Surrendering units necessary?

[boredatwork]

One little irk I have with PzC is units surrendering if forced to retreat but unable to do so.

PzC inherited the rule from PG but given the ease at which PzC artillery inflicts long term suppression I'm wondering if it's outlived it's usefullness as a mechanic and instead become too gamey?

If a unit is surrounded by enemy or has it's back to impassible terrain then there would be reasonable justification for it.

Unfortunately all too often units surrender as a result of being "trapped" by friendly units at their back. I'm struggling to think of any WW2 battle where such an event happened.

I think a better solution would be units unable to retreat simply take extra casualties instead - representing the fairly common occurance whether by orders or situation of defending (or attacking if the attacking player's force is trapped) at all costs.

Such a change would potentially benefit the AI since it's much less able to avoid self trapping it's units, giving the player easy targets.

[El_Condoro]

It certainly makes sense IMO but it would have a drastic effect on current game play where often the ONLY way to destroy a target (I'm thinking the super heavies of any nation) is by 'surrounding and pounding' until suppressed, then attacking to force the retreat and surrender. It would make the later DLCs extremely difficult if the AI IS-2s etc behaved this way.

[jaggy]

I don't like the way surrender works in Panzer Corps either as its definitely too gamey. I think surrender should be re-worked and boredatwork's suggestion sounds good and if the devs could look implement it, I think it would be for the better. One can currently force multiple surrenders by filling the gap left by the surrendering unit with a recon and force yet another surrender. If you are surrounded completely by enemy units, yes, surrender makes sense but when friendly units itself are the blocking units, then it doesn't. I'm sure the devs could rework the game mechanics so that surrender is not the only way to take out super heavies. Just my opinion.

[Razz1]

I'm with El_Condoro

[deducter]

Surrender is necessary to avoid an even worse evil: superclumps of units. That would be the best way for your units to support one another. Perhaps for SP, this is not a problem, as the AI is hardly competent enough to understand how to enforce surrenders. But for MP, players will simply mass all their units into one gigantic ball for maximal effect and support. If surrender didn't exist, there'd be absolutely no incentive to spread your units out so to form a front.

[boredatwork]

If surrender didn't exist, there'd be absolutely no incentive to spread your units out so to form a front.

where often the ONLY way to destroy a target (I'm thinking the super heavies of any nation) is by 'surrounding and pounding' until suppressed, then attacking to force the retreat and surrender.

I think a better solution would be units unable to retreat simply take extra casualties instead

I don't see what the issue is - if you're suffering 3-5 EXTRA casualties for being unable to retreat there IS incentive to spread your force out and you can STILL destroy heavy tanks by surrounding and pounding them - the main difference is you're no longer able to cheesily ONE SHOT enemy units because the AI is unable to do anything else but superclump them.

[Lazzie]

I would just like my units to retreat towards other friendly units instead of retreating towards the enemy. The AI units always retreat away from the enemy. My units almost always retreat towards the enemy.