surrounded and surrender?

[jnpoint]

In the same scenario I have surrounded some enemy units twice. The first time they surrendered at last. The second time they didn't; they routed and escaped. Is there some rule for this?

[Smirfy]

If its like WiTE they rout if you attack them right away. The routing mechanics is something I wish they had left behind with WiTE and as I have said If I had of realiased they were kept I would not have purchased. Well at least Air is better. Surrounded units annoy me and outside being stationary in towns they are too resilient. Surrounded in towns I can handle but mobile hedgehogs in the West annoy me. I'm hoping its just like this because of landings and can be gradually tweaked to get a better representation of surrounded units. Like I said holed up in a town no problem with.

[KenchiSulla]

In fact, I think the behavior of surrounded units has much improved. They are no longer walkovers unless out of supply. That's a good thing in my book...

[Smirfy]

Modern warfare involved so much logistics not least food that unless you could get 1/ Air resupply or 2/ holed up in a town you were toast. Unless you were going to break out you surrendered. Moving around the map for 6 weeks surrounded is not a good thing in my book

[jnpoint]

So this is not in the BOOK [:)] It's an issue then. Hope they will fix it.

[Baelfiin]

I think you are seeing some of the IGOUGO abstraction.

[KenchiSulla]

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

Modern warfare involved so much logistics not least food that unless you could get 1/ Air resupply or 2/ holed up in a town you were toast. Unless you were going to break out you surrendered. Moving around the map for 6 weeks surrounded is not a good thing in my book

Show an example of what you mean. What did you do to seal in the forces? Did you attack to try and reduce the pocket? Was there a depot inside the encirclement where the enemy could draw supply from? You are being vague...

[marion61]

You do know that those units surrounded in a town are sitting on depot most likely. That's why they hold out so long and can keep a high CV. Isolate units not on a depot and their CV drops dramatically. This is a huge improvement imo, way more realistic. It cost me a game because of two axis paratroop divisions were sitting on a huge depot and held me up for several turns on my main avenue of advance. When that happens to me I have one Corps HQ stacked with several engineers and artillery SU, and 3 beefed up divisions and I use that one Corps to take care of trouble spots like that when they pop up.

[jnpoint]

In my game both times they were totally isolated in the middle of nowhere, but the results were very different.

[marion61]

It's frustrating when that happens, and my solution was to make a stacked Corps to deal with those problems. German paratroopers are the worst to root out. They defend so fanatically.

[Smirfy]

Okay in my game Shingle is a complete success and The Germans decide to abandon the Gustav line and form a new line to the North East of Rome leaving a Panzer Grenedier Division with a couple of attachments including a Heavy BN in Rome which I surround.Couple of things first Im happy enough a division in a well provisioned city will be tough to crack but the attachments teleports out, not good. Second which is more a victory and realism issue, Rome was declared an open city should the Germans not suffer a Victory point penalty for fighting in the eternal city.

[Joel Billings]

How did the support units attached to a combat unit warp out of Rome? They should not be able to transfer out, and they should die when the combat unit dies. Only HQs warp out, and yes, it's an abstraction we've had to live with (they do take some losses). As for VPs for defending Rome, unlike a boardgame where the cost of a special rule is just the extra cost of printing a slightly larger manual (and increasing complexity), with computer games each special rule can require new code and interface with the inherent risks of bugs, etc. So we have to call our shots and we decided this one wasn't worth limiting the players. If they want to make Fortress Rome (similar to Fortress Budapest), then the player can do so. It has the intrinsic cost of losing good units.

[marion61]

I'm not sure about the teleporting units, but my philosophy as far as Rome being an open city is that it's just more German's to kill [;)].

[Joel Billings]

BTW, I actually think that there should be more penalties over time for units that don't have the depots to sustain them. Fortified ports could hold out a long time as they were prepared for this. Units out in the mountains without a depot (and/or substantial air resupply) should be more willing to surrender after a turn or two if at all pressed, but it's tough to get this just right in all cases.

[KWG]

Making Rome a open city or a fortress should be left to the German commander.

[Smirfy]

Thats what I've been saying through the thread units dependant on quality and stationary in cities sitting on a depot with provision for fortification being made should be more resilient to surrender than surrounded units wandering round the countryside.. As for the "Open City" I fully understand that it is probably impractical in WiTW but in future offering political and military choices with regards VP's would certainly enhance immersion and keep victory conditions and points from being bland. As for the attachments one turn they were attached the next they were gone.