Welcome to the LnLP Forums and Resource Area

We have updated our forums to the latest version. If you had an account you should be able to log in and use it as before. If not please create an account and we look forward to having you as a member.

When are we going to solve the problem of the defeated troops?

GoodGuy

Member
Joined
May 20, 2015
Messages
443
Points
28
Location
Cologne
What you describe as the reorganization of stragglers into ad hoc units is the equivalent of superior officers exercising some control over lower ranking individuals encountered in retreat. Within the game mechanics, it would be natural for individual stragglers to reorganize under a superior officer (a straggling platoon, company, or battalion commander) and for a recomposed ad hoc unit either to seek out rear areas of safety or return to objectives an ad hoc commander had knowledge of being captured prior to his unit being overrun.

I think he(?) meant units showing up in his rear, in general, behind objectives he captured and in areas he (thought he) had cleared and pushed beyond. Putting low quality rear guard troops or small (but effective) units like AA Coys, AT guns, or even large artillery units and even detached battered Coys can be used for that.

It is not too far fetched for those units to engage in firefights when confronted by enemy troops.

Excactly, that's actually what I tried to explain to him.

But it also happened the other way around, that say Coys lost their heavy weapons, most of their ammunition, so that facing tanks and mechanized units would have been suicide. The official US Army History covering the Battle for the Bulge and US veteran accounts report about long lines of stragglers pouring back to main roads and road hubs, sometimes 5 here, 4 soldiers there, rather trickling, but also in long lines. While some groups actually put up road blocks and did their best to buy time, other units had lost their will to fight or their equipment, and sometimes even both. The situation around Dunkirk in 1940 was similar, as well as the German troops pouring back from France, until officers in Holland started to stop and reorganize them, following either an OKH or an OKW wire, that ordered to restore order. A number of officers also formed units and Kampfgruppen on their own initiative, without even knowing the order. And then some of these rather small groups turned actually into more widely known units, as their groups grew to formations well above the usually Bn-sized Kampfgruppen. In Russia, they sometimes managed to establish larger blocking positions 30-50 km behind the breakthrough point, but they also had to retreat several hundred km, often on the run continously, but also forced to fight and leave rearguards, in order to make it to the next temp position.
My grandfather's neighbor was a messenger (motorbike) and he actually drove (ran) from Russia, via Rumania to Hungary, in an attempt to avoid Russian captivity, just to get trapped in Budapest (Russian siege), where Hitler ordered pretty much the last bigger offensive (relief attempt IIRC) in the war. He ended up in captivity btw and was forced to work in a Russian coal mine, and was released either in 1952 or 1954, can't remember the exact year. When we were kids, we always wondered why that guy was such a hardass and angry guy. I asked the neighbor around 10 years ago if he'd know anything about my grandfather's (my grandfather died in 1978) deployments in WW2, and he didn't know many details, but he told me about some of his experiences, especially about his flight and the long years in the Russian mine, and then I kinda understood why he was so harsh and angry.

If there were something missing from the straggler equation, it would be the propensity of the units to fall on objectives instead of retrograding toward SEPS, which are essentially the location of rear area entry zones onto the battle map.

Brilliant idea. Units should try to reach the SEP or some first stage objective near the SEP, emulating that they'd assume that it should be occupied by friendly troops. Say after an X amount of time without water, food and below a certain ammo threshold, they should start to withdraw to the SEP/early objective or to a new objective class: "Straggler resort" (insert proper class name).
 
Last edited:

共工熙雲

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2017
Messages
70
Points
8
Age
35
Location
China Chongqing
Website
user.qzone.qq.com
What you describe as the reorganization of stragglers into ad hoc units is the equivalent of superior officers exercising some control over lower ranking individuals encountered in retreat. Within the game mechanics, it would be natural for individual stragglers to reorganize under a superior officer (a straggling platoon, company, or battalion commander) and for a recomposed ad hoc unit either to seek out rear areas of safety or return to objectives an ad hoc commander had knowledge of being captured prior to his unit being overrun.

It is not too far fetched for those units to engage in firefights when confronted by enemy troops.

The problem XiYun describes regarding troops attacking rear area objectives can be resolved by garrisoning those objectives after they have been seized -- in the game mechanics moving headquarters, long range artillery, bases, or support units to occupy them after capture.

If there were something missing from the straggler equation, it would be the propensity of the units to fall on objectives instead of retrograding toward SEPS, which are essentially the location of rear area entry zones onto the battle map.
"When I didn't see the enemy,I can rely on the news of "losing the victory point" to know that the enemy is approaching, which is unfair to the enemy."
Does this need to be solved? I think this is a very unbalanced setting, especially at PVP.
 

john connor

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
2,488
Points
63
Age
60
Location
Brussels
A minor point, imho. Imagine that intelligence filters in from fleeing civilians that there's some enemy activity in that direction. After all, you have no idea what's there. Could be a scouting force only. In my H2H games I've never noticed it.

But, why don't you post it in the feature requests section instead of here? That's what it's for. That way it might get noticed by the dev and considered.
 

共工熙雲

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2017
Messages
70
Points
8
Age
35
Location
China Chongqing
Website
user.qzone.qq.com
A minor point, imho. Imagine that intelligence filters in from fleeing civilians that there's some enemy activity in that direction. After all, you have no idea what's there. Could be a scouting force only. In my H2H games I've never noticed it.

But, why don't you post it in the feature requests section instead of here? That's what it's for. That way it might get noticed by the dev and considered.
It makes me feel like "Red Alert": "Our base is under attack"
I don't know how to use this forum, and I'll study it.
 

GoodGuy

Member
Joined
May 20, 2015
Messages
443
Points
28
Location
Cologne
Hehe, just send in the Mammoth tanks ;)
Exactly. I always used them as heavy tank Bn to rectify situations where those endless waves of enemies had managed to kill the defense towers. In the very first C+C (DOS game, right?), which I used to play against my ex-neighbor on dialup, I developed what he called the "unfair turret builder tactic", where I built laser towers down to his tiberium fields, to get him broke. I can't remember if the game actually allowed me to build a long line of turrets and towers even down to his base, but I know we then agreed on a turret/tower ban for the center of the map. lol

When he was broke, he then sold all of his buildings (gaining a couple troopers with each sale), and would send the group accompanied by his reserve tanks up to my base and try to rush me, kinda like a last ditch effort. He won that way, sometimes. :)
Another counter to my turret strat was him sending groups of those little motorbikes (with missiles) roaming and protecting his fields and killing harvesters on my fields. lol . Gun and run guerilla style. :p
 
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
1,182
Points
63
Age
76
Location
Livonia, MI (Detroit-area suburb)
"When I didn't see the enemy,I can rely on the news of "losing the victory point" to know that the enemy is approaching, which is unfair to the enemy."
Does this need to be solved? I think this is a very unbalanced setting, especially at PVP.
It IS resolved by detailing an occupation force to hold the objective before sending your remaining forces on a new mission.

It is standard tactics until all combat has been ended in a region, which in the case of CO2, is not until the time for scenario has ended.

Garrisoning the objective is particularly necessary to gather the occupation victory points.

Occupation is explained in the Version 1.2 Game Manual on page 155.
 
Top