Quaama wrote:
A Supply Source will not provide ammunition for your units. It solely exists to provide another way for units to avoid isolation although sometimes they are also Objective Hexes.
Roger. I went back to the manual to read up on this. It is an unfortunately named game mechanic.
Quaama wrote:
As General Whitehead says, isolation "should be very rare". Adoption of the principles of linear warfare should ensure that it is so. Conversely, "detaching brigades and sometimes divisions to go move miles from your main line to do some [unrealistic] flanking action" will increase your chances of having units isolated.
The most common instance of isolation I've encountered is when a unit can not retreat backwards (due to terrain or over-stacking factors) so 'routs the wrong way'. Stuck behind enemy lines it is then easier for the enemy to surround them and once isolated and routed they give up which seems logical to me.
Then our experiences are vastly different because isolation is no rarity in my games. It's almost always at or near the main fight and often decides the local fight if not the battle for one side or the other. The best player I played against in the club actively used isolation and zone of control to exploit any advantage in my front line. This person was frighteningly good, ruthless and made no mistakes.
Christian Hecht wrote:
Can't really follow your arguments too.
First I wonder if you do phases or turns, that is a big difference and while blitz tactics are not so much a problem here as in the Nappy engine they are if you do pure turn gameplay.
[...]
The behavior we talk about is just the disregard for your flanks because you can give a f... if your unit or even a whole formation gets cut off. You might think that the engine punishes already enough in such situations, but again it's not about the punishment but the clear knowledge of the fact that you are alone by the isolation rule in deep trouble unless you act with care for you units. Acting with at least some care is unfortunately a seldom case in many tiller games, people have already fought till all but leaders where left on the map.
In the end, if the isolation rule doesn't work for you or works too good for you, then your gameplay seems erratic if not extreme, neither the ORs nor my recommendations to them are made for that. They are basically to shift gameplay and player behavior to a more historical way.
I do not see this getting achieved better if turning the isolation rule off.
I play turns with the additional melee phase.
Again, I haven't seen the behavior you all are talking about. The examples are so outrageous it comes off as a strawman argument to me. I have played against players who are excellent; I have played against players who I can beat fairly soundly. No one I have played thus far has done anything remotely outrageous tactically, for better or worse, except perhaps to exploit the isolation rule.
I see isolation often being used against a single regiment salient in the main line in the course of normal play. These quickly become focal points as one side focuses on getting a quick kill while the other side attempts to prevent it. Except a player with some experience will recognize that it's nearly impossible to save a routed unit in such a position, even if it is surrounded on 5 sides with friendly units, because of when the game checks for isolation.
Alternately, I see it used in a gamey manner. In one game I isolated a 900-man regiment with a handful of cavalry and caused a lucky rout with offensive fire on the same turn. I mopped up on the next turn with a 75-man regiment. My opponent was not taking any unreasonable risks. Yet isolation swung the battle back in my favor.
I am not sure I can more clearly express my skepticism that this rule leads to better or more historical gameplay, or is justified by historical fact or good game design. The rule is strongly non-diegetic; a unit can be isolated without having LOS to an enemy. The unit will thus suffer the effects of isolation without the battlefield commander knowing the enemy is even around. The player is then alerted to the presence of the enemy through the turn report. The enemy is oddly alerted to the successful isolation when viewing the affected unit, even when extreme FOW is selected. There is also no diegetic explanation for an isolated unit to suffer a 75% melee penalty. Removing that penalty but still allowing routed, isolated units to be overrun makes much more sense particularly in regards your argument that a cut off unit would surrender more quickly. This seems plausible (even if there are numerous documented exceptions); but first they should have to realize their situation is hopeless before they suffer a penalty.
I doubt I will convince the die-hard fans of this rule that it is a bad one but maybe some other players or even the game designers will look at it in another light.