@KurtGodel7 said in Domination 1914 No Man's Land - Official Thread:
I'll sometimes attack a defended territory with pure conscripts, for the purpose of "teleporting" my conscripts from one territory to another. For example: suppose there is a large Austrian force in Don. I am too weak to hold both Moscow and Volgograd. There is one Turkish infantry in Ryazan. My goal is to hold Volgograd only while abandoning Moscow, so I attack that 1 Ryazan infantry with all Moscow conscripts and 1 conscript from Volgograd. After one round of combat I retreat to Volgograd.
I'm sure you do, and many others do. This is a typical strategy amongst games having attack 0 fodder land units that are both slow and cheap, especially with Neutral (unowned) territories. Question is, is it an illegal strategy? I can tell you that both in Classic and in all games from Anniversary onwards ( @Panther recently highlighted it), you cannot attack with transports alone, while you can in Revised. Is this because they are transports or is this because they are attack 0? My take is that it is because they are attack 0, so, unless the mapmaker makes an exception in Notes, this should apply to any offenceless units (and this game is supposed to follow Anniversary rules).
If a territory is defended with pure trenches, the above cannot be done. As you pointed out, conscripts only are stranded when attacking trenches only. But there's an easy workaround for someone familiar with how this works: simply attack the trench with conscripts + 1 unit with offensive firepower. You don't have to worry about winning the battle and getting stranded in the territory you're attempting to teleport through, because trenches have two hitpoints.
I feel like the strategy of attacking 1 infantry with 100, or so, conscripts, and keep teleporting endlessly is at odds with what the retreat dynamic is intended for, but, on the other hand, if you can do it against 1 defending infantry alone, I cannot see a reason why you cannot do it against 1 trench alone (though I see that thanks to the 2 hit points repairable, this practically works too, the way you say). Overall, I feel all these dynamics are very weird.
I'm not a fan of converting conscripts to v3 rules for transports. For one thing, a conscript is conceptually different from a v3 transport. V3 transports cannot be taken as casualties in combat, whereas "taken as casualty" is pretty much the entire point of the conscript!
This is actually not true. V3 transports, once in combat, are just normal units, and can be taken as casualties, with the only two exceptions that they have to be taken as casualties after all other units and autodestruction if alone (which is mostly there just to save you the effort of keeping rolling dice until all transports are inevitably destroyed). People might have the tendency of seeing v3 transports as sort of "sea infrastructures", but they are not.
You probably know, or anyways you can easily test, that if you attack with a number of transports and other units and get hit in excess to the number of other units, transports will be taken as casualties for the remained, then you can retreat the surviving transports (this is just to show you that it is not true that they "cannot be taken as casualties in combat", just they have to be taken as last casualties).
However, I get what you say, and basically the current behaviour of v3 transports is substantially the same thing as saying that "V3 transports cannot be taken as casualties in combat and are autodestroyed when alone", except only for giving you a chance to retreat some of them after a failed attack, that basically virtually never happens as long as you play Low Luck.
Secondly, from a game play perspective, imposing a v3 mod on the conscript would make teleporting conscripts dicey. To take the above example: if I wanted to teleport my Moscow conscripts to Volgograd, by attacking the Turkish infantry in Ryazan, now I have to send the conscripts I'm trying to teleport, + 1 infantry. If that infantry hits on the first combat round, then my conscripts are stranded in Ryazan. Depending on the game situation, that could potentially be absolutely brutal.
Yeah, but wouldn't this make more sense with the scenario in general. Do you actually feel it is sensible that you can keep attacking the same defender for hundreds of rounds with hundreds of units, endlessly. This is particularly extreme when you have one static Neutral defender, that becomes basically a jumping element in a platformer game.
On the other hand, I feel that a conscript being "stranded" in a trench-only territory is annoying and unnecessary. How to resolve that problem? One way to accomplish that is this: you get to launch an attack with pure conscripts, but you are forced to retreat after one combat round. There is no legitimate game reason for someone to want to continue the combat into a second round if they're attacking with 0 offensive firepower. This solution would eliminate the option for conscripts to strand themselves in conscript/trench stalemates, without doing anything to harm conscripts' ability to teleport.
I totally subscribe to this "petition", but want to point out that you also need to find a solution (alternative to stalemating) to the case in which I offload 1 conscript into a territory with 1 trench, otherwise the game will end stuck forever in an endless combat loop. Even forbidding sending conscripts alone would not be a solution, unless you enforce it "per ship", as offloading from hostile sea zones I can still end up with only offloaded conscrips remaining (because the other units had their transports destroyed or retreated).
Beside totally agreeing with this point and suggestion, I also add that I definitely believe TripleA should not apply rules based on values alone. If I make an attack or defence (or both) 0 unit, and, as a mapmaker, want that unit being just a regular unit that has that attack/defence value assigned, that unit should work by regular rules, except that it always misses (unless supported or something, of course). This is how the trench should work. If it should not, that should not happen because of having attack/defence 0, but because of some specific property or options (also better documented in notes).
To sum it up, I believe that, currently, TripleA applies (extensively) the "transport stalemate in combat" behaviour (with the bug of not offering the retreat choice) any time you have attack 0 pitted against defence 0. As I see it (beside fixing the no retreat bug), this should be changed as to require not only having attack and defence 0 in total, but also all defending units being ignorable (which the trench is not, as if you have only trenches you cannot move into that territory with attack-able units and choose to ignore the trenches).