No retreat LL games? Especially NML/NWO
-
As people may I know I almost play Dice, even on big maps like this. Heck I think it's more natural to play on big maps with dice than on small, cause there is a bigger pool of units, battles and thus variables to even out over time. Very small maps like Classic also allow easy strategic redeployment from one front to an other, making LL more enjoyable.
But there's a reason I like dice. It's not so much the uncertainty of it but the variance of it. Lucky battles on one side of the front and an unlucky battle on the other side create a whole new game.
Still, this isn't my biggest problem.
As an Axis player who tries to think of new strategies I get hit in the head every time in LL due to the inexplicable and unrealistic and imo cheesy way retreats work.The ability to attack, always know how many units you need, always hit the enemy to 1 and then go back is cheesy enough.
But what ruins it for me completely is the ability to block a flanking attack by attacking a stack for 1 round from 4 different directions and retreating to any of those 4 with your main army.In NML, NWO, other maps like this there are a few natural places of flanking but this retreat mechanic and the absolute certainty of it make such moves an impossibility, reducing the game to a numbers game of who can pressure what front most effectively instead of a tactical game.
Often this ends up being quite static, unless the Axis get a very good breakthrough.
In dice, retreats make some sense, if a battle goes badly you can retreat. You may even attack a stronger stack hoping that it goes good the first round if there is great strategic value of such an oppurtunity.
But in Low Luck, to me, it's just a cheesy mechanic that is exploited to the detriment of variance and complexity.
What are your views?
PS: There's a general flaw I think with the design of the maps too, but it is probably there precisely because of this mechanic, otherwise flanking would perhaps be too easy. This is the aspect of bigger territories the deeper into enemy lands you get, essentially always giving the defender an advantage in terms of stoping a flanking attack, but if it was the other way around with LL Retreats it would make flanking too powerful.
Still it is completely unrealistic that as you push into the strategic depth of your enemy, you get fewer options to spread your wings. IN reality there were entire portions of the northern caucasian front in WW2 for example that were barely manned by Soviet troops but that the Germans lacked the manpower and fuel to exploit.
-
Obviously dice is better choice for big maps but I really don't recommend dice for the first round of NML. Go LL in the first round then swich to dice it is more fair.
Dice also would give significant advatages to Allies. I would recommend giving a few bonus to Axis/Centrals in dice games.
-
Yup. Dice gives significant early advantage to allies, but opens up the game more later for axis a bit. I tried explaining this to someone yesterday
But what do you think about the no retreat idea LL?How could it be done/Balanced. Any merit to it?
-
in simple terms, Dice is way more hardcore and realistic whereas Low Luck is just time saving and about learning the maps.
I enjoy beating an AI and if I didn't use Low Luck dice I would literally have hadto play way way more matches and maybe would still be playing matches and wasting my life trying to beat this tough AI lol!
But your idea to be able to turn off retreating for Low Luck dice matches is a really good one for traditionalists and it's actually a good idea and option to consider! (I still wouldn't use it though because I'm not that hardcore
) -
No retreat feature would totally cancel some tactics like combine strike (attacking enemy stack and retreating then your ally attacks the same enemy stack and destoy) and tricky movements (collecting units to a single stack by attaking neutral territory than retreating).
LL is simply too bad for any big maps after round 1. One miscalculation totally destroy whole game.
-
Sadly all of the people in Lobby seem to prefer LL for large maps, well nearly all.
So people don't even really know what bids to use for Dice and such.But yeah, that's the whole thing, those tricky movements seem cheesy to me if they have no inherent risk to them. Combined strikes would still be possible, you'd just have to whipe your stacks out.
It doesn't make much sense that your units can attack from two opposing directions and retreat in one direction.
If the engine allows it in the future, they should all retreat from where they attacked.
I get it is used in openings but the way it is used in defense I just think limits the attacker too much.There are some extremely cheesy stuff you can do if you set it up in the attack too.
A defeated Russia might be retreating in the Caucaus on NWO. Axis may have pushed through into Turkey. Now the whole main German army from the north can jump 1 whole turn if it attacks a big Russian retreating stack there and with one unit from the south.
For example Kizbar->Sochi<-N Turkey.
With dice there is at least the risk of failure with such "fancy" moves.
Regardless, mostly it is used to block an attack by say attacking Axis held Brest with your main army in Ukraine to move them to Smolensk, even though that would technically take 2 turns.
Without the ability to do this a defending player would have to yield land faster or take losing battles to stop the advance, like the Soviets did in Kursk in real life with their staggered defensive lines.
We wouldn't have huge stacks. Instead we would have more dynamic play. To balance it out, if some maps become too hard for the defender, the defender could get a small income bonus or something.
-
Huge stack are bigger issue than balance this just incredibly annoying and time consumption. Dice at least suprass it relatively but big stacks always grow in big maps and it slow downs games.
The only solution it assisting really good upkeep values to every units but it should be really low (for example 0.1 upkeep for infantry). Obviosly one infantry should require less upkeep than bomber. Mobile and expensive units shoud require higher upkeep.
NWO unit costs even ecourage more stacks since infantries are too cheap whereas artilleries are expensive and there is no tech.
-
Upkeep cost is an interesting concept but I don't think it would work in TripleA, you'd still reach a point where you have huge stacks, you just can't buy more units.
Limiting the amount of units that can be used per province could work together with upkeep. But thats a whole different ballgame then.
-
Upkeep codes do exist in the Triplea but there is no fractional numbers but still possible to assert decent upkeep rates to every units for preventing stacks. Just need to increase the cost of everything like tenfold or twentyfold then appointing upkeeps to units. 1 Pus upkeep per round for infantries would be reasonable since infantry cost would be 30.
-
Yeah but like I said, it doesn't matter much because you ustill would rather want to gain units than lose them at a loss, especially with such a low maintance per unit. So you wouldn't throw them away.
At some point you reach the max of both you and your opponent and then you just sit there. There's no big practical difference, except if you're close to a big production center and you can sacrifice one side to buy on an other or something like this while defending the other one with forts or cheaper units than you just had.
-
@Ondis I actually feel the opposite issue. I don't see why in dice you cannot surely decide to strafe, and are forbidden from doing so if you kill all your enemies. I believe it is dumb that having good dice denies options you could instead have had if you were less lucky.
I believe you should be allowed to retreat also after having killed all enemy units (meaning, of course, having a properties or something for that). Or at least be able to decide not to use some of your good rolls, so to leave that single enemy unit that would allow you to retreat (tho the fact that there must be 1 unit left doesn't make sense).
Flanking needs mostly a high level of defence superiority (like infantries at 1/4 instead of 1/2), and anyways TripleA lacks most of the various advantages you would get from it (for example, making defence weaker, or attack stronger, if a same attack power comes from multiple directions, instead of only one border).
-
@Cernel Flanking has the effect of, if multidirectional retreats were not possible, of forcing the enemy either back or having the enemy lose an entire portion of their front or even theit capital.
Without attacking you could also split your force into two, sacrifice one and have the other run the other way around the main enemy stack.
Concerning dice; Retreats are retreats. Generally an army retreats when it has lost a battle.
This whole concept of strafing units with your units is alien to me to be honest. If you win a battle then you're supposed to land on that spot. I hate comparing a game to real life because it doesn't have to be real life but this is one of those cases I can't but feel forced to do it. The only time I know where such battle raids were fought in WW2 is in Africa but groups like the Desert raiders.
But again that was more akin to exploiting the strategic depth of the enemy, hitting isolated groups, and moving on.
If you want strafing then implement some sort of strafing/bombing mechanic for artillery or airplanes that only lasts one roll of the dice.
In fact what should be happening if a vastly superior force is attacking your weaker defenders is that YOU as a defender should get the option to retreat after X rounds of combat.
Now that would create some interesting dynamics.
-
@Ondis A lot of Medieval warfare consisted in raiding, especially for the Turks in Anatolia. Assuming that retreating is possibly only the consequence of a fail and that you always and only aim at taking and staying with all your attacking forces in the territory you invaded is ahistorical. Of course, this adds the fact that TripleA doesn't allow you to represent booty, as the triggers giving you PUs for destroyed TUV are very basic, and anyways that is not taking into account the resources of the target territory itself.
-
I really support retreating option of defender forces. Attacker side can already stop its assault while defenders just have to continue fighting unless attacker decides to stop attacking.
-
@Schulz Its some what possible by having a map with only 1 round battles so that the defender can choose to either retreat or counterattack on their turn after just taking 1 round of casualties.
-
Well Prastles (and other authors) map as I wrote to Hepps called Age of Tribes does this well with a couple of rounds of combat, same with Star Wars maps. But on maps with already too many units I dont think its possible, it would just draw out combat.
Yes, a possibility to retreat! Both for the defending and attacking forces.
Let's compromise!@redrum Do you think its possible in a future release?
-
@Cernel said in No retreat LL games? Especially NML/NWO:
@Ondis A lot of Medieval warfare consisted in raiding, especially for the Turks in Anatolia. Assuming that retreating is possibly only the consequence of a fail and that you always and only aim at taking and staying with all your attacking forces in the territory you invaded is ahistorical. Of course, this adds the fact that TripleA doesn't allow you to represent booty, as the triggers giving you PUs for destroyed TUV are very basic, and anyways that is not taking into account the resources of the target territory itself.
nods noted! What do you think of the ability to retreat for both sides? Great kind of moves could be made! The attacker splits his forces in two, the defender attacks one of the stacks, the attacker retreats, the attacker next turn pushes up with the other stack, etc. It could break deadlocks!
This wouldn't work on small maps though where such a retreat gives the defender a serious extra move. But then this could easily be balanced with "if you retreated with your defending forces, you cant move next turn" or something like this. Forcing a kind of perpetual retreat, and pursuit! As was historic. Until you either decide to stand your ground, get enough reinforcements or die.
-
I just noticed that this mechanic was implemented in the Civil War map, I never quite got into that map due to the complicated economy but I always wanted to.
Anyone else played that map some more? How did you experience it?
Does someone want to play it with me?@Schulz It also has upkeep that you mentioned but it is divided on other resources than what is used for purchasing !
-
@Ondis I've played plenty of Civil War games and I really like that map. But it takes quite some time to get into it. And I never play it in lobby. Planning your moves needs way too much time, especially with the consumption of supplies for your movements. So if you want to give it a try, I'm up for a pbem.
-
I'd love for a map with the same rules as that map but without all the complexities of its production system and size. I've played the Eastern Campaign once in the lobby tho,that was fine.
But yeah, perfect map for PBEM due to only being two large sides.
I'll send you an email later during the weekend or friday.Dibs on the confederates!
