Army Disaster on Java is this a bug

[von Murrin]

ORIGINAL: moses

True, but what do you think of requiring a land connection for ZOC, no exceptions? Come in sufficient force or die?

The lack of a ZOC has no adverse effect on the para or ambhib unit. It just keeps it from blocking retreats. I don't see the downside to the solution. I'm sure some odd situations can occur but its seems to solve the problem of small units landing and cutting off retreat routs leading to the destruction of large forces.

I don't see a downside either. Other than a partial misunderstanding of intent, I completely agree.[;)]

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Ron, the whole point behind adding the zones of control stuff was that people were bitching about units retreating through units. Problem solved. Now they don't like it. You want to go back the other way where everything retreats no matter what through anything?

You can't just keep inventing rules just because you don't like the way something happens to work. Everyone has the same game in front of them, people need to adapt to changes and live within them instead of constantly fighting up river about the magic change that cures the world of woe.

War gaming has been going on as long as I have been around and debating the rules has been going on ever since the very first rule was written. You can play within the rules or you can invent your own and agree to them. What you can not do is pretend that they don't exist just because you don't like them.

FRAG.....How does asking for some common sense and reason to apply to be applied
to this situation constitute a "magic change" request. 3,000 square miles is a LOT of
hex---even a regiment of Para's doesn't begin to constitute an adequate blocking force.
On New Guinea, the Japanese walked an entire division past US positions only 20 miles
away. What you guys did in your "fix" was to REVERSE a silly situation from one ex-
treme to the other. First an Army couldn't stop a retreat---now a platoon can! Some-
where in the middle of these two extremes lies reason. Can't we find it?

[tsimmonds]

Setting the ZoC after the Land Combat phase in other words ... for Paras & landings?

Hey! Hey! I smell functional elegance......

[mlees]

Well, the gamey tactic can still be used if:
Turn 1: paras or marines land in uncontested hex behind battle hex, establish ZOC.
Turn 2: Battle hex army is forced to retreat, surrenders instead.

One turn is not enough time to react to an enemy landing. You could still have a sub drop off a raiding force to block retreats.

I am in favor of a minimum assault value ratio to block retreats of a unit trying to head for a supply scource.

[moses]

Gamey tactics can still be used but you can defend against it by leaving a small unit in your rearward hex. This sort of makes sence. Normally armies do provide for rear area defence. If you do not then maybe a battalion of para's can find a good position to block your retreating division.

This idea, if it is workable, is at least very simple to understand and hopefully easy to program. Some kind of assault value ratio, while it makes sence, is going to be more complicated. Really what are the chances of either method being implemented?

[mlees]

Well, the invading squad of paras can still last a turn (the turn they land) because the other player had not set his rear area defenders to attack them yet. At the end of the turn they land, they establish ZOC (for at least one turn).

If the paras are Japanese, good luck getting them to withdraw or surrender the next turn, even with scoring 20 to 1 combat odds against them.[;)][:D]

[Mr.Frag]

Well, the invading squad of paras can still last a turn (the turn they land) because the other player had not set his rear area defenders to attack them yet

Nope, Paras trigger an automatic shock attack.

[mlees]

They trigger the enemy to attack, or do they launch themselves into an attack?

[moses]

That was the point of my idea. The para's do not establish a ZOC until they take the hex. If you have a unit there you can retreat through the hex until the para's defeat your force. The para's can sit there all day and they accomplish nothing until they attack and defeat you.

So even a construction battalion can provide your rear area defence. At least that will protect your line of retreat against sub raiders and small groups of para's.

The exploit still works if you leave the retreat hex empty. But as long as you garrison it you should be OK.

[Drex]

Perhaps the retreat is considered a rout in which a smaller force could inflict even more panic on the larger force. Maybe retreat could be modelled as either a controlled withdrawal versus an all out "everyman for himself".

[dpstafford]

ORIGINAL: String
addon: it's WAD as having joint controlled hexes open to retreat would lead to some exploits..

Those exploits COULDN'T be worse than the ones we have from prohibiting retreat to a jointly controlled hex.

[Andy Mac]

The reason I was able to clear my line of retreat after my main army surrendered was that the few disorganised paras that managed to get through 100 allied fighters (i.e. 2 men a dog and a cook) immediately shock attacked my Garrison wiping themselves out.

Unfortunately by that time my army 120 miles away had surrendered.

I am happy we have re done the turn and agreed a house rule.

On the one hand it was a brilliant tactical move of my opponent to put a blocking force in to stop my army from rejoining and cut off reinforcements so he could force my Southern Army to retreat.

High risk and apart from the ability of transports to get through in the face of overwhelming fighter cover I dont have a problem with this aspect as its a proper use for paras to isolate part of the battle at the crucial point and allow the defeat in detail of the allied army.

The ability of that self same force to make my army surrender despite being 120 miles away with plenty of supplies and good leaders is what had annoyed me

As I said we have sorted the problem for this game and I need to be very carefull when I go on the attack not to inadvertantly do something similar to my opponent. I just need to remember how fragile the land combat model is.

[AmiralLaurent]

ZOC is a concept widely used in wargames... where units don't share hexs, so using them is simpler than in WITP. Also most wargames will use units of the same size (roughly) and have stacking limits, so you will never see a squad of paras block 8 divisions in an open plain, as you can in WITP.

There are 4 cases of ZOC management:
_ the hex is in friendly ZOC
_ the hex is in enemy ZOC
_ the hex is in no ZOC
_ the hex is in ZOC of both sides. The problem start with this last case. Seems to me that WITP considers that these hexes are as closed as an enemy ZOC for both sides.

Then there is another problem in the game that all land move is done around bases. You can't go to the next hex, even if you have 3 divisions guarding it with no enemy troops around and a road to go there. You can go only if you hold a base in this direction.

My solution would be to add a base with max airfield size 0 (a dot) to every hex of road/rail on the map. I guess it would be possible then to retreat more easily, while paras may be dropped on roads, so may also block every path but that is their goal. Units will still not go in the wild mountains but will have more liberty to advance or retreat along road & rail.

Another proposal is to have each unit having a chance to establish ZOC. Let's say 1% per assault point (modified), if you fail the test, there is no ZOC.

Or that the side with the most ASS points is holding the ZOC of the hex. So only one side will control any hex. And small units may establish roadblocks, but only in empty hexes.

[kayjay]

The fact is that later in the game you will be able to use the same tactics yourself assuming your opponent is still playing. Did you set up any 'house' rules ?

Kevin

[Andy Mac]

If I did I assure you it would be inadvertant and I would immediatley offer to do the turn again.

My principle on this is the way it is set up is wrong.

A Brigade to stop a Division or a Division to destroy a Corps fine.

I am going to operate on a 1 : 3 rule and this 1 : 3 rule will be on the basis of troops that actually arrive i.e. units that actually make it and dont get shot down/sunk etc.

So If I am trying an end run to stop an Army from retreating and force a surrender I would expect to land a multi divisional corps with support to stop them not the remnants of a Battalion.

I have no problem with using paratroopers to stop reinforcements restrict the movements of reserves at a critical point of a battle it is just the game quirk that forces troops to surrender in this circumstance that I object to so I will be very carefull and if I make a mistake I will allow my opponent to do what he has just allowed me to do which is redo the turn.

Obviously when we redid the turn it went down exactly the way it happened last time except the paratroopers did not land and did not force my troops to surrender.

Andy

[TIMJOT]

Andy

Since your opponent was good enough to redo the turn without landing troops in your rear. Shouldnt you now at least be compelled to retreat your army with the assumption that his intent was to land troops in your rear and thus jepordizeing your LOC.

[Andy Mac]

I remained in position and allowed him to retreat me was the only fair way my complaint was not that I was retreated but that I surrendered when I did

Any other action would have left half of my army combat ready....

Andy

[mogami]

Hi, I think 2 very simple changes would help here.
Have all combats involving Paratroops resolve as soon as they drop. Have all defending units in a hex execute a shock attack against Paratroops as soon as Paratroops execute their shock attack. Then the para force would have to be large enough to survive before any other combats take place.

Have all stacks of units forced to retreat into a hex containing enemy forces execute a shock attack when retreating. If they force the enemy out they survive. If they fail to dislodge the enemy they surrender. (This shock attack should get some kind of modifier as it is in effect a life or death attack)

I think these would solve most of the problems. Paras could not block retreat unless dropped in required strength and blocking units would have to be strong enough to actually stop a retreat.

[Andy Mac]

I like that suggestions a lot Mogami sounds very reasonavle to me.

Andy

[tsimmonds]

Sounds like an improvement to me. It would give a surrounded defender the chance to try to fight his way out, and would also make it possible for people like me to try things that we otherwise wouldn't because of the possible gamey outcome.