7.5.2.10.3 Retreat After Losing A Combat

[Camile Desmoulins]

I would like to propose a reflection on the retreats, as withdraw previous to the combat or as a result of combat. The position of retreats of the game has two specially delicate aspects:

1. - The huge possibilities of retreat of certain generals, such as Napoleon, Wellington or FedericK the Great (1740 and 1756 scenarios). The rules allow these generals to withdraw with an extraordinary easiness: it is only possible to defeat them with Asault or Escalated Assault, since the rest of the options allows an automatic retreat. This allows to Wellington, for example, instead of making a landing in the distant Portugal and shy advances in Spain during 4 long years, can make a Tour de France yearly, trusted in the scarce possibilities of failing a retreat. Neither a fence is possible: the rule of retreats allows to jump until arriving to an area free of enemy troops

2. - A second trouble question of this rule: the retreat should be made to the nearest depot. This depot can be placed in very distant areas: do let us imagine Wellington fighting in Lyon, with a depot in London and another one in Cairo. Which is the nearest?. the implications of this answer can be very important, and depending of if the criteious (terrestrial or marine) used.

3. - A third problem is for the possibility of continuing retreat if the destination area is occupied. All the veteran ones in this game have seen, with the rules in the hand, retreats of 6 or more areas, when the maximum of movement of a cavalry corps, not harassed by the enemy, for clear terrain is of 5 areas.

Regards

[John Umber]

Retreating states to areas not occupied by enemy forces. That means not areas with garrisson. This could very well be several areas away. Normaly it means the closest area in the direction of the depot. It should not be more than two or three areas.

[carnifex]

I think the retreat rules are terrible and led to many a gamey situation. I once had to literally blanket all of Italy with 1 strength corps and garrisons just to capture a leader who retreated about 10 spaces and would have kept going if not for the dead-end peninsula he had to enter due to his nearest depot being directly across the sea.

No one will cry if the existing retreat rules are totally thrown out the window and new ones implemented.

[Black Hat]

I always thought you should have to take attrition in every area you retreat through. Plus it is always fun to pull defend instead of withdrawl.

[Wellington12347]

I can certainly understand the nature of the "problem" posed in the initial post. However I would think that it is somewhat ameliorated by:

1) The fact that a retreating leader is not winning victory points. Though there are certianly situations, even long running ones, where one must retreat, it seems somewhat of a waste of the few "5" strategic rating leaders if they're used to simply withdraw their forces rather than lead armies that win battles and political points.

2) The fact that a "5" strategic rating leader still has a 16.6% chance of failing to withdraw if the attacking side chooses "Assault" or "Escalated Assault" as will frequently be the case if the defender is an inferior force as implied in the first post. This is not an insignificant chance. Furthermore if the leader attempts to withdraw repeatedly, then by the third withdrawal there is a less than 50% chance (under the product rule) than he will be able to withdraw each time; i.e. a greater than 50% chance that the leader will fail to withdraw at least once. Assault against Withdraw is not a "fun" battle for an inferior defending force to have to fight.

My experience is that the ability of these leaders to withdraw is very important where necessary, but repeated withdrawal attempts often result in bad outcomes and/or simply imply that the war has already been lost for that side.

I think ADG did their homework when they designed this game.

As far as "capturing" a leader who can so easily withdraw, why wouldn't the leader's owner simply retire him before he was out of places ot retreat to?

Jason

[timothy_stone]

As far as "capturing" a leader who can so easily withdraw, why wouldn't the leader's owner simply retire him before he was out of places ot retreat to?

Jason

I imagine, from reading the above that the owner did not realize he would be out of places to run to until the land phase - during which his opponent pancaked corps to make retreat force a surrender.

why he did not realize this and choose to fight it out is also a question. perhaps he had too few men and was a goner either way.

perhaps he did not realize the significance of the mushrooming-corps effect so prettily laid out on the boot of italy.

i agree, the retreat rules are a little bit weak, and pretty grey in interpretation in many cases (like which depot is nearest, as was mentioned)

[Camile Desmoulins]

Wellington12347: It is certain that a leader retiring doesn't get points of victory, but it can get other things: it occupies cities and/or enemy provinces, subtracting their opponent (we imagine: France) for the economic phases; he can sustract him of two or three provinces, or of ports.

Those counties must recover, and at the same time it is necessary to combat to the enemy troops. I have played with very able people and I have seen Wellington pursue with not less than 6 full French corps and three of 1 factor to Wellington for half France and not to capture it. In that moment France had mandatory, if not impossible several peace. For not counting the economic losses that it generates to the country that supports the invasion

Neither can think that they will die from hunger, France has many economic resources, and neither foraging must lose a lot. Of course, neither they will enter in cities neither will be besieged.

About the possibilities we can think that they will fall in 1/6 of possibilities, but it is not this way. First he play alternating withdraws with defend aleatorily (the problem is so much the retreat easiness as forcing the enemy to make tactical that one responds with a single chit, second that although the statistic me of 50% of possibilities in the third roll, the reality is that before throwing the third roll you will only have 16% again

I have seen, being master of a game that prolonged 3 real years (and 7 of game), to break this game to make in fact this. Wellington walking for France doesn't defeat it, but this incorrect situation finished breaking French's nerves. For this reason we developed a Home Rule (very respectful with the spirit of the rules and the game) that substituted to the normal rule

Camile

[montesaurus]

I don't think it is inappropriate that either Wellington/Napooleon can withdraw so easily. After all, how many battles did they actually lose during the Napoleonic period?
Withdrawing can actually be a risky prospect, especially when an enemy has superior numbers. Because if the withdrawing party does get caught, with an escalated assault, it will be disastrous. I saw a Spanish & British army withdrawing with Wellington in charge, from a French army that outnumbered him by 2:1. They had an unfortunate die roll and were caught. Due to some poor die rolling for the Brits, and good rolling for the French the entire army was defeated, and eliminated in the pursuit phase, and Wellington was captured. As a player, I do not like to place my best leaders in a position where they will have to withdraw. Your best leaders should not be committed to battle lightly, as their loss can be very hard to overcome. When I advance Napoleon/Wellington it is with the intention that they will fight if they have to., and with the idea that that they will survive to be withdrawn during the next reinforcement phase if needed!

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: montesaurus

I don't think it is inappropriate that either Wellington/Napooleon can withdraw so easily. After all, how many battles did they actually lose during the Napoleonic period?
Withdrawing can actually be a risky prospect, especially when an enemy has superior numbers. Because if the withdrawing party does get caught, with an escalated assault, it will be disastrous. I saw a Spanish & British army withdrawing with Wellington in charge, from a French army that outnumbered him by 2:1. They had an unfortunate die roll and were caught. Due to some poor die rolling for the Brits, and good rolling for the French the entire army was defeated, and eliminated in the pursuit phase, and Wellington was captured. As a player, I do not like to place my best leaders in a position where they will have to withdraw. Your best leaders should not be committed to battle lightly, as their loss can be very hard to overcome. When I advance Napoleon/Wellington it is with the intention that they will fight if they have to., and with the idea that that they will survive to be withdrawn during the next reinforcement phase if needed!

Good post, this is why the retreat rules work. No one who is serious about winning is going to put Nappy or Wellington in a situation on purpose where there is even a remote possibility that their forces will get destroyed. Imagine if you take this chance, say in 1806 as France against GB and he captures Nappy, or vice-versa, the French captures Wellington, you are handicapped the rest of the game pretty much, as it is unlikely with that GB and FR will ever surrender to each other. This keeps the people from really abusing the withdraw, it keeps them in check. Also, I like the added factor the withdraw chit adds when you outnumber Nappy or Wellington, cuz if he withdraws, you assault or Esc. Assault and he rolls a 6, he is so freaking done.

[yammahoper]

We adopted a house rule for this circumstance. Retreating corps must retreat into an adjacent area with no enemy corps/garrisons, even if this results in retreating away from supply lines. This means that an army completly surrounded when it loses a battle will be surrender and be captured. Remember that a corp must be left in the area attacked from or the enemy will simply retreat to where you were. We have seen this "fence" occur exactly twice successfully, and fail many more,

Like Napoleans forces getting lost at Waterloo, we wondered if there should be some sort of strategic deployment roll for such a mnv to succeed. After all, those "little" land spaces cover a lot of area on the map.

We played around with allowing corps to split and retreat into diferent areas if two generals were present, or a strategic roll was made, but we never could come up with a solid rule that we liked, so we dropped it.

Yamma