Army Disaster on Java is this a bug

[BlackVoid]

Don't play someone who is as gamey as this.

[Andy Mac]

We have had a great game so far and I am so glad we have resolved the issue.

My main concern is that I genuinely think the current implementation is wrong but I cannot think or a workable implemenatable solution within the constraints outlined by Frag without just moving the problem to another situation

[von Murrin]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

If you have a idea that fits within *this* framework of possibilities, I'm all ears.

It has been suggested before that some sort of AV threshold for generating ZOC's would do the trick. It's an idea that definitely fits within the "framework of possibilities" you put forth. How possible or likely is this, and assuming you know yourself, can you tell us why if the answer is no?

[Mr.Frag]

How possible or likely is this, and assuming you know yourself, can you tell us why if the answer is no?

Don't know, the list is really long and this just changes the threshold ... ie: so he has to use 2 paras instead of 1? Same end effect really.

[Mr.Frag]

Don't play someone who is as gamey as this.

Seeing as both folks have opted to replay the turn, it was obviously not an *intended* result.

It's only gamey when someone does it deliberately. [;)]

[von Murrin]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

How possible or likely is this, and assuming you know yourself, can you tell us why if the answer is no?

Don't know, the list is really long and this just changes the threshold ... ie: so he has to use 2 paras instead of 1? Same end effect really.

What if the threshold was in the area of brigade strength? I think most people would be okay with that, and getting even a full third of two para units past CAP such as was present wouldn't be easy.

[Mr.Frag]

What if the threshold was in the area of brigade strength? I think most people would be okay with that, and getting even a full third of two para units past CAP such as was present wouldn't be easy.

Who's Brigade? What shape it in? pick an assault value, thats something tangible. I think a Japan Para would kick the snot out of an India Brigade [:D]

[von Murrin]

Heh, no argument there.[:D]

Say 60 to start with. Most units can come close to that while still being combat effective. Even better, how about using a hex total for the factor? Say 90 from any combination of units gives ZOC effects? Can that even be done?

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Only way I think this will work acceptably.

After all this time, you still don't get it ... this is a turn based game, not a multiple turn transactional database where you can go look up what happened last turn and use it to make up what happens.

You go on and on about what would be great yet you are completely dreaming because you are thinking that what happened last turn is tracked magically.

It isn't.

It *once* again would be a completely rewrite from the ground up to have access to the results of the previous turn to allow that type of a system. Not going to happen.

Deal with the realities of what is available and you'll start to understand why the ZoC system is exactly the way it is. You have 1 round with all the data in front of you to make the choice of the outcome. Period.

If you have a idea that fits within *this* framework of possibilities, I'm all ears.

Really? We track progressive flooding, morale, disruption, fires, fatigue, movement points...[8|] Whatever.[>:] Then have the retreating unit undergo a deliberate attack (not shock because we can't assume the attackers are ready for it) immediately upon retreating into enemy hex. If it does not get a retreat result, it stays.

[Mr.Frag]

Ok, now for the next part of the question ... *which* hex does it choose to go to?

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Ok, now for the next part of the question ... *which* hex does it choose to go to?

Not sure of the question. We can't affect this now. But if it happens to retreat into an empty hex with only a ZOC "letter", it stays, if it retreats into hex occuppied by enemy unit, it get attacked, and if forced to retreat again, it surrenders. Possible?

[Mr.Frag]

Really? We track progressive flooding, morale, disruption, fires, fatigue, movement points... Whatever.

No, they just did a good job of making it look like it is. Those are all single events based on formulas.

All of those are single values. based on the value, *things* can happen.

Flooding for example ... if ship has flood damage, it gets a flood increase check for progressive flooding. The higher the level, the more likely it will get worse (the formula).

Then have the retreating unit undergo a deliberate attack (not shock because we can't assume the attackers are ready for it) immediately upon retreating into enemy hex. If it does not get a retreat result, it stays.

Trying to make sense of this ... you are saying unit looses, retreats into enemy hex. Enemy is now forced to fight it (and any other troops that might be there). Hardly fair ... that could result in the guy who just won the fight being forced to loose a fight in another hex that he was not ready to fight in.

Due to the size of a hex, any form of retreat is frankly bad. If the hexes were small enough that the attacker could follow the defender quickly, I wouldn't have such a problem with it, but if it happens to be a non-improved hex, it could be 30+ extra days just to deal with some little group that is destroyed really that you now have to chase all over the map for nothing.

[von Murrin]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Ok, now for the next part of the question ... *which* hex does it choose to go to?

1. Into enemy ZOC that is closest to a friendly base with supply.
2. Same as above, but friendly base is contested.
3. Into enemy ZOC that is closest to a neutral or friendly controlled hex with a valid supply path.
4. If none of the above, unit is destroyed.

Or something like that.[:D]

[Mr.Frag]

But if it happens to retreat into an empty hex with only a ZOC "letter", it stays, if it retreats into hex occuppied by enemy unit, it get attacked, and if forced to retreat again, it surrenders. Possible?

Ping Pong anyone? [:D]

So this unit is running around doing 240 miles a day due to multiple retreats and the end result is it still surrenders from fatigue instead of morale [:D]

[Mr.Frag]

Von, I like the way you think it through ... now, let me throw the curveball.

At the very same time, it is reseting ZoC that the other guy worked hard to put in place by moving into one of these locations which has potential impacts to all of his units so we get back into a retreating unit that ends up screwing the guy who one because *his* supply path just got cut due to the retreating unit moving into a hex he *had* control of and now his units loose suddenly because they no longer have a supply path. [:(]

This whole thing can seriously drive you to drink when you start thinking it through end to end.

[von Murrin]

No. Ron is saying it has ONE "freebie" retreat. If it can beat and retreat the enemy units in the hex to which it retreated, it gets to move freely again. If it loses again, it dies.

The whole concept predicates upon a flag being generated by the game so it understands to disallow a second retreat.

[Mr.Frag]

No. Ron is saying it has ONE "freebie" retreat. If it can beat and retreat the enemy units in the hex to which it retreated, it gets to move freely again. If it loses again, it dies.

It still ping pongs, look at the other side ... not just the retreating unit.

Unit A fights B in hex 1

B looses and retreats to hex 2

B fights C in hex 2

C looses and retreats to hex 3

D happens to be in hex 3 and isn't happy [:D]

Now potentially, 3 hexes have had there supply chain messed with.

[tsimmonds]

Due to the size of a hex, any form of retreat is frankly bad. If the hexes were small enough that the attacker could follow the defender quickly, I wouldn't have such a problem with it, but if it happens to be a non-improved hex, it could be 30+ extra days just to deal with some little group that is destroyed really that you now have to chase all over the map for nothing.

I agree with this. So why must we have retreats at all....?

[Mr.Frag]

So why must we have retreats at all.

Got me stumped [:D]

[von Murrin]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Von, I like the way you think it through ... now, let me throw the curveball.

At the very same time, it is reseting ZoC that the other guy worked hard to put in place by moving into one of these locations which has potential impacts to all of his units so we get back into a retreating unit that ends up screwing the guy who one because *his* supply path just got cut due to the retreating unit moving into a hex he *had* control of and now his units loose suddenly because they no longer have a supply path. [:(]

This whole thing can seriously drive you to drink when you start thinking it through end to end.

This game already drives me to drink.

I see your point, but if you put retreat priorities in, doesn't that force a logical front progression? IOW, the only way NOT to drive the enemy back upon his own resources is to land, march, or para into his rear, in which case you deserve to be surrounded. (I'd be very upset if you weren't.[:D])

So... you're really saying this simply shifts the creation of The Exceptional Situation to another set of rules? If so, okay.

Give me a bit to play with this, though I'm wondering if ZOC itself isn't the root cause in its simplicity. There's a solution to every problem; it's simply a question of how much you are willing to allow your head to hurt for said solution. Didn't we say something about drink?[:D]