Retreating inland after amphibious assault

[Jimmer]

I'm not going to open a Mantis case on this unless some willingness to be reasonable appears from the posts of the Matrix guys here.

A few months back (and, apparently, when the game was being designed), there was an argument about the absurdity of having losing land forces retreat INLAND after losing an amphibious assault combat. Logic lost and the rule stands.

Well, last night the absurdity of this rule hit me really hard. I was playing an AI game, starting in January of 1805. Typically, GB finds some way to fritter away her starting "army", usually attacking multiple places, each with insufficient force to even survive, let alone win.

Well, under 1.06, GB finally does it right (although, the profit in using your entire starting "army" on one "doomed to fail" attack can be questioned, at least she brought the WHOLE army): GB attacked (across the channel) the corps I had sitting in the Lille area. Naturally, she lost.

However, her retreat was west along the coast.

Now, yes, I remember the argument, but this just isn't right. If Eisenhower had known for certain he could have retreated along the coast instead of the more likely capture or slaughter, D-Day would have occured years earlier. This becomes very clear now that I have a British "army" sitting two spaces from Paris.

Now, if GB had built a depot at sea, one could make an argument for retreating along the coast. But, the possibility of retreating INTO hostile territory is absolutely absurd.

[Marshall Ellis]

Jimmer:
 
What would be your alternative because retreat across a crossing arrow is clearly illegal??
Force surrender was an option we did early but it did not make it past our testers (Large majority nixed this).
This still happens in the case of Denmark for example where this is no retreat option at all.

[AresMars]

I am with Jimmer on this one...
 
The word "retreat" suggests, that the loser should not gain an advantage by losing...
 
Suggestions re: amphibious assault;
 
A) No Supply Depot at SEA: Retreating Army is Captured
B) Supply Depot at Sea; Retreat along coast in a random direction (or chosen by Victor)....as long as it stays adjacent to the sea supply; otherwise captured
C) Crossing Arrow retreat;  LOST:  Captured, Captured, Captured!  This IS the 1800's after all.....amphibious assault was perfected much later...WWII Pacific Theather?
 
My 2 Gold on the subject...
 
 

[Dancing Bear]

I am in total agreement with Mr. A. Mars on this one.

[Marshall Ellis]

Ok guys, tell me what the board game would have done?

[AresMars]

 
Marshall, why would that matter anymore?
 
This is EIANW, not EIA or EIH.....
 
If you ask players of the above (EIA/EIH), you will get too many points of view....nature of the game.....
 
My comments above are my thoughts (also, this is how we played) and it is up to you to decide how you would program....
 
Once you commit YOUR ideas to forum, then you can see how the various camps argue.....
 
 

[Thresh]

I can give you about four or five different rulings...

Todd

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Ok guys, tell me what the board game would have done?

[ndrose]

ORIGINAL: AresMars

I am with Jimmer on this one...

The word "retreat" suggests, that the loser should not gain an advantage by losing...

Suggestions re: amphibious assault;

A) No Supply Depot at SEA: Retreating Army is Captured
B) Supply Depot at Sea; Retreat along coast in a random direction (or chosen by Victor)....as long as it stays adjacent to the sea supply; otherwise captured
C) Crossing Arrow retreat;  LOST:  Captured, Captured, Captured!  This IS the 1800's after all.....amphibious assault was perfected much later...WWII Pacific Theather?

My 2 Gold on the subject...

True, they didn't have amphibious assault, but, did they need it? The giganto-armies of WWII were able to defend entire coastlines, so that if you wanted to land you had to do it under fire. But in earlier periods, wouldn't an invasion by sea really have meant finding a nice, quiet place to get ashore and then meeting the enemy probably somewhere else? That is, it wasn't really fighting on the beaches, was it? In which case, why couldn't you retreat if you lost? You'd be in hostile territory, out of supply, unable to get reinforcements, and so on; but all that seems to be reflected adequately.

[AresMars]

Ndrose, You point is very valid....and I agree with it.

The points I was trying to make are;

a) Without supply, armies of the period would not remain an army long and thus GAME capture...

b) with Supply;
         1) the Victor should choose the path along the coast (so the loser does not gain a position advantage);
         2) a random direction is choosen as the Army moves and supply is re-established up or down the coast...

c) there is no supply source, and no fleet to recover the troops (or eyes to find a beach, or supply train), so they cannot all get back across the "arrow"... thus, no more army...prisoners....

There has to be SOME risk to crossing arrows into Battle, esp. the Lille one....and the Denmark ones....

Not saying I am 100% correct, however, Armies of the 1800's are not the same as those found in WWII....  <grin>

I'll be intrested in Thresh's comments.....[added] related to the various rulings....

[pzgndr]

The word "retreat" suggests, that the loser should not gain an advantage by losing...

How was this an advantage? GB lost a battle and retreated out of supply. So it takes another round or two to hunt down the blimeys and destroy them. No different than if France loses a battle in central Europe and "retreats" eastward out of supply.

Typically, GB finds some way to fritter away her starting "army", usually attacking multiple places, each with insufficient force to even survive, let alone win.

THIS appears to be the more significant issue to fix.

[Thresh]

They all have to do with the supply and retreat rules as written, and which ones you think takes&nbsp; priority in this situation.

7.5.2.10.3 Retreat After Losing A Combat: [/b]The loser is retreated one area by the victor. This occurs after pursuit (if any). 7.5.2.10.3.1: [/b]All retreats must be into an adjacent land area that is closest (any closest area, if several qualify equally) to the nearest depot of any nationality in force, or if none is on the map, towards that force's nearest controlled national capital city. 7.5.2.10.3.2: [/b]A retreating force may never be split up. 7.5.2.10.3.3: [/b]If the area retreated to contains an unbesieged enemy corps, cossack, freikorps or depot garrison, the force is retreated one more area (same rules as 7.5.2.10.3. 1), etc., until an open area is reached. 7.5.2.10.3.4: [/b]Retreat across a crossing arrow or onto ships is not permitted. 7.5.2.10.3.5: [/b]A force may not retreat into the same area twice in the same retreat. 7.5.2.10.3.6: [/b]A force must surrender (A army factors and leaders in the force become prisoners) if no retreat route is available.

So. lets say its early 1805, and I as the Brits am going to force the French Fleet, bottled up in Toulon, to come out and fight.&nbsp; I land my Infantry Corps there, expecting to wipe out the small french Corps in the Toulon area, but to my shoch its not a small Corps, its the full I Corps.&nbsp;&nbsp; The battle commences, I have a poor chit pull, and lose.

By the rules, I cannot retreat to the ships.&nbsp; But If I have a depot in Gibraltar, I can retreat towards that area, or a depot in Portsmouth I can retreat towards that.&nbsp;
Furthermore, lets say that I didn't build a depot for Invasion supply, I am going to land my Corps, forage, then live of the land or whatnot (which doesn't make sense but still)...If I lose, I can retreat towards London.&nbsp; Or If I had conquered Naples I could retreat that direction, as its the closest capital ccontrolled city.

Thats my interpretation of the rules as written.&nbsp; While the results may not make common sense, they do follow the rules.

Todd

[easterner]

Historically most failed amphibs returned to their boats and left i.e. Tanga, Dieppe, Gallipoli. A few were destroyed on the beaches as at Cartagena de Indias 1741 still survivors evac'd by boat. Syracuse amphib & siege by Athens was repulsed when Athenian navy defeated, the army did march inland but was lost as no where to go.

Choices:

Destruction if defeated: (My memory of original, probably wrong though) is too tough on AI. In original it served as brake on Amphibs.

Capture if defeated: The fate of many cut-off armies. Not un-historical and you might get troops returned if peace breaks out.

Retreat if loss: The result in current game and original if on 2nd or later turn of Amphib: As mentioned linear fronts not in use so do able but few would want it as 100% destruction almost a guarantee as usually no where friendly to go. However against weak oppos like Cyrenaica a 2nd assault usually takes objective or if near an ally a chance at retreat there. A mixed bag from this the current rule.

Convert defeated force to INF and arrive next turn as reinforcements. Probably the most historical option as loss of corps markers, CAV, Guards and arty reflect post invasion disorder.

Retreat corps to ship: also historically viable the downside is the losing player could in theory amphib somewhere the next turn which is un-historical.

[ndrose]

Retreat corps to ship: also historically viable the downside is the losing player could in theory amphib somewhere the next turn which is un-historical.

After New Orleans, didn't the Brits take ship and land their army again somewhere down the Gulf Coast and make another attack on someplace?

[easterner]

Invasion: America (in EiA terms)

Brits landed in Wash DC Aug turn, won field battle and siege. Presumably Brit player had blockading fleet that relocated to the port as in Sept troops sailed to Baltimore, failed siege and land battle (as apparently used 1.06 rules) suffered Leader Loss on Ross. Then re-embarked to Bermuda landing in New Orleans in Dec 1814, placing it under siege in Jan (followed the rules good for Packenham)suffered Leader Loss on Packenham. Then somehow re-embarking they bombarded a port (for a week) on the way out (ran the guns? no rules for this).

Twice the Brits cheated re-embarking w/o owning a port!!! Must be special rules for North America Map! Brits had a garrison on Pea Island so that might be port they retreated from NO.

In Wash area multiple amphibs occurred including capture of Alexandria, but it was retaken before Baltimore battle. US ops not on EiA scale so fudging would be needed.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: ndrose

ORIGINAL: AresMars

I am with Jimmer on this one...

The word "retreat" suggests, that the loser should not gain an advantage by losing...

Suggestions re: amphibious assault;

A) No Supply Depot at SEA: Retreating Army is Captured
B) Supply Depot at Sea; Retreat along coast in a random direction (or chosen by Victor)....as long as it stays adjacent to the sea supply; otherwise captured
C) Crossing Arrow retreat;  LOST:  Captured, Captured, Captured!  This IS the 1800's after all.....amphibious assault was perfected much later...WWII Pacific Theather?

My 2 Gold on the subject...

True, they didn't have amphibious assault, but, did they need it? The giganto-armies of WWII were able to defend entire coastlines, so that if you wanted to land you had to do it under fire. But in earlier periods, wouldn't an invasion by sea really have meant finding a nice, quiet place to get ashore and then meeting the enemy probably somewhere else? That is, it wasn't really fighting on the beaches, was it? In which case, why couldn't you retreat if you lost? You'd be in hostile territory, out of supply, unable to get reinforcements, and so on; but all that seems to be reflected adequately.

I am inclined to agree with ndrose here, I think Jimmer's WWII analogy is not that good. I think it's fine the way it is.

[Mardonius]

Hi Easterner:

Great reference to Syracuse... that was the one I was thinking of.

Retreats after a failed amphib invasion should, indeed, be more punitive than they were in the original EiA boardgame.
To Nathan's point about historical era landings, I would aggree for small sized raids but in no instnace that I can recall in the era was a large army landed on a hostile shore. Egypt maybe excepted, but there was some suprise/neutrality issues there that Napoleon Capitalized on. In Denmark, there was no major opposing land force. Toulon was handed over by royaslists. Or am I missing something here?

I would not only make the retreat rules more severe, I would give a penalty to the landing force in the same month that they land to any attacks or counter attacks . Perhaps -1.0 morale. Landing an army and syncronizing its elements in an amphibious operation is one of the most complex operations in any war. We should reflect this in our game, if possible.

best
Mardonius

[Mardonius]

Hi Neverman:

I think the system is fine for smaller raids, but I can not think of any multi corps sized landings on hostile shores. If this is the case (and If I am worng, please correct me) then perhaps we should consider a ammedment option.

best
Mardonius

[Thresh]

I tend to think of Napoleonic amphib operations are more like Maida than Tarawa....

[Mardonius]

I'd probably agree... subject to someone filling me in a bit more on the specific campaign. Do you now the numbers at Maida? The real complications in amphib ops matter when you have lots of moving parts and are landing on a shore where the enemy can form up to meet the landing. If there is a rapid strike (usually only possible with smaller forces) then there are not the same issues. Mosroever, raids -- by their nature of limited timframe and in/out -- do not require major logisitcs buildups, another major complication with amphib ops.

[easterner]

The Egypt invasion was 25,000 strong.

The Cartegena Op in 1741 was 23,600 strong.

Toulon landing force was 13,000 split among 4 nations.