Gamey or no?

[CMDRMCTOAST]

Its only gamey when you land 11 troops from a submarine behind them just before the assualt....

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Not gamey. In addition to what others have said, remember that he could detail stronger units to attack into and smash your blocking force. Of course, then he might not have the strength to stand up to your main force. What you did was classic Sun-Tzu.

By forcing him to retreat when he thought he was prepared to stand you might also say it was classic Bruce Lee:

Enter the Dragon.

classic. [:D]

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Enter the Dragon.

classic. [:D]

Saw it a couple of weeks ago. Good every time.

[Oldguard1970]

Of course it's gamey! It's rather like what those pesky colonists did when they hid behind trees and walls to fire at those nice straight lines of Redcoats.

You are supposed to pile everyone into a hex and slug it out like a real man.

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: CMDRMCTOAST

Its only gamey when you land 11 troops from a submarine behind them just before the assualt....

That I agree is gamey. Same with a Para fragment. I think using fragments for this type of purpose is gamey.

I think I'm OK though because I used 2 whole Regts, about 100 AV. That's a real unit.

[frank1970]

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

ORIGINAL: Cuttlefish

Gamey? I'll tell you what's gamey. Descending on an innocent Japanese trade mission at Timor and butchering all of the traders, not to mention a Shinto priest and a delegation from the Nagoya Friends of the Poor, that's gamey! Fiend!

What? Recon units to cut off retreat? Oh. I agree with the others. Perfectly okay, go for it.

Yeah! Cuttlefish is right! Let's ban Q-Ball for gameyness.
Or he may surrender now, and be a good boy. [;)]

Hm, are you the esteemed oponent? [;)]

[Cuttlefish]

ORIGINAL: Frank

ORIGINAL: Cuttlefish

Gamey? I'll tell you what's gamey. Descending on an innocent Japanese trade mission at Timor and butchering all of the traders, not to mention a Shinto priest and a delegation from the Nagoya Friends of the Poor, that's gamey! Fiend!

What? Recon units to cut off retreat? Oh. I agree with the others. Perfectly okay, go for it.

Hm, are you the esteemed oponent? [;)]

No, I'm the other opponent, the hapless one. [:)]

[Hemajor]

Well, I have to reply to this, because I'm the Allied part of the game.
I have never complained about using recce units as intended and blocking the retreat route. But the retreat hexes were not blocked. The units went INTO the "combat hex" and left the two hexes empty. By entering the hex I felt they used (or rather mis-used) the new hex side control feature to control the retreat direction.
Just my opinion.

Erik

[rader]

Oh! So the encircling units could actually attack after they had changed hexside control from the rear. Effectively, they could encircle and fight at the same time... This could be rationalized as they are attackig from that side of the pocket after the ring was formed. However, that definitely sounds much more gamey than I thought at first (the units staying behind preventing retreat). Wow, that's a tough one. I mean I suppose that's what the designers intended, but I never though about the implications of this!

Andrew

[Smeulders]

I still think it's legit, but it is a bit more on the edge then sitting in the next hex over. It still has the same effect on leading the retreat direction, but it makes it impossible to launch an attack specifically on the blocking troops. So on the one hand, they are 40 miles away from the main force in the rear of the enemy with all the benefits of that situation, but on the other the main force is apparently close enough to lend support in case the blocking force gets attacked.

If I had been in the same situation, with a relief force a hex away, I'd not be pleased. In that case my relief force would probably have broken open the encirclement. However, if it were only the troops in the encircled hex, I don't see why my opponent wouldn't be allowed to do an attack from multiple sides if the opportunity presented itself. (You could always have detached part of your stack to the hex where you wanted to retreat to to safeguard the retreat route.) It's a bit of a tricky situation though.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Hemajor

Well, I have to reply to this, because I'm the Allied part of the game.
I have never complained about using recce units as intended and blocking the retreat route. But the retreat hexes were not blocked. The units went INTO the "combat hex" and left the two hexes empty. By entering the hex I felt they used (or rather mis-used) the new hex side control feature to control the retreat direction.
Just my opinion.

Erik

I see the difference. I think the problem here is that the game engine does not allow the units that entered the hex from the opposite direction (of the main force) to be attacked separately. If they could be attacked separately, then your forces could try to fight their way out.

I have to say I've changed my opinion on this due to that limitation of the game engine.

[ckammp]

ORIGINAL: Hemajor

Well, I have to reply to this, because I'm the Allied part of the game.
I have never complained about using recce units as intended and blocking the retreat route. But the retreat hexes were not blocked. The units went INTO the "combat hex" and left the two hexes empty. By entering the hex I felt they used (or rather mis-used) the new hex side control feature to control the retreat direction.
Just my opinion.

Erik

Using units, regardless of whether they are recon or not, simpy to establish a ZOC in order to block a retreat route, without actually occupying the hex, is gamey.

I do hope the devs look into changing this rule.

[Titanwarrior89]

Not gamey.

[whippleofd]

Not gamey. Even with the new ZOC rules, look at it this way:

His recon units encircled the enemy and starting engageing the rear of the troops on the MLR. This means beating up on the supply trains, HQ and other support units. If the units in the trenches want to bug out, no way are they going to be able to organize an "attack in a different direction" through the support troops who are freaking out, spreading panic and generally clogging the axis of advance.

Whipple

[ckammp]

ORIGINAL: Whipple

Not gamey. Even with the new ZOC rules, look at it this way:

His recon units encircled the enemy and starting engageing the rear of the troops on the MLR. This means beating up on the supply trains, HQ and other support units. If the units in the trenches want to bug out, no way are they going to be able to organize an "attack in a different direction" through the support troops who are freaking out, spreading panic and generally clogging the axis of advance.

Whipple

I look at it this wy:

He sent two recon units to establish control of a potential route of retreat. Immediately after establishing control of the hex, he recalled the units to his main force, leaving nothing in the retreat hex.
With no forces present, why should the defenders be prevented from retreating thru that hex? Why couldn't the defenders do a recon-in-force to determine whether or not the hex was occupied?
Given the choice between surrender, retreat into the desert, or breaking out towards friendly forces, which option would you choose?

While the attacker's moves were in accordance with the letter of the rules, I feel they were not in the spirit of fair play.

And I take exception to your claim that support troops, when faced with enemy attack, would be "freaking out, spreading panic, and generally clogging the axis of advance". After all, those support troops are soldiers, not civilians, and it would not have been a surprise attack. And especially if the enemy was just a couple of recon units.

[vonTirpitz]

First off, gamey...NO (with exception of the 11 man example. [8|] )

ORIGINAL: ckammp

ORIGINAL: Whipple

Not gamey. Even with the new ZOC rules, look at it this way:

His recon units encircled the enemy and starting engageing the rear of the troops on the MLR. This means beating up on the supply trains, HQ and other support units. If the units in the trenches want to bug out, no way are they going to be able to organize an "attack in a different direction" through the support troops who are freaking out, spreading panic and generally clogging the axis of advance.

Whipple

I look at it this wy:

He sent two recon units to establish control of a potential route of retreat. Immediately after establishing control of the hex, he recalled the units to his main force, leaving nothing in the retreat hex.
With no forces present, why should the defenders be prevented from retreating thru that hex? Why couldn't the defenders do a recon-in-force to determine whether or not the hex was occupied?
Given the choice between surrender, retreat into the desert, or breaking out towards friendly forces, which option would you choose?

While the attacker's moves were in accordance with the letter of the rules, I feel they were not in the spirit of fair play.

And I take exception to your claim that support troops, when faced with enemy attack, would be "freaking out, spreading panic, and generally clogging the axis of advance". After all, those support troops are soldiers, not civilians, and it would not have been a surprise attack. And especially if the enemy was just a couple of recon units.

ckammp,

I agree in principal that establishing a ZOC is more complicated and is much more involved than what is modeled. Someday perhaps somebody might add a "ZOC value" similar to the "entrenchment" value that now exists (hypothetically, AV x terrain value x time, etc) which affects the likelihood that units can retreat through a particular hex). They may already have such a formula in use (I really don't know).

However.

Historically, I imagine that many more far fetched circumstances probably occurred. I'm not certain as to the exact condition of all the forces in play but moderate to high disruption and fatigue would (and should) play hell with what a unit would (and could) do. [&:]

And depending on HQ support (or lack of) it is not unusual to read about units that collapsed, retreated, surrendered or did something (in hindsight) dumb due to poor leadership and morale conditions.

I think there might be a random chance that a unit cannot retreat successfully (whether surrounded or not). However, I do not know know this for a fact nor what conditions that might affect such a rule.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
Was that gamey to send the Recon units around to block escape path? Using a fragment I think is gamey, but not sure about a Recon Regt.

I at first like others also thought it was not a gamey move. But upon reflection there are some very serious implications to a move like this. Especially if all retreat paths are blocked and a surrender of forces would be the ultimate outcome instead of just forcing a specific retreat path.

If the units moved into the hex and immediately attacked, I’d have no issue. But for arguments sake let’s assume the defending force consist of 600 AV and the attacker consists of 600 AV. Let’s also assume the attacker has much faster recon/armor type units, so moving away in good order with an all infantry defending force would be all but impossible.

So the attacker sends 100 AV to each adjacent hex and then moves all units into the defenders hex on the same turn, thus creating ZOCs on all 6 hex sides and effectively blocking any possible retreat. Of course because the defender has equal strength it is probably impossible to dig him out via assault, so all the attacker can do is sit and wait as the defenders slowly starve to death.

The problem of course is the fact that only 100 AV created the blocking effect in any given direction, so theoretically the defenders should easily be allowed to assault a given hex side and break out. But since all the attackers are now in the hex, the defenders would have to defeat all 600 of the attackers AV, something he too could not hope to do if we assume everything about the two stacks is equal in ability and strength.

So in the end I say it’s a game mechanic issue/problem that needs to be tweaked. I think a possible in game rules fix would be to say no hex side should remain blocked for more than 24 hours if no defending unit remains in the adjacent hex.

It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s better than what the game has now. A perfect world would allow targeted assaults against just the forces on that particular hex side to allow breakout attempts, but I doubt that could ever be implemented.

Jim

[treespider]

Why did the defender sit tight in his cubby hole while watching the attacker make a 120 mile flanking march to his rear?

The defender could simply have moved one or two units one hex to engage the flanking forces....while the attacker had to move at least three hexes to reach the same locale.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: treespider

Why did the defender sit tight in his cubby hole while watching the attacker make a 120 mile flanking march to his rear?

The defender could simply have moved one or two units one hex to engage the flanking forces....while the attacker had to move at least three hexes to reach the same locale.

Is it possible attacking units in the hex with the defender were bombarding every turn to interrupt any movement attempts to leave the hex?

Jim

[JeffroK]

Not to sure of how the game handles HEXSIDE control?

Do the (in this case) japanese keep the hexside control of the 2 vacated hexes after they move out of them??

I thought that maybe they lose control once they leave and the Allies still contest the hexside?

I've seen that control was lost of a complete hex on my LOC without the enemy being anywhere close.