Direction of Retreat

[TOCarroll]

I was under the impression that (at least the PO) retreats were generally in the direction that was most inconvienent to the opponent, provided that no major rules infractions were detectable.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

They will retreat toward the nearest supply source, or HQ unit, and generally into a "safe" location (i.e., a friendly unit) to minimize disengagement attacks. Unfortunately, when supply sources are very near by in lateral, or forward, positions, rather than "to the rear" the units will drag themselves along the front line making things worse, or even forward, where they often get stuck in an exposed bulge.

Making unit retreat more intelligently is on our list of things to work on.

A retreat is an adverse combat result imposed on defeated, fleeing, defenders by the victorious attackers. It isn't a voluntary action, like a planned retreat taken during movement. As such, forcing the retreat path to comply with the defender's best interests is not necessarily realistic.

Don't think of the combat hex as a "hex", think of it as a battlefield - mentally divide it up into 0.1km hexes if necessary. Then it's easy to imagine actions within the hex comparable to the same things that happen beyond the hex - breakthroughs and flanking actions, etc, that can deny a desired retreat path to the defender and dictate an undesired or unexpected one, including defenders scattering in multiple directions.

Be careful you don't "fix" something that isn't broken.

[Industrial]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

A retreat is an adverse combat result imposed on defeated, fleeing, defenders by the victorious attackers. It isn't a voluntary action, like a planned retreat taken during movement. As such, forcing the retreat path to comply with the defender's best interests is not necessarily realistic.

That would be 'routed' and is also a status a unit retreating from combat can take. I agree that a routed unit is basically panicking and wouldn't necessarily follow orders, but if we compare 'routed' to 'retreated' the latter can only be a forced, yet still controlled withdrawal. And as such the retreating unit should indeed still be able to follow orders given in case of withdrawal, and as long as no enemy units or unpassable landscape blocks the way, retreat into the given direction.

[PaladinSix]

It seems worth pointing out that there is also a question of scale involved with this problem. While it is perfectly plausible (maybe even likely) for a battlion to be forced out of its position and to retreat into the teeth of an enemy attack, it seems a lot less likely that the same thing would have to a division or corps. Any changes to the retreat mechanics should probably take into account the questions of scale and unit size.

PaladinSix

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Industrial

That would be 'routed' and is also a status a unit retreating from combat can take. I agree that a routed unit is basically panicking and wouldn't necessarily follow orders, but if we compare 'routed' to 'retreated' the latter can only be a forced, yet still controlled withdrawal. And as such the retreating unit should indeed still be able to follow orders given in case of withdrawal, and as long as no enemy units or unpassable landscape blocks the way, retreat into the given direction.

I'd say an organised, planned retreat is carried out in the player's own turn. If the unit is evicted from a hex by force, whether it goes to "routed" status or not, it is not following the plan. It may or may not be in touch with its HQ, but matters may well be out of the hands of even the commander of that unit.

[Industrial]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Industrial

That would be 'routed' and is also a status a unit retreating from combat can take. I agree that a routed unit is basically panicking and wouldn't necessarily follow orders, but if we compare 'routed' to 'retreated' the latter can only be a forced, yet still controlled withdrawal. And as such the retreating unit should indeed still be able to follow orders given in case of withdrawal, and as long as no enemy units or unpassable landscape blocks the way, retreat into the given direction.

I'd say an organised, planned retreat is carried out in the player's own turn. If the unit is evicted from a hex by force, whether it goes to "routed" status or not, it is not following the plan. It may or may not be in touch with its HQ, but matters may well be out of the hands of even the commander of that unit.

And, as we already agreed a few posts before this, that can easily be simulated using unit/formation/force proficiency, as a higly trained, well lead unit is more likely to retreat following given orders than a peasent militia with a commander who was a blacksmith 3 days ago.
Even if a retreat isn't planed, as long as it's not a rout, formations should still be able to retreat in good shape by using rearguards, without having to sacrifice much material or men.
As it was done countless times during countless wars

[TOCarroll]

My reference to Murphy's law in the previous post was not serious......but-The system isn't perfect, but it works. Most of the time I have observed units retreating in odd or random directions it was after multiple attacks, or a unit in a low organizational state. Sort of like the Germans trying to swim the Diepner to escape the Russians. In a panicked rout there is not gonna be a heck of a lot of logic involved.
 
Industrials idea is sound, I just don't know if it can be incorporated in a patch, or have to wait for TAOW4.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Industrial

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

A retreat is an adverse combat result imposed on defeated, fleeing, defenders by the victorious attackers. It isn't a voluntary action, like a planned retreat taken during movement. As such, forcing the retreat path to comply with the defender's best interests is not necessarily realistic.

That would be 'routed' and is also a status a unit retreating from combat can take. I agree that a routed unit is basically panicking and wouldn't necessarily follow orders, but if we compare 'routed' to 'retreated' the latter can only be a forced, yet still controlled withdrawal. And as such the retreating unit should indeed still be able to follow orders given in case of withdrawal, and as long as no enemy units or unpassable landscape blocks the way, retreat into the given direction.

No, it would be any retreat from combat. The defenders are being forced out of their positions by the attackers. And you're missing the point about the hex being an entire battlefield. Attacker advances internal to the hex can deny the defender's desired retreat path regardless of their capacity to follow orders, and force it to take an undesired or surprising one.

[Industrial]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

No, it would be any retreat from combat. The defenders are being forced out of their positions by the attackers. And you're missing the point about the hex being an entire battlefield. Attacker advances internal to the hex can deny the defender's desired retreat path regardless of their capacity to follow orders, and force it to take an undesired or surprising one.

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.
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.

What I'd like to see would be an internal counter, and with every time a unit is forced to retreat during one turn the risk of it evaporating should raise. This raise should be proportional to the max. movement points of a unit, or it's mobility if you want.

[TOCarroll]

I originally got into this discussion as an opportunity to put in a one-liner about a pet peeve.[:D]
However, it seems to be a valid discussion between intelligent....[>:](you get the point).
 
Both the "structured" (Industrial) and "semi-random" (various others) have good points. I would tend to go with Industrial & Co. with the caveat that war is not an organized event! The less player input into retreat direction the better. I remember boardgaming days (Stalingrad) where the German would attack at 1-3 odds, hoping (by packing the adjacent hexes) that the attacking untis would be forced to retreat 2 hexes into Russia!
 
In the BOARDGAME DNO Russian units that had lost command control (OK, that's a rout) retreated in a randomized direction.
 
I'm behind Industrial & Co., I just want to avoid a solution that players find a gamey way to take advantage of. I do not think the proposed solution has that problem, just give it a long hard look.[:)]

[Arimus]

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.

[TOCarroll]

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. 

[Curtis Lemay]

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.

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.