|
Author
|
|
Topic: Defenders can't retreat??!? |  |
|
CryoBurn
Settler
Sep 2000
|
 |
posted September 16, 2000 17:46
  | 
 |
 |  |
Only attackers can retreat? Why? If I'm defending, I should be able to retreat at least some of my units in order to salvage, regroup, and/or fortify them in another location. Granted, retreat shouldn't be an option for defenders until at least half of their units are lost, it should absolutely be an option! This 'only attackers can retreat' sounds...silly.CryoBurn |
Stratesford
Settler
Guanajuato, Mexico
Sep 2000
|
|
posted September 17, 2000 02:31
 |
|
| |
What about in a city? have you seen any armies leave their city so it can be smashed to the ground? |
Slax
Warlord
London, Ontario, Canada
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted September 17, 2000 02:42
 |
|
| |
The game logistics are harder for defender retreat since for each attack the turn would have to return to the defender to choose whether to retreat (unless orders were set to automatically retreat any attack).If only the attacker has the retreat option, he/she can do it during the attack, or let the attack continue during a single turn.
|
CryoBurn
Settler
Sep 2000
|
|
posted September 17, 2000 15:06
|
|
| |
Abandon a city? Sure, if you have to. It has happened before when overwhelming forces threaten a city, troops sometimes retreat rathen than be captured or killed. I am thinking that defenders wouldn't be able to retreat until they have lost at least half their units (in a stacked unit battle) or until at least half their hitpoints are gone (in a single unit battle). That is what has happened throughout history. The losing side, sometimes the defenders, retreat to save their lives and fight again another day. I think battles should be a little more interactive like this for defenders, it adds just a touch more realism, which does sometimes mean sacrificing gameplay, but in this case I think would add more fun without that sacrifice. The same goes for Civilization III, too. |
CryoBurn
Settler
Sep 2000
|
|
posted September 17, 2000 15:07
|
|
| |
Also, it could be an option to turn on or off. If you don't want to have defenders have a retreat option, then you just check or uncheck a box in a preferences menu. |
Grumbold
Chieftain
London, UK
Mar 2000
|
|
posted September 20, 2000 10:58
|
|
| |
If retreat is going to be an option then it should certainly be available to both sides unless there are exceptional circumstances like one side fighting with a river or cliff at their backs.
[This message has been edited by Grumbold (edited September 20, 2000).] |
Diodorus Sicilus
Warlord
Steilacoom, WA, USA
May 99
|
|
posted September 23, 2000 23:44
|
|
| |
First of all, armies did frequently retreat rather than be caught in a "doomed" fortress or city - a good (modern) historical example is the II SS Panzer Corps in early 1943 abandoning Kharkov to avoid being encircled and (probably) destroyed, or the Iraqi army bugging out of Kuwait City in the Gulf War.
Second of all, the Retreat Option is only the tip of the iceberg of tactics missing in Civ battles. As long as you're going to have an "Army Order" button - which is what that Retreat bar really is - why not give each side a choice of Army Tactical Orders?
For example, the Attacker might have a choice among:
All Out Attack
Limited Attack
Probe
Maneuver and Attack
Retreat at __% Losses (this last set possibly as a "Civ-Wide" break point for all your armies)
The Defender could choose among:
Counter-Attack
Defend to the Death
Fighting Withdrawal
Bug Out
(Retreat at __% Losses also set for civ-wide forces)
The interaction between the Defender's and the Attacker's choice of Tactical Orders would have a major effect on the outcome of the battle, final locations of the forces and numbers of survivors. Again, as examples:
Attacker: Probe or Maneuver
Defender: Counterattack
Result: Defender becomes the Attacker!
Attacker: Maneuver and Attack
Defender: Defend to the Death
Result: No defender retreat: if they lose, the casualties are 100% killed or captured (they got surrounded!)
Attacker: All Out Attack
Defender: Bug Out
Result: Attacker occupies the tile/battlefield with almost no losses to either side In other words, in addition to the simple mathematics of numbers and firepower that now dominate the "battles" in all Civ games, we'd add Tactics. In addition, there could be Default values set Civ-wide for all your armies: Aggressive = All Out Attack or Counterattack unless outnumbered 2:1 or more; Passive = Never All Out Attack or Counterattack. Other modifiers to the Tactical Matrix or to Civ-wide "Doctrine" could be the relative mobility of forces - if your force's average mobility is greater than the opponents, then any type of Retreat will get away with fewer losses, the maneuver and Attack option will be much more effective, and any type of attack will inflict higher losses as a slower enemy tries to retreat.
By adding a real Tactical Orders bar instead of just a Retreat Option for the attacker or both sides, CtP could make a real advance in the level of Civ-type combat. Unfortunately, it's probably 'way too late to add such a feature to CtPII: it would require not only a new interface/battle screen but also algorithms to include the tactical/mobility options in the combat calculations done for each action.
So, in that case, anybody want to start agitating for Tactics in CtP/CivIII? |
Big Crunch
Settler
Kent, England
Sep 2000
|
|
posted September 24, 2000 13:08
|
|
| |
They sound like good points, but how much micromanagement of that kind do you really want. I think this would be better represented by a tactics/experience/morale rating for the units involved - which are related to your military infrastructure, government type etc...
Anyway the ultimate result is far more important than the methods used - you either acheive complete victory or defeat (ie annhilation of one side) or one of the two forces withdraws.Most government leaders would not want or be able to control the progression of battles to this depth. Leave the smallprint to the generals 
[This message has been edited by Big Crunch (edited September 24, 2000).] |
Adm.Naismith
Prince
Milano - Italy
Oct 1999
|
|
posted September 25, 2000 10:13
|
|
| |
May I suggest a simple but effective solution?Instead of simply select to put in S)entry a unit, you should have the ability to set it D)efend to Death or R)etreat if overnumbered (of course keys bolded are just for example). Units in movement or "skipped" the last turn should have a default action (I haven't decided yet the more balanced: suggestions are welcome). If you select the "Defend to death", units will stay as now, defending until destroyed, if you let them retreat they will do this at a defined percent of loss.
May be we should let a player to set this percent globally, or we should link this to experience/morale/movement rating for the units involved, as Big Crunch suggest. It doesn't add micromanagement (you simply chose to press from two keys instead of one) and it will add something I'll like to see. If game isn't already gold it can be added just in time, too, because it doesn't mess up the system IMHO. ------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant
[This message has been edited by Adm.Naismith (edited September 25, 2000).] |
Mr_Neutron
Settler
pittsburgh, pa, USA
Sep 2000
|
 |
posted September 25, 2000 12:44
|
|
| |
A major problem with defenders having the ability to retreat is that you will never be able to win by conquering the world. A smaller army can just continue to retreat. With a limited number of turns, you can't waste time pursueing an army like an endless game of checkers. Although not realistic, for gameplay reasons a defending army should not have the ability to retreat.------------------
I DIG LOVE |
Adm.Naismith
Prince
Milano - Italy
Oct 1999
|
 |
posted September 25, 2000 19:35
|
|
| |
Mr Neutron, sorry to miss this part: in SMAC a unit can't retreat if already under half of its power (it fight to death or disband).
There is no way to play a "endless race" as you fear.Hope this clarify a bit. Do you like more the retreat concept, now? ------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant |
CryoBurn
Settler
Sep 2000
|
|
posted September 25, 2000 20:35
|
|
| |
Mr_Neutron,
Constant retreat would be a problem. Perhaps retreat could be based on unit mobility e.g. a unit with a 1 square mobility would only be allowed to retreat 2 times when it begins the battle at full strength. Since the unit couldn't retreat until it was at 1/2 health (and mobility is affected by unit health or lack thereof), it would easily be tracked down and destroyed unless it were healed by another unit or in a city. Also, conquering the world could easily be resolved to a city count. It a player has 0 cities, then they lose. Their army turns into computer controlled guerillas or simply disbands. Some units in SMAC will retreat automatically to an adjacent square, I don't see any problem with allowing this to be more of a player-controlled option. |
CryoBurn
Settler
Sep 2000
|
|
posted September 26, 2000 00:08
|
|
| |
One small addition: Players who lose their last city very early in the game wouldn't be finished. I guess a certain amount of time would have to pass to make sure this didn't interfere with gameply. Say if up until some certain year players wouldn't lose the game if they lost their last city and still had a city building unit, but after that year, you do lose the game if you lose your last city. | |
Apolyton Civilization Site Forums
