Matrix Games Forums

At 20-25 miles per hex, an armored breakthrough can be modeled by blasting a hole in the enemy line only 1 hex wide. Advancing armor into that 1 hex hole is suicide with the default retreat rules, because even a very weak throw-away counter-attack has a chance of wiping out an entire armored corps.

1. The enemy is subject to the same retreat rules.
2. Proper recon should report if the exploitation is feasible after the main thrust.
3. Those same recon reports should include information about the enemy's ability to counter the exploitation.

..correctly employing all the assets at one's disposal is critical to success...

No such action can take place in ToW, making it both ahistorical and less fun.

......

You're not getting my point at all.

Perhaps you could clarify?

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

At 20-25 miles per hex, an armored breakthrough can be modeled by blasting a hole in the enemy line only 1 hex wide. Advancing armor into that 1 hex hole is suicide with the default retreat rules, because even a very weak throw-away counter-attack has a chance of wiping out an entire armored corps.

If you take a look at the RtV AARs which Chuck and Chocolino and I did, you would find many exciting armored blitzes and encirclements, based upon concentration of force and blowing a hole in the enemy lines. Those holes could be exploited realistically.

No such action can take place in ToW, making it both ahistorical and less fun.

the above re the current retreat system

You're right...I don't get your point.

ORIGINAL:  gwgardner
At 20-25 miles per hex, an armored breakthrough can be modeled by blasting a hole in the enemy line only 1 hex wide. Advancing armor into that 1 hex hole is suicide with the default retreat rules, because even a very weak throw-away counter-attack has a chance of wiping out an entire armored corps.

 
Surely you understand that, in terms of gameplay, you must stretch your expectation of historical accuracy and scale to accomodate the needs of a limited game engine? I agree that, in scale, 20-25 miles is more than enough space to effect a breakthrough and exploitation in many terrains, but as far as the game systems go, might not another hex or two be more prudent and realistic?
 
I'm not sure I agree with the overall premise that a player "should" be able to confidently exploit from a one-hex breakthrough utterly free from the fear of a lucky counterattack.
 
Modding the retreat probablities to nil, which seems to be the current solution, appears to create yet another unfavorable situation. Wont this now require the attacker to expend ever more strength and AP to achieve the breakthrough? Now that the defenders have virtually no chance of retreat, we can stack them three or four deep and force the attacker to literally destroy them all in detail, rather than force the retreat to create space. Is this really a balanced trade?

A good observation, Manalishi. This is why I raised the probability of retreat a lot in ETO. With a low chance of dislodging an enemy, in combination with the very low cost of replacing infantry losses, one soon get a rigid, straight, three line deep frontline. In ETO you have to work with a closed first line, but a hollow second, to get the best trade-off between keeping ground and avoiding losses. It makes narrow breakthroughs more dangerous for the attacker, but gives the entire frontline more fluidity.

Change the parameter so a unit retreats two or three squares. Not one.

Someone offered this solution, so I ask the development team:

is it possible to implement retreats this way: if a unit would be destroyed because it cannot physically retreat, put it in the deploy pool at a reduced strength.

I think it is possible, but in my opinion for gamebalance purposes it should be destroyed.
If a unit is surrounded and wasn't relocated then nothing more can be done.

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

Someone offered this solution, so I ask the development team:

is it possible to implement retreats this way: if a unit would be destroyed because it cannot physically retreat, put it in the deploy pool at a reduced strength.

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

I think it is possible, but in my opinion for gamebalance purposes it should be destroyed.
If a unit is surrounded and wasn't relocated then nothing more can be done.

Doesn't seem like anyone else is bothered by the current system, so I wouldn't encourage much effort with this, however if it were easy to implement as an option that would be cool.