Abusing horses and trucks

[Hugmenot]

I can see your point, but with something like delaying demoralization, it really doesn't help.

Unless I misunderstand the rules, the presence of a demoralized unit in an assault prevent enemy units from moving more than 1 hex or from firing at units outside their hex. Tying up the enemy units for an extra turn can be very useful in my opinion.

[campsawyer]

I can see your point, but with something like delaying demoralization, it really doesn't help.

Unless I misunderstand the rules, the presence of a demoralized unit in an assault prevent enemy units from moving more than 1 hex or from firing at units outside their hex. Tying up the enemy units for an extra turn can be very useful in my opinion.

Hmm, I guess this could happen in a specific situation. Trying to mull over how I would get into that situation because most likely that demoralized unit is going to die the next turn. If this was close to the end of the game, maybe more opportunity for an issue, but this goes to one of good things of PG, the need to think ahead, should a unit assault or move around.

"Gamey" tactic, yes, but this is war

[larry marak]

A gamey tactic indeed. It comes down to this, are you playing a game, or are you attempting to simulate an actual combat situation? I don't mean this judgementally. Would officers or NCOs delay rallying the troops to let them get over the shock of loss a few minutes while they are still vulnerable to fire? And on the macro-scale, beyond the scope of our scenarios, an army wins or loses based on losses of infantry and transportation. Keeping the transport in limiting terrain out of artillery LOS keeps them available for the next battle. Even retreating them off the board would make sense depending on the attacker's mission. Of course you'll never see preserving mobility as a victory condition, except as an aspect of exiting the board into the opponent's rear area.

[Matt W]

This is an interesting thread as I have recently played a couple of scenarios where the mobility of the force to move AFTER the initial deployment is critical and jockeying transport has been a real game issue. On the other hand, in most scenarios the transport is left alone after the initial deployment.

[tlangston28]

I can see your point, but with something like delaying demoralization, it really doesn't help.

Unless I misunderstand the rules, the presence of a demoralized unit in an assault prevent enemy units from moving more than 1 hex or from firing at units outside their hex. Tying up the enemy units for an extra turn can be very useful in my opinion.

Hmm, I guess this could happen in a specific situation. Trying to mull over how I would get into that situation because most likely that demoralized unit is going to die the next turn. If this was close to the end of the game, maybe more opportunity for an issue, but this goes to one of good things of PG, the need to think ahead, should a unit assault or move around.

"Gamey" tactic, yes, but this is war

I think that Alan has hit it on the head - the necessity to be able to look ahead to potential situations in order to exploit it is one of the subtle beauties of this game. In the situation mentioned above, unless you assaulted with only a part of the units, and the unit was already demoralized, you would be waiting until next turn anyway to move any of the non-assaulting units out. Placing units carefully, having additional units in close proximity (i.e. adjacent hexes), you could move those unused units out and bring in fresh units for an additional assault, most likely eliminating the demoralized unit. FOW flips and now those units that moved out one hex can immediately move that next turn.

In any event, those types of activations have also served to allow me to think through bigger plans (a.k.a. Stalling while I grasp the situation... age and all ...)

[campsawyer]

A gamey tactic indeed. It comes down to this, are you playing a game, or are you attempting to simulate an actual combat situation? I don't mean this judgementally. Would officers or NCOs delay rallying the troops to let them get over the shock of loss a few minutes while they are still vulnerable to fire? And on the macro-scale, beyond the scope of our scenarios, an army wins or loses based on losses of infantry and transportation. Keeping the transport in limiting terrain out of artillery LOS keeps them available for the next battle. Even retreating them off the board would make sense depending on the attacker's mission. Of course you'll never see preserving mobility as a victory condition, except as an aspect of exiting the board into the opponent's rear area.

Larry, your last sentence is why I like the campaigns.

[JoeBuckeye]

Should each side be required to attempt to rally demoralized units when a turn ends?

This would mean that there is no point to playing the 'move a truck' game since you will have to roll anyway at the end of the turn.

[Hugmenot]

In the end it comes down to the two players deciding whether to use the optional rule. If we can't agree on its intent, I'd rather not use it or at least minimize its impact by choosing a scenario with a minimum number of transport units (say 1-3).

There is no way I would play a scenario against an opponent with 16 transport units if he or she believes activating transport units one at a time to delay or avoid required recovery attempts is an acceptable tactic. There is more than a 50% chance the turn will end before the opponent will have to perform one single required recovery attempt (assuming he or she has exactly three useful non-transport unit activations). That, from my perspective, is a mockery of the "forced recovery attempt" base rule. YMMV.

I will make sure to discuss the rule with my next Skype opponent as I have no idea what is his interpretation of the rule.

[Shad]

Should each side be required to attempt to rally demoralized units when a turn ends?

That would cut both ways as it would give people who legitimately didn't have a chance but wanted one a guaranteed end-of-turn rally attempt.

[campsawyer]

Should each side be required to attempt to rally demoralized units when a turn ends?

That would cut both ways as it would give people who legitimately didn't have a chance but wanted one a guaranteed end-of-turn rally attempt.

I look at it another way. As been stated before with demoralized units you have lost control over them and they are looking to save themselves from the immediate fight. By forcing them to attempt to recover, this is another way you don't have control over them.