Matrix Games Forums

If there were no retreat after combat so many of these little annoyances would be moot points. It would be up to the discretion of the commander whether to run or to stay and die (course, you'd have to keep track of progress made in marching to a destination, otherwise a perpetually attacking enemy would negate an attempt to withdraw).

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?

Exactly

Always ready for a refreshing beverage....anyone besides me think those look like three pints of Guiness?

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

Always ready for a refreshing beverage....anyone besides me think those look like three pints of Guiness?

Shut up. I drank my last one last night![:'(]

Humm, I guess the problem is in the definition of contested he. The presence of enemy units in he should not make it automticlly contested. The simplest way would be to require a minimum ratio in order to contest the hex.

For exemple you could need at least 1/4 or 1/3 of the defending force to contest the hex.
A more complex way would be to make a roll based on the strength of the units presents, with leadership experience supply preparation also taken into account.

Lastly maybe surrender should not be automatic. A unit might be able to retreat through a contested hex but would take additional losses in the process.

Here's a crazy idea which probably can't be done. But I'll throw it out anyway as who knows. First disallow all retreats!! The only way anyone leaves a hex is voluntarily or he is destoyed. Secondly say your the allies with no forts and your are attcaked at 3-1 odds. Now your fort level goes to negative 2. Any future combat you fight at a disadvantage of some type. You get attacked next turn at 4-1. Now your fort level goes down to negative 6. And so on. At some point your fighting at such a disadvantage that you'd be better off retreating. Or you can just wait until you are destroyed.

Lots of details to be worked out. Just a thought.

ORIGINAL: moses

Here's a crazy idea which probably can't be done. But I'll throw it out anyway as who knows. First disallow all retreats!! The only way anyone leaves a hex is voluntarily or he is destoyed. Secondly say your the allies with no forts and your are attcaked at 3-1 odds. Now your fort level goes to negative 2. Any future combat you fight at a disadvantage of some type. You get attacked next turn at 4-1. Now your fort level goes down to negative 6. And so on. At some point your fighting at such a disadvantage that you'd be better off retreating. Or you can just wait until you are destroyed.

Lots of details to be worked out. Just a thought.

Then you end up with a Malay drive at the convenience of the Allied player.[;)]

First disallow all retreats!! The only way anyone leaves a hex is voluntarily or he is destoyed. Secondly say your the allies with no forts and your are attcaked at 3-1 odds. Now your fort level goes to negative 2. Any future combat you fight at a disadvantage of some type. You get attacked next turn at 4-1. Now your fort level goes down to negative 6. And so on. At some point your fighting at such a disadvantage that you'd be better off retreating. Or you can just wait until you are destroyed.

Right there with you on the retreat issue. But I think if you are losing the combat such that you would retreat (the way it works now), your units are already suffering considerably in the way of disablements, disruption and fatigue. If you stay and fight, this will only get worse. I don't think there is any need to do anything more. But there would have to be some way to allow a defender who wants out to actually be able to move his units to a different hex. As it is now, if his opponent doesn't want him to go (i.e. would prefer he stayed so he could be crushed like a bug), he could just keep attacking him every few days and his movement progress would be reset to -0-

Then you end up with a Malay drive at the convenience of the Allied player.

If that's where they want to fight, I'd much rather crush the allied units in the jungle than have to root them out of the fortress.

ORIGINAL: 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.

However, my idea was that ZOC does not block supply in/through mutually occupied hexes.

Like I said it was just a thought. It would essentially give you the option to choose the time of retreat. If your ZOC was temporarily blocked you could hold in position a few turns before hitting the bug out button. Or perhaps it could work where when units are retreated but have no path they stay and have their forts reduced to negative levels. Then next turn if a unit with negative forts has an open path then it retreats.

Back to basics.

Current problem:
1. Any unit can disallow retreats by forcing surrender or elimination. This can be gamey.
2. If we disallow blocking forces, any unit can retreat. This is very gamey.
3. Any currently proposed solution can allow either the former (ZOC's) or the latter (no ZOC's, retreats without "flags", AV requirements). This is gamey by both above definitions.

Desired result:
Small units with pointy sticks should be unable to stop the retreat of large units with lots of big guns.[:D]

Proposed solutions:
1. No ZOC's. Already tried and not helpful.
2. ZOC's only. Already tried and not helpful.[:D]
3. Retreat "flags". Requires redefining of ZOC's and retreat paths. Possible with potential coding headaches and unforseen issues.
4. ZOC's by AV threshold. Possible with potential coding headaches and unforseen issues.
*NEW* 5. Unit values. Use fatigue, disruption, and AV to generate an, as of now, nebulous value. Said nebulous value must reach a certain ration when compared to that of the enemy to block retreats. This is a good idea by virtue of being undebated and not having been beat to hell yet.[:D]

EDIT:

Objective: To arrive at an equitable solution that we can't deliberately break under current engine limitations.

ORIGINAL: von Murrin

Back to basics.

Current problem:
1. Any unit can disallow retreats by forcing surrender or elimination. This can be gamey.
2. If we disallow blocking forces, any unit can retreat. This is very gamey.
3. Any currently proposed solution can allow either the former (ZOC's) or the latter (no ZOC's, retreats without "flags", AV requirements). This is gamey by both above definitions.

Desired result:
Small units with pointy sticks should be unable to stop the retreat of large units with lots of big guns.[:D]

Proposed solutions:
1. No ZOC's. Already tried and not helpful.
2. ZOC's only. Already tried and not helpful.[:D]
3. Retreat "flags". Requires redefining of ZOC's and retreat paths. Possible with potential coding headaches and unforseen issues.
4. ZOC's by AV threshold. Possible with potential coding headaches and unforseen issues.
*NEW* 5. Unit values. Use fatigue, disruption, and AV to generate an, as of now, nebulous value. Said nebulous value must reach a certain ration when compared to that of the enemy to block retreats. This is a good idea by virtue of being undebated and not having been beat to hell yet.[:D]

5 is much as I suggested without the unit actually entering its hex.

Do retreats occur immediately after combat or are all combats resolved prior to retreat. In other words is it possible for a unit to be retreated into another combat.?

ORIGINAL: moses

Do retreats occur immediately after combat or are all combats resolved prior to retreat. In other words is it possible for a unit to be retreated into another combat.?

No. Retreat is immediate or retreat combats only happen after all others. Not sure which, but the effect is the same.

Actually my question make no sence because currently you can't retreat into a contested hex and so you can't retreat into combat.[:'(]

ORIGINAL: 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.

Okay. Way to break the model.[:D]

Now, does this invalidate the "flag" concept, or is there a way to prevent the "eight ball effect"? I'm thinking it breaks it, unless someone has a good solution.

ORIGINAL: moses

Actually my question make no sence because currently you can't retreat into a contested hex and so you can't retreat into combat.[:'(]

You're right. Way to bump my brain off track.[:D]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: von Murrin

Back to basics.

Current problem:
1. Any unit can disallow retreats by forcing surrender or elimination. This can be gamey.
2. If we disallow blocking forces, any unit can retreat. This is very gamey.
3. Any currently proposed solution can allow either the former (ZOC's) or the latter (no ZOC's, retreats without "flags", AV requirements). This is gamey by both above definitions.

Desired result:
Small units with pointy sticks should be unable to stop the retreat of large units with lots of big guns.[:D]

Proposed solutions:
1. No ZOC's. Already tried and not helpful.
2. ZOC's only. Already tried and not helpful.[:D]
3. Retreat "flags". Requires redefining of ZOC's and retreat paths. Possible with potential coding headaches and unforseen issues.
4. ZOC's by AV threshold. Possible with potential coding headaches and unforseen issues.
*NEW* 5. Unit values. Use fatigue, disruption, and AV to generate an, as of now, nebulous value. Said nebulous value must reach a certain ration when compared to that of the enemy to block retreats. This is a good idea by virtue of being undebated and not having been beat to hell yet.[:D]

5 is much as I suggested without the unit actually entering its hex.

I like it, too. Let's talk about 4 and 5, as the other methods have more or less been disposed of.

For options 4 and 5 you still have to have a base hex to retreat to. Otherwise you get the situation where your units retreat behind the enemy lines. Enemy moves into your hex from the south but has no unit in the hex he came from so you retreat into that hex.