Breakthrough and Retreat

[Tigleth Pilisar]

This is simply a new thread from an old topic where some good conclusions were reached. I'm restarting it to obtain any other feedback.

From Jersey John:

A lot has been said about offensives degenerating into long static lines, etc., more appropriate to WW I than WW II. Part of the problem is the inability to bring sufficient force to bear on a single hex, another part is the inability to impose retreat on decimated units, and the last part is the exposed weakness of armor after leading the way in a break through.

Two major solutions to improve both the fun and historical authenticity were proposed:

Stacking up to 2 units with a HQ

1) Only units of like type may stack with an HQ. (ie: two air or two ground), armor and infantry may stack together.

2) Units may move to the "stack" hex and stack, but not move thereafter that turn. Units that move as a stacked group in a turn may not unstack thereafter that turn.

3) Units in a stack attack individually. ie: unit 1 gets its attack and then unit 2 attacks the defender on its own. Once the group is ordered to attack, both attacks occur against the same defender, one after another.

4) The strongest unit in a stack is the defender first (if attacked). The HQ is not attacked until all stacked units above it are eliminated.

5) The HQ of the stack supplies the two stacked units plus potentially three others (still has 5 units under command).

6) The movement of the stack is equal to the slowest unit's movement. In this thread we also proposed that an HQ have movement equivalent to an armor unit at all times. Therefore two tank units stacked with an HQ would have the movement of the tank unit.

7) The purpose of stacking is to allow more ground units to attack a single hex. This increases the effectiveness of ground units and decreases the need for multiple air units to "break a line". It allows better reflection of the "Blitzkrieg", and forces more offensives and counter-offensives in the eastern front.

Retreating

1) Any unit reduced to strength 3 or less will undergo a "morale" check. Readiness is a proxy for morale, so that a new category for units does not have to be added.

2) A morale check is conducted by seeing if a random number is above or below the morale or "readiness" of a unit. If the number is below the readiness, the unit stands its ground. If the number is above readiness, the unit retreats.

3) Retreat is to move directly towards a friendly capital or city up to 1/2 the unit's maximum movement capability, rounded up. Readiness is cut in half for the remainder of the turn for the retreating unit to reflect it having less ability to withstand a subsequent attack.

4) If their are no empty hexes to retreat to (unit surrounded), then the unit is destroyed.

5) Air units (less than 3) attacked which fail a morale check are destroyed (they can not retreat).

6) If a unit is destroyed through surrender, the attacker gains one strength point to reflect captured equipment and a 10% increase in readiness to reflect improved morale. (ie: an army that is strength 8 that destroys an enemy, the enemy fails its morale, and the enemy has nowhere to retreat, results in the friendly army becoming strength 9 + a 10% readiness bonus).

7) The extra strength point may not raise a unit above its maximum. Air units do not gain an extra strength point if they are the final attacker forcing the "surrender" of an enemy unit.

Other ideas I like, which relate to these concepts are:

1) HQ's move the same as armour (except zones of control affect them like they do armies). Why not? These units should be mechanized. At least have a corps movement.

2) Air units either affect primarily readiness when attacking enemy ground units, or we increase bomber soft/hard attacks by 1 and decrease fighter (air unit) soft/hard attacks by 1.

Boys, the floor is yours

[Liam]

I only skimmed the ideas here as I'm familiar with the ideas from the previous discussion. Breaking the trench style warfare has sorta been achieved with massive airpower. Though it's not so fun to be ruled by two factors<enough MPPs to buy enough Air and supporting units> Mind what I say every other unit is a supporting unit...and getting good air technology. Then you're set in this game so long as you don't make logistical mistakes.

I second this purposal, having played quite a bit and having lost quite a bit of hair to defending units. If not this we need to make Armor truly up to it's Historical standard. Mechanized and mobile made the change along with smart airstrikes<not B-17 Obliterators>

More combat ability for Armor and a possible added unit <Mech Infantry> the mainstay of all modern combat in the Infantry role. Meaning fast moving troops on trucks, with tow trucks for guns and equipment and supplies...Making lightning War Possible...

[JerseyJohn]

Tigleth

Glad you picked it up where the other thread left off. Nice job making it tidy and up to date, allowing me to watch some Sunday morning cartoons. Will return after Heckel and Jeckel. Also, I see you've added some good touches, like the final ground unit point not going down under air attack. Excellent idea.

[ March 16, 2003, 06:08 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]