And the "retreat" option was so cool. sigh.

Great way to build a killer stack early in the game, and also doubles as a population booster.

Another lame cheese, by the way, is testing for "enemy presence". Occasionally, especially very early in the game, the computer will leave a city completely defenseless. Of course, you have no idea whether or not the city has any defenses, right? Well, while you might not, your units do. Try to draw a movement path running parallel to the city. If the city were occupied, the ZOC exerted by the garrison will prevent you from moving along the city; if not, then the auto-movement-drawing macro will allow the path. Consequently, you can find out whether the city is occupied or whether it's simply up for grabs without a fight.

Retreating isn't permitted in multiplayer; I don't see why it should be included in single. Just because the computer cheats doesn't mean you should be able to as well, in my opinion.

ANYTHING can be abused. I just think it's great that you don't have to watch an army be totally destroyed because the enemy is slightly stronger.

There's no ultimate "automatic" victory involved, either, IMO. While the first battle might tell you what the garrison strength is, and thus how much you'll need, you still have the task of building and marshalling the units it will take to win. And in the meantime, the enemy can be strengthening his defenses...adding more and better units, building Ballista Towers, etc.

To be perfectly honest, some armies fight skirmishes and run away to get their troops experience, i.e. get them veteran status. Probing enemy defenses by attacking and retreating is a millenium old strategy as well. These are strategies I had not thought to incorporate, but rather than them being cheating I think they are realistic extensions of the retreat function.

Now I just have to get the game so i can test it myself.

When using the retreat "option" in CtP2, you can:

- Attack MULTIPLE times with the same unit and retreat immediately, resulting in multiple population losses in a city you attack;
- Attack, retreat, and leave the unit standing there, and it will still HEAL because the game doesn't consider the unit to have moved;
- Attack with one unit, retreat, and now know the exact strength and specifications of the city or stack you attacked, BEFORE moving any of your units (including the one you attacked with; it can now use its full movement rate still);
- Attack with a stack of units which has missile attacks, take the free missile volley, retreat, attack again, take the free missile volley, retreat;
- Attack with a stack of units, fight until they're on the brink of death, retreat, attack with another stack of units, fight until they're on the brink of death, retreat... Net result, you win the fight and lose NO units at all;
- Laugh at the poor AI, who never makes use of this same fascinating game "feature".

Retreating is a ridiculous add-on that doesn't belong in the classic civlike combat model. It gives ludicrous advantage to the attacker; and in the case of CtP2, was poorly implemented and permits all sort of cheesy, lame tactics.

A game feature which is poorly or incorrectly designed is a flaw. Abusing a game flaw is cheating. Or don't you think there's a reason why retreating isn't permitted in multiplayer? Strategy tip my ass.

Civ games ALWAYS gave this ability to players. Sacrifice a unit, gain intel. Ridiculous? Perhaps. But far more balanced than the "whoops I made a mistake, let's get the flock out of here" approach which SO favors the attacker.

Why can't the computer retreat when the odds are against him? Oh sorry, he's not allowed, neither when attacking or when being attacked. Bah. Lame.

Does anybody know if you can gain Veteran status after retreating? If so, that would be an even more ridiculous abuse. Or can you attack until one target unit dies, then retreat, gaining a slave but retaining the ability to IMMEDIATELY attack again to get another one, thereby circumventing the "1 slave per combat" limit?

How abusive must it be before it's cheating?

quote: - Attack with a stack of units, fight until they're on the brink of death, retreat, attack with another stack of units, fight until they're on the brink of death, retreat... Net result, you win the fight and lose NO units at all;

Uh, yeah, if you have an overwhelming advantage over the enemy. Being massively stronger and taking advantage of it is cheating? Sounds more like reality to me.

quote: - Laugh at the poor AI, who never makes use of this same fascinating game "feature".

Which is a reflection on the AI, not retreat.

As I said, anything can be abused. In Civ2, if you have enough vessels properly spaced, you can use "ship-chaining" to send a unit around the globe in one turn.

It so happens, I don't do that, but some people do. But I don't expect that the "feature" be removed simply because I don't use it.

Sorry, but that cop-out has been around since the early days of Civ1, when I was struggling daily to make "ICS" the common catchphrase it is today. It didn't float then; it doesn't float now.

Clearly, if I think a particular "feature" of a game is abusive, then I'm not going to employ it. That's a given; you don't have to dictate gamesmanship to me. My contention is that the makers of CtP2 (along with the makers of CtP1 and Civ2 and Civ1 and yada yada yada) never take into proper consideration all of the ramifications of the various features they implement. This is particularly infuriating when it is extremely difficult to circumvent abusing said 'feature', or unclear as to where

Luckily, this issue is relatively minor. It's very straightforward how to avoid abusing it, simply by avoiding its use entirely. Better still, it's NOT available as an action in multiplayer, levelling that playing field. It's just a silly power they gave to the human player in single player games, for no apparent reason, rending the game even more ludicrously easy than it already is. And that's WITHOUT employing it in the aforementioned specific scenarios -- which, I still maintain, is cheating, since they're very clearly counter to the design intent (multiple chances for free missile volleys, veterans and slaves? I think not.)

But it's pointless to argue over such a minor concept; there's far more juicy stuff upon which to concentrate. I can't wait to unlock to city growth and overpopulation model... Whee...

I mean, if I don't like the production system, they have to redo it. But then someone doesn't like the new way. And somebody else doesn't like the trade system... the fact is that pretty soon, there's no game! So, you have to take what the majority wants. In this case, you are in the minority. That does not make the programmers wrong.

And one more thing about retreating, it is not always a scout tactic!! I mean, sometimes, you have a sufficient force to defeat an enemy but the battle just don't go your way. Should you lose all 12 or less units?! I hope not!

It would be a worse problem if the AI was actually smart enough to realize the benefits of retreating and used it abusively .

let's keep this civil, ok?
i would not like to do something that i would not like to do

wheathin,

testing christmas faces

Retreating is an interesting concept. I can envision its potential applicability in a civlike environment. Here's how *I* would implement retreating in CtP2:

- Retreat is a configurable option on the game creation screen. Either retreating is allowed; or it is disallowed.
- Both the attacker AND the defender have the capacity to retreat.
- Combat PAUSES round to round, permitting either player to elect to retreat whenever he or she wishes.
- If the attacker retreats, the attacking stack is left in the square from which it originated; its move for that turn is OVER. No bombarding; no attacking again; no moving away; no fortifying. OVER.
- If the defender retreats, the defending units are moved to available, adjacent squares of the defender's choice utilizing their next turn's movement points (if available). If the units have no more remaining "borrowed movement", then they cannot retreat.
- The AI knows how to make use of retreating, either on the attack or on defense.
- Units which retreat will not heal for that turn.
- Units which retreat cannot harvest slaves.
- Units which retreat cannot gain veteran status.
- When a stack retreats, the opposing stack gets one free round of normal combat, PLUS one round of missile volley (i.e., the exact inverse of the methodology used when engaging in the first place).

So for example: your 12 hoplites attack a city. Lo and behold, it's protected by three fortified cannons. Oops. The cannons immediately fire. You take missile damage. Now you may:
1) Immediately retreat. As you're still only in missile range, the cannons fire once more, one or two hoplites explode, and the combat ends.
2) Continue fighting. You engage in melee; a round of 'normal' combat ensues. Some of your hoplites get wasted. You retreat. The enemy gets another swing at you, then gets another missile volley at you. You lose more hoplites. The combat ends.
3) Continue fighting. You engage in melee; a round of 'normal' combat ensues. Some of your hoplites get wasted. You fight some more. You lose some more hoplites. The cannons start taking damage. Your opponent (or, God forbid, the AI?) decides to retreat because it's about to lose its cannons to stinking hoplites. The cannons are all moved just outside of the city. The hoplites win. Of course, next round, the cannons are all adjacent to your new city, and still have sufficient movement left to perform a bombard...

These principles seem relatively straightforward to me. If you disagree, feel free to point out equally intuitive alternate design methodologies; I'm sure I'd have no problem with them as well.

Just common sense, folks. That's all I ask. Honest.