Avoiding the Retreating Wild Goose Chase

[Shadrach]

Now firstly, I know how to avoid Retreat Before Combat, to choose plan battle instead of just clicking into the hex. But sometimes even with this, enemy units will often just retreat again and again, even into my territory, and I'd need to collect several units just to contain this single enemy.

I was thinking, to avoid this, are there any rules with regard to the "front line" and retreating into it? At some level, it feels unrealistic - the frontline at this scale could be thought to be an abstraction to some degree. There would always be 'units' behind the front, even if not mainline units. In real-life a unit would never consider retreating into enemy territory, it would be much more likely to just surrender.

I think the game should make it much harder for an enemy unit to retreat into player-owned territory. It would avoid the "wild goose chase" effect of spending round after round chasing some stragglers, it does get annoying and adds to the feeling of playing against a computer.

The game models the frontline but it appears to not really be used for anything much?

Of course, the option to retreat into player territory should always be there, but it should come at a very high cost in men, i.e. surrendering broken-up stragglers, abandoned vehicles, as well as a high chance the unit will evaporate completely.

Case in point; where would this heavily reduced assault gun unit retreat? One PAK, a couple of half-tracks and a handful Stugs?

[mussey]

I understand what you mean, no other wargame I've played before has this retreat quality.

PS: I love the solid gold for a selected unit. Were did you get that graphic from? You can really see the selected unit. Are the others in that formation equally easy to see?

[larryfulkerson]

Attached here below are the normal zoom level PNG files for the better observable cursors for the selected unit ( Brass ) and the sibling units ( Steel ). I made these bad boys for me so I could find the f...king units easier.

[mussey]

Thanks Larry!

[Shadrach]

Actually the ones I have are hexagonal, and red for selected, yellow(gold) for formation. I think I got them from the Telu or Silvain mods, not sure.

Attaching them here

[Cabido]

Wild goose chase. I hadn't heard this expression applied to it yet, but it is a perfect description. I think that, at the point a unit begins to retreat randomly around (in enemy territory), it should evaporate, since its internal cohesion is gone. It's ZOC effect on movement (and trail of time stamps) make things worse, but that has been discussed in an earlier post and some solutions have been presented.

Apart from the fact that it is boring to chase these units around. If people understand otherwise, at least make it more predictable. Most units in this situation would choose, if possible, favorable terrain. Also:

"When checking for retreats before combat, a
Flanking Check is made, which is based on the
quantity of “active defender” equipment in the
defending and attacking units relative the Scenario
Map scale. If the defender has less than the amount
of equipment necessary to fully cover his frontage
in the Scenario Scale, the Attacker has more
equipment, and the Attacker passes a Unit Quality
Check, the chance for a retreat before combat is
increased by a random fraction between one and[...]"

If flanking maybe part of the rationale for it, an attacking unit should be able to direct the direction of the flanking movement in such a way as at induce encirclement. This would be difficult to model, but making things more predictable would kind of compensate. As it is, it is just a random chase, with a random path of time stamps. Ok, one could say it will go towards the nearest HQ and supply source, but when in enemy territory, it's difficult to track that from a player perspective. It would be even more difficult from the unit commander's perspective. One solution could be to take the direction of the greatest density of friendly units divided by the distance, when the direction of its own HQ is blocked, using the most favorable terrain, since commanders must know, more or less, the direction of their front. This is just brainstorming. I haven't considered all implications.

[joey]

I, too, find the wild goose chase to be an issue. I really can't find much logic in having a defender randomly retreat into enemy held territory. I personally would have thought the front line would have some meaning or bearing on this, but from playing this game for quite a while now, I have found no real influence of a front line on the retreating behavior. I have seen units retreat four to five times into enemy held territory during this wild goose chase retreating behavior. Is anything possible to fix/improve this, or would it require too much recoding of the software?

[rhinobones]

ORIGINAL: joey

I have seen units retreat four to five times into enemy held territory during this wild goose chase retreating behavior.

In the earlier TOAW versions, and I presume TOAW IV, the thing to do was target artillery on the potential enemy RBC unit before an attack. The artillery attack prevented the enemy unit from doing RBC. Result is that the unit under attack could not retreat before combat and instead needed to repel a ground assault.

The gamey tactic was to target enemy units with artillery (just to make them stay in place) then schedule ground attacks on the enemy units. After assigning the attack units the artillery could be re-direct to more lucrative targets.

Bottom line is, a false artillery attack pinned a unit under attack. The attacked unit would have otherwise RBC. Gamey.

I have heard from others that (bombarded by artillery such as in TOAW) can prevent a unit from escaping attack . . . I find that rather impassible.

Regard, RhinoBones

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

ORIGINAL: joey

I have seen units retreat four to five times into enemy held territory during this wild goose chase retreating behavior.

In the earlier TOAW versions, and I presume TOAW IV, the thing to do was target artillery on the potential enemy RBC unit before an attack. The artillery attack prevented the enemy unit from doing RBC. Result is that the unit under attack could not retreat before combat and instead needed to repel a ground assault.

The gamey tactic was to target enemy units with artillery (just to make them stay in place) then schedule ground attacks on the enemy units. After assigning the attack units the artillery could be re-direct to more lucrative targets.

Bottom line is, a false artillery attack pinned a unit under attack. The attacked unit would have otherwise RBC. Gamey.

I have heard from others that (bombarded by artillery such as in TOAW) can prevent a unit from escaping attack . . . I find that rather impassible.

Regard, RhinoBones

Thanks a lot for that tip my friend. I'll have to use that from now on.

[mussey]

ORIGINAL: Shadrach

Actually the ones I have are hexagonal, and red for selected, yellow(gold) for formation. I think I got them from the Telu or Silvain mods, not sure.

Attaching them here

Excellent, thanks!!! [&o]

[cpt flam]

sorry to tell you that don't work anymore.
I tried it myself, assigning art for an attack and during movement RBC occured.
Otherwise, you can note your art as support and then prepare an attack. This will work.

[StuccoFresco]

Another way to minimize the goose chase is allowing max 1 RBC per turn to any unit, 2 if it's a particularily mobile unit. That way there is still the chance to get away from an attacker, but if the enemy gives proper chase and catches up, the retreating unit "gives up".

[Shadrach]

ORIGINAL: StuccoFresco
Another way to minimize the goose chase is allowing max 1 RBC per turn to any unit, 2 if it's a particularily mobile unit. That way there is still the chance to get away from an attacker, but if the enemy gives proper chase and catches up, the retreating unit "gives up".

I'm guessing this is something that needs to be set by the scenario designer?

ORIGINAL: rhinobones
In the earlier TOAW versions, and I presume TOAW IV, the thing to do was target artillery on the potential enemy RBC unit before an attack. The artillery attack prevented the enemy unit from doing RBC. Result is that the unit under attack could not retreat before combat and instead needed to repel a ground assault.

Well, not sure about earlier versions, but you can avoid RBC by just pressing 'P' over the hex to use the Combat Planner, and not right-clicking. You don't need to use an arty attack to "lock" it in place first. However, this won't stop the unit from simply retreating quickly in battle without losses. My example screenshot above shows a planned battle, the unit just retreated without taking any losses.

But -- the main issue here is that it's too easy for units to retreat into enemy territory without any penalties, not really how to avoid RBC, which is not that hard.

If the unit was defined as "partisans", then it could be understandable, but these are just line units, and you can't really "melt into the earth" with a bunch of assault guns... [8|]

[sPzAbt653]

My example screenshot above shows a planned battle, the unit just retreated without taking any losses.

This might be a problem, can you post a repeatable save so that we can have a look?

[Shadrach]

Sure - I only have the turn saved after the attack above so not sure how helpful it will be.

The unit in question is the assguns at 24,17.
I think a problem was I attacked with the infantry "Queens Own Rifles", and the Stugs able to retreat without losses. I took quite a bit of damage too - Germans had a lot of arty in support, as did I.

Now in this save I get different results depending on which unit I use, the TD's to the SE, the Rifles to NW. or the Hussars to SW. Doing just a right-click the unit will RBC no matter who I use, but planning an attack I lose if I just use infantry. So I can't reproduce the exact battle I did above, because it was at the end of the last turn (13).

Attaching both end 13 and start 14.

[Omnius]

The smart way to avoid the RBC wild goose chase is to move other friendly units next to a potential RBC to channel or surround the potential RBC unit. Perhaps someday TOAW will better model Zones of Control blocking retreat into enemy territory. A much needed fix that hopefully Norm will get to one day.

[sPzAbt653]

Thanks for posting the saves, it allows us to see exactly what is going on and then we can have a linear discussion [:)]

One of the points being discussed here is that units retreating thru enemy territory suffer no losses and will continue retreating. This is true, if no resistance is met. Of course, if such unit(s) are cut off at the beginning of their turn, they lose equipment from lack of supply, so unit(s) in this situation won't last forever. That is not what the talk here is about. However, as some others have said, I agree that if you don't want units to retreat deep into enemy territory, then you need to not chase them. Either surround them or attack them with proper force.

I've played several runs with the save files you sent and I don't really see a problem other than the German StuG Unit got into that position in the first place. This could have been avoided. But even with this StuG in a sore position for the Allied player, proper planning can get rid of it with minimal disruption. Two more units could move up and easily surround it.

Outlined below, three attacks on the StuG, the first by the SPAT Archer's resulting in an RBC and a few losses to the StuG, the second by the Tank Bn [which seemed like overkill but hey, it is some UK Shermans against the 21.Pz Div!] with the same result, and finally the Infantry Bn came up from behind and put an end to it all.

StuG's and Halftracks mucking about the rear areas until properly knocked for a six [;)]

[Shadrach]

Thanks for looking at the saves, appreciated [:)]
First of all the situation was only meant as an example of a general concept, not as a specific problem needing to be solved. I didn't really think it was anything like a "bug" in the system - unless you could find something like that.

I just took the closest I could get to an example in my current game. When I tried myself I was usually able to kill it off during the same turn with a bit of trial and error.

So it's not a bug per se - just something I (and others apparently) think might need looking into, to avoid these sometimes long-winded chases of small units who manage to retreat the "wrong" direction. Yes, the player should take precautions to avoid this not happening, but sometimes it does.

I just think the game should penalise units doing this much more: Crossing the front line during retreat should lead to large losses in men and equipment, nearly to the point the unit will simply evaporate by itself much quicker than it does now.

Of course, to be fair, this would also apply to the player's units, and would inevitably lead the player to be more careful to avoid their own units retreating into enemy territory and be lost very quickly.

[Cabido]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Thanks for posting the saves, it allows us to see exactly what is going on and then we can have a linear discussion [:)]

One of the points being discussed here is that units retreating thru enemy territory suffer no losses and will continue retreating. This is true, if no resistance is met. Of course, if such unit(s) are cut off at the beginning of their turn, they lose equipment from lack of supply, so unit(s) in this situation won't last forever. That is not what the talk here is about. However, as some others have said, I agree that if you don't want units to retreat deep into enemy territory, then you need to not chase them. Either surround them or attack them with proper force.

I've played several runs with the save files you sent and I don't really see a problem other than the German StuG Unit got into that position in the first place. This could have been avoided. But even with this StuG in a sore position for the Allied player, proper planning can get rid of it with minimal disruption. Two more units could move up and easily surround it.

Outlined below, three attacks on the StuG, the first by the SPAT Archer's resulting in an RBC and a few losses to the StuG, the second by the Tank Bn [which seemed like overkill but hey, it is some UK Shermans against the 21.Pz Div!] with the same result, and finally the Infantry Bn came up from behind and put an end to it all.

StuG's and Halftracks mucking about the rear areas until properly knocked for a six [;)]

The problem is that we are dealing with an hex like pattern. Here, the 3,1 unit occupies only a small part of the hex. Both 10,7 and 10,2 would be able to enter the hex and surround it, by detaching troops to block exit paths. I think that in such situations, in which the retreated unit (by RBC) is flanked, it should evaporate immediately. This would,additionally, deal with the game limitation of only allowing division of units by 3 and having to surround the unit through, sometimes, costly terrain, with which it wouldn't have to deal, since the surrounding would be executed inside the enemy hex. The 25,7 tank unit would easily surround and kill the 3,1; it wouldn't chase it around. Using the game mechanics and preventing RBC, if we subdivide it by three and force evaporation on retreated (RBC) flanked units, one single larger unit would be able to deal with it.

Perhaps a rule that a flanked unit retreating before combat will evaporate unless retreating to a friendly hex, or an hex containing a friendly unit.

One can say that a unit retreating before combat is avoiding the larger unit, so it would be far away in the hex. That may be true, but a flanked unit would have a hard time doing it.

[sPzAbt653]

The 25,7 tank unit would easily surround and kill the 3,1; it wouldn't chase it around.

I think you are making a lot of assumptions that won't apply to every situation in every scenario. Read Hans von Luck's account of retreating from the Russians, that will sober you right up! And what of the Western Desert? You want units to evaporate because they are not retreating toward a friendly line ? And what of the 88's at Cagny in Operation Goodwood [the scenario seen in the above screenshots]? They didn't retreat but were completely cutoff and just about single handedly ruined the British attack. Four of them.

The only 'solution' needed is for the player to handle it properly.