Disbandment

Veers

Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2006
Messages
3,413
Reaction score
8
Location
Kelowna, BC
Country
llCanada
Currently with EA, Disbandment is strictly forbidden, except in the case of disbanding units if they end up on Sea Supply Roads (which, by the way, won't be a problem, anymore, with EA 4.0).

My question to the general public is, then: Should disbandment be allowed?

Some limits would need to be enforced to ensure that being able to disband units is not exploited.

The most obvious example would be the immediate disbandment of the entire French Army as soon as the Germans reach within a couple hexes of Paris. This, for example, would see masses of Rifle Squads and equipment pour into the Allies' 'On Hand Pool', and be totally unhistoric.
The House Rule to deal with this could be as simple as: "The French Cannot be Disbanded."
This issue will be partially dealt with in EA 4.0, as each nation will have its own, unique, Rifle Squad. However, the equipment issue would still remain.

Another obvious one would be the disbandment of Commonwealth forces in Egypt should Sea Lion commence.
The House Rule to deal with this could be as simple as: "All national forces must have an unblocked road connection to their capital if they are to be disbanded."

Another issue would be large pockets of Soviet infantry being disbanded to avoid their destruction by advancing Germans.
The House Rule to deal with this could be as simple as: "Any unit disbanded must be at least 5 (10?) hexes from the nearest active enemy unit, on a railroad, and in a dense urban hex."

There, are, of course, other exploits, that I could go on with, but I think the above examples with their House Rules are an example enough of how to defeat exploits.

Well, what would be the point of disbanding, then, you ask? Simple: To avoid the situation of having two equal units, each at 1/4 strength, each soaking up reinforcements equally, instead of disbanding one so that you only have one unit soaking up reinforcements, so that it is ready quicker.

Of course, in history it is continually demonstrated that many nations didn't simply disband whole Corps/Divisions, and instead had them fight on until they were disintegrated, at which point they would be rebuilt.

I await your thoughtful responses.
 

nessin

Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Location
Washington
Country
llUnited States
The "must have a road connection to their capital" would really hurt the British and US troops in terms of being able to disband. You could probably get the same effect by taking your units may not disband within X hexes (while on a intact railroad leading to a supply point) and adding on another condition such as "If there are enemy units within 5 hexes of a nation's surrender hex(es) then units of that nation may not disband." That covers you for the France problem as well as the minor nations.

That should cover most of the problems (that I can see) other than disbanding far flung units such as the French Colonials, while still allowing the British and US to disband if they want too. Might also have an issue of disbanding forces in North Africa when its cleared and safe rather than being shipping them off, although I'm not sure that would be a big deal either way.
 

Mark Stevens

Europe Aflame Forum Moderator
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
1,667
Reaction score
4
Location
London (United Kingd
Country
ll
I'd hate to be the opponent watching these disbands in the replay and trying to calculate whether they were all five hexes away from my units.

At this level, shouldn't a worn out unit be withdrawn to safety and placed next to an HQ on a rail so that it can rebuild itself? If you've got half a dozen doing the same thing so that they're soaking up replacements evenly, isn't that roughly what happened?

Being an evil old sod myself, I always feared that giving players any choice in this would lead to 'strategic', hem hem, disbands that would never have happened in reality.
 

B-snafu

Member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
245
Reaction score
0
Location
north carolina
....My question to the general public is, then: Should disbandment be allowed?.............

................Of course, in history it is continually demonstrated that many nations didn't simply disband whole Corps/Divisions, and instead had them fight on until they were disintegrated, at which point they would be rebuilt.

I await your thoughtful responses.
Probabally not not too thoughtful of a response---but you did say "general public" & not just gurus & masters:D

The answer you gave in your post is enough reason not to allow disbandments.

Also, even w/house rules ImHo it would, as mark said, probably lead to gamey situations.
 

Raver

TOAW Ironman
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
663
Reaction score
3
Location
Wellington
Country
llNew Zealand
My opinion is that its probably better to leave it as a blanket "no disbands". To me the benefits of being able to disband a few units here and there would be well outweighed by having additional honour rules to police. Plus for the most part I think nations tend to be only too grateful of any unit they receive, making disbanding a bit of a luxury in most cases.
 

Raver

TOAW Ironman
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
663
Reaction score
3
Location
Wellington
Country
llNew Zealand
Oh hey, just to contradict myself on the need to avoid houserules ....

I've had a situation come up in a couple of games recently where the axis have had reason to benefit from blocking with naval forces the 2 hex sea passage running down the extreme west side of the map. The obvious thing to do is to put some vichy fleets next to casablanca and pop some air units there to cover them, then the allies cant move troops to/from east africa. I dont think there are any exisiting rules about this, so I guess its fair game but it does seem a bit unrealistic to me.

What do people think about an honour rule for this?
 

Veers

Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2006
Messages
3,413
Reaction score
8
Location
Kelowna, BC
Country
llCanada
Oh hey, just to contradict myself on the need to avoid houserules ....

I've had a situation come up in a couple of games recently where the axis have had reason to benefit from blocking with naval forces the 2 hex sea passage running down the extreme west side of the map. The obvious thing to do is to put some vichy fleets next to casablanca and pop some air units there to cover them, then the allies cant move troops to/from east africa. I dont think there are any exisiting rules about this, so I guess its fair game but it does seem a bit unrealistic to me.

What do people think about an honour rule for this?
Well, if the Axis can get their fleets out into 'the Atlantic' and you don't have any fleet elements to defeat them, I would say that doesn't seem too unrealistic. Correct me if I'm wrong. (I mean this all in the most tactfull way possible, eh? :D)
 

Mark Stevens

Europe Aflame Forum Moderator
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
1,667
Reaction score
4
Location
London (United Kingd
Country
ll
I'd agree with Wyatt. One of the main British fears concerning Vichy was its relatively powerful fleet and overall strategic position, which was why the Royal Navy was ordered to hit them hard and fast immediately after the French surrender.

If Vichy has joined the Axis (and remember that it starts off in immobile garrison mode), and is then in a position to deploy a fleet or two blocking the British sea lanes to the Middle East, then the latter's fears have been justified.

I think that the scenario models this situation rather well, within the very limited possibilities of the engine.
 

Raver

TOAW Ironman
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
663
Reaction score
3
Location
Wellington
Country
llNew Zealand
Yeah ok, fair enough. The issue is not that I lack fleets to go after them, but more that with the TOAW engine, the losses are horrendous and with the vichy fleets positioned close to casablanca they have excellent air cover (I lost gibralta too). Which means that there is now no way to or from the middle east or east africa. But if you all reakon that's fair, then that makes some sense to me too.
 

Veers

Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2006
Messages
3,413
Reaction score
8
Location
Kelowna, BC
Country
llCanada
Yeah ok, fair enough. The issue is not that I lack fleets to go after them, but more that with the TOAW engine, the losses are horrendous and with the vichy fleets positioned close to casablanca they have excellent air cover (I lost gibralta too). Which means that there is now no way to or from the middle east or east africa. But if you all reakon that's fair, then that makes some sense to me too.
Well, I don't know about 'fair', but it seems to roughly work historically, given the limits of naval action in TOAW...
 

Dooley

Recruit
Joined
Mar 23, 2007
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Location
Thailand
Country
llAustralia
Currently with EA, Disbandment is strictly forbidden, except in the case of disbanding units if they end up on Sea Supply Roads (which, by the way, won't be a problem, anymore, with EA 4.0).

Okay so when is this new version due out. I would like to take a bash at this scenario.

regards,

Mark
 

Veers

Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2006
Messages
3,413
Reaction score
8
Location
Kelowna, BC
Country
llCanada
Currently with EA, Disbandment is strictly forbidden, except in the case of disbanding units if they end up on Sea Supply Roads (which, by the way, won't be a problem, anymore, with EA 4.0).

Okay so when is this new version due out. I would like to take a bash at this scenario.

regards,

Mark
Someday...If I get what I want (which is the time and energy to get some work done on it soon), then I hope to release a BETA for Christmas. If not then, I'm sure I'll have something a BETA out for January.
 
Top