Retreat Before Combat (RBC)

[lojishen]

Lets say you realy want to RBC an enemy unit. Is RBC affected by friendly adjacent units (e.g. in the same hex as the attacking unit, in flanking positions), by tactically deployed or dug in friendly artillery units, loss setting of attacking unit (e.g. ignore losses vs. minimize losses)?

Thanks!!

[sPzAbt653]

If you really want to rbc a unit, I say to plow him up with artillery and then whack him with your strongest unit. Don't worry about supporting artillery modes, hit him with direct fire support and as much as you can before the strongest unit attacks. And for extra added pleasure, have two or three strong units in order to take turns kicking the rbc'd unit all over the map, while your mobile units fly thru the breach and wreak havoc in the rear areas. [8D]

[Catch21]

My understanding is anything in range helps- adjacent units and air/sea/arty all on appropriate modes of course.

Depending on your particular level of devotion to detail it can be worth looking into how this works and practicing in hot-seat mode....

[Curtis Lemay]

I think whether the defender RBCs is just between that defender and the moving enemy unit. However, if that RBC is triggered, then, during the retreat, there is a chance of triggering a disengagement attack, depending upon all the enemy units adjacent to the retreating unit. And if such an attack is triggered, then all ranged units (regardless of cooperation levels) will support the attack, if set to support modes.

So there is a motive to get your artillery set up to support before trying for the RBC.

[lojishen]

Thanks much.

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I think whether the defender RBCs is just between that defender and the moving enemy unit. However, if that RBC is triggered, then, during the retreat, there is a chance of triggering a disengagement attack, depending upon all the enemy units adjacent to the retreating unit. And if such an attack is triggered, then all ranged units (regardless of cooperation levels) will support the attack, if set to support modes.

So there is a motive to get your artillery set up to support before trying for the RBC.

Thanks, I'll have to teach Elmer that.

[wolflars]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I think whether the defender RBCs is just between that defender and the moving enemy unit. However, if that RBC is triggered, then, during the retreat, there is a chance of triggering a disengagement attack, depending upon all the enemy units adjacent to the retreating unit. And if such an attack is triggered, then all ranged units (regardless of cooperation levels) will support the attack, if set to support modes.

So there is a motive to get your artillery set up to support before trying for the RBC.

Learn something new every day.
Just to clarify, does this apply to air as well as artillery? How about naval?

[murphstein]

Does the loss setting of the mover/attacker influence the odds of the defender experiencing an RBC?

[Catch21]

ORIGINAL: wolflars
Just to clarify, does this apply to air as well as artillery? How about naval?

In my experience, anything sharp or metallic. But you can always test it yourselves. Use or set up a scenario and go for it.

[Catch21]

ORIGINAL: murphstein

Does the loss setting of the mover/attacker influence the odds of the defender experiencing an RBC?

In my experience yes. But again I'd urge you to test for yourselves. It may be I did test myself once, but so long ago I don't remember results.

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: General Staff

ORIGINAL: wolflars
Just to clarify, does this apply to air as well as artillery? How about naval?

In my experience, anything sharp or metallic. But you can always test it yourselves. Use or set up a scenario and go for it.

Well, Elmer now seems to throw more sharp metallic objects around. Thanks!

[Monkeys Brain]

ORIGINAL: murphstein

Does the loss setting of the mover/attacker influence the odds of the defender experiencing an RBC?

yes... planes on combat support will make rbc easier... but sometimes it's not good to leave planes on combat support if opponent have big air sup.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: wolflars
Learn something new every day.
Just to clarify, does this apply to air as well as artillery? How about naval?

Yes to all three. In fact, that's a nasty way to reveal enemy ships, even if they are set to internal cooperation. Just trigger an enemy disengagement attack near where you think they are and they will support it if in range (thereby revealing themselves). Then bring on the Stukas.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: murphstein

Does the loss setting of the mover/attacker influence the odds of the defender experiencing an RBC?

I haven't tested it, but I'd be surprised if it did. RBC is movement. The loss setting is to determine whether the unit will hang around after a combat round.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: murphstein

Does the loss setting of the mover/attacker influence the odds of the defender experiencing an RBC?

I haven't tested it, but I'd be surprised if it did. RBC is movement. The loss setting is to determine whether the unit will hang around after a combat round.

I think it may make a very small difference in certain cases. Namely, where the transport assets in the moving unit are active defenders. If so, then the higher settings for loss tolerance will treat more of them as combat ready, rather than shielded. Depending on the strength scales of the units and number of said assets, I've seen the displayed attack strength spike up between 1-3 points on units using ignore loss settings, over minimize loss settings.

[Heldenkaiser]

My question is the opposite: Is it possible to intentionally avoid the automatic retreat of an enemy unit, and thus the subsequent advance of my own attacking unit? The scenario of course being that I want the attacking unit to remain in place (as in a limited attack) because it's short of MP and would abandon an important location when advancing that it could not thereafter re-occupy. [:)]

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Heldenkaiser

My question is the opposite: Is it possible to intentionally avoid the automatic retreat of an enemy unit, and thus the subsequent advance of my own attacking unit? The scenario of course being that I want the attacking unit to remain in place (as in a limited attack) because it's short of MP and would abandon an important location when advancing that it could not thereafter re-occupy. [:)]

Use a ranged unit to bring up the Attack Planner. Then assign the desired adjacent unit from within that.

[murphstein]

Now there's nugget for the newbies... [&o] ...thank you, Gen. Lemay...

[Heldenkaiser]

Thanks indeed! Very helpful. [:)]

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Heldenkaiser

My question is the opposite: Is it possible to intentionally avoid the automatic retreat of an enemy unit, and thus the subsequent advance of my own attacking unit? The scenario of course being that I want the attacking unit to remain in place (as in a limited attack) because it's short of MP and would abandon an important location when advancing that it could not thereafter re-occupy. [:)]

Use a ranged unit to bring up the Attack Planner. Then assign the desired adjacent unit from within that.

? Won't the attacking unit advance into the hex anyway? I think that's what's happened when I've triggered an RBC from within the attack planner.