Surrender mechanic

[BigRedJuan]

I don't understand how the surrender mechanic works when at least one of the surrounding units is friendly. A unit can move "through" a friendly unit to reach a position. But when that same unit is suppressed and forced to retreat, it then cannot move "through" that friendly unit and is forced to surrender. Can someone explain why this is? It seems like as long as the retreating unit can reach an open hex within its available movement range (e.g. 3 hexes for regular infantry) it should be able to retreat.

On a related note, it doesn't make sense that units cannot "swap" positions, but I think I saw somewhere that is allowed in the new game. Anyways, thanks in advance.

[huckc]

I think it comes down to this: fun and gameplay mechanics.

Surrendering a unit is fun especially when it's pinned by friendly troops. It's relatively rare in the game to completely surround an enemy.

What's not fun is if it moves back to safety behind the line three hexes deep and replenishes fully the next turn. You'd essentially be punished for hitting the enemy hard enough to cause a retreat which doesn't make sense gameplay-wise or in the real world.

[Edgewalker]

I think it comes down to this: fun and gameplay mechanics.

Surrendering a unit is fun especially when it's pinned by friendly troops. It's relatively rare in the game to completely surround an enemy.

What's not fun is if it moves back to safety behind the line three hexes deep and replenishes fully the next turn. You'd essentially be punished for hitting the enemy hard enough to cause a retreat which doesn't make sense gameplay-wise or in the real world.

Pinned by friendly troops?
Being able to pull back through your own troops doesn't make sense in the real world?

Are you for real?

[goose_2]

I love the surrender aspect of gameplay, and earning prestige for doing so.

It is a tactic that seperates the men from the boys, please do not lose this aspect of the game.

It forces a player to learn the what I call the hedge hog defense...meaning set up your units in such a way that they have somewhere to retreat should they get pounded, it is not full proof, but it increases your decision making.

[Edgewalker]

I love the surrender aspect of gameplay, and earning prestige for doing so.

It is a tactic that seperates the men from the boys, please do not lose this aspect of the game.

It forces a player to learn the what I call the hedge hog defense...meaning set up your units in such a way that they have somewhere to retreat should they get pounded, it is not full proof, but it increases your decision making.

It's more beneficial to be attacked with 5 enemy units adjacent than with 1 enemy and 5 friendly units adjacent.
God forbid you protect your own flanks with tank battalions - remember to leave at least one flank open so you can be separated from the boys by this supreme tactic.

[PeteMitchell]

It's more beneficial to be attacked with 5 enemy units adjacent than with 1 enemy and 5 friendly units adjacent.

This seems to be due to the mass attack bonus...

[CaesarCzech]

Agreed, Current surrender mechanic is heavily broken. Heavily broken and makes imposible the Tight defence.

[BigRedJuan]

Maybe its a matter of word choice? "Overrun" would seem to make sense if you are attacking a completely suppressed enemy with no entrenchment.

But one problem with that view is that you then should be able to "overrun" similarly suppressed and non-entrenched units regardless even if they are not completely surrounded. That type of "overrun" or "routed" mechanic actually appeals to me, but I have no idea how it could potentially break game balancing.

[JaM2013]

Surrender mechanics in PzC is main reason why i usually play the game with 5 point buffer - instead of having default strength 10, i go for 15 (+5), while i adjust the gamerules file to set maximum firing strength to 10, so additional 5 is considered a reserve - This way, you need a lot more firepower to completely suppress the unit to force it to surrender, while having actual combat reserve is more realistic as units in combat would rarely commit entire force into attack but would usually keep at least 1/3 of the force as reserve anyway...

Of course, this makes battles a bit more challenging time wise, but i find it better challenge than giving AI some crazy bonuses...

[Rudankort]

This is not 100% final, but right now retreat in Panzer Corps 2 works according to generic move rules. So, if a unit can move to a certain hex, it can retreat to this hex. This means that a unit surrounded by 2 friendly units and 4 enemies cannot retreat, because a move through enemy ZOC is not allowed, but if it's 3 friendly/3 enemies, then there is an escape route. Another new rule is that retreat spends movement points too, so if you force a unit to retreat to some difficult terrain once (e. g. a river) then next time it will surrender because it has no movement points left.

[goose_2]

This is not 100% final, but right now retreat in Panzer Corps 2 works according to generic move rules. So, if a unit can move to a certain hex, it can retreat to this hex. This means that a unit surrounded by 2 friendly units and 4 enemies cannot retreat, because a move through enemy ZOC is not allowed, but if it's 3 friendly/3 enemies, then there is an escape route. Another new rule is that retreat spends movement points too, so if you force a unit to retreat to some difficult terrain once (e. g. a river) then next time it will surrender because it has no movement points left.

I look forward to play testing this, I for one love the surrender tactic, but modification sounds interesting