Retreats without Disengagement Penalties.

[sPzAbt653]

This will show how to make large scale withdrawals while avoiding disengagement penalties. While these screen shots are specific to FitE and D21, and are from an actual game (so not all units in the view apply to the discussion), the same tactics can be used in other scenarios.

These screen shots are specific to using Headquarters units in a retreat. For more info on disengagement, see 10.4.10 in the manual.

This first shot shows a typical defensive position. The front line is held by infantry, with HQ, Artillery and other Reserve units one hex behind.

[sPzAbt653]

First move - Move HQ units forward into the front line.

[sPzAbt653]

Second move - Move front line units out of their positions.

In most cases this should only be a one hex move, as the HQ units can now only move into an 'occupied' hex safely. In this screen shot, some other units already occupied the 'fall back' hex, allowing some of the front line units to retreat farther than one hex.

[sPzAbt653]

Third move - Move the HQ units back one hex, and one hex only, and into an occupied hex.

[sPzAbt653]

Fourth move - Free and clear to manuever! Now a new defensive line is formed!

Enemy Air Interdiction can affect these moves, so it is a good idea to have Friendly Air Support in the area of any retreat.

Keep an eye on your HQ's movement allowance during these moves. In some cases, they may end up not having enough movement points left to return to friendly lines!

Scenarios have varying numbers of HQ units. But sometimes one HQ can effectively retreat a good portion of any line.

Take your time, planning retreats is often tedious.

[Silvanski]

note that HQ's may have trouble disengaging by themselves depending on enemy recon, terrain, movement points left etc

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Silvanski

note that HQ's may have trouble disengaging by themselves depending on enemy recon, terrain, movement points left etc

Provided the hex they move to is friendly occupied, they get to disengage for free. It is correct that this consumes a lot of MPs, so the HQs need to be high mobility. Artillery units get the same privilege, and can be used as above, too. I think this was intended to model the fact that such units are rear-area elements, and, as such, would have some advance notice that the enemy was on his way - allowing them to clear out ahead of the spearheads. So, this compensates for one of IGOUGO's issues.

The above would then be an abuse of the privilege - but it does work. One day, it may get reined in somewhat (see item 7.6 in the wishlist).

Another way to disengage free is to use limited attacks. Obviously, you have to retreat all adjacent enemy. But, if they're weak enough, it allows everyone to escape.

One more is to save your most powerful, healthiest, and highest MP unit to be the last to disengage - and hope that it has the ability to not get stuck. Again, this is only if the enemy are relatively weak or foot bound.

Last, of course, is to subdivide a weak unit and leave it behind. Of course, there are those that consider this to be an abuse, too. (See item 7.5 in the wishlist). So one day, even this may require some consideration of just how large a unit to abandon.

[rhinobones]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
I think this was intended to model the fact that such units are rear-area elements, and, as such, would have some advance notice that the enemy was on his way - allowing them to clear out ahead of the spearheads. So, this compensates for one of IGOUGO's issues.

I have always found this to be a very odd and curious aspect of TOAW. What magical quality does a HQ possess that enables it to foresee an enemy advance that the line combat units do not posses? Why is it that a bunch of clerks, cooks and motor-T troops are able to disengage without penalty while a combat unit not only suffers causalities, but is often degraded to the point where it cannot defend itself (dig in) or is sent into the equally debilitating re-organization mode.

Nothing in my military experience has shown that HQ units can cover withdrawing combat units. Has anyone with military experience ever seen HQ units effectively cover for withdrawing combat units? Would like to hear from you.

Also, this business that HQs covering withdrawing provide some type of compensation for the IGOUGO dichotomy needs some explanation. I just do not see the connection between the two game functions . . . guess I need to have this explained.

Regards, RhinoBones

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


Last, of course, is to subdivide a weak unit and leave it behind. Of course, there are those that consider this to be an abuse, too. (See item 7.5 in the wishlist). So one day, even this may require some consideration of just how large a unit to abandon.

The odd thing is that this is exactly what is done in real-life withdrawals.

A minimal covering force -- say one company from each regiment -- maintains an illusion of an occupied front while the bulk of the force withdraws. It's just about what one would gets by subdividing one unit per every three hexes and leaving it in the line.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
I think this was intended to model the fact that such units are rear-area elements, and, as such, would have some advance notice that the enemy was on his way - allowing them to clear out ahead of the spearheads. So, this compensates for one of IGOUGO's issues.

I have always found this to be a very odd and curious aspect of TOAW. What magical quality does a HQ possess that enables it to foresee an enemy advance that the line combat units do not posses?

The fact that they are further back from the front lines. The frontline elements act as live tripwires, alerting the HQ etc., giving them time to escape.

Nothing in my military experience has shown that HQ units can cover withdrawing combat units. Has anyone with military experience ever seen HQ units effectively cover for withdrawing combat units? Would like to hear from you.

Which is why that is seen by some as an abuse of the privilege. They should be able to save themselves, but not frontline elements.

Also, this business that HQs covering withdrawing provide some type of compensation for the IGOUGO dichotomy needs some explanation. I just do not see the connection between the two game functions . . . guess I need to have this explained.

IGOUGO means the attacker is moving while the defender is not. In this case, the HQ, etc. would be escaping simultaneously with the attack's advance. It's similar to the escape of air units from enemy ground advances.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


Last, of course, is to subdivide a weak unit and leave it behind. Of course, there are those that consider this to be an abuse, too. (See item 7.5 in the wishlist). So one day, even this may require some consideration of just how large a unit to abandon.

The odd thing is that this is exactly what is done in real-life withdrawals.

A minimal covering force -- say one company from each regiment -- maintains an illusion of an occupied front while the bulk of the force withdraws. It's just about what one would gets by subdividing one unit per every three hexes and leaving it in the line.

But how minimal? Should there be no limit? A one squad unit can cover an Army Group's withdrawal? Right now, that's the case.

[rhinobones]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
The odd thing is that this is exactly what is done in real-life withdrawals.

A minimal covering force -- say one company from each regiment -- maintains an illusion of an occupied front while the bulk of the force withdraws. It's just about what one would gets by subdividing one unit per every three hexes and leaving it in the line.

Problem is that in TOAW you cannot split off a company from a regiment . . . you can only split off battalions. And, if your parent unit has already been split, you no longer have the option to split/divide to smaller units. I’m not sure about the real life military experience you have with withdrawing combat units . . . I can only assure you that this has not been my experience.

The thing is that TOAW does not replicate real life.

Regards, RhinoBones

[sPzAbt653]

In order to conduct a withdrawal while facing the enemy, roads, bridges, tracks and river crossings must be improved. Assembly areas for troops are chosen and camouflaged. Elaborate calculations are made to determine what equipment and material can be moved, and what transport will be needed. Demolitions, road blocks and minefields are designed to fit the withdrawal plan for delaying actions on specific lines of resistance.

Von Mellenthin provides this and plus over four pages in his book 'Panzer Battles' describing how the Germans conducted their withdrawals on the East Front.

If a scenario is being designed that portrays a force that did not have the ability to conduct successful withdrawals, then I would guess there would not be many Headquarter units in the oob. For FitE and D21, the HQ's are necessary in order to recreate the historical retreats that were conducted, all made possible in large part by exceptional planning from those in charge.

Wishlist 7.6.1
HQ & Artillery special disengagement ability is only received if such units haven’t yet moved that player turn, and disengage ahead of other units in the hex. (So they can’t be used to “rescue” engaged frontline units).

I can agree that artillery units shouldn't be used for this purpose, but I have to disagree that HQ units should not be allowed to assist in disengagement. Rather to let the designers limit the number of HQ units if that is the desired effect.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


Last, of course, is to subdivide a weak unit and leave it behind. Of course, there are those that consider this to be an abuse, too. (See item 7.5 in the wishlist). So one day, even this may require some consideration of just how large a unit to abandon.

The odd thing is that this is exactly what is done in real-life withdrawals.

A minimal covering force -- say one company from each regiment -- maintains an illusion of an occupied front while the bulk of the force withdraws. It's just about what one would gets by subdividing one unit per every three hexes and leaving it in the line.

But how minimal? Should there be no limit? A one squad unit can cover an Army Group's withdrawal? Right now, that's the case.

No...the simulation TOAW offers with this mechanism certainly isn't perfect -- but it's better than average for the system. I mean, when one thinks of all the egregious absurdities, at least this one looks vaguely realistic.

...and one can control the possibilities to some extent by controlling what mix of units one offers a player. If you don't want one-squad units covering the withdrawals of army groups, don't have platoons and army groups in the same scenario.

In some scenarios, it can work well. The last playtest of Seelowe I ran, I was the British, and when I did need to fall back, sometimes I used what recon units I had, and sometimes I used some of the more beat-up subdivided infantry companies (the British have a mix of battalions and brigades). It really was pretty authentic-looking.

As I say, while no doubt some improvement in this area could be made, if we compare the whole situation to that of an old car, this is the starter that sometimes grinds -- and inasmuch as we've got a leaking master cylinder, a bent steering arm, and no windshield, I'd say there are other priorities.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

...and one can control the possibilities to some extent by controlling what mix of units one offers a player. If you don't want one-squad units covering the withdrawals of army groups, don't have platoons and army groups in the same scenario.

Now you sound like Richard. Did he get to you? It's blackmail, right? He knows about the bodies in the basement? It won't end with this, you know. Soon he'll be expecting you to agree that TOAW would make a fine Napoleonic tactical system.

Ants are unavoidable. This is just another ant issue, like all the rest.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

In order to conduct a withdrawal while facing the enemy, roads, bridges, tracks and river crossings must be improved. Assembly areas for troops are chosen and camouflaged. Elaborate calculations are made to determine what equipment and material can be moved, and what transport will be needed. Demolitions, road blocks and minefields are designed to fit the withdrawal plan for delaying actions on specific lines of resistance.

Von Mellenthin provides this and plus over four pages in his book 'Panzer Battles' describing how the Germans conducted their withdrawals on the East Front.

If a scenario is being designed that portrays a force that did not have the ability to conduct successful withdrawals, then I would guess there would not be many Headquarter units in the oob. For FitE and D21, the HQ's are necessary in order to recreate the historical retreats that were conducted, all made possible in large part by exceptional planning from those in charge.

Wishlist 7.6.1
HQ & Artillery special disengagement ability is only received if such units haven’t yet moved that player turn, and disengage ahead of other units in the hex. (So they can’t be used to “rescue” engaged frontline units).

I can agree that artillery units shouldn't be used for this purpose, but I have to disagree that HQ units should not be allowed to assist in disengagement. Rather to let the designers limit the number of HQ units if that is the desired effect.

I'm not sure that's quite the same thing as this disengagement privilege (why would the HQ need to enter the hex?). But an interesting point.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

...and one can control the possibilities to some extent by controlling what mix of units one offers a player. If you don't want one-squad units covering the withdrawals of army groups, don't have platoons and army groups in the same scenario.

Now you sound like Richard. Did he get to you? Ants are unavoidable. This is just another ant issue, like all the rest.

Ants are unavoidable -- to a certain extent. Ever try to keep a yard perfectly weeded?

It's virtually impossible. However, that doesn't mean the problem can't be at least partially addressed. In Seelowe, I'm able to avoid any unit smaller than a company in a scenario where the standard units are battalions, regiments, and brigades. Typically, the unit 'covering' a brigade-size withdrawal is a company -- and that's just about right.

At any rate, you'll have to admit that in a scenario where the standard unit is an army group, one-squad units should be avoidable -- and in any case, my point isn't that the current state is perfection. It's just that in this area -- unlike as in some others -- what occurs at least bears some resemblance to historical military reality. Compare and contrast to the shortcomings of equipment upgrades, supply, interdiction, encirclement, naval warfare, and airborne operations, for example.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

In order to conduct a withdrawal while facing the enemy, roads, bridges, tracks and river crossings must be improved. Assembly areas for troops are chosen and camouflaged. Elaborate calculations are made to determine what equipment and material can be moved, and what transport will be needed. Demolitions, road blocks and minefields are designed to fit the withdrawal plan for delaying actions on specific lines of resistance.

Von Mellenthin provides this and plus over four pages in his book 'Panzer Battles' describing how the Germans conducted their withdrawals on the East Front.

If a scenario is being designed that portrays a force that did not have the ability to conduct successful withdrawals, then I would guess there would not be many Headquarter units in the oob. For FitE and D21, the HQ's are necessary in order to recreate the historical retreats that were conducted, all made possible in large part by exceptional planning from those in charge.

Wishlist 7.6.1
HQ & Artillery special disengagement ability is only received if such units haven’t yet moved that player turn, and disengage ahead of other units in the hex. (So they can’t be used to “rescue” engaged frontline units).

I can agree that artillery units shouldn't be used for this purpose, but I have to disagree that HQ units should not be allowed to assist in disengagement. Rather to let the designers limit the number of HQ units if that is the desired effect.

I'm not sure that's quite the same thing as this disengagement privilege (why would the HQ need to enter the hex?). But an interesting point.

Not that I'm sure it would be an improvement, but one could have HQ's exert an effect similar to the supply bonus. If they're adjacent to a fully cooperative unit at the beginning of the turn, that unit has its recon rating increased for the purposes of the disengagement calculation only.