Retreaters Advice Needed

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

Hi all,

I'm still playtesting the game with a focus on the UI. One thing I noticed is that often an attack will fail because a single unit is forced to retreat and the other assaulting units stop because they are in formation. In a Move, this is normally what you want. You don't want the force recklessly advancing when the lead unit retreats. But in an assault, I reckon the rest of the force should keep assaulting. Maybe when a majority of the guards retreat, you stop moving.

I'm thinking that we could add another task option to the task edit view. It currently has a stragglers option which defaults to true, but this only applies to forces resting or re-organising. We need one that covers retreaters and routers. We could default this to false but set it to true for attacks - Probes would still be false. That way you could change it if you wish. If checked it would allow the force to ignore retreaters and routers so long as a majority of guards were not retreating or routing.

What do you think?

 

[Rob]

Nice idea!
Limited to the assaulting units only if I have read it right...

Rob,

 

[john connor]

Sounds great. Almost like a 'press on at all costs' option, but more nuanced, of course. Is that quick to implement?

 

[Art Hall]

great idea Dave!

 

[jimcarravallah]

Hi all,

I'm still playtesting the game with a focus on the UI. One thing I noticed is that often an attack will fail because a single unit is forced to retreat and the other assaulting units stop because they are in formation. In a Move, this is normally what you want. You don't want the force recklessly advancing when the lead unit retreats. But in an assault, I reckon the rest of the force should keep assaulting. Maybe when a majority of the guards retreat, you stop moving.

I'm thinking that we could add another task option to the task edit view. It currently has a stragglers option which defaults to true, but this only applies to forces resting or re-organising. We need one that covers retreaters and routers. We could default this to false but set it to true for attacks - Probes would still be false. That way you could change it if you wish. If checked it would allow the force to ignore retreaters and routers so long as a majority of guards were not retreating or routing.

What do you think?

View attachment 8098

History is loaded with stories of troops that pressed on in attack despite the odds and the circumstances around them, where their peers are dropping or retreating under fire..

Picket's Charge in the Battle of Gettysburg is probably the most striking example I read of. The force started out with 15,000 Confederate Soldiers who crossed a mile wide valley in an effort to take a key point in the center of the Union line. The attackers breached that point with barely 100 troops, who were quickly defeated while attempting to hold it.

What you describe is how those stories unfold -- some troops drop out as the more dedicated and aggressive ones press on.

Rather than relying on pure numbers to end the attack when some specific percentage of the force drops out, it might be more realistic if the push is maintained based on evaluating the remaining attacking units' morale, cohesion, and leadership. I don't recall if those measures are affected by the casualties / actions of surrounding troops or not. If they are affected by surrounding troops actions, then you would have reached the optimum realism situation for a diverse force of attacking troops.,

 

[Keydet]

...we could add another task option to the task edit view. It currently has a stragglers option which defaults to true, but this only applies to forces resting or re-organizing. We need one that covers retreaters and routers. We could default this to false but set it to true for attacks - Probes would still be false. That way you could change it if you wish. If checked it would allow the force to ignore retreaters and routers so long as a majority of guards were not retreating or routing. What do you think?

Excellent.

If there was a lot of time for programming I would suggest a "group think" negative influence on the other units per other units "observing" the retreating unit and the inexperience of the other units. Idea is inexperienced units seeing others cut and run might take very little to go to ground or flee. There a quite a few BoB Dec 16 accounts by US soldiers of taking Germans under fire and the Germans go to ground and become unresponsive as if the Germans are all dead.

 

[SamuraiN]

I suggest linking that to aggression, which should be fairly reasonable. The task edit tab should not be made more complex.

The issue relates to the assault model, which one needs to see the code for a complete assessment. Currently, I think assaulting units cover the area, instead of focusing on detected enemy positions. So, for example, if one company retreats, a flank is left uncovered by friendly units, the assault would fair badly. However, if assaulting units focus first on detected enemy positions, then the difference would be that three companies attacking that point are now reduced to two, which is tolerable depending on the situation.

 

[GoodGuy]

Hi all,

I'm still playtesting the game with a focus on the UI. One thing I noticed is that often an attack will fail because a single unit is forced to retreat and the other assaulting units stop because they are in formation. In a Move, this is normally what you want. You don't want the force recklessly advancing when the lead unit retreats. But in an assault, I reckon the rest of the force should keep assaulting. Maybe when a majority of the guards retreat, you stop moving.

What do you think?

Brilliant. While there were propably situations where each and every unit counted and where assaults were called off early on, because the routing unit was needed, attacking elements usually had to go through with the plan. Attacks were usually only called off or halted, if the Bn CO assessed/decided that the remaining (attacking) units wouldn't be able to develop enough momentum, or if say the first wave was wiped out within a very short time frame, imho.
Therefor such option would be a very good addition.

It makes sense to protect the rest of a move-order column, if the leading elements retreats.

I do wonder, though, because I have seen instances in COTA and BFTB where a number of attached units keep pausing during a move order (no unit routing or getting attacked, no stragglers). Does this still happen and what's triggering that routine? Are they waiting for stragglers?
I am asking, because it was vital in a number of BFTB scenarios (for instance) to get as fast as possible to a number of crossings/bridges. If not detached, the whole (attached) column kept pausing, even though they were lined up perfectly in road column formation, there were no stragglers.
When I tried to move motorized or armored units (say Bn and upwards), I had to pause the game and detach each and every unit to make sure that all units would travel at max speed.
Did I overlook an option (in CO 1)?
If not, it would be nice to have an option to ignore stragglers/"sissys" for the move order, too.