Matrix Games Forums

under beta .05

Russians have attacked a German tank division near Penza. Instead of retreat away from Russian unit it moved to adjacent hex still in contact with the attacking Russians. It had 2 clear empty hexes just behind it.

I thought this was fixed in latest beta.

This is the combat Brian refers to, 3rd Panzer retreated W instead of SE or SW.

In my turn there were several Soviet units that retreated ZOC to ZOC along the front line, much as before this patch.
The hexes to the rear were blocked by 3-stacks so they couldn't go 1 hex backwards, but I think it should be preferable to go two hexes away from the enemy rather than one hex sideways.

One example, the retreat path taken marked in black: 1, 2 and then finally 3 when there was no front line left to retreat along.
Why not retreat 2 hexes away the first time as in the blue line ?

I've just had a similar retreat only this one can be explain, the hex retreated to required the fewer MP

It wouldn't be E, three units and across river.
W would be stupid and it really shouldn't go there with EZOC and away from front lines.
SE crosses a river into light woods and EZOC
SW into an EZOC but further away from the front
NE into EZOC, but also in the EZOC of the attacking unit so is it moving away?

Retreat is just a form of movement so all normal movement rules apply, increased fatigue, damage etc. The only real difference is it is being force on the unit and after combat so, both fatique and damage elements will be much high.

The more MP used the higher the effects. Note that more than one EZOC in a hex has no effect.

So looks like it retreated logicaly according to what I know of the rules.

Retreat attrition comes into play by destoying damaged elements.

As to why the other examples here did what they did is another matter.

I've also had an odd retreat result form a Soviet Cavalry division. Retreated 'forward' across review and adjacent to the attacking unit.

I've just had a similar retreat only this one can be explain, the hex retreated to required the fewer MP

It wouldn't be E, three units and across river.
W would be stupid and it really shouldn't go there with EZOC and away from front lines.
SE crosses a river into light woods and EZOC
SW into an EZOC but further away from the front
NE into EZOC, but also in the EZOC of the attacking unit so is it moving away?

If you count the ZOC movement points, then moving two hexes E is less MPs than any of the other options.
I wonder if the retreat rules are taking ZOC movement costs into account, my recollection is that the retreats in my game were not taking very high attrition. Will take some screen shots next time.

good units should retreat in an orderly fashion.


if one has 2 retreat choices and in either case (forward or backwards) it would be through an enemy ZOC then the move should always be towards supply. Even if it means taking 2 hexes back instead of into the cut off forward position. This rule should apply for the first 2 hexes looking backward,

imo

This is a clear problem.

It now makes it very hard to open hole in german lines if you cant 'direct' the unit away from your ZOC's. Too random and still some retreats into pockets when backwards is open to freedom. All this benefits the germans.

This game has been imo completed changed.

and not for the better of the average player.

The first move MUST be away from attacking units. all else makes the game a random crap shoot.

'clearly battle fatigue' sir!

This is my oddest retreat to date. The Rifle division routed not away but to a stack on the front line.
As Brian says it is a major change to the game dynamic.

I like the one where i left space in my line near Penza (5 across), and you attacked the same infantry unit 5 times as it passed in front of my main line: battle after battle.

ORIGINAL: tyronec

If you count the ZOC movement points, then moving two hexes E is less MPs than any of the other options.

Be as it may, the retreat is done on a hex by hex process, ie. no route is being used. Looking at what happen here it's not only MP but also retreat losses that are being taken into account. Arguably retreating across a river is more hazardous than retreating along the front but I've not done the maths.

On the other hand maybe it should simply use the cheapest, with cover, movement point. If that would mean overstacking than an extra hex should be added, maybe with the possible further disruption to all units envolved?

ORIGINAL: hansatuofd

I've also had an odd retreat result form a Soviet Cavalry division. Retreated 'forward' across review and adjacent to the attacking unit.

Hard to see where that one came from. Did it cross a river?

ORIGINAL: tyronec

This is my oddest retreat to date. The Rifle division routed not away but to a stack on the front line.
As Brian says it is a major change to the game dynamic.

River again! Maybe its a river thing?

Rivers may be a factor but they are not the only one.
Often/usually a unit will retreat to an adjacent hex in an enemy ZOC in preference to retreating two hexes backwards across a 3-stack of friendly units.