Army Disaster on Java is this a bug

[von Murrin]

Okay, I'm into this now.

4. AV threshold.

Units that are too small to block the retreat of a larger unit cannot do so. However... units that are too small to reach the threshold can't block anything. Understrength brigades chase each other all over the map. Then you have the Maylay landing to cut off Allied defenders. Player A lands a brigade which accumulates a some disabled elements, dropping the AV total one point below the requirement. Player A wins a combat one hex up the rail line and player B's units retreat through the now defunct blocking force. Player A screams bloody murder and breaks his monitor.

Can this be fixed or is the concept flawed?

5. The nebulous unit value.

I really can't see how this one doesn't work, as it's basically 4 with a few other factors thrown in. The ratio is most important, as now small units can block each other, but not a force 20 times their size. By adding fatigue and disruption the potential blocker can be battered into mission ineffectiveness. By having an AV ratio consideration, beat up units might not be able to block a larger unit.

So... what are the problems with this model aside from the establishment of the necessary ratio itself?

[moses]

Anytime a unit is allowed to retreat into a contested hex you have the potential that it will be involved in multiple combats in one turn. I guess theoretically under your option 5 a unit could be retreated 3 times in a turn and end up 180 miles from where it started.

[von Murrin]

ORIGINAL: moses

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.

People are upset because one hex with enemy ZOC blocks overwhelming force in comparison with the blocker. If they could retreat one hex, they'd have a valid supply path. I've yet to see someone argue the validity of being able to create a valid supply path with a cut off unit.

The ZOC rules work. The retreat routines work. The supply routines work. The ability to block a division with a company, unfortunately, also works.[:D]

[von Murrin]

ORIGINAL: moses

Anytime a unit is allowed to retreat into a contested hex you have the potential that it will be involved in multiple combats in one turn. I guess theoretically under your option 5 a unit could be retreated 3 times in a turn and end up 180 miles from where it started.

Okay. What if we adjust the ratios? A fights B in hex X. A is retreated to hex Y with C because C doesn't have the disruption/fatigue/morale/AV in sufficient quantity to induce the surrender of B in X. If the ratios are set correctly, C can't make B retreat, but B could make C retreat.

This is Frag's "ping-pong" effect.

Hmmm... so what if...

What if the retreat priorities are changed to make adjacent friendly units first pick?
Sort of like:
1. Friendly unit.
2. Valid supply path.
3. Friendly base.
Maybe even:
4. Favorable terrain.
5. Base size.
6. Friendly HQ.
EDIT: The hex with the highest total from the above checklist gets the retreating unit.

You're playing a wonderful devil's advocate. Break this one, please.[:D]

[moses]

Here's another dumb idea. Can't you just say that to create a contested A/J ZOC the second unit has to have a line of land line of supply. So you as allies have a unit in the hex along you're retreat route. So you have an "A' ZOC. Japan drops a parachute unit on your hex but the unit has no line of supply so the hex stays as "A" and does not change to "A/J"

Doesn't the problem go away now? What am I missing.

[von Murrin]

You're missing amphibious landings. Are you also suggesting a landing force must capture a base or dot hex to begin creating ZOC's? If so, that's simple and elegant. Let me think it over and see if I can beat it up.

[moses]

Yes. An amphipious force to gain a ZOC would have to be either:

A: First in the hex. or
B: Retreat the unit that was there before.

Same for a paratrooper.

Might make sence in many cases. Just taking the beach even if you have the greater force doesn't mean you control the whole hex. You might still be able to retreat through the inland portions of the hex. In some situations this rule might seem strange but not as bad as units being destroyed entirely.

[von Murrin]

A leaves you with the current situation, but B would be a definite improvement.

With A, you can still land on a coastal hex (no base or dot) and get a ZOC with ten guys, forcing three divisions to surrender.

[Mr.Frag]

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

Hahaha! Now that is a good one!

I give you 10 minutes and you'll find a hole in anything. You guys are grogs, not normal mortals. You live to find holes!

[von Murrin]

Believe me, I know. I'm still trying to get a brake chute kill with the SU-25 in LOMAC. (Hey, it is modelled as a physical object!)[:D]

How do you expect us to jump higher if we don't set the bar out of reach?[;)]

[moses]

But at least it provides a defence. As long as you have something in the hex the exploit doesn't work.

[doktorblood]

Retreats being blocked by enemy units have been in wargaming since ...like forever!.

Deal with it.

I do think that retreats should be allowed into a contested hex though, if that is the only hex left to retreat to.

[von Murrin]

ORIGINAL: doktorblood

Retreats being blocked by enemy units have been in wargaming since ...like forever!.

Deal with it.

I do think that retreats should be allowed into a contested hex though, if that is the only hex left to retreat to.

Yeah, but the kind of thing that sparked this thread, is just, well... stupid.[:D]

[von Murrin]

ORIGINAL: moses

But at least it provides a defence. As long as you have something in the hex the exploit doesn't work.

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

[Mr.Frag]

Yeah, but the kind of thing that sparked this thread, is just, well... stupid.

You have run into one of those classic problems ... order of operation ...

At the time the Paras landed, they established a ZoC. Then Combat resolved. Just due to how combat resolved, your boys got creamed *before* the Paras got slaughtered.

Not much can be done about this kind of a situation without handling everything in real time. Anytime you deal with anything that is turn based, there will always be the situation where something is above the list then something else and that something else needed to go first to get the proper resolution ... thats where we really have to use our brains and go ... hmm, thats wrong, lets replay that one as it obviously is not the right order of things.

[von Murrin]

Yeah, that's the easy way, but I'm really interested in finding a fix, even if it'll never be more than conjecture. What about moses' proposal? It's bulletproof (so far), and unlike the others, quite simple in concept.

[Mr.Frag]

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

[von Murrin]

Sure, if that's how it works. Or requiring a check for valid supply to a land base for ZOC. If you land or paradrop in a location from which you have no base of supply, you shouldn't expect to be able to create one.[:D]

[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.

[moses]

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

Actually I'm thinking that if you do not have a land line of supply (think ambhib or para you never get a ZOC unless the hex is empty or you defeat the exisiting unit.