Avoiding the Retreating Wild Goose Chase

[Curtis Lemay]

I don't see any need for any of this. Why should an empty hex have any effect just because an enemy unit passed through it some unknown time in the past? Remember that TOAW already has disengagement attacks that retreaters must endure if triggered.

Think if you are chasing a motorized unit with a foot unit (not an uncommon mistake by players). Why would you not expect the motorized unit to escape? This is especially true if the retreater is armored and the pursuer has little AT.

If, on the other hand, the retreater is mostly non-armored, then there is a trick you can use: Get as much artillery setup within range (they don't even have to be cooperative). Then, if a disengagement attack is triggered, the artillery will be added to the attack.

Another factor is that the effect of rear-area elements doesn't have to be abstracted. As I've done in many of my scenarios, they can be physically modeled - making enemy moves into the rear more realistically impacted.

[Cabido]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

The 25,7 tank unit would easily surround and kill the 3,1; it wouldn't chase it around.

I think you are making a lot of assumptions that won't apply to every situation in every scenario. Read Hans von Luck's account of retreating from the Russians, that will sober you right up! And what of the Western Desert? You want units to evaporate because they are not retreating toward a friendly line ? And what of the 88's at Cagny in Operation Goodwood [the scenario seen in the above screenshots]? They didn't retreat but were completely cutoff and just about single handedly ruined the British attack. Four of them.

The only 'solution' needed is for the player to handle it properly.

There is a misunderstanding here. But first, it's important to notice that things don't have to apply to every situation in every scenario. Average should be the guide. The exception should be handled by work around (by handling the situation properly, from a game's standpoint). Well, but going to the point, I never said a unit should evaporate for retreating toward enemy territory; I said it should evaporate if flanked and retreating (if it is subject to RBC), since the enemy would be able to block their passage. Its as simple as that. It has nothing to do with resistance. A small unit able to resist on the spot will be modeled by the combat engine as a unit that didn't retreat and was able to hold even with very unfavorable odds. That may happen. Units should be able to retreat at will toward enemy line if they have a free path, but I don't think this is a free path, for instance:

.......10,4
........2,1
....10,4...10,4

In my opinion, this unit is completely encircled. If TOAW allowed subdivision by 6, we would have:

.........5,2
....5,2..2,1..5,2
....5,2..5,2..5,2

It should be able to resist, depending on deployment and terrain? Yes. But in the first configuration, I think it shouldn't be able to snake around. I know it can get be target to a disengagement attack, but I have seen such units snake around in a lot of situations (just too frequent).

But if we had:

.......10,4
........2,1..4,2
....10,4...10,4

The 4,2 being a friendly unit, the 2,1 would be able to retreat.

The six unit rule is not only artificial, in my opinion, but also boring. If a single unit, subdivided in six, would be able to cover the frontage, the 3 point configuration should be enough.

I don't see any need for any of this. Why should an empty hex have any effect just because an enemy unit passed through it some unknown time in the past? Remember that TOAW already has disengagement attacks that retreaters must endure if triggered.

It has on motion, doesn't it?
But here, the reason would be simply that going toward a friendly unit, a unit would have support to cover retreat path. The best solution, in my opinion would be to have a friendly unit in the hex. Notice that when I present a suggestion, it doesn't mean I have a close minded approach to it. A forum must be (and is frequently) a place for brainstorming. I agree that the enemy territory flag isn't the best criteria.

Think if you are chasing a motorized unit with a foot unit (not an uncommon mistake by players). Why would you not expect the motorized unit to escape? This is especially true if the retreater is armored and the pursuer has little AT.

I agree, but the inverse is much more bizarre. A motorized unit chasing a foot unit around. Then make movement capacity play a bigger role.

If, on the other hand, the retreater is mostly non-armored, then there is a trick you can use: Get as much artillery setup within range (they don't even have to be cooperative). Then, if a disengagement attack is triggered, the artillery will be added to the attack.

Nice as a work around.

Another factor is that the effect of rear-area elements doesn't have to be abstracted. As I've done in many of my scenarios, they can be physically modeled - making enemy moves into the rear more realistically impacted.

It seems you are one of the most able to deal with this system. I would suggest you create a manual for designers with all the tips and modeling techniques, since most of the scenarios aren't created by people that master every aspect of the game engine and we have to deal with it's idiosyncrasies when playing. I think that TOAW is a great game, but it depends a lot on the designer. To mitigate undesirable effects when we see they happen a lot in most scenarios would, IMHO, be the way to go.

[cathar1244]

(general comment) I doubt many units would retreat toward the enemy IRL. Unless there was a coordinated attempt to relieve them, it is much more likely they would abandon their heavy gear and attempt to exfiltrate the area in order to return to friendly lines. And even those actions are seldom hugely successful. Getting out of situations like the one presented at the beginning of this thread calls for superb proficiency and iron discipline, much more than that required for normal movement or even holding a defensive line.

Cheers

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Cabido

The best solution, in my opinion would be to have a friendly unit in the hex.

Huh?

I agree, but the inverse is much more bizarre. A motorized unit chasing a foot unit around. Then make movement capacity play a bigger role.

That's already taken into account in triggering disengagement attacks. See 10.4.10.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: cathar1244

(general comment) I doubt many units would retreat toward the enemy IRL.

A retreat is an adverse combat result. The victor may dictate the direction of retreat by penetration of the battle area. (Don't think of the hex as something monolithic - it's actually a huge tactical battlefield).

[Cabido]

ORIGINAL: Cabido

The best solution, in my opinion would be to have a friendly unit in the hex.

Huh?
[/quote]

The example was given above with visual aid, but I reproduce it below:

.......10,4
........2,1..4,2
....10,4...10,4

4,2 gives support to 2,1 retreat.

I agree, but the inverse is much more bizarre. A motorized unit chasing a foot unit around. Then make movement capacity play a bigger role.

That's already taken into account in triggering disengagement attacks. See 10.4.10.

Not enough to prevent a goose chase from a foot unit by a motorized unit.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: cathar1244

(general comment) I doubt many units would retreat toward the enemy IRL.

A retreat is an adverse combat result. The victor may dictate the direction of retreat by penetration of the battle area. (Don't think of the hex as something monolithic - it's actually a huge tactical battlefield).

Not an RBC.
You touched exactly the point I have considered above, when I said that units shouldn't have to cover all the surrounding hexes in order to encircle. When flanked, both units would be able to enter this "huge tactical battlefield" and "dictate directions". If coming from three directions as pictured in my preceding, the retreating unit would be completely blocked. (I reproduce it here)
.......10,4
........2,1
....10,4...10,4

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Cabido

The example was given above with visual aid, but I reproduce it below:

.......10,4
........2,1..4,2
....10,4...10,4

4,2 gives support to 2,1 retreat.

It sounded like you expected the game to provide such a unit. [X(]

Not enough to prevent a goose chase from a foot unit by a motorized unit.

There are other factors involved, such as recon levels. And some big units can take a lot of killing - even if disengagement attacks are triggered. But if you're going to claim there is a problem with triggering disengagement attacks, you're going to have to back it up with rigorous test evidence.

Not an RBC.

Yes, if it triggers a disengagement attack.

You touched exactly the point I have considered above, when I said that units shouldn't have to cover all the surrounding hexes in order to encircle. When flanked, both units would be able to enter this "huge tactical battlefield" and "dictate directions". If coming from three directions as pictured in my preceding, the retreating unit would be completely blocked. (I reproduce it here)
.......10,4
........2,1
....10,4...10,4

I'm pretty sure that lack of enough equipment to cover the hex by the defender will impact disengagement attack chances (treated as flanked). But I gather that you want this to be guaranteed, not a probability. I don't like that word in regards to combat.

[Cabido]

One unit has 50 panzers (1) that will face 10 squads on foot (2) in the open. The hex is 5km in size and the turn a full day. It should be easy to these panzers to encircle the squads in their own hex which, as has been said, is a large battlefield. They are in the open (arid terrain may have some cover). It should be an easy game to encircle and an easy game to eliminate if squads don’t take cover and move through the open.

We first explore RBC. In figure 3, the panzers enter the infantry hex and the squads go around in a nice dribble. In figure 4, the panzers chase the foot soldiers that keep one step ahead, after a 10km chase through the open. In figure 5, they enter hills and rocky terrain, which finally stops the panzers after a 20km chase, most of it on open terrain following foot soldiers. The day is over.

Were those panzers in an escort role pace, while the soldiers marched in front of them? Could these soldiers cover 10 km in the open and 10km over rocky terrain being harassed by panzers without any kind of cover, since they were moving? Wouldn’t these panzers encircle and contain these squads unless they dispersed completely (and perhaps even then) losing all unity and cohesion?

In some tests, the panzers could eliminate the unit after 10 or 15 km. Even so...

It’s true that the infantry may find cover even in arid terrain and try to resist tanks without infantry support, but then they would have to stay in place. As I said earlier, I’m not analyzing the capacity of infantry to resist an attack on prepared position by tanks or the effectiveness of tanks against such a position, but the dynamics of encirclement and pursuit in such situations.

[Cabido]

Well, I tried then to treat it as an hex based game, with all it’s logic based on this arbitrary unit, the hex. Instead of treating the infantry hex as the battlefield, and it’s relative equipment density as the main variable, I treated the focal hex with all hexes around will be the battlefield, with seven different parts. This panzer unit should be able to encircle this tiny foot infantry unit in open terrain. So, I set for it.

We have two serious problems then: we can only divide a unit by 3 and we must deal with enemy ZOC. As shown in the picture, we must disengage, go around ZOC and enter ZOC again. It takes 9 MP from 15 MP, which in game terms means approximately 14 hours to go around this tiny unit. Since we only can divide it by 3, We establish a pyramid like shape, which in my opinion, based on the difference of force and mobility, should be considered already an encirclement. But it isn’t. After more than half a day maneuver, when the northern unit advances, the squads just flow like water through the gaps that, in real life, would be easily closed by the flanking units (figure 4), considered their greater mobility and favorable terrain. And the goose chase begins, since, after 14 hours, there is no more MPs to go around the infantry unit using an hex based logic.

Oh, but there isn’t enough equipment to guarantee an hermetic encirclement, one could say. Well, I divided the panzer unit in two different units in the scenario editor, with exactly half the equipment of the original unit each. This way, I would be able to get 6 units from the “in game” division, but exactly the same force relation between the two opposing units. You can see the result in figure 8. The infantry unit is ALWAYS encircled and eliminated. It takes still too long, because of the tiny infantry unit ZOC, but at least we don’t have to chase it around.

So, no matter the difference in force of both units, we would always have to call a second unit just to get six sub units and close the hex based gaps. If we had octagons, instead of hexagons, we would have to have 8 sub units, independently of equipment density and mobility.

To be honest, when using planned combat (preventing RBC), we get better results, even with the 3 units encirclement, but the infantry unit can still escape most of the time. The difference is that using planned combat, instead of forcing RBC, we can kill it (them, when it divides) more easily afterwards. The losses are greater, since all three sub-units take part in combat. But, again, as said earlier, the point here isn’t on the losses, but on the dynamics of encirclement and pursuit.

The necessity to occupy the 6 hexes for encirclement is artificial, since most of the combat should take place (in case of very low density units like this, at least) in the infantry unit’s hex, which, in this particular case, would be easily encircled. But, in this example, even if it wasn’t the case of treating the infantry hex as the exclusive battlefield area, the tanks would easily move to close the gaps against foot infantry.

If the game logic is completely hex based, the units should, at least be able to divide by six (the magic number for encirclement) and ZOC of tiny units (relatively, of course) eliminated. But a more realistic approach would be to verify if the relative mobility would allow a unit to pass through a gap between two enemy units without having it’s path blocked (terrain could be a factor by it’s influence in mobility and relative strength of units). If there is a supporting friendly unit in this gap (the unit Curtis though I wished the game should supply?), the retreat should be easier.

In relation to RBC, units with lower mobility should be eliminated more easily. The influence of mobility in disengagement attacks isn’t enough.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Cabido
Well, I tried then to treat it as an hex based game, with all it’s logic based on this arbitrary unit, the hex.

Editorial ensues:
I am continually perplexed by the number of people on this forum who dislike this game so much yet here they are playing it. If you don't like the hexes because they are 'arbitrary', then design something like command ops 2 or just play that game. This game is now and will forever be hex based. So complaining about that is pointless and borders on trolling. TOAW plays well in most instances but will never be an exact simulation of real life combat. For that you should probably join an armed forces that is actually fighting someplace on the planet. I could also spend endless hours complaining about some things that can be changed and I probably have. The key phrase is 'can be changed'. But I will never whine about something that can and never will be changed like TOAW being hex based.

Let me add: Sometimes RBC can be irritating yes. Especially if you don't plan for it. Other times it can be an advantage and allows units to move much deeper into enemy territory than would otherwise be possible. Good and bad. Well whadayaknow.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Cabido

One unit has 50 panzers (1) that will face 10 squads on foot (2) in the open. The hex is 5km in size and the turn a full day. It should be easy to these panzers to encircle the squads in their own hex which, as has been said, is a large battlefield. They are in the open (arid terrain may have some cover). It should be an easy game to encircle and an easy game to eliminate if squads don’t take cover and move through the open.

We first explore RBC. In figure 3, the panzers enter the infantry hex and the squads go around in a nice dribble. In figure 4, the panzers chase the foot soldiers that keep one step ahead, after a 10km chase through the open. In figure 5, they enter hills and rocky terrain, which finally stops the panzers after a 20km chase, most of it on open terrain following foot soldiers. The day is over.

Were those panzers in an escort role pace, while the soldiers marched in front of them? Could these soldiers cover 10 km in the open and 10km over rocky terrain being harassed by panzers without any kind of cover, since they were moving? Wouldn’t these panzers encircle and contain these squads unless they dispersed completely (and perhaps even then) losing all unity and cohesion?

In some tests, the panzers could eliminate the unit after 10 or 15 km. Even so...

It’s true that the infantry may find cover even in arid terrain and try to resist tanks without infantry support, but then they would have to stay in place. As I said earlier, I’m not analyzing the capacity of infantry to resist an attack on prepared position by tanks or the effectiveness of tanks against such a position, but the dynamics of encirclement and pursuit in such situations.

I'd be interested to know if disengagement attacks were ever triggered. You didn't keep track of the infantry unit's strength (and whether it was being whittled away or not).

Obviously, the panzers didn't have much recon. So, it might be like trying to herd cats for them.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Cabido

Well, I tried then to treat it as an hex based game, with all it’s logic based on this arbitrary unit, the hex. Instead of treating the infantry hex as the battlefield, and it’s relative equipment density as the main variable, I treated the focal hex with all hexes around will be the battlefield, with seven different parts. This panzer unit should be able to encircle this tiny foot infantry unit in open terrain. So, I set for it.

We have two serious problems then: we can only divide a unit by 3 and we must deal with enemy ZOC. As shown in the picture, we must disengage, go around ZOC and enter ZOC again. It takes 9 MP from 15 MP, which in game terms means approximately 14 hours to go around this tiny unit. Since we only can divide it by 3, We establish a pyramid like shape, which in my opinion, based on the difference of force and mobility, should be considered already an encirclement. But it isn’t. After more than half a day maneuver, when the northern unit advances, the squads just flow like water through the gaps that, in real life, would be easily closed by the flanking units (figure 4), considered their greater mobility and favorable terrain. And the goose chase begins, since, after 14 hours, there is no more MPs to go around the infantry unit using an hex based logic.

Oh, but there isn’t enough equipment to guarantee an hermetic encirclement, one could say. Well, I divided the panzer unit in two different units in the scenario editor, with exactly half the equipment of the original unit each. This way, I would be able to get 6 units from the “in game” division, but exactly the same force relation between the two opposing units. You can see the result in figure 8. The infantry unit is ALWAYS encircled and eliminated. It takes still too long, because of the tiny infantry unit ZOC, but at least we don’t have to chase it around.

So, no matter the difference in force of both units, we would always have to call a second unit just to get six sub units and close the hex based gaps. If we had octagons, instead of hexagons, we would have to have 8 sub units, independently of equipment density and mobility.

To be honest, when using planned combat (preventing RBC), we get better results, even with the 3 units encirclement, but the infantry unit can still escape most of the time. The difference is that using planned combat, instead of forcing RBC, we can kill it (them, when it divides) more easily afterwards. The losses are greater, since all three sub-units take part in combat. But, again, as said earlier, the point here isn’t on the losses, but on the dynamics of encirclement and pursuit.

The necessity to occupy the 6 hexes for encirclement is artificial, since most of the combat should take place (in case of very low density units like this, at least) in the infantry unit’s hex, which, in this particular case, would be easily encircled. But, in this example, even if it wasn’t the case of treating the infantry hex as the exclusive battlefield area, the tanks would easily move to close the gaps against foot infantry.

If the game logic is completely hex based, the units should, at least be able to divide by six (the magic number for encirclement) and ZOC of tiny units (relatively, of course) eliminated. But a more realistic approach would be to verify if the relative mobility would allow a unit to pass through a gap between two enemy units without having it’s path blocked (terrain could be a factor by it’s influence in mobility and relative strength of units). If there is a supporting friendly unit in this gap (the unit Curtis though I wished the game should supply?), the retreat should be easier.

In relation to RBC, units with lower mobility should be eliminated more easily. The influence of mobility in disengagement attacks isn’t enough.

Here, a disengagement attack must have been generated, since the unit split into three. But the tanks don't seem to have enough AP to kill the unit outright.

[Shadrach]

ORIGINAL: Lobster
I am continually perplexed by the number of people on this forum who dislike this game so much yet here they are playing it.

I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding this. People post these things because they care deeply about the game, and want it to become even better. Not because they dislike it, then they would just leave and find something else.

I have no illusions of being able to tell the developers how to improve this, as my knowledge of the code and deeper mechanics is limited. However I can voice my opinion that this might be something worth looking into, and maybe, if even possible, improve it. That's all there is to it.

[sPzAbt653]

When I first saw your posts I was excited that you had put together a test scenario that could be used to analyze results, then you made this comment right at the beginning:

It should be easy to these panzers to encircle the squads in their own hex ...

Panzers are not designed for nor used for encircling squads, so I don't see how you can prove anything by setting it up that way. I stopped there and did not read the rest of your posts. Either you redeemed yourself later, or you should set it up differently.

But the tanks don't seem to have enough AP to kill the unit outright.

I would think they would, but the enemy infantry would have to stand in front of the tanks and not return any fire in order for the tanks to kill them. It's just not a proper test condition.
It has already been shown [in post #17] that disengagement attacks do occur and if executed properly will quickly eliminate units in this situation.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Shadrach

ORIGINAL: Lobster
I am continually perplexed by the number of people on this forum who dislike this game so much yet here they are playing it.

I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding this. People post these things because they care deeply about the game, and want it to become even better. Not because they dislike it, then they would just leave and find something else.

I have no illusions of being able to tell the developers how to improve this, as my knowledge of the code and deeper mechanics is limited. However I can voice my opinion that this might be something worth looking into, and maybe, if even possible, improve it. That's all there is to it.

I'm talking about things like the quote below. I am not misunderstanding that statement. It's very clear.

ORIGINAL: Cabido
Well, I tried then to treat it as an hex based game, with all it’s logic based on this arbitrary unit, the hex.

[Shadrach]

I'm talking about things like the quote below. I am not misunderstanding that statement. It's very clear.

I have no idea how that statement can in any way shape or form be understood as a 'dislike' of the game. Is it the word 'arbitrary'? If so yes maybe not the best choice of words, but it just means 'randomly chosen'. Maybe calling hexes 'arbitrary' is deeply offensive to grogs [:D]

I think Cabido is making an excellent point, and much clearer than I would ever be able to. A unit of less than a hundred infantry is able to run in circles around a formidable tank-unit, in the middle of an open desert landscape. Those guys would be mincemeat in a no time flat, and if they had any sense they would surrender.

[gliz2]

Keeping things in perspective is a key.
An advancing unit (be it infantry or armoured) would not be doing any mopping up. This would be the task of the mopping up force (rear echelons). Therefore they would not engage in pursue if the enemy got out of the way.

Only in exceptional cases a small unit (e.g.company-sized) would be able to orderly disengage from an advancing force. Normally either the unit would get disorganised or would surrender (overrun) even if many routes of withdrawal would have been available. Especially infantry vs armour would stay a close to none chances of disengaging.

On a 5-10 km scale the disengagement opportunities should be quite limited. The current wild goose chase system is another example of bad porting of boardgames solutions (where there were quite strick limitations for disengaging before combat).

A good example of the issue is when a stacked force tries to advance from a single hex. It is the top unit (of the stack) that makes the move (for God knows what reason) and only it is taken into account if the disengagement before combat occurs. On a 5-10 km scale, with half-week turns you have to (and are allowed to) encircle the enemy without him being able to disengage. Masterminds of boardgames would not be able to mess it up better.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Shadrach

I'm talking about things like the quote below. I am not misunderstanding that statement. It's very clear.

I have no idea how that statement can in any way shape or form be understood as a 'dislike' of the game. Is it the word 'arbitrary'? If so yes maybe not the best choice of words, but it just means 'randomly chosen'. Maybe calling hexes 'arbitrary' is deeply offensive to grogs [:D]

I think Cabido is making an excellent point, and much clearer than I would ever be able to. A unit of less than a hundred infantry is able to run in circles around a formidable tank-unit, in the middle of an open desert landscape. Those guys would be mincemeat in a no time flat, and if they had any sense they would surrender.

So you are telling me that all of the games based hexes used them as a random choice? Arbitrary? [:D][:D][:D]

I could make one small scenario and create all manners of weird outcomes. They prove nothing because they are created specifically to fail. Poor game decisions do not equal a broken game. If you create the situation like the one in the original post how can you blame the game for what you created? There have been a multitude of times when I RBC a small unit just so I can pass through the other sides lines. I also intentionally do not create situations where enemy units are allowed to wander about the rear areas. It's just bad tactics.

It's your job to create situations within the game that are to your advantage. That's how you 'win'. It's also your job to understand how the game works. If you don't then you will have unfortunate outcomes.

There is only so much that can be done with this game given the lack of people to work on it. Bending it to everyone's individual wishes is impossible. One person doesn't like that there are no leaders. Another person doesn't like that the combat loss information isn't to their liking. One doesn't like that there is no command hierarchy. The next one doesn't like how RBC happens. The next one doesn't like how the naval combat works. This one doesn't like how the air combat functions. One person (me) doesn't like the abstract way transportation is represented. Another thinks supply should be split between ammo, pol and other. The list goes on and on and on. Most are valid. Some are just spurious extra 'stuff' that they want because another game has them.

From what Bob has said RBC is going to remain as it is unless someone can show him with strenuously tested proof that something is amiss other than an individuals poor planning. Little scenarios set up to intentionally show how RBC fails or promising to never buy/play the game or a tantrum will not do it. He is always consistent with his demand for proof.

Continuing to argue with him that it is broken without that proof is pointless. Believe me, I been down that road. [:D]

So, good luck with your test. [;)]

[Bamilus]

ORIGINAL: Shadrach

ORIGINAL: Lobster
I am continually perplexed by the number of people on this forum who dislike this game so much yet here they are playing it.

I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding this. People post these things because they care deeply about the game, and want it to become even better. Not because they dislike it, then they would just leave and find something else.

I have no illusions of being able to tell the developers how to improve this, as my knowledge of the code and deeper mechanics is limited. However I can voice my opinion that this might be something worth looking into, and maybe, if even possible, improve it. That's all there is to it.

Honestly, part of the issue is, while I love TOAW 4 (and 3 before it), the games have the worst written manual I've ever seen in over hundreds of wargames. The manual reads like a CPA reference book (source: CPA here) that would only really be helpful for people who already have a good understanding of the game and it's previous iterations. So, it does a great job of documenting the intricacies of the game but does a terrible of job helping new players. I know there are third party fan created sourced tutorials, but that isn't a perfect solution. If this game had a manual like DC:Barbarossa, I think it would clear up so much misunderstanding. Hopefully, if there is a fifth version of TOAW, more time will be spent on this.

Regardless, this is a great game and these discussions show how detailed it is. While the game isn't perfect, the biggest barrier still remains the TOAW paradigm shift from traditional IGOUGO/WEGO wargames. I know there are tons of good posts and things explaining developer reasoning behind certain design decisions, but they are hard to find as they spread out among multiple websites spanning two decades. Incorporating some of these into the manual, like DC Barbarossa did, would better help transition players first encountering the paradigm shift.

Tl;dr: Game manual sucks for new players and they easily get frustrated because game is incredibly complex and requires a totally different paradigm from nearly every other hex based wargame, so a lot of complaints come from misunderstanding of game mechanics or from misunderstanding of design decision. However, due to lack of concise information, this is understandable.

[Lobster]

Aye. The game manual has not been edited since TOAW I. There are parts of it that are completely contradictory.