Defender Retreat Poll

[Clausewitz]

Alrighty, I'm going to have one last shot at persuading you lot that defender retreats make Axis and Allies a better, more realistic and SHORTER game.

All I ask is that everyone plays just one game with this rule before registering your vote.

The proposal is simply this:

After any round of combat the defender (before the attacker) has the option of retreating. All forces must retreat to one friendly territory.

(At this stage I won't complicate matters by including my house rules on retreats, such as allowing transports to evacuate units by sea).

As long as you remember to calculate defender retreats into your planning you'll find that this greatly enhances the game. Typically, it means concentrating your attacks on fewer targets with overwhelming force rather than fighting a broad front war. This is entirely realistic, as armies of the period rarely attacked without a large material advantage.

To add a little historical note to this, consider the fact that in the entire Pacific war only one amphibious assault against islands failed. The reasons? Well, in general the attackers had complete naval and air superiority, but most importantly THE DEFENDERS HAD NOWHERE TO RETREAT TO. In land battles, in contrast, defenders could always withdraw to counter the initial shock of the attack, and then regroup and attack in turn.

[madmat]

Defender retreat should be restricted in some way if you don't want to utterly mess up the playout.
Es. Before step 2 of the combat sequence, the defender may choose to retreat any number of units to an unattacked adjacent friendly territory . Retreating units may not fire in step 2/5, and are still fully eligible to be taken as casualties.
Right after step 7 retreating units are removed from the battleboard and placed into the adjacent friendly territory, allowing the attacker to choose wether to press the attack or retreat as usual.

But honestly I still think that defender retreat would bring more harm than good to the game.

[pagan]

defender retreat = bad

1. If you want a full description of my reasonings then try to remember what I said before, as the rational behind them makes defender retreating a mockery, and you should quit bringing up the 'bad'.

2. Reiterating myself to something I have already shown to be a bad choice is taxing enough, but to reiterate it to the person I wrote them to is absurd. If you tell a monkey not to hit itself in the head with the hammer since it's not a good idea, telling the same thing to the monkey a second time will no further alleviate the monkey's headaches as would the 100th time. You eventually just have to realize that you are talking to a monkey.

3. It is not my goal to insult a simian.

4. The monkey swings both ways on the vine. :confused:

[Yoper]

Yes, the defender should be able to retreat, but only after the attacker has the made a decision as to whether he is going to retreat or continue. The initiative is with the attacker, not the defender.

[Attila the Wolf]

IF (and it's a big if) you're going to allow the defender to retreat, I would say allow the attacker a second round of attacks and then the defender can retreat with no return fire. Even then I'd be hesitant to allow defender retreats b/c it has the potential to turn an obvious advantage for the attacker into a disadvantage (since the attacker is now further away from "home" and the defender's forces are still intact).

[DocD]

defender retreat = bad

1. If you want a full description of my reasonings then try to remember what I said before, as the rational behind them makes defender retreating a mockery, and you should quit bringing up the 'bad'.

2. Reiterating myself to something I have already shown to be a bad choice is taxing enough, but to reiterate it to the person I wrote them to is absurd. If you tell a monkey not to hit itself in the head with the hammer since it's not a good idea, telling the same thing to the monkey a second time will no further alleviate the monkey's headaches as would the 100th time. You eventually just have to realize that you are talking to a monkey.

3. It is not my goal to insult a simian.

4. The monkey swings both ways on the vine. :confused:
lolollololololoolollolollohahahahahahalloolloolllo l:)

now that's funnnnnny!

[graaf6]

i have often played with the house rule of allowing defender retreats...... but the "retreating player" (attacker OR defender) must undergo a free round of fire from the opponent.

if you don't allow some penalty to be inflicted upon the "retreater" (especially when its the defender), then the stacks can grow even larger than what you see on the Russian front now.
regards,
graaf

[Vollick1979]

since the attackers get to choose if they retreat or remain immediately before they begin a round the same should be true of the defenders: They can choose to remain or retreat immediately before they roll their dice.

[Lobo]

How does allowing defender retreats improve the game?

-"Attacking with overwhelming force" is already done w/ current rules.

-Considering the scale of the game are defender retreats warranted? Each turn represents several months and each territory thousands of square miles. If a defender retreated that far in the real world he would doubtless lose most of his equipment and troops in the process.

-Each turn in a round of play takes place simultaneously. ie R1,G1 take place at the same time. Each player has the opportunity to retreat on their turn.

-Players will be less concerned with leaving units in vulnerable positions and therefore be more aggressive in their territorial conquests because they know they can always retreat when attacked.

I don't think their is justification for defender retreats on the basis of either realism or improved gameplay.

[Attila the Wolf]

As I see it, the problem with defender retreats has very little to do with the defending forces that survive to fight another day. The problem is that is becomes extremely difficult to destroy enemy forces. An attacker with 10 units won't want to attack when he sees that the 10 defending units can simply retreat to join another 10 defending units, and then counterattack with 20 units on its next turn.

If you allow defender retreats, you're fundamentally changing the game and such action requires an entirely new set of rules. Something I'm totally against.

So I say, stick with the rules as written. :)

[DocD]

So Clausewitz...we meet again at last...when I left you I was but a learner...NOW I am the MASTER!

Clausey, you knew this idea was NOT going to fly...but you had to go and stick wings on it anyway. OK.

FOR THE LAST TIME!!! NO!!! DEFENDERS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO RETREAT!!!!!!!!!

Now this is the part where I step on your cloak to see if you are really gone.

[series]

Well, I say, if you allow defenders to retreat, the game will become Stack-Fest, because that's all anyone will be able to do- stack forces for about 4 hours until one nations income gives it the advantage. Or until everyone captures "Islands".

[Moderator Sinister]

Well, I say, if you allow defenders to retreat, the game will become Stack-Fest, because that's all anyone will be able to do- stack forces for about 4 hours until one nations income gives it the advantage. Or until everyone captures "Islands".


I've been saying this since the first clausewitz push for retreating defenders last spring.

[Harry S.]

There have been a LOT of good ideas posted here on this topic. The only bad idea is to reject the idea without giving it due course.

In my not-so-humble opinion, defender retreats are a good candidate for house rules, but there must be dramatic consequences for the retreater. One simple solution allows the retreater to remove no more than half the IPC value of his forces from the battle board to an unattacked friendly adjacent territory, the rest of the defending forces are sacrificed (no return fire at all). This allows a defender to escape a few precious units (like bombers) but he loses the ability to attrit the attackers altogether. You can make it even harder if you allow the attacker one round of fire before the defender can divide.

I have played this scenario and have found three trends:
1) It makes play somewhat more aggressive because you can be a little riskier with attacking forces knowing that you could retreat them on a counter-attack.
2) The defender rarely uses this retreat option because of how costly it is.
3) When the defender does retreat, the attacker doesn't seem to mind much. He has capured a territory, his opponent has lost over half of his force there, and he ends up capuring the territory with significantly fewer losses (perhaps none).

It works for me. It discourages the retreat, inspires aggressiveness, and doesn't create a "stack-fest".

Harry

[destroyer666_2003]

I think something, in a great scheme of things of retreats, but only for the sake of Axis and Allies, especially traditional, realitically, how realistic is it. I mean this is a strategic, not tactical game. In a tactical game retreating makes more sense, because you are giving commands to battalion or brigade sized units. Here you are retreating entire armies. This of it this way, the Operation Barbarossa had 3 german army groups. Army group North, South, and Center. They themselves had many divisions. South, the weakest, had 5 panzer batalions, and like 22 infantry divisions. But in traditional axis and allies, how many European land spaces does Russia have? 4, Karelia, Caucauses Ukraine SSR, and Russia (the capitol). So, a retreat would be saying you were able to withdraw more than 22 infantry divisions and 5 panzer armies from Ukraine SSR alone, and I know for a fact that the 3 infantry, 2 armor, 1 fighter there thus must represent way more than meets the eye. So you would be telling me you are retreating some more than a million men across what is now a country in WWII conditions in like 2 weeks?

[DocD]

Not bad harry...I guess one can stick wings on crap and see it fly.

[Clausewitz]

Alright, I give up on this one, since it's perfectly clear that NONE OF YOU HAVE EVER BOTHERED TO TRY IT. If you had you'd realise that everything you've written against the idea is wrong. I guess the idea is just too radical for you people to grasp.

Still, what about the Ryder cup, eh?

[madmat]

I'll be sincerely interested to hear your point about the matter. Since you have already played with this variant, what were the effects on the playout?
"Give it a try" is not enough.

Btw I believe that lack of defender retreat in naval battles is one of the game's worst flaws.

[elbowmaster]

we used retreating rules many moons ago...actually worked pretty well, you had to roll for the 1st combat obviously, then depending on how many units you had, you could take a percentage of those souls who still lived and retreat them...the rest had to remain in combat...id have to shuffle through all my old house rule paperwork to find the exact details...


-cheers

-elbowmaster

[DocD]

Alright, I give up on this one, since it's perfectly clear that NONE OF YOU HAVE EVER BOTHERED TO TRY IT. If you had you'd realise that everything you've written against the idea is wrong. I guess the idea is just too radical for you people to grasp.

Still, what about the Ryder cup, eh?
Too Radical!!!
Come on this is boardwargaming, Not rocket science!

But anyway, glad to help you realize the folly of your ways...always glad to lend a helping hand with that.

As far as the Ryder cup...who cares?
How 'bout them COWBOYS!!

Clausewitz, I am your father!

[Clausewitz]

Too Radical!!!
Come on this is boardwargaming, Not rocket science!

But anyway, glad to help you realize the folly of your ways...always glad to lend a helping hand with that.

As far as the Ryder cup...who cares?
How 'bout them COWBOYS!!

Clausewitz, I am your father!How about them Indians? Didn't you win that one. Long time ago, though.

My father? Mmmm, interesting way of looking at it. But since you raise the subject of our "Special Relationship", I think it's time people were finally told the truth.

Scene: The Streets at night. It is raining heavily. Professor Clausewitz is late. He runs, hell-for-leather, in a bid to reach his home before time runs out.

"Oh my God, my God, the antidote!", he cries, "Pray God I'm in time!"
He reaches the front door, fumbles desparately with the key, and enters the magnificent hallway of his mansion. But, passing the tall hall mirror, he stops transfixed as he catches sight of his reflection. Frozen in fear, he watches as the process of evolution works backwards before his very eyes.
The image in the mirror is gradually transforming itself. The high forehead begins to slope backwards and the brow ridges protrude forewards, causing the eyes to shrink back into their sockets. The mouth bulges forwards to form animalistic jaws, and the whole face becomes covered in course brown hair.
The expression of horror gives way to wonderment then and, as a tiny spark of recognition dawns in the tiny orange eyes, the lips draw back to reveal two rows of massive yellowed teeth. They grin horribly.
"Hello Doc, DocD here!" grunts the image in a voice that is almost human.
"Now, I think I have a little business down at the lab to take care of!"
So DocD draggs his knuckles across town to the dark warehouse he knew to be the lurking place of so much that was evil. Stopping at the door to tear down the brass plaque bearing the legend "Professor Clausewitz’s Laboratory", he enters the musty interior to be confronted with a large table piled up with maps, books and board games scattered and in pieces. Row upon row of filing cabinets line either wall, each neatly labeled. DocD reads out some of the file names:
"Axis and Allies Deluxe, Advanced History of the World, Advanced Kingmaker, War of the Ring Redux…" he quots. The list went on and on.
"Good grief", he exclaims, " War of the Ring isn't even out yet and he's got a whole cabinet full of house rules for it. This is worse than even I thought!
There must be enough house rules here to poison the entireworld!"
And so, without further ado, DocD sets a match to some Advanced Britannia files and retires from the scene.
Returning to the Mansion after a job well done, DocD hunts for the Professor's supply of antidote to his houserulitis serum and, discovering them in the bottom of a wardrobe along with a large pile of adult DVDs, flushes the entire supply down the toilet.
Pouring himself a glass of chilled Champagne, he snuggles his hairy feet into the Professor's angora slippers and settles back into the Professor's armchair for an evening of well earned relaxation.
"Ahhhhhh!", he exhales luxuriously, "Now, at last, I can live like a human being."

[pagan]

what's a ryder cup...?

[Caractacus]

To allow limited retreats and still not promote 'stackfests', that is the challenge.

I'll risk antagonising and quickly repeat something I wrote in another thread:

Roll dice as normal
Apply the Attacker's hit rolls to the defender.
Defender chooses how to divide his 'hits' that he rolled:
a) Normally, to the attacking forces (Attacker chooses as normal)
b) He may use a hit to retreat one defender (covering manoeuvres)

This has the effect of allowing a LITTLE bit of retreating to rescue really high-value pieces, but every time you do, you're letting the Attacker off of a casualty.

If you still think there'd be too much retreating (hasn't been in our games), you simply say that the Defender can use no more than half (or 1/3, 1/4, whatever) of his rolled hits to retreat units.

It should be obvious that you can't retreat units that are killed. You always apply the Attackers hits FIRST.

[pagan]

Hey I just read this bad idea in another post... :rolleyes:


More wine with your colon excrement?

[DocD]

To allow limited retreats and still not promote 'stackfests', that is the challenge.

I'll risk antagonising and quickly repeat something I wrote in another thread:
Roll dice as normal
Apply the Attacker's hit rolls to the defender.
Defender chooses how to divide his 'hits' that he rolled:
a) Normally, to the attacking forces (Attacker chooses as normal)
b) He may use a hit to retreat one defender (covering manoeuvres)
This has the effect of allowing a LITTLE bit of retreating to rescue really high-value pieces, but every time you do, you're letting the Attacker off of a casualty.
If you still think there'd be too much retreating (hasn't been in our games), you simply say that the Defender can use no more than half (or 1/3, 1/4, whatever) of his rolled hits to retreat units.
It should be obvious that you can't retreat units that are killed. You always apply the Attackers hits FIRST.
Not totally a crappy idea, but WHY? The game is already stacked in the defense favor...why add on to that.

[DocD]

How about them Indians? Didn't you win that one. Long time ago, though.

My father? Mmmm, interesting way of looking at it. But since you raise the subject of our "Special Relationship", I think it's time people were finally told the truth.

Scene: The Streets at night. It is raining heavily. Professor Clausewitz is late. He runs, hell-for-leather, in a bid to reach his home before time runs out.

"Oh my God, my God, the antidote!", he cries, "Pray God I'm in time!"
He reaches the front door, fumbles desparately with the key, and enters the magnificent hallway of his mansion. But, passing the tall hall mirror, he stops transfixed as he catches sight of his reflection. Frozen in fear, he watches as the process of evolution works backwards before his very eyes.
The image in the mirror is gradually transforming itself. The high forehead begins to slope backwards and the brow ridges protrude forewards, causing the eyes to shrink back into their sockets. The mouth bulges forwards to form animalistic jaws, and the whole face becomes covered in course brown hair.
The expression of horror gives way to wonderment then and, as a tiny spark of recognition dawns in the tiny orange eyes, the lips draw back to reveal two rows of massive yellowed teeth. They grin horribly.
"Hello Doc, DocD here!" grunts the image in a voice that is almost human.
"Now, I think I have a little business down at the lab to take care of!"
So DocD draggs his knuckles across town to the dark warehouse he knew to be the lurking place of so much that was evil. Stopping at the door to tear down the brass plaque bearing the legend "Professor Clausewitz’s Laboratory", he enters the musty interior to be confronted with a large table piled up with maps, books and board games scattered and in pieces. Row upon row of filing cabinets line either wall, each neatly labeled. DocD reads out some of the file names:
"Axis and Allies Deluxe, Advanced History of the World, Advanced Kingmaker, War of the Ring Redux…" he quots. The list went on and on.
"Good grief", he exclaims, " War of the Ring isn't even out yet and he's got a whole cabinet full of house rules for it. This is worse than even I thought!
There must be enough house rules here to poison the entireworld!"
And so, without further ado, DocD sets a match to some Advanced Britannia files and retires from the scene.
Returning to the Mansion after a job well done, DocD hunts for the Professor's supply of antidote to his houserulitis serum and, discovering them in the bottom of a wardrobe along with a large pile of adult DVDs, flushes the entire supply down the toilet.
Pouring himself a glass of chilled Champagne, he snuggles his hairy feet into the Professor's angora slippers and settles back into the Professor's armchair for an evening of well earned relaxation.
"Ahhhhhh!", he exhales luxuriously, "Now, at last, I can live like a human being."
LOL not bad....that's pretty funny clausey.

[GROGnads]

what's a ryder cup...?I think that them 'male' Fox Hunters wear this thing on their 'thang' when they are horse-riding? It's supposedly to prevent "Brain Damage" but I ask, how can you damage something of which you obviously are lacking? "GO Foxes!" :eek:

[pagan]

Excluding ****-Sapien-Sapien from the taxonomic group Animalia, I always cheer for the animals.

I would cheer for Vasca-Plantae too, but they already dominate the world....

[Caractacus]

Hi, Pagan!

Um, I don't get it. I explicitly said that I was repeating something I wrote in another thread (and implicitly begged forgiveness for it by saying 'I'll risk antagonising'). I'm reasonably sure I'm not the only person to have repeated an idea where it seemed relevant. I mean, people were even talking about retreats in the two threads in question...

Furthermore, I can't understand why you seemed fairly receptive to the idea in the other thread, but here decided to go straight for the jugular. What's caused this?

[pagan]

there is another thread alot bigger, as I remember it went into 5 or 6 pages.

I will have to repost my arguments against defender retreats here
.

[pagan]

and this should also be moved to the House rules section...

[Imperious leader]

Thanks for finding this for me... i looked thru many pages the other day and didnt find it... Im gonna just post this for now so i dont lose where it is...ideas following shortly...

[axis_roll]

Defender retreats has so many things wrong with it...

It's a concept that doesn't 'WORK' in the A&A context.

[DocD]

I thought there was another thread that really goes in depth why defender retreats are bad.
That's the thread Pagan is referring to when he tells clausey it's absurd for him to repeat himself.

[Imperious leader]

OK... here we go... this is one of the main sticking points as to why the "axis and allies system" has some major loopholes in Historical accuracy. I think everyone can agree that in normal mobile warfare since history began, the ability for each side to make specific reactions to a fluid battlefield enviroment has included the ability of each side in battle to withdraw from further combat actions and this includes the defender more often than the attacker.. The question is how or what method can this be solved so that it can be installed into axis and allies. Questions you may ask is :
1) does this possibility effect the games mechanics in some adverse way?
2) does it burden the rules with undue complexity?
3) does axis and allies need any historical realism ( e.g. its a simple game lets keep it simple..damm you Imperious)
4) Does it open more problems than it fixes, w/o fixing other issues that are now effected by the new rule?
5) If we have this then we are not playing axis and allies... were just playing something Imperious is stuffing into our lives.

( you see i am fair to this issue!)

Next we have to consider some different ways that "defender retreats" can be installed so that items 1-5 arent an issue for 99% of you... how?

Well.. consider these 4 root ideas:

OPTIONS:
1) After each round the attacker can declare a retreat, if he makes the declares his intention to stay in combat, then the defender can then retreat. In any case, the retreating player can only retreat into spaces from where he came from, or in the case of the defender, he can retreat to any adjacent territory.

2) After each round the attacker can declare a retreat, if he makes the declares his intention to stay in combat, then the defender can then retreat.Partial retreats can also be made where some units can retreat and other forces can remain to do battle. However, in the defenders case if he elects to remove a portion of his forces, while the attacker stays and rolls well, then additional loses can be taken from those defending units and those defending units that were declared to retreat are lost and do not fire back. In any case, the retreating player can only retreat into spaces from where he came from, or in the case of the defender, he can retreat to any adjacent territory. Note: that under this sytem the defender will retreat his goodies leaving the scraps to die...at least in case where the attacker has 2/1 odds or better.

3) Install a simple "mandatory retreat" rule, where we now symbolize the real problem of warfare where units in combat become fatigued and broken as have to disengage further combat actions... IN sept-nov 1941 Germany was making very slow progress as many of its divisions were simply worn out and no replacements were forthcoming...eventually these forces were pulled from further action and retrofitted for further duties....
The practical method is as follows: each attacking unit that rolls a 6 has to be pulled from further combat that turn. You can also make this roll different for each nation... Example: the French/ Italian/ Chinese player will retreat on rolls of 4-5, the Soviet on 5-6, UK on 5-6, the rest on 6.. however is you use SS troops they never retreat...LOL just kidding!

4) the last idea i have today (tomorrow may bring further results)... is in any combat situation the party that lost the most units has the option of retreating ( either similiar as #1 or #2 option) IF both sides lose equal number of units then neither side can retreat that round ( locked in deadly combat..ala Stalingrad)

5) One prerequesite to all the options is in cities where a factory or victory city are in the defender is not required to retreat.

[pagan]

These are the issues that come to my mind with regards to a Defender Retreat
I'm sure that this is not all of the objections, as others may post and offer more


1.
The attacking aspect of a 'Kill-Retreat' by the attacker is no longer possible, ....where the attacker sends in a force specifically in number calculated for a certain number of kills on the enemy, without destroying the entire defending force, and then retreats. Used in many instances, one of which would be to save Armor from a counter-attack with still a high kill rate ; as an example
IF the defender retreats at the end of the attack wave, the attacker is stuck as the attacker has actually now won the territory. This is for both the special attack to just kill units & the basic attack to win a territory

Now the roles are reversed for basic combats, and the counter attack runs the same method. the new attacker MUST send enough forces to win the battle (otherwise it's suicide) and then the new defender retreats prepping for a counter attack __ this would continue Long into the night....over & over again

the only other option from this is to stack. You stack until you have more stack counters to your opponent's stack counters (requires IPCs _ go allies!) __ this ends Long into the night....with enormous stacks. This is the 'safe' defensive play, and it is the predominate strategy for most players. The only way to combat this style of strategy is to do likewise.

2.
Defenders should not be allowed to retreat in SeaZones. This makes for some funky movement messes, and actually allows the defender the ability to 'block' the attacker's NCM moves, or gives them the ability to get an 'Extra-Move' type of thing. (such as during their turn the defender moved 2 moves & then gets attacked on an enemy turn allowing the further movment into another adjacent sz) <--this is only 1 example

Where the attacker retreat is scripted back to a sz that a naval unit came from, the defender has the option to go where? before or after the attacker decides? Is an open adjacent seazone one from which the attacking force just now vacated? Should defenders be allowed to block NCM of the attacking force, thus allowing constant naval blockades PLUS we still have the LHTR sub-stall PLUS a single sub blocking a whole fleet if not attacked, then allowed to block on a different zone if attacked but not killed.

This stuff could cause confusion for movement + massive blockades of NCM. Its a whole new way to naval-stall (just like sub stall- but here you don't need subs). There should be no blocking of the attacking forces NCM due to a defensive retreat, in my opinion, also seazones now vacant but held attacking naval vessels AND/OR had naval vessels pass through to ge tto the comabt should not be allowed for retreat since the position of attack (such as a pincer') is as prevelant of a tactic as a retreat. I could see naval fake movements of ships from different seazones in order to take away seazone retreat options. Alos bring in 2 fighters & 1 Bomber --> the seazones covered by their movments could be every single adjacent seazone, and a defensive retreat at that time should not be allowed since the attacker's utilization fo envelopiing the enemy should be taken as a valid tactic
3.
game time. for every inconclusive battle, there will be another one. as time protracts the game, the side with the highest IPC combination will most likely win due to money+units+attrition. If we are dealing with a FAST (?) 4 hour game right now, then i would wager that we have a significantly longer game with defender retreating. (possible double or more time required)

[b]4.
game scale. I have a problem with ALL retreating. In this, at least the attacker usually goes into a fight with odds of winning the territory [going in under powerd means you are comiting suicide), in the event of an attacker's retreat__ the boon is for the defender, and this should not cause more delays as the loss probability was not average (lots of losses for the attacker when compared to the defender) __ the aspect of an attacker retreat is also (usually) over multiple waves of combats (or you could say time is involved as in a campaigned attack into a territory) __ that is the only defense I have for ANY kind of retreat in this large scale Strategic scale game, and it can only refer to the Attacking force since they bring the larger combative force, designed (calculated) with multiple wave attacks
This is not a tactical game. __ retreating for a defender would be mostly used on the first wave of combat. the mechanics for the game would have to be adjusted For Tactics. ANd this would open up a large amount of ww2 military tactics that should allow for terrain + units vs. terrain + units. Perhaps even a fog of war pre-roll for advantage dice to simulate openfire luck per attack wave...

______________________________________________

---> in order to overcome these issues, i believe that drastic game-mehanics changes would have to be installed into A&A. It is just yelling out for Combat Tactical mecanics where even blind positions (formations) are called before the rolls to create a free advantage roll. If this were done then I could see the use of the defender retreat

---> I feel that the changes would recreate the game. It would no longer be A&A, it would be B&B.

---> there could be no stopping the changes. In any change there could come more. If we worked on this game and implemented over 1000 rules and modifications to A&A in order to make the 'perfect' A&A game, then 1 guy would come out and say that he doesn't like some aspect of it due to the lack of regards for X. We didn't account for X because of Y. So he says that we should have accounted for X inclusive of Y. Its a better game if you account for and include X .... it never ends ....

---> I would like to play A&A. Some changes are cool, but I have a 'subjective' limit for rule-depth and game complexity
.

[Moderator Sinister]

I agree with pagan

[psychotropic]

I agree guys. Retreating is bad. For all the reasons mentioned. I just want to comment on the single argument of historical accuracy that is used in so many of these threads. If you want a historically accurate game then who wants to be the the axis. You'd have to lose all the time because that's what happened.

This game is too small to be coorect in every detail. It is accurate in a gross sense. Like, oh now I see why japan needs a navy and transports. Or wow, I see why Hitler had such a hard time in Russia. Or those U-Boats must have been a pain in the ass. Or I see why the allies focused on germany first.

If you wanted historic accuracy we would have left US Bombers that couldn't be shot down in the game. I'm pretty sure the war itself would have gone different if not for those babies.

[Imperious leader]

I will first address psycotropic's comments followed by Pagan:

1) your comments about bombers is a huge issue with me in the current system, and as you may know the accuracy of AA guns was only 10%, while in the current form it hits at a clip of 1 out of 6.. Yikes! plus many players get only one bomber which represents basically 2-3,000 planes..so what we have here is too powerful a unit, but the real issue is whether the AA gun in its current form should be a "piece" after all?
The game has alot of abstraction, however it includes this aa unit..why? in every wargame ever made the AA gun thing is never represented at all, because its assumed to exist, but its somehow built into the game as a "saving roll" I am not aware of how this AA gun unit is akin to a panzer army or 3-5 corps of infantry. Simply put AA guns were concentrated in nearly every major city and industrial base as a fixed object.. During the war these guns did now move around as dipicted in the game where somebody says "gee the UK bombers are going over there, so move these AA guns south so in 4 months time those bombers will get pay back" . Something has to be done to symbolize this in terms that are equal to the games focus and IMO this is a holdover idea that wasnt really looked at since the Nova version days. THe AA gun should be abstracted into each VC and Factory as a built in defense, requiring a roll of d10 hitting on a one.
Secondly, it is assumed that during tactical ground support missions (which is the most common use for fighters) some mechanism should be installed to reflect the "defense" of the units under attack. so consider the following:

Artillery Guns Anti-Air Defense:
Artillery (both regular and heavy Artillery) units may fire at each air unit entering or flying across the air space of its territory during attacking combat movement. Each defending artillery unit rolls against each plane and a result of a 1 on a D10 results in a hit. The maximum number of Artillery units that can roll against planes in this fashion is limited to two. Note: each plane is rolled separately by type and can only be attacked once preemptively. Example: 2 Allied Bombers and 2 Fighter escorts fly into Germany defended by 3 Artillery units. The two Bombers are rolled together, yielding results of 3, 6, 8 and 5 (all misses). Next two fighters are rolled with results of 1, 2, 1 and 3 (two hits). Both escorts are destroyed with the remaining planes able to perform their combat mission. Also, if a territory is attacked (including strategic bombing), each defending Artillery unit has one first shot attack at each air unit. Losses are removed immediately before the air units’ fire back. Attacks by the surviving planes can then proceed in the normal fashion. During non-combat movement phase no anti-air defense is performed on returning enemy planes.


Now in a seperate post i will address claims from Pagan...one problem with this forum is you cant post a long response and when you do it deleates everything that was written.. So truthfully this is my second post. I do want to present this idea in another thread , but the point was raised.

[psychotropic]

I think the AA gun represents the overall AA defence capacity of each territory. Hundreds of guns. Though they are a fixed defence I'm pretty sure they could be disabled and moved to new fixed positions, albeit with some difficulty. This is why they can't move and fire as other units. They must move or fire. It also explains why they can't be destroyed as many of the guns would still be in existence after the battle.

[Imperious leader]

1.
The attacking aspect of a 'Kill-Retreat' by the attacker is no longer possible, ....where the attacker sends in a force specifically in number calculated for a certain number of kills on the enemy, without destroying the entire defending force, and then retreats. Used in many instances, one of which would be to save Armor from a counter-attack with still a high kill rate ; as an example
IF the defender retreats at the end of the attack wave, the attacker is stuck as the attacker has actually now won the territory. This is for both the special attack to just kill units & the basic attack to win a territory

Now the roles are reversed for basic combats, and the counter attack runs the same method. the new attacker MUST send enough forces to win the battle (otherwise it's suicide) and then the new defender retreats prepping for a counter attack __ this would continue Long into the night....over & over again

++++ What actually happens is many of these border battles reflect a trick that shows how very flawed the "system" is working. So what is actually happening is evrybody is "playing cheapos" where the same territory is being traded back and forth like a hot potato so both parties can claim the "money" while they enage in this "*** for tat" combat style of battle as follows:
characteristics:
1) the main stacks are static piles of plastic doing nothing but slow enertia toward the contested borders of your conquests.
2) The outer stacks are made up of "skirmishers" attacking with the following example:
2 infantry and 5 planes vs. 4 infantry= killing off 4 infantry, netting the "piece value" in net IP "collected" by killing more than you lose. Than the further insult is you take the territory gaining say 3 IP, and the patern is reversed on that players turn, when they now get the 3 IP back. This does nothing to improve the realism of the game and no combat in modern times resembled this at all.

the only other option from this is to stack. You stack until you have more stack counters to your opponent's stack counters (requires IPCs _ go allies!) __ this ends Long into the night....with enormous stacks. This is the 'safe' defensive play, and it is the predominate strategy for most players. The only way to combat this style of strategy is to do likewise.

This is not the case under playtesting conditions, what actually happens is a player is committing more forces to his borders and less to the "interior" and combat actions are a classic "slogfest" of destroyed pieces, pushing each other around like warfare on the eastern front was during the years of 41-45. Each battle has more meaning, because you now plan on holding more of what you conquered, than knowing its all lost on your opponents turn. This in turn changes the strategy dynamic to model warfare better. Now you have massed attacks, and elastic defense, followed by counterattack, before you had small "skirmishing" tactics, and you knew its just for a temporay statisfaction ( e.g. getting the money thing out of it). Warfare is not the latter case its the former case.

Ill take up point 2 in latter post...

[Imperious leader]

Before we turn to the second point lets rehash a more elaborate way of explaining the two options of retreat as i first posted:

RETREATS

Except for air interception combat, where the defending intercepting units simply return home after one round, after any round of combat, either player may decide to withdraw and retreat. After any combat round, retreating attacking units do not all have to retreat to the same territory, but it must be from original territory where the attack began. Defending units that cannot retreat (such as air units out of range of a friendly territory, ground units on an island, or evacuating ground units in excess of transport capability) must remain and continue to fight. Full or partial retreats by either side are allowed after any round of combat without penalty and only the currently engaged units’ fire at each other. Note: Ground units that engage in combat which results in automatic retreats simply take no further part in combat. They retreat back to their original territory and do not suffer return fire. Units that roll automatic retreat rolls as the defender and have no place to retreat can ignore these rolls and must defend to the death. They have at their option the ability to conduct a naval evacuation if friendly transports are in adjacent sea zones. Destroyed units that roll in combat ignore automatic retreat results as they have already been selected at casualties.

Air Units
Attacking air units that are retreating “withdraw” from combat. They return to land during Returning Air Movement. Defending air units have to retreat to an adjacent friendly territory. If no adjacent friendly territories exist, retreating defending air units fly to the closest friendly territory within their flight range. If there are no friendly territories within their flight then these defending air units cannot retreat.

Naval Units
Naval units retreat by "withdrawing" and remaining in the combat sea zone. This may leave enemy naval units sharing the same sea zone. Retreating transports may not unload their units.

Ground Units
Ground units may retreat to any combination of friendly adjacent territories. Defending ground units must remain in the embattled territory and “fight to the death” only if no other retreat options are available.

Naval Evacuations
Attacking ground units in amphibious assaults may evacuate and retreat to their transports after any combat round. However, each armor and artillery unit must first be converted to a regular infantry unit. Defending ground units have the option of retreating onto friendly transports in adjacent sea zones during regular ground combat. In both cases, the evacuating transports may not move and Ground units in excess of transport capacity may not retreat.

Now option #2 of retreats:


RETREATS OPTION 2

Except for air interception combat, where the defending intercepting units simply return home after one round, after any round of combat, the attacker may decide to withdraw and retreat. If the attacker does not retreat, the defender may choose to voluntarily retreat. Retreating attacking units do not all have to retreat to the same territory, but it must be from original territory where the attack began. Partial retreats by either side are allowed after any round of combat and only the currently engaged units’ fire at each other. Retreating units do not get to fire as they retreat however; attacking units get one free roll on all defending units and they receive no return fire. The defender can declare to retreat a portion of his forces and leave a few units behind to “cover” the retreat. The retreating units do not get to fire, but the units left to fight still roll on defense. Additional casualties incurred are removed from those units that retreated.

2. Defenders should not be allowed to retreat in SeaZones. This makes for some funky movement messes, and actually allows the defender the ability to 'block' the attacker's NCM moves, or gives them the ability to get an 'Extra-Move' type of thing. (such as during their turn the defender moved 2 moves & then gets attacked on an enemy turn allowing the further movment into another adjacent sz) <--this is only 1 example

Where the attacker retreat is scripted back to a sz that a naval unit came from, the defender has the option to go where? before or after the attacker decides? Is an open adjacent seazone one from which the attacking force just now vacated? Should defenders be allowed to block NCM of the attacking force, thus allowing constant naval blockades PLUS we still have the LHTR sub-stall PLUS a single sub blocking a whole fleet if not attacked, then allowed to block on a different zone if attacked but not killed.

This stuff could cause confusion for movement + massive blockades of NCM. Its a whole new way to naval-stall (just like sub stall- but here you don't need subs). There should be no blocking of the attacking forces NCM due to a defensive retreat, in my opinion, also seazones now vacant but held attacking naval vessels AND/OR had naval vessels pass through to ge tto the comabt should not be allowed for retreat since the position of attack (such as a pincer') is as prevelant of a tactic as a retreat. I could see naval fake movements of ships from different seazones in order to take away seazone retreat options. Alos bring in 2 fighters & 1 Bomber --> the seazones covered by their movments could be every single adjacent seazone, and a defensive retreat at that time should not be allowed since the attacker's utilization fo envelopiing the enemy should be taken as a valid tactic

+++ as you can see this has been solved, because these units retreat by remaining in the original SZ.. they dont move "toward the enemy" as they retreat.


3.
game time. for every inconclusive battle, there will be another one. as time protracts the game, the side with the highest IPC combination will most likely win due to money+units+attrition. [bet on the allies!] If we are dealing with a FAST (?) 4 hour game right now, then i would wager that we have a significantly longer game with defender retreating. (possible double or more time required)


+++Again this is not the experience in playtesting ( 3 groups alone use these rules and we have never seen any problems as you conclude. What happens is the "decisive " moment presents itself sooner, because this system cut off the fat of those "cheap battles"


4.
game scale. I have a problem with ALL retreating. In this, at least the attacker usually goes into a fight with odds of winning the territory [going in under powerd means you are comiting suicide), in the event of an attacker's retreat__ the boon is for the defender, and this should not cause more delays as the loss probability was not average (lots of losses for the attacker when compared to the defender) __ the aspect of an attacker retreat is also (usually) over multiple waves of combats (or you could say time is involved as in a campaigned attack into a territory) __ that is the only defense I have for ANY kind of retreat in this large scale Strategic scale game, and it can only refer to the Attacking force since they bring the larger combative force, designed (calculated) with multiple wave attacks

+++The defender can only back up so many times before he has to make a stand. ON the eastern front this is exactly what was done to the Germans... THe Soviets traded space for time, untill the german front lines were ultra thin, and the combined enertia of massed Soviet units led to the major offensive (counterattack) which pushed the germans back. This ebb and flow is what is missing in the game, because the old system premits too many "tricks" where all your doing is cashing out your chips at the end of the day, so what your playing for is "what can i do today" rather that a methodical flow of superiority over a period of turns and time.

[Sihr_Togg]

I think that the 'unrealistic'-argument for the defender retreat is incorrect. The defender should have retreated from the territory on its own turn by leaving it on ncm. The defender can retreat.

[Imperious leader]

I think that the 'unrealistic'-argument for the defender retreat is incorrect. The defender should have retreated from the territory on its own turn by leaving it on ncm. The defender can retreat.

HUH? we are talking about retreating as a result of a combat situation, not leaving some salient of territory for fear that it will be surrounded..thats a huge difference! non- combat movement is the simple redeployment of forces for other fronts and for forces in areas that are rested... that hardly is realistic as a method or arguement that the defender "gets to retreat"

[pagan]

not that SihrTogg needs defending, but he is correct. You cannot say that any country does not have the ability to retreat in defense. The strategic game of A&A requires this foresight in advance of action (strategic game). Your retreat is solely on the battle sequence. I personally overlooked this issue dealing only with the battle sequence. Sihr Togg has put a better light on what a strategic retreat really is.

--------------------
I need time to read through the 'wind', however you did not satisfy any of the conditions I listed.

You seem to be creating a very complex system of retreating, free movement, and combat salvos. As I stated initially, and combined with your other ideas from the other threads you are well on your way to creating a game that is very unlike A&A.

Your combat is lacking tactics for its complexity (wanting to put in defender retreat is a tactical basic part of a battle, and there are MANY more things which should be implemented as well). Tactical combat should be assimilated. There are many ways to do this, but again it requires a diferent approach than the basic 8 step A&A game

A&A is not a good platform for what you seem to want to do


back to my points:

#1. (still reading) ----notes: i personally like removing the ability to retreat for all sides. However without this ability to pull out of an attack, there will be more stacking long before there is more combat (i prefer combat to stacks). I feel that more combat is better, and as such the attacker needs the 'out' to avoid horrific battles. The defender on the other hand, carefully orchestrates the battlefield calcualtiing his current enemy strengths (strategic part of the game), and prepares the battfield options for the enemy

#2. retreating movment problems are not there when you have retreating within the same contested sz. However the basic focus of attack is being disregarded, applied pressure of the attacking force to TAKE the sz, would not allow any enemy ships to remain in that sz. NCM of ships around/in/though that zone seem absurd wen considering surface ships like BBs just watching the action.

#3. We shall stop and ust disagree. I beelieve it will add time to the game, you do not.

#4. Stacking is the key to the game. It is a defensive appoach that always keeps you into the highest odds of success. the best strategy is IPM
.

[Imperious leader]

not that SihrTogg needs defending, but he is correct. You cannot say that any country does not have the ability to retreat in defense. The strategic game of A&A requires this foresight in advance of action (strategic game). Your retreat is solely on the battle sequence. I personally overlooked this issue dealing only with the battle sequence. Sihr Togg has put a better light on what a strategic retreat really is.

That argument is a battle of semantics...Strategic retreat is the ability to reposition units that are not in or under assault.. These are units from a quiet portion of the front that are performing "startegic redeployment" It is not anything like when your under assault and facing destruction, and you cannot hold, so you have a basic ability to move away from battle and retire. That is not the situation of NCM and you both know it. We are dealing with the same oppurtunity to remove your forces at the same portion of the battle as the attacker enjoys..nothing to do with NCM.

--------------------
I need time to read through the 'wind', however you did not satisfy any of the conditions I listed.

You seem to be creating a very complex system of retreating, free movement, and combat salvos. As I stated initially, and combined with your other ideas from the other threads you are well on your way to creating a game that is very unlike A&A.

+++what in the world is complex about saying "the defender can retreat" You cannot make that last assesment untill you understand the other ideas... otherwise your basically shooting things down before they even are heard..Thats not a distinction of an open mind.

Your combat is lacking tactics for its complexity (wanting to put in defender retreat is a tactical basic part of a battle, and there are MANY more things which should be implemented as well).

+++ exactly!!!... but for now we are covering this topic... others are gonna follow in turn... can we just concentrate on one thing at a time?

Tactical combat should be assimilated. There are many ways to do this, but again it requires a diferent approach than the basic 8 step A&A game

It can be done ..your lack of faith is disturbing ( to borrow a star wars quote)

A&A is not a good platform for what you seem to want to do

I have plenty of people who have used this system for games very similiar and it works BETTER than Axis and Allies, while people who play both systems find them quite similiar. Since you have no experience at this "other system" can we at least agree that the ability to only allow the attacker to retreat and NOT the defender in COMBAt situations is a faulty, unrealistic rule? ( think in modern combat rather than a/a)


back to my points:

#1. (still reading) ----notes: i personally like removing the ability to retreat for all sides. However without this ability to pull out of an attack, there will be more stacking long before there is more combat (i prefer combat to stacks). I feel that more combat is better, and as such the attacker needs the 'out' to avoid horrific battles. The defender on the other hand, carefully orchestrates the battlefield calcualtiing his current enemy strengths (strategic part of the game), and prepares the battfield options for the enemy

Removing the attackers ability as well? like both are trapped in a game of death?... OK i propose you try my system with a small example on the revised board... Try option #1 , followed by option #2 let me know what you like BETTER.. Please try it... Im telling you it works very well...

#2. retreating movment problems are not there when you have retreating within the same contested sz. However the basic focus of attack is being disregarded, applied pressure of the attacking force to TAKE the sz, would not allow any enemy ships to remain in that sz. NCM of ships around/in/though that zone seem absurd wen considering surface ships like BBs just watching the action.

THe SZ is a huge area of sea, you can claim this resoning for any situation that may come up:
1) you can say if the defender retreats toward his "home" then it interferes with NCM

2) you can say the way the game is currently it does this same thing

3) you can say if he remains in the space then it interferes...however on his turn he will move away from you because during NCM your probably gonna pile on the SZ you just took.. Thats a huge difference from before we had this game of chicken...with neither side in a position to strike, unless he is allready backed up to his home.


#3. We shall stop and ust disagree. I beelieve it will add time to the game, you do not.

I understand but you have not playtested it and i have.. that belief isnt very credable, unless you have some experience.. AS stated before i have been using this system since 1989..it has no flaws in this area. I respect your opinion but at least playtest it.

#4. Stacking is the key to the game. It is a defensive appoach that always keeps you into the highest odds of success. the best strategy is IPM

I took you as an "anti- stack" person I hate the infantry push mechanic and that one of the great reasons why i came up with this system. It ends it...

Infantry push mechanic is the static combat that the game creates...that makes for very long games, while this speeds up things.. I thought you were against long games? I am too...

[pagan]

Are we talking about AAR ?
---if we are talking about Axis & Allies, then your ideas are too dramatic of a change to continue to call the game the AAR game. I am done with this point.

Are we talking about YOUR system?
---if we are talking about Your System where you want to go step by step into your version of a WW2 game, then I don't want to play anymore.

As for this thread: It is about the defender retreat. I have stated my reasons why a defender retreat breaks the format of AAR and there is no simple implementation of it. I am done with this point.

____________________________________________

Please be very distinct on your Message Thread Titles
---so that I can ignore them at my leisure.

If it's AAR, then we are dealing with the Box game only
---title is distinctly marked as AAR
If it's LHTR, then we are dealing with those rules only
---title is distiinctly marked as LHTR
If it's YOUR system/house rules, then you are dealing with that specifically
---title is distinctly marked as YOUR house rules without any accompanied AAR/AARe/LHTR marking in the title, as this will confuse people
.

[DocD]

Pagan is correct. Anything that prolongs the game is bad IMO. Allowing defender retreats will prolong the game as the stacks increase. Hence defender retreat = bad.

The scale of A&A is so large and unit sizes so abstract I believe defender retreats happen all the time. Unfortunately, the defender gets eliminated before they cross into another territory on the board, but hey they retreated.

Seriously, the game has been very successful for over 20 years with no defender retreats allowed. Why replace the wheel with some new three sided gizmo.

[Yoper]

The scale of the territories in Revised do not lend themselves to the retreat idea.

You need more territories for the the retreat idea to be viable.

Check out the Advanced A&A that my gaming group put together. It has more territories and has retreat rules.

http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=705

If you have retreat rules, then you adjust your thinking accordingly.

And yes, it takes a lot longer to play the game. :rolleyes: But I don't see that as a problem.

My group meets every Friday night for 6-8 hrs. and it would take us 3-5 sessions to finish this game. We didn't mind spending the time to play it.

Craig

[Sihr_Togg]

IL's variant seems to turn into something non-Axis and Allies, except for the gameboard or is that (planned to be) changed aswell?

[zooooma]

Defender retreating is an interesting concept, but There are a couple reasons why I do not like it a house rule:

1 - Planes

The biggest advantage of air units is their ability to fight in a battle and return to safety when the battle is over. Tanks, on the other hand, must remain vulnerable on the front after a battle. If you give these tanks a chance to escape, even a limited chance, air units suddenly are not so sexy as before. I like air units.

2 - Set up

The initial set up has many pieces poorly positioned and vulnerable. This gives advantage to the powers with the initiative in any given theatre. Many units which should be killed on round one will retreat and survive. This could even out, but more likely will have major implications on the ballance of power.

3 - Attacker advantage.

One of the biggest advantages to attacking is the ability to press the battle or abort it, depending on the dice. In an otherwise even battle, this can give the attacker a decent edge. This edge is diminished if the defender can also call a retreat. No matter how you limit the retreat, the defender (in theory) will never tkae the option unless it helps their position. So unless the restrictions on retreating are harsh enough to make the move almost never sound, this will reduce the attacker's advantage. Are you sure you want the game to be harder on the attacker?

4 - Extra movement.

We all know that occassionally the attacker can gain movement by attacking from one side of a territory and retreating with other units which came from the far side. Though an interesting (or anoying) loophole, this doesn't come up enough to drastically affect the game. Allowing defenders to retreat towards their destination might come up a lot more. The British in Anglo Egypt Sudan, for example) could end up closer to India if Germany attacks on turn one. I anticipate this sort of thing becoming a problem.

5 - Trading spaces

I expect it would be more common for enemy forces to trade exchange control of a territory - and spend fewer units in so doing. Nations with busy fronts, like Germany and Russia, will collect more income and lose fewer units. The result is a reduced significance for offshore forces like Englnd and U$A.


How ever anyone wants to play is fine with me. I do think that thorough enjoyment of this house rule would require thousands of hours of playtesting as well as further development and tweaks to the point that the game would be radically altered. I am personally not interested in a major overhaul, nor does the concept appeal to me enough to test it and try to make it work.

-Luke

[82ndAirborne]

I agree completely with Luke, so theres no reason for me to say it again.

[Imperious leader]

Heres another stupid thing that occurs in axis and allies and has no basis in reality:

You get these people ( you know who you are) who do this calculation thing of killing everything in the territory , except leaving a single defender...so they dont get stuck owning the territory....Totally bogus! What many people here advocate when they debate against the viability of possibly using ideas for an improvement is its great unless its different from what your "comfort zone" allows.
If anybody can rationalize the following: Germany attacks France currently occupied by 8 infantry , killing everything except one small reserve division, and the German general saying "wait stop attacking your gonna allow us to destroy the French army and take France and screw Germany for the next 6 months." You kidding me? you people are arguing for a system that has that? I understand that before axis and allies you only played Risk and History was a topic never studied, but really anybody who can argue against the rationale of the accepting how this is a problem... What is so astonishing to me is in nearly every response, people are actually arguing that either 1) the defender has a combat retreat ( during non combat) or 2) i see no problems at this time axis and allies is a perfect mental ediface, 3) axis and allies is a perfect reflection of warfare...the army should develop tactics from this games concepts. 4) I cant change ... gee change is bad i cant leave my comfort zone.
Is their somebody out there who can make a good argument for saying that to include a defender retreat option would resent something ahistorical? no i think not!

[axis_roll]

If anybody can rationalize the following: Germany attacks France currently occupied by 8 infantry , killing everything except one small reserve division, and the German general saying "wait stop attacking your gonna allow us to destroy the French army and take France and screw Germany for the next 6 months."
Yes, it's called retreating before reinforcements come to counter attack.

You know that you are really arguing against yourself. Either way it's a retreat, whether it's the attacker leaving one unit and withdrawing or your system of defender retreating.

Most people are not argueing against "retreating", more against the specific game mechanics that are built into Axis & Allies that defender retreat BREAKS, specifically leading to stack fests and reduced value of pieces. Zoomas post above was an excellent list of reasons why defender retreat fails.

If I could always retreat from a battle as a defender, as the allies, I would basicall buy nothing but inf. They are the cheapest/most effective defense. Hey, have at your stack fests if you want. I seek to use all the pieces in the game in many different manners other than simple infantry push mechanics of overwhelming your opponent with sheer numbers.

Tatics man... tatics!

[Imperious leader]

Lets disect that for a second:

Yes, it's called retreating before reinforcements come to counter attack.
-- its not called anything.. what it is simply is the attacker fails to take the object of his attack... armies that take out a nation dont consider the idea of "gee if i take that then i will be attacked in a manner of my enemies choosing.. Under this new idea we model the true spirit of warfare be allowing counterattack which is a major component of war, however, if the attack proceeds well the defender is not stuck into accepting his fate. If you look at the CRT of nearly every major wargame..you are presented with AE, DE, EX, AR and DR... why cant axis and allies follow this and why isnt the same problem everybody here attempts to "explain" not present as a problem in any other wargames? All these games that allow DR results dont face this complaint that "it prolongs the game"... I can see one idea however which i can see has a certain problem.... that is in games with limited positions to move into/out of... This is the only angle that i can accept problems, However, in my games (which mave more spaces..around 50-100% more) the system is awesome and works better than AA.

Either way it's a retreat, whether it's the attacker leaving one unit and withdrawing or your system of defender retreating.

Either way is not the same ability that the attacker has, because the defender does not have the right to retreat during his defending under combat situations... You can play with words and "assign" the word retreat into anything you like, but the option is not the same as the attackers and you know it.Semantics notwithstanding.

[Cowboy]

My thought on the subject of retreat is simple. Only an all or nothing retreat should be allowed. The defending side would forfeit their return fire (surviving units only) for the priveledge to retreat. In my opinion, however, the attacker should ,in non-combat move, be allowed to withdraw all, or a portion, of his attacking units, if the defender retreats, due to lack of resistance. If the fight is given up so easily this might give the defender a reason to stay and fight it out. An example of this would be Pearl Harbor, where *** naval forces could move back 1 space to avoid the likelyhood of counter attack if the US ftr survived. Also, why let a ftr roll defense of 4 and then retreat? I have not played this out, so I have no idea how it would affect game play. However it seems logical to me that a lack of resistance should give the attacker a withdrawal option. Of course, I think it would lead to a stack fest. It also would lead to new strategies. It might be interesting to try anyway.

[pagan]

It is a classic military tactic.....
It is a basic strategy of combat in MOST animals.

Imperial ---> I find it odd that you are against it, or don't know what it is as a self-proclaimed 'strategy game designer'.

It is not 'nothing'. It's a measure attack against your opponent from a position of strength. The OBJECTIVE is to put critical losses on your opponent, and to stay in a position of defensive strength. ----> classic SunTsu as well: take the invincible position and attack from there. ---> (also) there was the difficult ground concept were you avoid taking and moving through difficult ground....

the basic idea is that you don't want to allow your opponenet the opportunity to kill you, so you hide, run, and attack from afar. If you have the opportunity to strike your opponent then you take your shot, but you do not do this while at the same time giving your opponent the return opportunity. A game of tricks is a deadly game in the animal kingdom, where one animal plays coy and injured in order to lure its target out...
.

[Yoper]

IL- The other parts of those kind of games that work hand-in-hand with a CRT are the large amount of games spaces that come from having a hex-based map and the stacking limits for each map hex.

The size of the territories in Revised do not lend themselves to the retreat idea.

Craig

[DocD]

Of course, I think it would lead to a stack fest. It also would lead to new strategies. It might be interesting to try anyway.
You should read some of the posts about how retreat will affect the game.

Stack fests are a given. They will not contribute to the game except in making it more long, and hence more boring.

[DocD]

Also, history is a good teacher on what happens when large armies are not destroyed en masse.

The Civil War on a large scale, for the most part was one big army retreating from another. Hundreds of thousands killed with no upper hand by either side for several years.
WWI Western front, same thing.....long war....boring war. Any wonder why WWI wargames are a distant last when asked what era players enjoy the most.

Take a page from history don't allow defender retreats, not when it comes to the A&A scale/game.

It will only create a longer war, a boring war.....I mean game.

[Imperious leader]

You should read some of the posts about how retreat will affect the game.

Stack fests are a given. They will not contribute to the game except in making it more long, and hence more boring.

I wish people will playtest some of these ideas, RATHER than thinking or recirculating the same information about defender retreats....combined with other ideas the "system" works very well. I will post what this entails in another thread.

[DocD]

Luckily, I'm an experienced player of AA. I don't consider myself the best player ever, but experience is a quality of its own. Being a veteran of many variants and homerules, I feel that I have an idea of what is fun for me.

Being an experienced player gives me insight into what I think might be better or worst for the game. For me, prolonging the game for basically no reason or little gain is a waste of my time. I know increasing the stacks of infantry seen in the game currently, will prolong the game and will waste my time. I know any rule which contributes to stacking of units will prolong the game and hence, waste my time.

I don't need to playtest it to find out it will waste my time. I know allowing defenders to retreat, will waste my time

.

[zooooma]

Is their somebody out there who can make a good argument for saying that to include a defender retreat option would resent something ahistorical? no i think not!

My reasons for not wanting to play a defender retreats variant have nothing to do with realism, historic or other wise.


I understand that before axis and allies you only played Risk and History was a topic never studied

Risk, and a lot of chess. Many A&Aers enjoy the Axis and Allies system for its chess like qualities rather than for its Russian Campaign type qualities. For us, the WWII theme provides enough military and historic flavour to stimulate our imaginations, but the mechanics (as a game, not a simulation) are the defining attributes of the game we love.

The aspects which some players like about retreating defenders are unrelated to those which I dislike about retreating defenders. Not everyone has the same motivations when it comes to house rules.

This thread is a poll, so I'm sure all opinions all welcome.

Happy gaming.
-Luke

[Imperious leader]

Axis and Allies system for its chess like qualities rather than for its Russian Campaign type qualities. For us, the WWII theme provides enough military and historic flavour to stimulate our imaginations, but the mechanics (as a game, not a simulation) are the defining attributes of the game we love.

Axis and Allies has little to do with Chess.. I am a rated player 1530 and play in tournaments and i can assure you Axis and Allies more to do with Risk, than Chess. In fact id say Axis and Allies is more like Tactics II or those old classic and "Basic" avalon hill games of the 1960's.

Taking all the proposed changes as a whole will shed off alot of time so the game will play faster.

[axis_roll]

Axis and Allies has little to do with Chess.. I am a rated player 1530 and play in tournaments and i can assure you Axis and Allies more to do with Risk, than Chess

My friend makes what I think is a great analogy between Risk (very popular 'easy' war game) and Axis & Allies. Whereas Risk is like checkers with it's simplistic strategies and singular pieces, A&A is like chess requiring more strategy and pieces of differing value and abilities.

[Imperious leader]

OK in this respect i agree! Its the same DIFFERENCE like chess and checkers yes that is a good analogy.

[Cowboy]

[QUOTE=axis_roll]My friend makes what I think is a great analogy between Risk (very popular 'easy' war game) and Axis & Allies. Whereas Risk is like checkers with it's simplistic strategies and singular pieces, A&A is like chess requiring more strategy and pieces of differing value and abilities.[/QUO



WELL STATED AXIS-ROLL
(And who can deny the cool pieces have their own intriging appeal to our sense of enjoyment). A&A definitely has many of the same charicteristics of chess while also giving a great deviation of equality and balance with differing levels of starting units and income inequalities. But not to equate it (as a more complicated and challenging game), with a chess match seems a bit silly to me. A chess match is simply a matter of matching wits and strategy, just as in A&A. Half the fun is overcoming percieved advantages and disadvantages of the game set-up. Even in chess, with exactly matching set-ups they say white should win because it moves first, thus dictating the game play. And an added advantage is this ability to tinker with the rules and thereby potentially change the dynamics of the game. Just when you think you have it all down pat, you change the game with simple rule changes that challenges you all over again. IMHO this is a far more intriguing and challenging game than chess.

[zooooma]

I mostly lost interest with Chess when I discoverd bridge, so I never advanced beyond high qulaity amature. The serious Chess players I know who are rated all love A&A, and consider it the closet thing in existance to chess with dice. These are Chess players.

None of the chess players I know are very big fans of the old style wargames with one thousand cardboard chits and ten thousand hexagons on the map. The Chess players I know tend to find these games inellegant. Most risk fanatics I know find A&A to complicted and unforgiving.

The similarities to "those old classic and "Basic" avalon hill games of the 1960's" (and to risk) are largely superficial. Note that the Chess fans (in my experience) tend to be happy with A&A as is, while most old style wargamers feel A&A to be lacking.

This is all beside the point! It ultimately doen't matter what A&A is or isn't more similar to. It's enough that both players of Chess and players of Tactics II find A&A to have a similar appeal to their other games of choice.

What does matters is what we (the players) want from our A&A experience - and that varies from player to player. Some of us see this game from the same vantage as we see chess. So, any issues A&A has which are related to realism are not important to us. They are not even issues to us.

I respect that love of historic detail and historic gaming motivates some people to make house rules and changes. Not everyone is similarly motivated. This difference is okay.

I didn't vote in this poll because I think there is no "should" when it comes to house rules. Someone at the AH boards once siad "whatever floats your battleship."

-Luke

[Cowboy]

I was sitting here thinking. Just who benefits more with retreat option? It seems to me that the big winner would be the allies, saving major units and continuing to out- build axis with new units. If this is the case, it appears that it just makes it even more difficult for the axis. Therefore, even though I originally voted for retreat, I would like to say I have changed my mind and would like to change that vote. I think the game is balanced fairly well OOB and this would make it more unbalanced toward the allies.

The rules MAY need some tinkering, but this seems to be OVERKILL. That is my most humble conclusion anyway. I should have given it more thought before voting. But, then again, I do tend to shoot first and ask questions later.

[Imperious leader]

Thats just great, but the rule as added with the other changes does not reflect that outcome based on playtesting on our part. However, i have allrerady added that in my experience the playtesting occured with maps that featured more territories than what is accustomed from revised (about 25-50% more). This system works excellent and it will work for revised, and if somehow it dont work then in the final analysis othe methods will be installed to make for a more playable varient.

[PolandMaster]

Whereas Risk is like checkers with it's simplistic strategies and singular pieces, A&A is like chess requiring more strategy and pieces of differing value and abilities.

I think A&A is more like Risk-Control. What I mean is that every battle has its risk of going terribly wrong. In chess you can be assured that when you move a biship into an enemy pawn, that pawn will be removed 100% of the time. No ifs, ands, or buts.

[Imperious leader]

Land Combat Sequence Summary:

1) All attacking artillery units fire first preemptively on the first round and can conduct one of two forms of combat as follows: 1) artillery units can make a special attack that does not require that they move into the territory as follows: They may fire one "salvo" from a territory they reside and across it into an enemy territory for one round only. This attack is considered preemptive and the defender cannot roll in its defense. 2) They can decide to attack in conjunction with other attacking units and fight in multiple rounds of combat .However; only during the first combat round they fire in simultaneous fashion. Any ground forces hit as a result of the first artillery bombardment attack are now removed from play.

2) If the attacker has brought in air units, then they must engage defending air units separately each combat round until only one side has any air units left. This can be accomplished by one side destroying the enemy or retreating their own air units. During each round where ground combat continues and only one side has air units, those remaining air forces can attack ground forces with preemptive rolls each combat round. Land units cannot attack planes in any manner, except in territories that contain an Industrial Complex (this would be rolled before the start of the first combat round).All ground forces hit as a result of aerial attack are now removed from play and in this case the owner of those ground units has a choice of which ground units that may be taken as loses.

3) After each ground combat round the attacker followed by the defender rolls one D6 for each engaged unit trying to hit at or lower than its attack factor. Each hit caused by an Infantry unit can only be applied to an infantry unit, while armor unit hits must be applied to any defending armor units first before any other unit can be selected as causality. Armor units also include artillery types of units.

4) The defender then rolls for his defending units including those selected as causalities again trying to roll at or lower than each unit’s defense value. Second, each defending combat unit rolls for each unit using their defense value. Lastly, the defending player removes all hits first, followed by the attacking players’ casualties. The attacker must remove loses in the same manner as required by the defender.

5) The attacker followed by the defender can now make retreat declarations. All units engaged in combat have a voluntary retreat option. Full or partial retreats by either side are allowed after the first round of combat and only the currently engaged units’ can fire at each other. Retreating units do not get to fire as they retreat however; attacking units get one free “parting shot” roll on all defending units and they receive no return fire. The defender can declare to retreat a portion of his forces and leave a few units behind to “cover” the retreat. The retreating units do not get to fire, but the units left to fight still roll on defense. Additional casualties incurred are removed from those units that retreated. All units left to fight still roll on defense in the normal fashion.

6) If the defender is either destroyed or retreats, then the attacker automatically occupies the territory and a control marker is placed in the territory.

This is something to consider for Revised.. this reflects a more accurate combat sequence that includes retreats for defender.

These ideas also assume the following:
1) no more AA guns ( they are built into the defense of all Factories)
2) Air units cannot be taken as loses from ground attack (e.g. tanks, artillery and infantry DONT shoot down 1,000 planes during a campaign...
3) Plane combat is a seperate issue from land combat, much in the same manner as submarine combat is distinct from surface naval combat.
4) Defender has some "penalty" for retreating so the claims of "huge infantry stackfests" dont apply here, even with the number of territories in revised.
5) Naval combat is coming up...

[tekkyy]

Partial retreats are a mess. Don't really want to introduced tactical aspects.
Its very true that defender can already retreat, during non combat movement.

Trading spaces is even worse. Its a problem OOB, LHTR, nor AARE have not been able to addressed yet. Territories with 4-5 borders (like Persia, China, etc) could have all 5 powers collecting income from it in 1 round lol.

Extra move is also a good point. Man you've had your turn why do you get to move again?

If anything what I would sugguest is...

1.) Defender can only retreat when you outnumber the attacker. (Think cover fire while you retreat.) You must survive two rounds of fire from attacker.

2.) Planes however can retreat after any cycle of combat, provided enemy has no planes left. AA gets another round of fire on them though.

[Yoper]

2.) Planes however can retreat after any cycle of combat, provided enemy has no planes left. AA gets another round of fire on them though.

If you are the defender, there are no attacking AA guns to deal with? :confused:

Craig

[tekkyy]

Is it ok?

It makes sense for defending planes to retreat easier than attacking planes right (while they have air superiority)?

[Yoper]

My point is that I did not understand your question.

If you are the defender and you retreat, how can your aircraft be shot at by an AA gun?

The only AA gun that could be in the territory would be your own.

With that being the case, your comment about AA getting another round of fire does not make sense.

Craig

[Imperious leader]

Partial retreats are a mess. Don't really want to introduced tactical aspects.
Its very true that defender can already retreat, during non combat movement.

++++The defender does not have the equal right to retreat under a combat situation... like the attacker has... that much has been proven so far. MY proposal is a real fix for both sides who think the game will get shanked into an infantry stack fest, which it wont.

Trading spaces is even worse. Its a problem OOB, LHTR, nor AARE have not been able to addressed yet. Territories with 4-5 borders (like Persia, China, etc) could have all 5 powers collecting income from it in 1 round lol.

+++++++ Thats why you need to add that "other" idea that was proposed about counting/collecting income only just before movement. That allows you to do the following:

1) Pay for money lost under enemy SBR
2) reward players who "hold" what they captured... so the game does not get 154 invasions of France by the allies, and 153 times France gets retaken by Germany... good greif!
3) All those stupid flimsy attacks w/o any purpose other than stealing cash wont occur.
4) The game will follow a more historical and accurate path.

Extra move is also a good point. Man you've had your turn why do you get to move again?

+++++ yes you should get something to represent railroads... each turn is like 6 months so why do infantry move one space?

If anything what I would sugguest is...

1.) Defender can only retreat when you outnumber the attacker. (Think cover fire while you retreat.) You must survive two rounds of fire from attacker.

+++++++ why is this preferable over what was proposed... how is it more accurate to demonstrate realistic combat situations?

2.) Planes however can retreat after any cycle of combat, provided enemy has no planes left. AA gets another round of fire on them though.

++++ AA guns need to take a hike in axis and allies... they have no business taking an expensive "mold" piece from the game... In the real war only 10% of those lovable AA guns ever hit any targets... but we give them a 17% chance.. huh?.... Air planes were critical to warfare.. the only proper aspect to solve air combat is to give them complete control of the air and not allow any ground based units the ability to destroy planes... Look up the number of infantry divisions or armored divisions that destroyed entire air forces... this never happened... ground forces fought each other and air forces from both sides fought each other... and the loses as i have proposed should go against each kind... So once one side has lost air control the other side has a distinct advantage of obtaining free "shots" on the defender... This would be the case under every ww2 campaign.. go look it up and tell me axis and allies addresses any accurate statement of warfare.. Of course its fun... but with a little improvisation all these problems can be solved.
Naval combat is another story... but this also has many "problems" .. those battles where players use transports as fodder is totally bogus.. Right like your telling be Nagumo takes 4 carriers to Midway with about 30 unarmed transports... and the americans send 300 fighters scoring many hits after say a few rounds.... and the result is.... USA loses all its planes... because those trannies hit the fighters... and Japan decided to take transports as loses instead of carriers...consider this scenario:


Nagumo: My carriers are being attacked... can the bombs that are hitting my carriers somehow explode in the hull of the Tokyo Maru?

Tokyo Maru: Sir.. Im not following this... i understand you asked permission for the bomb that just hit the Akagi to just move over to the Tokyo Maru?

Nagumo: that is correct.. I have a method to do this... it is why i put up with your slow moving barges in the first place... you fool's were to absorb any hits i take...

Tokyo Maru: perhaps another cargo ship can take that hit that was just scored upon the Kaga?

Nagumo: That comment is insubordination.. you are relieved of command..BTW how are you people destroying those planes? You have no deck guns nor AA guns...

Tokyo Maru: Admiral... The Imperial government has decided that cruisers have no purpose in war... and their deck guns were transfered to the Tokyo Maru..

Nagumo: Your telling me you can defend against bombers too? and Battleships? can you even sink submarines?

Tokyo Maru: we can do anything... we are transports... we hit everything at a clip of 17% arent we fun?

[tekkyy]

If you are the defender and you retreat, how can your aircraft be shot at by an AA gun?


Sorry I didn't explain clearly.
When I said its ok for defending planes with air superiority to retreat easier than attacking planes with air superiority I meant exactly that. Defending planes retreat without getting shot at by AA.

[tekkyy]

1.) Defender can only retreat when you outnumber the attacker. (Think cover fire while you retreat.) You must survive two rounds of fire from attacker.
+++++++ why is this preferable over what was proposed... how is it more accurate to demonstrate realistic combat situations?


Its only very approximate. I am trying to simulate the idea that when you are outnumbered and battle has started retreating give enemy free move to round you up. Should retreat before battle if things look bad.


2.) Planes however can retreat after any cycle of combat, provided enemy has no planes left. AA gets another round of fire on them though.

++++ AA guns need to take a hike in axis and allies... they have no business taking an expensive "mold" piece from the game... In the real war only 10% of those lovable AA guns ever hit any targets... but we give them a 17% chance.. huh?


I think the 16.6% AA is doing well to represent the historic 10% or something. Not the worst.

At for your ideas about infantry killing planes I consider them armed with deployable AA guns. And then the actual AA piece represents some heavy long range AA guns that is good for opening fire. It is mounted and strong thus do not get destroyed. However they are stationary and are quickly disabled by enemy air or ground forces.

A boardgame can only be so so detailed. I come up with ways to convince myself I've spent worthy dollars buying this game. :)

[Imperious leader]

"At for your ideas about infantry killing planes I consider them armed with deployable AA guns. And then the actual AA piece represents some heavy long range AA guns that is good for opening fire. It is mounted and strong thus do not get destroyed. However they are stationary and are quickly disabled by enemy air or ground forces."

Infantry units did not have any aa guns... AA guns were largely FIXED gun emplacements centered in rings around cities and industrial areas. They did not move every 4-6 months across europe like a pack of hungry wolves looking for airplanes... Infantry units didnt have them nor did any other unit represented in this game. If you want to keep the game simple you should get rid of them and install them as i have outlined.

10% is not close to 17% especially while you only have 1-2 bombers and 4-6 planes... that represents a huge drop in your airforce if even one plane is destroyed... So the accurate statement is only 10% of your airforce should be destroyed in the game, while if you bomb more than twice .. you will probably lose twice that... when historically both sides would be bombing every turn.. Why cant the game and reality be the same?

[Yoper]

Sorry I didn't explain clearly.
When I said its ok for defending planes with air superiority to retreat easier than attacking planes with air superiority I meant exactly that. Defending planes retreat without getting shot at by AA.

What AA gun would be able to shoot at defending planes? :confused:

In the context of A&A, the only AA guns in a territory under attack are the defending AA guns.

Of course the defending AA guns wouldn't attack the defending air units.

Your are just not making any sense. :(

Craig

[tekkyy]

Thats right. No AA guns to shoot at defending planes.
And I am saying its ok to give them the advantage.
Sorry I couldn't clear it up.

[tekkyy]

Infantry units did not have any aa guns... AA guns were largely FIXED gun...
10% is not close to 17% especially while...Why cant the game and reality be the same?

I know. I played BF1942 lol. I only think that way to convince myself I spent good dollars.

As for the 17% vs. 10% I still think its close enough. I guess we could use a D14 hexagon-face-dice instead of the stock D6.

[Imperious leader]

I just dont understand WHY it is so hard to just make the game much more accurate with such little changes... Heck you just buy a damm d10 and hit on a ONE for each aa rolled.. If you want to take a further step you just forget the useless AA gun and turn in into a heavy artillery piece and give all Industrial complexes a built in roll of 10%.. This gives you a new piece for the game.

Now with this AA guns dont go chasing around the board.. because they are fixed defenses anyway, plus dont really have a job to do in the game. Some tules can cover some kind of anti- tank gun, a rail gun, a V weapon platform, even a self- propelled artillery.. WHY in heavan sakes must this dreaded "Anti- Aircraft" thing even be in the game? When i think of modern warfare the first thing that comes to mind in Infantry, Armor, Artillery, Airborne... then say Mech infantry, followed by heavy artillery, self- propelled guns, tank destroyers.... about a hundred items latter..... then maybe we can then mention this "anti- aircraft gun thing" ... Yes im sure many of you yeahoos will chime in saying in effect ... "keep the course" dont mess with this game... yea yea.. whatever... soon you will realize that Imperious was right all along!... and then you'll all jump on the bandwagen.

[Imperious leader]

But then i just hyjacked the thread that has to do with defender retreats...sorry bout that.

ON that issue If you playtest just one turn of what im saying.. you will discover something and unlock another way of looking at the game. The proposal as i have outlined will accurately portray the distinct advantages of combat DURING THE COMBAT PHASE WHEN IT COUNTS. I find it silly to even say... "well the defender allways has the option to retreat in combat... and then say they retreat during their own non-combat portion of the turn" This is like saying " I can't come up with an answer to that real problem... allow me to sidetrack it with the answer to another question"
Allowing partial retreats demonstrates the following accurately:
1) during the attack offensive operations may bog units down rendering them "useless" for further sacrifices, because as a result of combat they are "broken" units in need of retrofit. Allowing the option during the combat rounds gives each side the ability to control the outcome of battles better
2) It proofs the concept of elastic defense and models it very well. Now commanders can decide if the battle necessitates either side bending and giving up ground in order to save additional loses.
3) From a reality check point its a sorry state of affairs to design something that says a) i can attack you and force you to defend.. you will not retreat and save your army.. i will kill exactly your entire army except if im very lucky i will kill everybody but one unit, which will allow me to not take the territory...the very territory that i have invested my resources... but now i decide i want to leave a sole survivor, because if i killed this unit, latter my entire force can face counterattack.. again forcing me to a beating and NO ABILITY to decide my own fate..

Good greif.. does this not make anybody think about what they are playing?

[tekkyy]

give all Industrial complexes a built in roll of 10%.

But I think not only industrial complexes had AA guns.
10% vs. 16.6% is one thing.

What I don't like is the abstraction of level of deployment. Certainly attacking a capital is a must more dangerous mission.

Oh, and I think there were also mobile AAs in WWII.

I think if we are to do it then do it properly.

Fixed AA: Turn it on the side when first built, turn it upright for deployment and once deployed cannot move anymore.
Mobile AA: Can move, even in combat but weaker attack. (Use heavy fortress rule?)
AA: Not merely opening fire. Up to X can fire. Each has X% chance of hitting.

Something like that.

[tekkyy]

Player A offloads 1 infantry for a suicide amphibious assault against Player B so to perform shore bombardment from battleships.

Its just funny how the defender is forced to storm down the beach and get slaughtered. Meanwhile the landing crafts gets to land peacefully. The nature of amphibious assault is a bit unrealistic at the moment. If AA guns are to be built-in in any way, coastal batteries should be built-in too.

Q: If you let defender retreat then for amphibious assault you should let them retreat before any opening fire? It doesn't make sense for them to storm down the beach to get slaughtered if they planned to retreat anyway.

Q: Are defenders allowed to retreat to a space with an occured or pending battle? What happens when defender composed of two or more friendly powers? They must agree to where to retreat (similar to agreeing on who takes hits) otherwise they may not retreat? Or they allowed split up? Are they allowed to retreat to space where an attacking unit came from?

[Imperious leader]

But I think not only industrial complexes had AA guns.
10% vs. 16.6% is one thing.

+++++right but those AA guns are in IC that are also located in capitals This rule thus covers the AA problem and all its mechanations.. If you feel for example Germany need an AA gun in France... then you can have a list of territories that have this AA defense... its quite easy.

What I don't like is the abstraction of level of deployment. Certainly attacking a capital is a must more dangerous mission.

+++++ covered in the above statement

Oh, and I think there were also mobile AAs in WWII.

+++++ yes true , but they never approached anywhere the level of abstraction found in this game... these were small anti-flak batteries carried by truck transport.. they did not approach "corps" level or even division or brigade level formations... so they are not capable of shooting down 1,000 planes in a turn.

Fixed AA: Turn it on the side when first built, turn it upright for deployment and once deployed cannot move anymore.

Mobile AA: Can move, even in combat but weaker attack. (Use heavy fortress rule?)
AA: Not merely opening fire. Up to X can fire. Each has X% chance of hitting.

++++++well thats okay... heavy fortress? hmm.. well thats interesting.

I think you should make a thread about invasions... thats another problem thats need to be fixed...

[tekkyy]

What I don't like is the abstraction of level of deployment. Certainly attacking a capital is a must more dangerous mission.

+++++ covered in the above statement


No I am saying there would be a lot more AAs in some places then others.
Some places are fortified by AA and really should be attacked by land. You should be given the option to really defend your IC again SBR or air if you wanted to. Maybe I'll try raising AA costs to 10 IPC and allow up to 3 to fire.

On the other hand would you like 1 AA to shooting down 5 planes, which are just flying by? AAR made us throw one dice per plane so players can't avoid hits on bombers. This also made it unrealistic?

Ok lets talk about AA in another thread.

Retreating from amphibious assault and shore bombardment is what I am looking at.

[Imperious leader]

I think all planes attacking one territory should get only one roll (in total) against them, if you roll against each plane individually, then your not modeling the statistics correctly, because your making the odds greater of a hit with those additional rolls... So one roll hitting on 10% is perfect.
It may me necessary to basically have AA guns in every original territory, so in germanys case only germany and southern europe and perhaps france should have this, while in the Soviet union all their territories could force a roll if germans fly over soviet controlled territories ( just one d10 roll).

what you think?

[tekkyy]

IL, do you have any drafts on naval defender retreats?

[Imperious leader]

Yes ill post latter.

[Imperious leader]

RETREATS

Except for strategic air missions, where the defending intercepting units simply return home after one round, after any round of combat, either player may decide to withdraw and retreat. After any combat round, retreating attacking units do not all have to retreat to the same territory, but it must be from original territory where the attack began. Defending units that cannot retreat ground units on an island, or evacuating ground units in excess of transport capability must remain and continue to fight. Note: These ground units that engage in combat which results in automatic retreats simply take no further part in combat. They retreat back to their original territory and do not suffer return fire. Defending units in either Victory Cities or Industrial Complexes that roll automatic retreat rolls as the defender can ignore these rolls. They also have at their option the ability to conduct a naval evacuation if friendly transports are in adjacent sea zones. Destroyed units that roll in combat ignore automatic retreat results as they have already been selected at casualties.

Air Units
Attacking air units that “withdraw” from combat may now play to any friendly territory not exceeding the balance on unused movement points. They return to land during Returning Air Movement. Defending air units have to retreat to an adjacent friendly territory. If no adjacent friendly territories exist, retreating defending air units fly to the closest friendly territory within their flight range. If there are no friendly territories within their flight then these defending air units cannot retreat.

Naval Units
Naval units retreat by "withdrawing" from the combat sea zone. Retreating transports may not unload their units.

Ground Units
Ground units may retreat to any combination of friendly adjacent territories. Defending ground units must remain in the embattled territory and “fight to the death” only if no other retreat options are available.

Naval Evacuations
Attacking ground units in amphibious assaults may evacuate and retreat to their transports after any combat round. However, each armor and artillery unit must first be converted to a regular infantry unit. Defending ground units have the option of retreating onto friendly transports in adjacent sea zones during regular ground combat. In both cases, the evacuating transports may not move and Ground units in excess of transport capacity may not retreat.

well heres something on retreats ... but this is general..

heres the full land combat sequence currently:

During this phase each player can move its forces up to their current movement values, during this phase units are moved into combat situations and placed into the territories they intend to attack. Air planes and naval forces also are deployed with flight ranges. At any time they enter an enemy controlled territory a combat action will occur.

Land Combat Sequence Summary:
1) All attacking artillery units fire first preemptively on the first round and can conduct one of two forms of combat as follows: 1) artillery units can make a special attack that does not require that they move into the territory as follows: They may fire one "salvo" from a territory they reside from and into an enemy territory for one round only. This attack is considered preemptive and the defender cannot roll in its defense. 2) A second more common method is to attack in conjunction with other attacking units and fight in multiple rounds of combat .However; only during the first combat round they fire in simultaneous fashion. Any ground forces hit as a result of the first artillery bombardment attack are now removed from play.

2) If attacking air units are brought into battle over a territory with a Victory City or an Industrial Complex, then these can be fired upon by Anti- Aircraft defenses. (See Anti- Aircraft defense). In any event the hits are taken preemptively on these planes before moving on to the next step. If the attacker has brought in air units, then they must engage defending air units separately each combat round until only one side has any air units left. This can be accomplished by one side destroying the enemy or retreating their own air units. During each round where ground combat continues and only one side has air units, those remaining air forces can attack ground forces with preemptive rolls each combat round. Land units cannot attack planes in any manner, except in territories that contain an Industrial Complex (this would be rolled before the start of the first combat round).All ground forces hit as a result of aerial attack are now removed from play and in this case the owner of those ground units has a choice of which ground units that may be taken as loses.

3) After each ground combat round the attacker followed by the defender rolls one D6 for each engaged unit trying to hit at or lower than its attack factor. Each hit caused by an Infantry unit can only be applied to an infantry unit, while armor unit hits must be applied to any defending armor units first before any other unit can be selected as causality. Armor units also include artillery types of units. Sometimes in the course of rolling an automatic retreat result may apply and these units retreat and take no further part in combat.

4) The defender then rolls for his defending units including those selected as causalities again trying to roll at or lower than each unit’s defense value. Second, each defending combat unit rolls for each unit using their defense value. Lastly, the defending player removes all hits first, followed by the attacking players’ casualties. The attacker must remove loses in the same manner as required by the defender. The defender may also roll an automatic retreat roll. In this case these units cannot be taken as loses fro attackers hits.

5) The attacker followed by the defender can now make retreat declarations. All units engaged in combat have a voluntary and an automatic retreat option. Full or partial retreats by either side are allowed after the first round of combat and only the currently engaged units’ can fire at each other. Retreating units do not get to fire as they retreat however; attacking units get one free “parting shot” roll on all defending units and they receive no return fire. The defender can declare to retreat a portion of his forces and leave a few units behind to “cover” the retreat. The retreating units do not get to fire, but the units left to fight still roll on defense. Additional casualties incurred are removed from those units that retreated. All units left to fight still roll on defense in the normal fashion.
In the second case specific rolls during land combat can result in automatic retreats which result in that unit having no further part in combat. All attacking units must retreat to original territories from where they attacked, while defending units simply move to an adjacent friendly territory. Automatic retreats do not occur to units performing Paratrooper drops, or Amphibious Landings. Defending units in Territories that contain an Industrial Complex are exempt from this rule. All artillery units (e.g. artillery, heavy artillery and rail guns) and any planes involved in air combat can ignore automatic retreat results. Each nation has a specific propensity to be forced into automatic retreats as follows:

Germany: 12 (German SS units are exempt)
German minor axis allies (Rumania, Hungary, and Bulgaria): 10-12
Italy: 10-12
Finland: 12
Soviet Union: 10-12 (Shock troops are exempt)
U.K.:11-12
U.S.A.:12
France: 9-12

6) If the defender is either destroyed or retreats, then the attacker automatically occupies the territory and a control marker is placed in the territory.

These six parts occur one after another in sequence. Rules follow on air unit capabilities, ground unit capabilities, combat losses, and retreats. Combat is considered adjacent and is not mandatory.