Matrix Games Forums

My opponent just took Florence in a way I suspect is a serious bug. Has the retreat rules been fundamentally altered? Pretty sure my counteroffensive will retake it if the East front rules are in effect on the Italian front but it is a huge problem generally as it makes Italy indefensible

The manual :
When both sides in a battle are finished firing there is a retreat check. On the Western and Italian fronts, if the defender takes 50% more casualties than the attacker he is forced to retreat. On the other fronts, if the defender takes more casualties than the attacker then he is forced to retreat.

The defender is also forced to retreat if at the conclusion of the battle the remaining attackers far outnumber the defenders as modified by the strength of any entrenchments.

Besides the forced retreat above, corps will also retreat individually from a hex if their strength or readiness fall to 0.

See screenshot. No way defender took 50% more casualties then attacker. If the Italian front now works like the East front it is IMO a huge mistake as mobility wasn’t a feature of that front.

ORIGINAL: ulver

If the Italian front now works like the East front it is IMO a huge mistake as mobility wasn’t a feature of that front.

I was not aware that the "East Front" rules for retreats (or anything else for that matter) were any different than for the "Italian Front" or any other front. Is there a post that explains or discusses this somewhere?

I would disagree that the rules should be any different. There are several reasons why, historically, the East Front was more fluid than the West Front and Italian Front. The most obvious being that it was several times longer and the Combatants did not have enough resources to entrench the entire line nor the manpower to defend everywhere in strength.

Looking at the attack results in your case I am surprised that your units were forced to retreat given the relative size of your forces. I can only assume that his assault troops were the difference.

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

I was not aware that the "East Front" rules for retreats (or anything else for that matter) were any different than for the "Italian Front" or any other front. Is there a post that explains or discusses this somewhere?
size of your forces. I can only assume that his assault troops were the difference.

When both sides in a battle are finished firing there is a retreat check. On the Western and Italian fronts, if the defender takes 50% more casualties than the attacker he is forced to retreat. On the other fronts, if the defender takes more casualties than the attacker then he is forced to retreat.

This is actually a very good rule. It means the West and Italian front are more static then the East front. IMO it is a huge mistake to make change things to make the Italian front more fluid.

It also really really needs to be documented

For what it is worth my recollection of my past experience is that there appears to be a random element to retreats that sometimes works in my favour and sometimes in my disfavour.
I suppose on the historical accuracy point, campaigns deep in the heart of Italy (or West Germany for that matter) didn't happen in practice so we are perhaps guessing how fluid or not they would have been.

ORIGINAL: ulver

This is actually a very good rule. It means the West and Italian front are more static then the East front.

You are correct that it make the West and Italian Fronts more static, but it seems you are trying to create an historical result by an artificial means. Were the laws of physics any different on the West and Italian Fronts than the East Front? I think all Fronts should require the Defender to take 50% more casulties than the Attacker. There will still be lots of retreats on the East Front as there are so many more places for the attacker obtain the necessary odds to attack.

It also really really needs to be documented

I agree.

With respect, not trying to do anything. I was quoting the manual. In previous games it has always worked like that and it still works like that on the West Front. The game has allowed ahistorical mobility on the Italian front (for both sides) and a number of remedies have been discussed to shut the front down for both sides on this board with the designer in full agreement that it was in issue.

It makes no sense to change it for the Italian font and not the West front. Changing it in either theater makes France/Italy indefensible in the opening phases.

I would actually agree with you that it world make more sense to bring the East front in line with the West by making it conform to West front standards

ulver, any chance the reason for your retreat was one or more of your unit's readiness fell to zero?

If there's any chance you have a save of just prior to the battle so that I can see the resolution and not jsut the displayed result, I would like to look at it as I would have bet the defender should have won that.

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter

ulver, any chance the reason for your retreat was one or more of your unit's readiness fell to zero?

If there's any chance you have a save of just prior to the battle so that I can see the resolution and not jsut the displayed result, I would like to look at it as I would have bet the defender should have won that.

I remain always in awe of the level of commitment you show to your games. Is there a “support Frank’s game design and development fond” somewhere I can donate to?

This is the move I send to my opponent just before the combat result occurred. That should be the right one. If not please let me know. I have all moves both those I send and those I received so it shouldn’t be a problem.

Edit. Can not attach. Mailed to fhunter@telus.net

None of the surviving units displayed 0 readiness afterwards. If one of them did drop to 0 – would that cause the entire stack to retreat? Even if other units were fine?

None of the surviving units displayed 0 readiness afterwards. If one of them did drop to 0 – would that cause the entire stack to retreat? Even if other units were fine?

It might because the new numerical balance might tip too far.

But according to the manual that is irrelevant. Are retreated units (because of 0 morale) counted as losses for the purpose of retreat? If so, that really should be in the manual

Oops, It is right in the Manual. My bad.

But according to the manual that is irrelevant.

We're not referring to the same thing

Are retreated units (because of 0 morale) counted as losses for the purpose of retreat

No

I found the reason why using your save ulver. The attacker caused more readiness loss and slightly more casualties while the surviving strengths in the hex were 63 to 56 in favour of the attacker and the defender had level 1 trenches surviving. Normally this would have meant the attacking forces would have been narrowly defeated and been forced to retreat. However, the attacker had an attacking unit that was able to cancel the effect of the level 1 trench temporarily which, given the attacker's narrow victory was just enough to mean it forced the defenders back.

I assume it was the The defender is also forced to retreat if at the conclusion of the battle the remaining attackers far outnumber the defenders as modified by the strength of any entrenchments clause that came into play. What is the “far outnumber” ratio?

In the case of 0 entrenchnments where the attacker has won the battle (regardless of by how much), the attacker only has to have a superiority in remaining ready forces to force the defender back.

On the other hand, if you had say level 4 trenches and you hadn't been attacked by tanks or assault troops but the results were still the same otherwise, the CP would have needed almost 3 times as many forces to take the hex.

ORIGINAL: ulver

I remain always in awe of the level of commitment you show to your games. Is there a “support Frank’s game design and development fond” somewhere I can donate to?

I have to second this. Anyone who has been reading any posts recently will know that I have been hounding Frank mercilessly with questions and he has been responding promptly and courteously to all of them. If our roles were reversed I'm not so sure I would be as gracious.

Thank you Frank.

And I'll third it!
How about slightly redoing the civil war game ( a few ai amphibious upgrades and some new gun options) and reselling it here? Others are doing it with equal or lesser games in my opinion. There are enough people who've gotten it for free that I suspect would be willing to make a donation.

Don't know the game but sounds like an excellent idea!

The problem with my old ACW game is its really old. Its been 18 years since I originally wrote the code in Turbo Pascal.

I have converted some of the code and I have a long list of changes, fixes and new ideas I've kept from the old Adanac forum and I will get to it one day. But with 3 new ACW games out this didn't seem like the time to do that.

I think its amazing (and nice) there's still guys that play it.