OK thanks, guess I was wrong but we settled on the right decision!
A Nonsensical Retreat Rule?
Why is the following retreat rule here?
In the Europe 1940 2nd edition manual it says on p.20:
“Move all attacking land and sea units in that combat that are on the battle strip to a single adjacent friendly space from which at least 1 of the attacking land or sea units moved….All such units must retreat together to the same territory or sea zone, regardless of where they came from.”
This part of the retreat rules can also be found all the way back in the 2nd edition Classic rules, so it has apparently had staying power, though I confess I haven’t checked the other editions for the rule.
The problem is I don’t really get it.
1. It doesn’t seem realistic. If units were in a real attack which ended up falling apart - if they took unexpected heavy losses and ended up running away, wouldn’t they run all different directions instead of together in an orderly way to one place?
2. In some cases this rule rewards the attacker. The attacker can pull a trick and actually plan ahead to retreat to a zone beyond the zone he was attacking in (as long as one unit came from that zone) effectively moving his infantry and artillery 2 spaces in one turn.
If the attacker is forced to retreat, why not let the DEFENDER decide where the attacker’s remaining land units have to go, representing the defenders driving them off somewhere they may not want to be? I mean, the attacker lost - why does he get to decide anything but to run?
And when he does decide to retreat, why is the attacker FORCED to make all of his units retreat to the exact same spot? If they came from different areas to attack, why do they all have to go to the same area to retreat? Do they all become joined at the elbows or something?
ghr2 last edited by
Retreat is not always a mass chaotic route, there are such things as organized withdrawals.
You have a point there when it comes to forcing attackers to move to defenders territory picks. The attacker should at least be able to split them up to any territory that any attacking piece came from for retreating.
ItIsILeClerc last edited by
Agree with you about the gamey and nonsensical trick to move slow units 2 spaces, using this… retreat trick. Humbug!
It should removed from the rules in any way possible.
Yeah, I’m not a fan of it either. In some cases, people playing Germany will use that rule to their benefit. They attack Yugoslavia with the infantry and artillery from Greater Southern Germany along with a tank from Romania. They fight 1 round then “retreat” everything to Romania. I just think that’s a rather underhanded move. Then again, I have always advocated Germany taking Yugoslavia rather than leaving it for Italy.
As for the more practical sense of this rule, you could say that even though all the attacker’s units came from different areas, when the battle goes wrong for the attacker and he decides to retreat, you could say that he was regrouping his forces to try and limit the loss from the failed attack.
You could have it where you roll a D6, D8, or a D10 die for number of pieces that can only retreat for the attacker.
suprise attack last edited by
I think they should have to go back to where came from, in the original game it worked.
There has been some debate on our tables recently, the Yugoslav example is a good one
Theres no mechanic provided in the game, but a simple pad and paper can track how many units come from each territory. In the event of a retreat, you cannot retreat more units than came from that territory when declaring an attack.
Of course, thats just another layer of complexity and time required before conducting combat. But that seems the most logical rule if you don’t care for the gamey version written in the rules where you can send 1 Infantry in from one side and send 10 infantry from another and effectively move the 10 infantry two spaces.