Gamey or no?

[JeffroK]

From Manuel

8.3.1.2 ZONES OF CONTROL EFFECTS ON MOVEMENT
Hexes are comprised of seven components – the six hex sides and the hex. A hex side is not
shared with an adjacent hex; the adjacent hex has its own six hex sides. One side or the other
or neither can control each of these components.
The last side to have solely occupied the hex establishes control of a hex. The last side to have
an LCU cross a hex side to enter a hex establishes control of that hex side. A side loses control
of a hex and its hex sides when that side has neither an LCU and/or a friendly controlled base
in the hex. A side will maintain control of a hex so long as the side has a LCU and/or a friendly
base in the hex. A side will maintain control of a hex side until an LCU of the opposing side
crosses that hex side to enter a hex. Control of that hex side will then revert to the opposing
side.
Note: Units may only LEAVE a hex across hex sides that their
side controls.

......

ZOC also affect the path a unit will choose when force to retreat. This aspect is discussed in
Rule 8.4.1.2.1.1 ZOC Effects on Retreat

[Jim D Burns]

The problem is there are actually two parallel hex side lines that can be controlled along each hexside and either or both block a retreat path or supply draw. So even though you lose control of the empty hex’s hexsides when you leave, you take control of the combat hex’s hexside as you enter, thus effectively you still control the hex side for retreat and supply purposes. At least I think this is how it works, would need a dev to confirm this.

The only possible advantage I can see for the side that is in the defending hex, is that if he then subsequently moves a unit into the just vacated hex he can then block that hex side for the attacking side’s supply purposes. But as I read it the attacker still controls the hexside for supply purposes for the defending side in the combat hex, even with the defenders units moved into the vacated hex.

So potentially you could have a situation where an attacker controls all six hex sides in a combat hex and the defender controls all six hexsides in the surrounding hexes. Thus all units in the combat hex, both attackers and defenders would be out of supply.

Here’s a rough image of what I mean, I hastily drew the hexes by hand so they aren’t exactly uniform, but they’re close enough for a visual example.



Jim

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: 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

In AE the defender can place some units into reserve, effectively pulling them out of the line, and then move them out without suffering any of the ill effects of the bombardment...and in AE IIRC Bombardments do not reset movement like they did in WitP.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

The problem is there are actually two parallel hex side lines that can be controlled along each hexside and either or both block a retreat path or supply draw. So even though you lose control of the empty hex’s hexsides when you leave, you take control of the combat hex’s hexside as you enter, thus effectively you still control the hex side for retreat and supply purposes. At least I think this is how it works, would need a dev to confirm this.

The only possible advantage I can see for the side that is in the defending hex, is that if he then subsequently moves a unit into the just vacated hex he can then block that hex side for the attacking side’s supply purposes. But as I read it the attacker still controls the hexside for supply purposes for the defending side in the combat hex, even with the defenders units moved into the vacated hex.

So potentially you could have a situation where an attacker controls all six hex sides in a combat hex and the defender controls all six hexsides in the surrounding hexes. Thus all units in the combat hex, both attackers and defenders would be out of supply.

Here’s a rough image of what I mean, I hastily drew the hexes by hand so they aren’t exactly uniform, but they’re close enough for a visual example.



Jim

That happenstance is possible albeit would be very rare.

Picture Stalingrad. The Soviets in the City are "in essence" surrounded (especially when ice flows formed on the Volga). The Germans in the City surround the Soviets and are in turn surrounded by the Soviets.

And yes I realize the Soviets in the City were "never" surrounded...but its close enough for our purposes.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

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??

No

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

they lose control of the hex and hexsides when they vacate the hex.

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

Correct.... it reverts to uncontrolled rather than enemy controlled.

[Jim D Burns]

Would it be possible to make it so players cannot gain control of a hexside unless they have at least 25% of the AV of the opponent’s forces as they enter the hex? So in a case where 100 AV entered a hex with 600 defending AV, the hexside would remain uncontrolled and either side could still draw supply or retreat across it.

I just have this nightmare scenario in my head where a large stack is being pinned by regular bombardments/combats being launched against it as a small recon/armor unit moves into the hex across hexside 1 and then leaves via side 2. Then re-enters via hexside 3 and exits again via hexside 4. Finally entering across side 5 and exiting across side 6 thus gaining control of all six hexsides with just a tiny fast unit in a matter of a few days.

Of course not many would continue play against someone who did this, but in a no house rules PBEM game, this kind of exploit can be a real army destroying game killer.

Jim

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Would it be possible to make it so players cannot gain control of a hexside unless they have at least 25% of the AV of the opponent’s forces as they enter the hex? So in a case where 100 AV entered a hex with 600 defending AV, the hexside would remain uncontrolled and either side could still draw supply or retreat across it.

We tried something like that in testing and it proved unworkable...first what happens if you bring in multiple Battalions (25 AV) across the same hexside over multiple days? You'd have to keep a running balance of each hexside and the AV in a given hex fluctuates every day...so what may have been 25% today is only 20% tomorrow.


And a unit that crossed a hexside with 25% (or a fixed value which is what we used) may take casualties and now be less than the required threshhold.

I just have this nightmare scenario in my head where a large stack is being pinned by regular bombardments/combats being launched against it as a small recon/armor unit moves into the hex across hexside 1 and then leaves via side 2. Then re-enters via hexside 3 and exits again via hexside 4. Finally entering across side 5 and exiting across side 6 thus gaining control of all six hexsides with just a tiny fast unit in a matter of a few days.
Of course not many would continue play against someone who did this, but in a no house rules PBEM game, this kind of exploit can be a real army destroying game killer.

Jim

Again it is not possible to pin a large stack with bombardments...the defender can simply place a unit or two or three in reserve and order them to move and they are unaffected by the bombardments. Secondly even if a stack is attacked with a bombardment it continues to move if it has movement orders...so you can stage a fighting withdrawl.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: treespider
Again it is not possible to pin a large stack with bombardments...the defender can simply place a unit or two or three in reserve and order them to move and they are unaffected by the bombardments. Secondly even if a stack is attacked with a bombardment it continues to move if it has movement orders...so you can stage a fighting withdrawl.

But you shouldn't have to withdraw just because a tiny unit is grabbing up control of the hexsides. That's the problem. Especially if you don't have a tiny unit of your own to retake a hexside and sending a large one would then cost you the battle.

Perhaps a better rule would be to say only divisional or larger sized units can ever take control of a hexside. Smaller units are just too small to control 30+ miles of terrain.

Jim

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: treespider
Again it is not possible to pin a large stack with bombardments...the defender can simply place a unit or two or three in reserve and order them to move and they are unaffected by the bombardments. Secondly even if a stack is attacked with a bombardment it continues to move if it has movement orders...so you can stage a fighting withdrawl.

But you shouldn't have to withdraw just because a tiny unit is grabbing up control of the hexsides. That's the problem. Especially if you don't have a tiny unit of your own to retake a hexside and sending a large one would then cost you the battle.

Perhaps a better rule would be to say only divisional or larger sized units can ever take control of a hexside. Smaller units are just too small to control 30+ miles of terrain.

Jim

Define Divisional sized unit?

You can have "Divisions" with 20 squads...or "Divisions" with 729 squads...What if its all tanks?

What if you set a minimum threshold of 100AV then what happens when the unit becomes 99AV?

What if you set a minimum threshold of 100AV and 4 units of 25AV cross the same hexside on the same day? ..... on different days?

What if you set the minimum threshold to 100 AV and the 105 AV division is bombed the turn it crosses the hexside reducing it to 99Av when it crosses the hexside...but then it recovers to 110 AV?

What if you have all of the components of a division cross a hexside at separate times and the reform them into a division?

What if ... etc etc...

The outlier event you describe is able to be countered within the existing framework.

[Jim D Burns]

The simplest answer is a divisional unit period nothing else matters. Forget AV, TOE, components of a division or anything else. The fact is you’d have far fewer opportunities to exploit a rule like that than what currently exists. Currently tiny recon and armor units can force huge armies to either retreat or starve and they can do it readily and repeatedly if players wish to exploit it.

A divisional limitation would hardly ever have a chance to be exploited except in rare instances where players had a shattered division to use. And Divisions move far slower than recon and armor so even if you had one to exploit the rule with, it would be much easier to counter than dozens of fast tiny recon and armor units zooming all over the place around the much slower lumbering huge armies they are trying to isolate.

Jim

[witpqs]

Jim,

I think this idea would make things much worse. One great aspect of AE is the ability to work with sub-divisional sized units. In fact, I hope for advancements in that area if they take on additional changes to the land combat model.

The kind of example that we are talking about in this thread can easily be handled by agreement between the players. I think the reason it wasn't in this case is that it was new and the various aspects of it had not been talked over for people to get a feel for what was really going on.

At first I thought it was fine, but that was before we got into more details. So, in a game, I might also have done the 'gamey' thing in this case without realizing it was exposing a weakness in the game engine.

[Q-Ball]

In this particular example, it would have been relatively easy to just leave the Recon Regts in the rear hexes, rather than bring them back into the Katherine hex. Would that have been more kosher? I think it would have produced the same effect, which is blocking the retreat to the south.

[treespider]

I still don't see the issue...I do not feel that what Q-Ball did was gamey. Shame on the opponent for failing to react. The opponent could simply have detailed a unit or two to move to the Southwest and engage the Recon Regts. Instead they choose to sit tight and not respond and allowed themselves to be outflanked, so that when they were routed and forced to retreat, the path of least resistance was followed.

Just as Hooker failed to react to Jackson at Chancellorsville so to did Q-Balls opponent fail to react to Q-Ball's flanking move.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: witpqs
One great aspect of AE is the ability to work with sub-divisional sized units. In fact, I hope for advancements in that area if they take on additional changes to the land combat model.

Early in the war I agree it’s a sub-divisional game. But as Andy has mentioned in the past, the game pretty much evolves into a divisional level game since the sub units are pretty brittle in the face of later war firepower.

I think the intention in the design was for players to eventually combine all or most of their units into their divisional units to make them more survivable, but I can see players now intentionally keeping units broken up in order to increase the number of fast moving ant sized units they have available to sweep around large combat formations.

India and Australia are where this kind of exploitation can be used to great effect I think, since there is enough room to actually take control of all surrounding hexsides around a unit two or three hexes away from it, thus keeping your ants out of harm’s way.

In a no house rules game I think it would be suicidal to try and hold any isolated base in the face of enemy armor without several fast moving armor units of your own.

This also makes the allies critically weak in game since they get hardly any tank replacements while as we’ve seen in some AAR’s, Japan can produce upwards of 150-200 tanks a month or more if it wants to.

So Japan can afford to send his armor units on deep raids to take control of hexes and quickly replace any losses to allied armor and the allies just end up with no tank units left eventually due to lack of replacements.

Jim

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: treespider

I still don't see the issue...

The issue is he would have lost the battle sooner rather than later had he “simply detailed a reaction”. I guess the forces involved in this particular battle aren’t large enough to press home the problem, so for arguments sake let’s assume it is a large battle in China where numbers are very close but very large (100,000+ on a side) and moving even a single unit out of the hex causes the battle to be lost.

Comparatively speaking the tiny recon units aren’t even a pimple on the rear end of the large units involved in our hypothetical, but because of the game mechanic a player is forced to either remove an entire division+ sized unit to react to the tiny pimples or get surrounded. That’s the issue.

So the tiny recon units become these super powered force magnifiers that they never were historically.

In the OP the forces were pretty evenly matched trying to counter the move would have caused him to lose the base for sure. A base he probably didn’t want to lose and thought he had a chance to hold, thus he stayed to try and hold it.

But in a larger ‘close call’ fight where taking out even one unit causes you to lose, it’s totally out of whack that a tiny recon unit or two can block anything, but they still do and just as effectively as they did in the OP’s battle.

Jim

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: witpqs
One great aspect of AE is the ability to work with sub-divisional sized units. In fact, I hope for advancements in that area if they take on additional changes to the land combat model.

Early in the war I agree it’s a sub-divisional game. But as Andy has mentioned in the past, the game pretty much evolves into a divisional level game since the sub units are pretty brittle in the face of later war firepower.

The only reason that this is so is that the land combat model puts disproportionate casualties into a couple of units. It does not split up what units are on the receiving end of the enemy's firepower in a realistic fashion. If it did, then when small units were in combat you would have a bunch of them getting woomped in place of one or two getting (literally) wiped out (destroyed/deleted) and the rest taking no damage or a trivial amount.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: treespider

I still don't see the issue...

The issue is he would have lost the battle sooner rather than later had he “simply detailed a reaction”. I guess the forces involved in this particular battle aren’t large enough to press home the problem, so for arguments sake let’s assume it is a large battle in China where numbers are very close but very large (100,000+ on a side) and moving even a single unit out of the hex causes the battle to be lost.

Comparatively speaking the tiny recon units aren’t even a pimple on the rear end of the large units involved in our hypothetical, but because of the game mechanic a player is forced to either remove an entire division+ sized unit to react to the tiny pimples or get surrounded. That’s the issue.

So the tiny recon units become these super powered force magnifiers that they never were historically.

In the OP the forces were pretty evenly matched trying to counter the move would have caused him to lose the base for sure. A base he probably didn’t want to lose and thought he had a chance to hold, thus he stayed to try and hold it.

But in a larger ‘close call’ fight where taking out even one unit causes you to lose, it’s totally out of whack that a tiny recon unit or two can block anything, but they still do and just as effectively as they did in the OP’s battle.

Jim

I still don't see the issue...happens all the time in history...one side gets outflanked by the other...which simply reinforces the concept of maintaining a viable reserve to react to such a situation...

[ckammp]

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: treespider

I still don't see the issue...

The issue is he would have lost the battle sooner rather than later had he “simply detailed a reaction”. I guess the forces involved in this particular battle aren’t large enough to press home the problem, so for arguments sake let’s assume it is a large battle in China where numbers are very close but very large (100,000+ on a side) and moving even a single unit out of the hex causes the battle to be lost.

Comparatively speaking the tiny recon units aren’t even a pimple on the rear end of the large units involved in our hypothetical, but because of the game mechanic a player is forced to either remove an entire division+ sized unit to react to the tiny pimples or get surrounded. That’s the issue.

So the tiny recon units become these super powered force magnifiers that they never were historically.

In the OP the forces were pretty evenly matched trying to counter the move would have caused him to lose the base for sure. A base he probably didn’t want to lose and thought he had a chance to hold, thus he stayed to try and hold it.

But in a larger ‘close call’ fight where taking out even one unit causes you to lose, it’s totally out of whack that a tiny recon unit or two can block anything, but they still do and just as effectively as they did in the OP’s battle.

Jim

I still don't see the issue...happens all the time in history...one side gets outflanked by the other...which simply reinforces the concept of maintaining a viable reserve to react to such a situation...

The issue is whether or not the defender was actually outflanked.

The attacker sent recon units to a hex to establish a ZOC to block the defender's line of retreat, a perfectly legitimate tactic. However, the units did not stay in the hex, but continued on and returned to the main attacking force. Thus, the hex itself was not controlled, just the hexside, which within the rules prevents the defender from moving into the hex. But what if the recon units had stayed in the hex?

According to the manual, page 191:

"A side will maintain control of a hex side until an LCU of the opposing side crosses that hex side to enter a hex. Control of that hex side will then revert to the opposing side.

Units may only LEAVE a hex across hex sides that their side controls".

In other words, had the recon units stayed in the hex, the defender would have been free to move into the hex, but because the recon units simply moved thru the hex, the defender could not move into a now-vacant hex. Given the size of the defender's force, I find it doubtful that two recon units could effectively prevent the defenders from breaking out.
Were the blocking units of a larger size, I could certainly see them encircling the defenders, but in this case, it seems, however unintentional, to be gamey.

[rader]

What if it was modified to (CAPS):

"A side will maintain control of a hex side until an LCU of the opposing side crosses that hex side to enter a hex. Control of that hex side will then revert to the opposing side.

Units may only LEAVE a hex across hex sides that their side controls UNLESS THEY ARE MOVING TO A HEX THAT IS NOT OCCUPED BY THE OTHER SIDE".


Wouldn't that solve the problem because total encirclement would require both what Q-ball did plus leaving something in the hex behind? I.e., it would be a bit harder to accomplish but would still be possible?

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: ckammp

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns




The issue is he would have lost the battle sooner rather than later had he “simply detailed a reaction”. I guess the forces involved in this particular battle aren’t large enough to press home the problem, so for arguments sake let’s assume it is a large battle in China where numbers are very close but very large (100,000+ on a side) and moving even a single unit out of the hex causes the battle to be lost.

Comparatively speaking the tiny recon units aren’t even a pimple on the rear end of the large units involved in our hypothetical, but because of the game mechanic a player is forced to either remove an entire division+ sized unit to react to the tiny pimples or get surrounded. That’s the issue.

So the tiny recon units become these super powered force magnifiers that they never were historically.

In the OP the forces were pretty evenly matched trying to counter the move would have caused him to lose the base for sure. A base he probably didn’t want to lose and thought he had a chance to hold, thus he stayed to try and hold it.

But in a larger ‘close call’ fight where taking out even one unit causes you to lose, it’s totally out of whack that a tiny recon unit or two can block anything, but they still do and just as effectively as they did in the OP’s battle.

Jim

I still don't see the issue...happens all the time in history...one side gets outflanked by the other...which simply reinforces the concept of maintaining a viable reserve to react to such a situation...

The issue is whether or not the defender was actually outflanked.

The attacker sent recon units to a hex to establish a ZOC to block the defender's line of retreat, a perfectly legitimate tactic. However, the units did not stay in the hex, but continued on and returned to the main attacking force. Thus, the hex itself was not controlled, just the hexside, which within the rules prevents the defender from moving into the hex. But what if the recon units had stayed in the hex?

According to the manual, page 191:

"A side will maintain control of a hex side until an LCU of the opposing side crosses that hex side to enter a hex. Control of that hex side will then revert to the opposing side.

Units may only LEAVE a hex across hex sides that their side controls".

I know how it works...I designed it.

When the Recon Units reentered the hex from the Opposite side they didn't magically "rejoin" the other units perse ...They re-entered the battlefield in a different "area" hence why they maintain control of the hexside they crossed entering the battlefield but still participate in the whole battle.

Think of the hexsides as ethereal "areas" as opposed to lines in the sand....A hex would have essentially 7 ethereal areas, 6 for each of its hexsides and the 7th roughly being the center of the hex.

When you enter the hex...you enter the "area" corresponding to the hexside you crossed to enter the hex...thus controlling the "area" or "hexside".

In other words, had the recon units stayed in the hex, the defender would have been free to move into the hex, but because the recon units simply moved thru the hex, the defender could not move into a now-vacant hex. Given the size of the defender's force, I find it doubtful that two recon units could effectively prevent the defenders from breaking out.
Were the blocking units of a larger size, I could certainly see them encircling the defenders, but in this case, it seems, however unintentional, to be gamey.

What was the size of the defending force? ....2 Bdes and some supporting battalions...Including Gull and Sparrow Battalions...

I'd say 1 recon regt would be sufficent to set up a roadblock to cause routed and retreated units to choose a diiferent path. In this case there were two recon regiments....

Again why didn't the defender manuever Gull and Sparrow to parry the outflanking maneuver? At the least the attacker would have had to move the recon regt's two hexes before being able to reenter the encircled hex. While the attacker is performing this maneuver why didn't the defender move the 2 battalions SE to counter?