Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: fulcrum28

I noticed sometimes a panzer korps with 28 strength is shattered after suffering 0 strength loss, and the only reason i can figure out is because it cannot retreat an hex because another German units are behind, is it true??

ORIGINAL: squatter

My suggestion would be to have no limit to ground unit retreat over friendly units, but their effectiveness gets trashed the further they retreat. Possibly even some extra losses for three/four hex retreats.

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

I can write a rule that enforces something or I can make a system that is incentivizing for players not to game the system.

If I make a retreat as far as you want but lose effectiveness then players will just gimmick it to keep a huge deep line depleting attackers.

This method tells the player something exact and what happens if they don't follow the guidelines that is incentive enough to watch your retreat routes.
I put a mountain of time into thinking about this situation.

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

I can write a rule that enforces something or I can make a system that is incentivizing for players not to game the system.

If I make a retreat as far as you want but lose effectiveness then players will just gimmick it to keep a huge deep line depleting attackers.

This method tells the player something exact and what happens if they don't follow the guidelines that is incentive enough to watch your retreat routes.
I put a mountain of time into thinking about this situation.

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand I do think it is unrealistic that units shatter because their retreat is blocked by friendly units. On the other hand I really don't want to see 3 or 4 hex deep lines in France.

Part of the problem is the stacking limit of just 1 corps per hex. There are 6 hexes along the border between France and Belgium/Luxembourg. So this means that each side can only have 6 corps (18 divisions) on the front lines. But historically the Germans attacked this part of the line with 65 divisions; of which 45 (Army Group A) were driven through just the 2 hexes that represent Luxembourg and Southern Belgium in the game. Admittedly not all of these 45 divisions were in the spearhead/frontline. But a lot more than 6 were. The Allied Plan (The Dyle Plan) called for the Allies to move into the 6 hexes between the Maginot Line and Brussels with 37 divisions (4 armies/12 corps). This was not to be a defence in depth, these 12 corps would occupy the front lines. Of course, in the game this is not possible. The same can be said about the Allies in Normandy where they had 4 armies (not just 5 corps) in the 5 hexes of Normandy prior to Operation Cobra.

So my solution would be to allow 2 corps to stack in each hex rather than only 1. If this were implemented than it would go along ways to solving the problem of units being unable to retreat as they could retreat onto friendly units upto the maximum of 2 units per hex. It would also solve the problem of invasions being too difficult against strongly defended ports as now the Allies can invade with more units. But, of course, a major change like this will have to wait for WarPlan 2.

ORIGINAL: squatter

Good points. I wouldn't be against increasing the stacking limit, but I suspect that would be counter to the streamlined ethos of the game.

A different thought:

No-one would want to see lines of defenders 3 or 4 hexes deep, this is true. But the opportunities for this to happen are relatively slim: France, Qatara Depression, one or two other choke points in N Africa.

Taking the France example - the only way the Allied player is going to have 3-4 hex deep defences is by employing small corps and divisions. Perhaps the way to counterweight this would be to introduce a significant 'malus' to defending values when the defending unit is smaller than the attacker. Ie, a Large Corps attacking a division gets an added bonus - perhaps an odds shift - on top of absolute combat values. This would discourage creation of deep lines simply by breaking down units into smaller sizes.

ORIGINAL: squatter

Taking the France example - the only way the Allied player is going to have 3-4 hex deep defences is by employing small corps and divisions. Perhaps the way to counterweight this would be to introduce a significant 'malus' to defending values when the defending unit is smaller than the attacker. Ie, a Large Corps attacking a division gets an added bonus - perhaps an odds shift - on top of absolute combat values. This would discourage creation of deep lines simply by breaking down units into smaller sizes.

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

So both of the ideas start over complicating a game mechanic that would now need a complete overhaul.

Stacking units means there is several months of work ahead.
Changing values when X adds months of work on A.I.

But you proved my point.... how often does a player go 3 deep? Almost never. So I would be making modifications costing months of work for something that rarely happens.

Coding and testing takes far longer than people think.

ORIGINAL: baloo7777

I like the 2 corps stacking rule as Harrybanana mentions. However, what would the attack/defend number of units be (just 1 of each of the stacked units to attack or defend... or both)? Would Infantry assault and Anti-tank be allowed to stack together (or Heavy Armor and Breakthrough)?
I suggest allowing a retreated unit to stack up to 2 units but it must be retreated 2 hexes and be able to return to 1 unit per hex on the player's next turn. The retreated unit does not have any combat factors and if the hex it is retreated into is attacked while the unit is stacked, it is shattered instead (just the unit that was retreated).