Scale of Maps and Retreats

[mcaryf1]

There have been a couple of threads debating the ideal scale for maps. One of the reasons why players might like a larger scale map is the opportunity it gives with more APs to move round and isolate enemy units. Clearly this is more problematic with a scale of nearly 100 miles per square as this would represent a truly epic breakthrough. In practice an attacker would have attempted to seal off trapped units somewhat earlier than a penetration of 100 miles.

It occurs to me that SC might simulate this type of successful trapping attack, even with its standard scale, by applying a chance (like rolling a 6 dice) that a relatively weak unentrenched unit might surrender even when the attack had not actually reduced it to zero strength. The theory would be that the unit had become tactically isolated during the attack within the square that it occupied.

The recent addition of the possibility for a unit to retreat could be the basis for this to be implemented. Thus in some situations the unit retreats in others e.g. low morale it surrenders where it stands - actually the ability to retreat in reasonable order while under attack does require high morale. I would probably limit the surrender possibility to occasions when the attacker was a Tank Group that had not already moved.

With respect to allowing retreats it seems to me that this could be a mixed blessing for both attacker and defender. For the defender it might just move the unit back out of range of the units that the attacker expected to use in follow up attacks, for the attacker the vacated space might be a useful opening to bring in another attacker from further back. On balance, however, I think retreating is probably slightly more advantageous to the defender as the new swap feature has already given the attacker a bit more flexibility in bringing up attackers.

Given that retreat can help defenders my suggestion of providing a slight chance of surrender would help redress the balance.

Regards

Mike