Matrix Games Forums

Hello,

It seems to me that using HQs or artillery to actively move forward and help disengage troubled units is not justifiable by historical or realistic means. Of course, it's a valid tactic for those that want to consider it such, since it gives trouble units a fair chance to disengage the enemy.

My question is, do you consider this tactic a play-the-system one, and do you use it if you try to play historically?

TiA

/coralsaw

my 2 cents
 
Using HQ's to disengage "could be" a tactic that mirror's reality
 
Using Artillery to disengage just seems unrealistic considering you have to hitch up your tubes to move them then deploy them then hitch them up to move them again to get out of the hex (if you didn't use up your MPs getting there) ... possibly tracked mobile arty could be realistically used to do this but not towed artillery
 
I can visualize a desperate Commander (HQ) going into the front lines to help get his guys out ... but I have a hard time visualizing a Commander sending his arty in to extract a troubled unit
 
just my Humble Opinion
 
hank

I'd say it's scenario and design dependent.

If you have a 25 km per hex scenario with HQs full of engineers, artillery, AT equipment and what not, then yes, to me the move is valid. If you're dealing with a 2,5 km per hex scenario with only Command Groups, Support Squads and a few transport assets within HQs then it can become questionable - note that in the latter case it's not really safe to have such fragile structures get in the frontline, even temporarily. It's a bit of a trade-off between the need to extricate a combat unit and the risk to see the whole formation go into reorg because of damage sustained by the HQ.

As Nemo mentioned, unless you're dealing with a scenario that depicts HQ units as an actual combat force, rather than merely the command support units, then you can justify the tactic as having historical precedent.

On the other hand, the Artillery factor is just plain gamey. While there is plenty of historical precendent of Artillery holding the line while other formations retreat (the Americans did it quite a bit in North Africa, WW II), they didn't survive to fight another day. The guns would be spiked and the infantry support, if lucky enough to survive, ran away.

ORIGINAL: ceyan

While there is plenty of historical precendent of Artillery holding the line while other formations retreat (the Americans did it quite a bit in North Africa, WW II), they didn't survive to fight another day.

The same will happen in TOAW.

I routinely use HQ for this, but using artillery seems unrealistic.  I've never used artillery to extract units.
 
It's also possible to divide a unit into 3 subunits and leave one of them in place (at the mercy of the enemy).   

ORIGINAL: alaric99x

It's also possible to divide a unit into 3 subunits and leave one of them in place (at the mercy of the enemy).

Yeah. Leaving artillery etc. behind happens most in the monster scenarios with 2000 units in the force (and therefore indivisible units)

Thank you for your responses. What I do is indeed leave a rearguard of 1/3 of the unit and disengage the others, unless of course the HQ is already in the line, in which case it retreats last.

IMHO, the HQ/Arty active disengagement rule should be removed from the engine. Its main purpose IIUC is to allow HQs/Arty to disengage themselves so they can fight another day, in the presence of a rearguard that holds the line, not to disengage themselves at will from any enemy presence.

The rule could be very well changed so that disengagement (of any unit, not only HQ/Arty) without a loss check is possible only if the remaining combined forces in the hex after the disengagement have a defence factor of at least (eg) 1/3 of the combined enemy attack factor within ZOC. Any unit can disengage then, if they leave a sufficient rearguard. Even better, add also a low random probability (eg 1/20) of a disengagement loss check happening whenever any unit tries to disengage, in order to simulate the perils of war, and make any disengagment a serious choice.

If the rule is changed, then a) HQs/Arty finding themeslves in the line are treated as normal fighting forces as it should be, and b) the major attacking advantage of tying-up enemy units (eg for maneuvering warfare) is kept intact.

Best regards,

/coralsaw

IMHO it depends on a scenario designer. If he has added unnecessary HQs and ant artillery units, it couses the gamey effect. If you take any of my FB scenarios, I would be very glad to see my opponent using HQ or artillery as a rearguard. Just make HQ and artillery the most important units in the game and the problem is solved. Anyway, I must agree, that the feature is very doubtful and completely unnecessary.

IMHO I think it would be more of a gain than a loss if this feature was removed. HQ and (especially) artillery active disengagement rule is just not right. But I also think the disengagement rule is to strong. It makes it looks like only recon units know how to pop smoke to get away. Maybe adding a smoke screen attack rule by artillery units could help units to disengage.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: ceyan

While there is plenty of historical precendent of Artillery holding the line while other formations retreat (the Americans did it quite a bit in North Africa, WW II), they didn't survive to fight another day.

The same will happen in TOAW.

I agree arty holding the line is realistic. As stated its been done many times in actual combat. But moving towed artillery up to the front lines with the only reason being to extract a troubled unit from a hex under attack seems unrealistic. ... but then, that's just my opinion since I don't know of many historical situations that reflect it ... not that there weren't any, I just haven't read of any. HQ's doing this seems reasonable.

Many times I've put arty right up behind the front and when the front lines are forced back the arty is already there in the hex they retreat into to help the infy and arty units disengage; then the arty moves back. That's perfectly OK to me.

ORIGINAL: Legun

IMHO it depends on a scenario designer. If he has added unnecessary HQs and ant artillery units, it couses the gamey effect. If you take any of my FB scenarios, I would be very glad to see my opponent using HQ or artillery as a rearguard.

Quite.

I tend to agree that HQ helping units disengage should be changed, but then shouldn't there be some adjustments to make it easier for individual units to disengage?  Subdividing a unit and leaving part of it as a rear guard is historically accurate, but it's not always possible to divide units.  Were HQ (and artillery) given these powers in the original TOAW in order to allow for realistic disengagement?  If so, what mechanism will compensate for this if HQ can't help units disengage?
 
I have a vision of my entire line immobilized because of insufficient recon units and HQ that can't help units disengage.