Deleting units in combat

[LoLiX22]

Hello everyone,

Today I have encircled and completely cut off 800k US American soldiers with Germany in North Africa in the multiplayer. I thought: "Yes, finally I got him!"
Then, to my surprise, he simply deleted his entire army and got all of his manpower and his equipment back in his pool. I mean whaaaat?!

1st: Why is that possible?
2nd: I would think about a restriction that you can only delete troops on your own territory, maybe another 2nd restriction that they must have full organization to prevent people deleting their fully cut off army which is unrealistic and really annoying.
3rd: Maybe you could add a function that units can only be deleted where they have been deployed? To prevent people from deleting their army when it gets encircled on their own soil..? e.g. Player A (Germany) has 300k men cut off in the Austrian mountains, Player B,C and D (Allies) have occupied all the territory around and the German units slowly but surely run out of supply. Right now player A could simply delete his units in Austria and not loose his 300k men, which he would deserve for letting them get encircled.
4th: If you are not able to add such a function could you not add that the equipment and manpower of deleted units (or entire armies) needs to be shipped with convois from e.g. Africa (where USA deleted their army) back to the United States? So that people can intercept the convoys and sink the equipment and manpower?

I think it's really unfair. I have lost 1.5 Million men in this war and the USA only 250k because they made it to save their entire army with this unrealistc and annoying tactic....

Greetings

(I'm sorry if this should have been added to an already existing topic or post but I didn't find anything. I apology for any grammatical mistakes)

 

[Zwirbaum]

If he is encircled, doesn't he get only 20% of manpower back and no equipment? Because as far as I am aware it works this way more or less since release (or at least 1.2)

 

[lrbaumard]

Zqireq is right, he still lost a significant amount of MP and equipment; if not the same amount he would have lost if not deleted i believe.
But yes in the MP games I play in, that player would be banned.

 

[Colonel Chris]

Your "mate" is a '++"!$%'*# cheater.

 

[Lumpy]

Your "mate" is a '++"!$%'*# cheater.

Morally? I'd agree. Technically? No, since this game allows such behaviour. This is the actual problem. Given that the Paradox devs are seemingly quite fond of competitive MP, it baffles me how deleting encircled divisions is even possible.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

Wait, I can do this? Awesome!

 

[Meglok]

Hello everyone,

Today I have encircled and completely cut off 800k US American soldiers with Germany in North Africa in the multiplayer. I thought: "Yes, finally I got him!"
Then, to my surprise, he simply deleted his entire army and got all of his manpower and his equipment back in his pool. I mean whaaaat?!

1st: Why is that possible?
2nd: I would think about a restriction that you can only delete troops on your own territory, maybe another 2nd restriction that they must have full organization to prevent people deleting their fully cut off army which is unrealistic and really annoying.
3rd: Maybe you could add a function that units can only be deleted where they have been deployed? To prevent people from deleting their army when it gets encircled on their own soil..? e.g. Player A (Germany) has 300k men cut off in the Austrian mountains, Player B,C and D (Allies) have occupied all the territory around and the German units slowly but surely run out of supply. Right now player A could simply delete his units in Austria and not loose his 300k men, which he would deserve for letting them get encircled.
4th: If you are not able to add such a function could you not add that the equipment and manpower of deleted units (or entire armies) needs to be shipped with convois from e.g. Africa (where USA deleted their army) back to the United States? So that people can intercept the convoys and sink the equipment and manpower?

I think it's really unfair. I have lost 1.5 Million men in this war and the USA only 250k because they made it to save their entire army with this unrealistc and annoying tactic....

Greetings

(I'm sorry if this should have been added to an already existing topic or post but I didn't find anything. I apology for any grammatical mistakes)

As noted, they should have lost a significant portion of the manpower and equipment if they are truly encircled and could not trace supply to a port or VP supply source.

The game mechanics allow the deletion of units, they don't differentiate whether they unit is surrounded or not.

House rules typically ban it. Playing fair would typically prevent it. A player breaking a house rule doing this would be banned from most groups. A player doing this in an open rule game would get a raised eyebrow, a comment on playing fair, and would be removed from my playing list if they ever did it again.

A stunt like this is just not cricket/kosher.

 

[Lumpy]

As noted, they should have lost a significant portion of the manpower and equipment if they are truly encircled and could not trace supply to a port or VP supply source.

The game mechanics allow the deletion of units, they don't differentiate whether they unit is surrounded or not.

House rules typically ban it. Playing fair would typically prevent it. A player breaking a house rule doing this would be banned from most groups. A player doing this in an open rule game would get a raised eyebrow, a comment on playing fair, and would be removed from my playing list if they ever did it again.

A stunt like this is just not cricket/kosher.

I still don't get why a game that is specifically about WW2 warfare, which heavily emphasized encircling enemies and creating pockets, leaves it to the players to sort this nonsense out by using house rules. Shouldn't it just be impossible to delete encircled divisions? I can see that house rules can come in quite handy in a few very special cases, but leaving such basic stuff to the player base to handle seems just wrong.

 

[Slokurn]

In fact, if you're surrounded, you actually lose 80% of the manpower and all equipments when you delete a division. It's just its not showed in the war losses. But I think it should be

 

[Meglok]

I still don't get why a game that is specifically about WW2 warfare, which heavily emphasized encircling enemies and creating pockets, leaves it to the players to sort this nonsense out by using house rules. Shouldn't it just be impossible to delete encircled divisions? I can see that house rules can come in quite handy in a few very special cases, but leaving such basic stuff to the player base to handle seems just wrong.

There are reasons you may want to delete a unit. The reason why a unit that is surrounded is not blocked from being deleted is unknown. Either there is a coding reason why it can't be or PDS just didn't do it. @podcat would have to answer that question.

 

[Secret Master]

Deleting units that are surrounded is definitely not considered appropriate in any game I know of.

That being said, the still lost the majority of their equipment and manpower, so it's not a big deal anymore.

Note: I'd have to run the numbers, but I think if you fought it out to the end, you'd do far more damage for the losses than deleting the encircled troops and accepting the 80% losses. Troops in encirclements can still fight and be rescued.