Retreat should be based on speed and not be automatic

[unmerged(30407)]

This would require some codechange rather than file editing but would take care of a lot of complaints of human vs AI navy and insta retreat "exploits" and would add another dose of historical "realism" to the already wonderful environment you good chaps have created.

For ALL units (planes, ground forces, especially ships), make the retreat a CHANCE based on some formula based mainly on speed of the combatants with modifiers for leader skill and weather and time of day and doctrine.

Infantry would have a hard time fleeing from mechanized counterparts or armor.

Similarly, slower, older ships would have a hard time disengaging from a faster ship. This was the whole idea behind battlecruisers: a fast merchant raider. Similarly, subs should have a heck of a time trying to disengage from a surface fleet (but with a bonus for being subs). There's nowhere to hide in the ocean. This would force the human to fight AI ships when at a disadvantage

Airplanes......self explanatory. A slow airplane would need to do some serious manuvering to get away from a fast opponent (10,000 foot drops into clouds and such...hard to do with a 4 engine bomber)

For ultimate realism, maybe even have individual combatants flee from the stack. Just have these sucessfully disengaged units go into "flee-ed" mode: +100% defense -100% attack so they are no longer part of the fight.

This would resolve a lot of issues.

Thanks!

Pete

 

[markpalm1]

For ALL units (planes, ground forces, especially ships), make the retreat a CHANCE based on some formula based mainly on speed of the combatants with modifiers for leader skill and weather and time of day and doctrine.

HOI2 does not handle retreat well. IRL, a forced retreat for an infantry unit risks unit disintigration, increases causualties and usually means leaving heavy equipment behind.

Units retreat in HOI due to low org, but IRL org is hard to deplete for a well trained dug in unit (see Panzer Lehr at St. Lo).

In place of retreat, I would have these units moved to strategic reserve.

 

[unmerged(30407)]

I think they need to loose str x1 and org x2 for each "point of damage". It seems like in combat, nobody is ever hurt (like some gi joe cartoon) but everybody just retreats. IRL, in battles, there were serious casualties and losses in fighting strength regardless of weather the attack was successful or not.

 

[unmerged(3221)]

Heavy casualties in WW2 were considered to start around 10% That's about what the game uses with org levels being the trigger to start orderly retreats.

If a unit retreats it may or may not be routed. Maybe the retreat mechanism needs a way to have a parameter where staying too long in battle results in a rout which creates disproportionate penalties. Something like:

orderly retreat with 15 org left
route with 5 org left

This would need to be coupled with an explicit command that gives a choice between the settings. You can stay in battle longer but risk more if you do.

There already is a minimal strength slider for naval and air missions which could perhaps be changed to org levels for this purpose.

 

[markpalm1]

Heavy casualties in WW2 were considered to start around 10% That's about what the game uses with org levels being the trigger to start orderly retreats.

Well trained armies don't have many units that spontaneously "bug out." If a unit is swamped it will likely hedgehog and wait for relief or sometimes try to breakout later. There were cases in ww2 where units had lost all their infantry but still fought (for a while) with support personnel and artillery.

IRL units always have some org even if their c3 has been shattered. Org goes too low in HOI2 and strength stays too high.

 

[unmerged(2037)]

This would require some codechange rather than file editing but would take care of a lot of complaints of human vs AI navy and insta retreat "exploits" and would add another dose of historical "realism" to the already wonderful environment you good chaps have created.

For ALL units (planes, ground forces, especially ships), make the retreat a CHANCE based on some formula based mainly on speed of the combatants with modifiers for leader skill and weather and time of day and doctrine.

Infantry would have a hard time fleeing from mechanized counterparts or armor.

Similarly, slower, older ships would have a hard time disengaging from a faster ship. This was the whole idea behind battlecruisers: a fast merchant raider. Similarly, subs should have a heck of a time trying to disengage from a surface fleet (but with a bonus for being subs). There's nowhere to hide in the ocean. This would force the human to fight AI ships when at a disadvantage

Airplanes......self explanatory. A slow airplane would need to do some serious manuvering to get away from a fast opponent (10,000 foot drops into clouds and such...hard to do with a 4 engine bomber)

For ultimate realism, maybe even have individual combatants flee from the stack. Just have these sucessfully disengaged units go into "flee-ed" mode: +100% defense -100% attack so they are no longer part of the fight.

This would resolve a lot of issues.

Thanks!

Pete

I do not think retreating is a serious issue in land and air combat simulation (apart from retreating units regaining ORG) from gameplay perspective, but I think something must be done in the naval combat.
The best solution would be IMO incorporate speed into the naval combat distance and positioning model. A retreat order should not allow disengage fleet immediately, but only change the admiral priority for combat distance to 'as large as possible'. The real retreat would occur only after the distance exceeded the maximum range of fire of both fleets.
Important thing is that admiral quality, weather, thechnology and potentially ships speed should not determine the distance directly each hour, but should only determine the distance CHANGE over the hour of combat, making the maneuvering process far more realistic. I believe that such a change is necessary to make the naval combat engine truly shine.

 

[unmerged(3221)]

Well trained armies don't have many units that spontaneously "bug out." If a unit is swamped it will likely hedgehog and wait for relief or sometimes try to breakout later. There were cases in ww2 where units had lost all their infantry but still fought (for a while) with support personnel and artillery.

IRL units always have some org even if their c3 has been shattered. Org goes too low in HOI2 and strength stays too high.

You don't seem to want any retreats. How are battles supposed to be resolved? Everyone dying just like in the original HOI? Just about everyone dying like the Japanese did way too much since surrendering was dishonorable?

Most of the time 10% casualties were considered to be high. You want to have exceptional circumstances be the norm. No thanks.

Units typically retreated in WW2: they did not fight to the last man. I see no problem with the way that land combat models that in HOI2 except that battle times should be lengthened by a factor or 2 or 4 as long as the strength and org losses stay the same.

Longer battles with the same results would allow some defending units to aid the original defenders as support defense results in 3x speed (moving into entrenched prepared positions).

 

[markpalm1]

You don't seem to want any retreats. How are battles supposed to be resolved? Everyone dying just like in the original HOI? Units typically retreated in WW2: they did not fight to the last man.

I guess I'm thinking more of the eastern front, which admittedly was a special case. Units there would request to be allowed to retreat, often denied, sometimes resulting in destruction. I know German divisions were destoyed and rebuilt from cadre, sometimes several times. There were planned withdrawals to shorten the line, but you can't really simulate that with a province system.

I also think that units adjacent to enemy units should suffer some attrition all the time, to reflect the usual low level patroling and ambushes.

 

[unmerged(30407)]

My problem is:

I can choose when and where to "fight"...always. This is an ABSURD advantage over the AI. I can always choose to attack from a position of strength and instantly fall back if it doesnt look good. I do recon by initiating an attack, seeing how many units are defending then instantly cancel the attack right away, 100 % of the time with not a single loss.

Thats not realistic.

Slower ships cant outrun faster ships, slower planes cant outrun faster planes and for the most part, slower divisions cant "get away" instantly 100% of the time. There needs to be a randomized formula with a chance for disengagement with modifiers based on speed and leader skill.

If this was the case, then I would really want to build a high tech navy since my ships couldnt retreat instantly and would have to fight....even in unfavorable conditions.

 

[unmerged(40)]

My retreat gripe: when I beat up a force, and outrun it, it ends up "retreating" into territories I've captured and left already. It then conquers the territory, and I have to fight it and re-occupy the territory. Not as bad as the HOI-1 style advance-by-retreating, but still really annoying. At minimum, let me attack units that are retreating towards territory I now control. Better still, disband such units if they have no adjacent, friendly territory to head towards.

Scott

Oh, and this is most annoying in low infrastructure/rough terrain provinces, where the "retreat" may take months, and my units may be far away...