to form a new unit with fresh recruits or several cadres were combined to form a unit.

GS has a different combat system with 10 steps per unit and multiple attacks. This means we have to be very careful about changing what makes this game unique. You can actually ruin the dynamics of the game with such a change to retreats.

joerock22 · Post by **joerock22** » Sun Jan 08, 2012 1:42 am

Stauffenberg wrote:A very good game is War in Europe where destroyed divisions become cadres and you build new divisions from cadres. So you can then as the defender get the cadres at the front line to a production city and build it back to a full strength unit. In the real war we rarely saw utter destruction of units. That happened when the unit was completely surrounded. Usually a unit was so battered that it ceased to function and the remaining cadre was used as a basis to form a new unit with fresh recruits or several cadres were combined to form a unit.

GS has a different combat system with 10 steps per unit and multiple attacks. This means we have to be very careful about changing what makes this game unique. You can actually ruin the dynamics of the game with such a change to retreats.

In order to rectify the GS game system and the realities of the war, you'd have to eliminate the reduced cost on unit repairs vs. building new units. That way there's no bonus given to the defender from units surviving.

But I agree with the majority of posters; this change is too huge to make. You can modify the game, but you can't completely change the dynamics.

metolius · Post by **metolius** » Sun Jan 08, 2012 7:03 am

Excellent! Sounds like everybody likes this idea.

I can appreciate the desire to avoid fixing something 'that ain't broke'.

I was, however, interested to note that nobody argued this point on the basis of whether it was a better, or worse, model of (this particular) war.

WWII actually did have a lot more static defense, particularly on the German side, than was wise, on purely military grounds, at least. AH all about 'stand-or-die' orders. And the current setup does in a way reflect that.

I guess that the dynamic that I think is still a bit weird is the whole 'double-line' thing. I think it tends to over-stabilize the fronts.