@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.

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 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.

I would like an update soon to delete saves so one does not have to go through the long filepath, some less computer-savvy people might not even really know where they are stored.

Further more if possible it would be cool to have some more info about a save, like a screenshot of the map, last opened/created, players involved, etc.

I know you can name it, but it would be easier if possible to have all this info there!

Ty and good job so far.

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.

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.

Of course they were more effective, but that is on the attack, not on the defense, so two different subject matters entirely. You've not limited their attack capacity in conjunction with other ships but their defense.

On the issue itself I'd suggest keeping the removed AA defense that they had before vs Destroyers but letting them defend at least at 1 and 2 respectively, regardless of situation, or 1-3 if you prefer that. Maybe even 2-3.

Still like the direction as I said, but without fog of war of some sorts ambushes are just too unlikely and they will find themselves hunted into oblivion in the high seas as it is now, not being able to be rescued by the main surface fleet in any effective manner due to their inability to contribute significantly to any fight.

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.

Ah. Each ship only negates the defense of one sub. Alright, I missed that. It's better gameplay wise but absolutely nonsensical. This whole setup doesn't make sense to me and seems to just force a type of gameplay instead of letting the player discover it on their own.

All of this isn't because that makes sense, but because one wants to force a certain gameplay.

I like the intentions of it but I'd rather have more versatile subs than this.
In fact, and this may sound crazy, I would rather limit defense of subs when on their own, as that would indicate a sort of ambush or something like this, as opposed to when with surface ships that can readily warn them and where they can turn around and fire their torpedoes.

Well for me it's silly. There are some aspects you perhaps haven't considered. Say I have a huge sub fleet and a couple of surface ships like germany had. A big battle is coming where I need to defend, but in my case I might be better off with just using the subs, cause of this artificial limitation. It makes absolutely no sense that a sub is stronger on the defense on its own than if accompanied with surface ships. If you want it like this then remove sub def completely and lower cost further.